Reyginus: Will a good man go against another good man, even when goodness cannot go against itself, or will he go against a bad man, who is against a good man?

Your definition of a good man might be diff from another...
A good man in a specified position is a bad man when others look at it..
So with this,a good man can go against another good man so far the reason is for a good purpose...
Here I'm a good lady,you a good man..
I don't want my patient to be in a long suffering which I as a medical doc know he cant survive it . So with hisconsent(psychologically balanced) and his FAM.. I opted for euthanasia..
But you here are another good man ,you felt such a patient should rather endure the pain(caused on himself and family) than to be euthanasized...
Knowing fully well the chances of his survivor us very slim..but you would prefer he die a natural death..
When people wanna judge this scenario.. some will see me as the bad person..while others will see you as the bad person geddit?

Reyginus:
Yeah it is actually 'will'. With me, you can never deviate from the topic.

Your chose the later, which is that a good man will go against a morally evil person 'more'. Let's rectify the 'more' in the first question above before you take a step backward to reflect on your previous answer below.

A good man should go against a morally evil person more..
But don't you think that's an oxymoron.?

So,to say... a good man should go against an evil man so far the basis matter is for a good cause ...
coz sometimes that evil man might be the good one.
I watched a movie and it displayed this scenario perfectly...
But mostly,an evil man is an evil man... a good man should go against him more..

So all in all, a good man should go against another good man for a good cause.
A good man should go against an evil man for a good cause..

The cause should be the important thing..

Kay 17:

The act of killing is not immoral, rather the intent /bad faith is what has the moral weight. Also, if you pay a bit attention, self defence is basically murder in good will! So also euthanasia, it is administered in good faith.

For example people in the most advanced stages of Parkinson disease, find themselves useless to themselves and their society, and worse they feel the worthlessness and the lack of power/strength. They lose their self worth.

Muah!!!

Not forgetting the schizophrenia patients ...
In the worse stage oofcourse..

Mr Troll: lol. have you ever been in a real situation where euthanasia is being considered?

you are introducing a false dichotomy. it is not a case of pain or pleasure. there is pain, no pain, and then pleasure. a dead man experiences nothing, that is, no pain. that is the aim, no pain. definitely better than pain to me

i'm afraid you do not fully grasp the question. a brain dead man IS on life support, which takes a lot of money to maintain. 'allowing' him to die means turning off his life support...

I bet he'd rather the machine is turned off...

quivah:
I bet he'd rather the machine is turned off...

would you like your machine turned 'on'?

Mr Troll: would you like your machine turned 'on'?

no, thanks

quivah:
no, thanks

common, loosen up.

you know you want to

My conscience and dogged determination and faith and hope might not allow me to recommend euthanasia personally.

Joshthefirst: My conscience and dogged determination and faith and hope might not allow me to recommend euthanasia personally.

thank you. at least a honest answer.

Kay 17: Regyinus barks at the wrong tree. Euthanasia suggests terminal diseases, its moot arguing about emotional imbalance etc. As all sufferers of debilitating terminal diseases, there is hopelessness, and futility at clinging to life. They reach advanced stages of the diseases, that they become "vegetables"

I am not making a case from emotional imbalance. You can show me where and how.

To even conclude that there is futility at clinging to life, is descriptive of some other form of Euthanasia which I am not aware of. Or even making a case for hopelessness.

We cannot assume that a person, who in most cases has been made speechless from a shift in consciousness, is hopeless or finds it difficult to continue. It is wrong to assume that they are always hopeless or lack the desire to live.

Kay 17:
Now, for these people, as I have said earlier, dignity and self value becomes a concern. Doctors in their duty to care for their patients in spite of the hopelessness, administer dignifying means to die.

This suffers the same fate with your former statement. It has already assumed that you can read the patients mind even if he is in an unconscious state.

But you cannot and so the statement cannot be true until the patient is willing to make a statement.

Can you tell that a person in coma for 20 years is hopeless or lack the desire to live?

Kay 17:

The act of killing is not immoral, rather the intent /bad faith is what has the moral weight.

Your intent can also be built from a premise. Once you kill the entire body because of a local abnormality you can no longer speak of intent. This is because you didn't terminate the problem but the carrier of it.

Kay 17:

Also, if you pay a bit attention, self defence is basically murder in good will! So also euthanasia, it is administered in good faith.

Self-defence kills the problem. So there are not in the same category.

Kay 17:
For example people in the most advanced stages of Parkinson disease, find themselves useless to themselves and their society, and worse they feel the worthlessness and the lack of power/strength. They lose their self worth.

What you are suggesting now is that humans should not develop their ability to survive, but like cowards, chose the easy way out.

Parkinsonism as I know it does not affect the interconnections of nerves in the brain it only presents the finger-rolling tremor, expressionless face and a crouched gait. For a person to desire and get death only goes to show the adverse effect of Euthanasia.

When the sanctity of life is not respected we will succeed only in creating coward societies, where the people cannot tolerate even the slightest of problems. An example is suicide.

Reyginus: I am not making a case from emotional imbalance. You can show me where and how.

To even conclude that there is futility at clinging to life, is descriptive of some other form of Euthanasia which I am not aware of. Or even making a case for hopelessness.

We cannot assume that a perfect, who in most cases has been made speechless from a shift in consciousness, is hopeless or finds it difficult to continue. It is wrong to assume that they are always hopeless or lack the desire to live.
This suffers the same fate with your former statement. It has already assumed that you can read the patients mind even if he is in an unconscious state.

But you cannot and so the statement cannot be true until the patient is willing to make a statement.

Can you tell that a person in coma for 20 years is hopeless or lack the desire to live?

A person in a coma for 20 yrs is dead.

You are thinking of that guy that was in a semi-conscious state for 19 years.

^^ some patients will be conscious and be able to express their wishes. Such wishes should be honoured.

However some patients are irredeemably unconscious, yet in vegetative state. Euthanasia should be available, based on the beliefs and consent of the family.

Mr Troll: the question is logical enough. its simple really, do dead people feel anything? I think the answer is no. this means that euthanasia aims to remove the pain associated with the terminal illness. like LB said, its the choice between dying painfully and dying painlessly.

This is one of those tautological questions like, is a barchelor an unmarried man?, does a carpenter make furniture, is the black goat black in colour?

To a answer a question like this the way you did, you must fall into the assumption that a dead man is something that has life, in the first place. Though answers are some times provided but a look at it will show that they are repeating what already is in the question.

A dead man is a man who doesn't exist anymore. First, he doesn't exist. So anything you say about him with respect to existence would be completely wrong.

Just the same thing when I tell you that there is a food on the desert that doesn't exists but go ahead to say that it is very delicious. To be delicious, it has to first exist.

Mr Troll:
we didn't subconsciously assume anything. we just focused on the pain aspect.

I thought that by calling synecdoche you would understand perfectly what I am talking about. Anyways, no problem.

Mr Troll:
@bold, what is that? lol. are you trying to redefine euthanasia

I don't think so. The thing is, we cannot say that a person who cannot afford a treatment bill is asking for Euthanasia.

^^
The treatment is graceful death, which is a relief in the circumstances. Many people across ages and times, have used suicide as a pyschological relief. Hence its unimportant haggling over the metaphysical state of a deadman.

quivah:
Your definition of a good man might be diff from another...
A good man in a specified position is a bad man when others look at it..
So with this,a good man can go against another good man so far the reason is for a good purpose...
Here I'm a good lady,you a good man..
I don't want my patient to be in a long suffering which I as a medical doc know he cant survive it . So with hisconsent(psychologically balanced) and his FAM.. I opted for euthanasia..
But you here are another good man ,you felt such a patient should rather endure the pain(caused on himself and family) than to be euthanasized...
Knowing fully well the chances of his survivor us very slim..but you would prefer he die a natural death..
When people wanna judge this scenario.. some will see me as the bad person..while others will see you as the bad person geddit?

Lol. C'mon lady! You see, the definition of goodness CANNOT change. A trully good man cannot be a trully bad man in the objective sense. What you are describing is a SEEMINGLY good man and not a good man. Don't confuse the two again.

The perception of one person or two does not define nor negate a good thing. If a thing is good it is good.

Now back to my question:
'Will a good man go against another good man, even when goodness cannot go against itself, or will he go against a bad man, who is against a good man?'

quivah:


A good man should go against a morally evil person more..
But don't you think that's an oxymoron.?

You sound like oxymorons are stupid figures of speech even when literature never said so. But it is not even an oxymoron. You know why. The reason is because I am not establishing a simple sentence speaking only of a single idea. In this case two distinct unralating ideas are involved.

It would have been an oxymoron if I had asked, is good not evil? And at that moment you will begin to weigh level of intelligence.

quivah:
So,to say... a good man should go against an evil man so far the basis matter is for a good cause ...
coz sometimes that evil man might be the good one.

You still don't get it. A good man will always go for a good cause. If not why is he a good man? Whatever he does is good. So, the basis of the matter cannot be whether if it is for a good cause or a bad one.

I see that you are still clinging to the pillar of 'seeming'. You are still employing the services of a seemingly good and bad man.

quivah:
I watched a movie and it displayed this scenario perfectly...
But mostly,an evil man is an evil man... a good man should go against him more..

This your 'more' is stiil not cleared up. Let's clear it in your rebuttal 1.

quivah:
So all in all, a good man should go against another good man for a good cause.

Nne ogini du sef? But you still fail to see that both good men cannot go against what is good so they cannot go against each other.

quivah:
A good man should go against an evil man for a good cause..

But the good can never propagate a bad cause.

quivah:
The cause should be the important thing..

Interesting. I think you need at this juncture a deep thinking of what good and evil is, imagining how they are reflected when personified in a being. A good man will never do what is not good.
Some weird examples:
A goat will always act like a goat and not a lion.
A dog will not act like a sheep but a dog
A snake will also act as a snake and not a millipede.

Logicboy03:

A person in a coma for 20 yrs is dead.

You are thinking of that guy that was in a semi-conscious state for 19 years.

Logicboy don come again o! A person in coma is dead, how?

Kay 17: ^^ some patients will be conscious and be able to express their wishes. Such wishes should be honoured.

And you don't think that the minute a medical practitioner goes against protecting life, he is no longer one but a murderer? Can a profession go against itself ans still remain the same?

Kay 17:
However some patients are irredeemably unconscious, yet in vegetative state. Euthanasia should be available, based on the beliefs and consent of the family.

Bad advice. Another's life should be terminated be based on the consent of another. Hmmm. How you don't even see it as evil I don't know.

It is a different thing if you do not have money to maintain the patient. In that case, you take him back home and spend his last moments with him. But if because you cannot stand seeing him the way he is, it is not a good enough reason.

Kay 17: ^^
The treatment is graceful death, which is a relief in the circumstances. Many people across ages and times, have used suicide as a pyschological relief. Hence its unimportant haggling over the metaphysical state of a deadman.

Lol@graceful death. Do you think that suicide is a good thing or a bad thing?

Reyginus: And you don't think that the minute a medical practitioner goes against protecting life, he is no longer a one but a murderer? Can a profession go against itself ans still remain the same?

It is not within the legal definition of murder, so the doctors exempt from murder.

Bad advice. Another person's should be determined be based on the consent of another. Hmmm. How you don't even see it as evil I don't know.

It is a different thing if you do not have money to maintain the patient. In that case, you take him back home and spend his last moments with him. But if because you cannot stand seeing him the way he is, it is not a good enough reason.

The Law is not unfamiliar with cases whereby the consent of a different person is used in lieu of one's. In such cases it becomes appropriate.

Kay 17:

It is not within the legal definition of murder, so the doctors exempt from murder.

What is the legal definition of murder?

Kay 17:

The Law is not unfamiliar with cases whereby the consent of a different person is used in lieu of one's. In such cases it becomes appropriate.

Which law are we talking about here?

Do we now agree completely because it is allowed by the law even when we can see for ourselves that a man shouldn't decide when another dies.

Reyginus: Lol. C'mon lady! You see, the definition of goodness CANNOT change. A trully good man cannot be a trully bad man in the objective sense. What you are describing is a SEEMINGLY good man and not a good man. Don't confuse the two again.

The perception of one person or two does not define nor negate a good thing. If a thing is good it is good.

A good thing Is a good thing ! I dint say otherwise in my prev post!!

We are talking about persons here.... a good person(with a diff moral society settings) will see that good thing as a good thing... but another person(with another moral society settings) will see it as a bad thing! ... you can only say a good thing is a good thing(generally) in some cases.. but the difference in the societal ,cultural,religion settings can change the fact in the way people view it..
Here to me; death is the good thing..
To you; pain is the good thing... but ain't he gon die at last? Is the good cause(the nature) altered?

Reyginus:
Now back to my question:
'Will a good man go against another good man, even when goodness cannot go against itself, or will he go against a bad man, who is against a good man?'

Dude have answered this!... if your questions are confusing me... why then should we push on? Esp if my answers ain't what you'd like to hear..
Goodness can not change... but in selected cases,in another person's view its remains goodness..while in another its a diff thing.. this topic as an e.g..

But if you are talking about a generally accepted goodness cause . Then a good man should go against an evil man..

Reyginus: You sound like oxymorons are stupid figures of speech even when literature never said so. But it is not even an oxymoron. You know why. The reason is because I am not establishing a simple sentence speaking only of a single idea. In this case two distinct unralating ideas are involved.

It would have been an oxymoron if I had asked, is good not evil? And at that moment you will begin to weigh level of intelligence.

Abeg cut the grammar...

Reyginus:
You still don't get it. A good man will always go for a cause. If not why is he a good man? Whatever he does is good. So, the basis of the matter cannot be whether if it is for a good cause or a bad one.

A good man will always go for a good cause if it seems so in his settings.. another good man will go against the good cause coz In his own view its bad!.. there are many cases as this!..
E.g is the jihadists!! In their settings what they are doing is right..(as they are killing the bad people in their own view) and so they are good people.. while In other people's settings its bad...and they again are good people . Even tho killing is bad.. the latter startd fighting the jihadists killing them in the process... isn't the cause intact?! They are both killing the bad people(in their views!)

a wack e.g tho.. hope it passes the info..
If I don't seem to grab ya q . Then let it go!
[/quote]

Reyginus:
I see that you are still clinging to the pillar of 'seeming'. You are still employing the services of a seemingly good and bad man.
This your 'more' is stiil not cleared up. Let's clear it in your rebuttal 1.

There's nothing seeming here..

Reyginus:
Nne ogini du sef? But you still fail to see that both good men cannot go against what is good so they cannot go against each other.

But the good can never propagate a bad cause.

Go back to my posts up there

Reyginus:
Interesting. I think you need at this juncture a deep thinking of what good and evil is, imagining how they are reflected when personified in a being. A good man will never do what is not good.
Some weird examples:
A goat will always act like a goat and not a lion.
A dog will not act like a sheep but a dog
A snake will also act as a snake and not a millipede.

Dude! Your e g has nothing to do with goodness!! These are natural phenomenon can't can never be changed for either a good/bad cause..
A goat shouldn't be changed to a man technologically or scientifically..
A snake is a snake!!
A man is a man!!
We are not talking about changing a cat to a dog here..


A man with terminal ailment is a dead man!!
the only thing that can be changed here is the time death actually comes..



And I thought you Christians do say; a man who God doesn't kill..no man can kill him.. or if he dies,then its God's time..

Using euthanasia in this case is God's time for him..
Nature ain't altered..



Can we go back solely to the topic?

Reyginus: Lol@graceful death. Do you think that suicide is a good thing or a bad thing?

Suicide is a bad thing...only in your religion.

I will argue this,if discussed logically..

Reyginus: Logicboy don come again o! A person in coma is dead, how?

See this twister


Was the comment not focused on the amount of years? 20 years? A coma for 20 years is death.

Why do you like to be dishonest?

quivah:
A good thing Is a good thing ! I dint say otherwise in my prev post!!
We are talking about persons here.... a good person(with a diff moral society settings) will see that good thing as a good thing... but another person(with another moral society settings) will see it as a bad thing! ... you can only say a good thing is a good thing(generally) in some cases.. but the difference in the societal ,cultural,religion settings can change the fact in the way people view it..

Lol. You speak as if a person is not a thing.

If a person is a thing and like your initial statement is now encouraging, a good thing is a good thing, then a good person is a good person.

Speaking of moral societal settings, a person is not good because he accepts the morality of the behaviour of his society but because with experience in the search of what is true he has come to avoid to live the life of the evil society and embrace a good life.

To say that because twins were killed before the intervention of mary slessor, it was a good position to hold that the act was good, it was not bad to kill twins. Can anything really be true and still change tomorrow or or perception it is what changes?

quivah:

Here to me; death is the good thing..
To you; pain is the good thing... but ain't he gon die at last? Is the good cause(the nature) altered?

I will come to that when you understand the question properly to answer it correctly.

quivah:

Dude have answered this!... if your questions are confusing me... why then should we push on?

Because you like me believe in the propagation of what is true alone.

quivah:
Esp if my answers ain't what you'd like to hear..
Goodness can not change... but in selected cases,in another person's view its remains goodness..while in another its a diff thing.. this topic as an e.g.
But if you are talking about a generally accepted goodness cause . Then a good man should go against an evil man..

If goodness change why do think it will go against itself? Why then do you think that a good man will work against another good man?

quivah:

A good man will always go for a good cause if he seems so in his settings.. another good man will go against the goof cause coz In his own view its bad!.. there are many cases as this!..
E.g is the jihadists!! In their settings what they are doing is right..(as they are killing the bad people in their own view) and so they are good people.. while In other settings its bad...and they again are good people . Even tho killing is bad.. the latter fighting against the jihadists I'll them in the process... isn't the cause intact?! They are both killing the bad people(in their views!)

No need repeating yourself. I've dealt with this in paragraph two of this entire quote.

quivah:
Dude! Your e g has nothing to do with goodness!! These are natural phenomenon can't can never be changed for either a good/bad cause..
A goat shouldn't be changed to a man technologically or scientifically..
A snake is a snake!!
A man is a man!!

A man with terminal ailment is a dead man!!
the only thing that can be changed here is the time death actually comes..

I'm very happy you understand the point though you don't seem to notice it.

My intention was not to show to you that goats, lions and dogs are good or bad, or anyhow you want to put it. I only planned to bring out to you that a thing distinct from another can never do the very thing that varies them.

Good is completely different from evil and can never do evil. That's the point.

quivah:
And I thought you Christians do say; a man who God doesn't kill..no man can kill him.. or if he dies,then its God's
Using euthanasia in this case is God's time for him..
Nature ain't altered..

This is plainly ridiculous. C'mon! This is a very weak statement. Veru weak.

How can God's time be interpreted to mean that a man or men deciding when another dies? The mere fact that man ordered it without his authority has already removed God from it.

And please the discussion is not about God.

quivah:
Can we go back solely to the topic?

Lol. We are on the topic except you are asking out of the method you choosed.

The question still is, As the morally good phenomenon that you agreed Evolution is, do you agree that it should be interfered with or you agree that it should not be interfered with?

quivah:
Suicide is a bad thing...only in your religion.

I will argue this,if discussed logically..

Lol. Let's see how this one goes.

Logicboy03:


See this twister


Was the comment not focused on the amount of years? 20 years? A coma for 20 years is death.

Why do you like to be dishonest?

Lololol. How am I being dishonest by asking for clarification. I read something new from your last response and I am trying to solidify it in my head.

Please, a coma for 20 years is not death because a coma for 20 years is death. Tell me why it is death.

Reyginus:



The question still is, As the morally good phenomenon that you agreed Evolution is, do you agree that it should be interfered with or you agree that it should not be interfered with?

At certain level.... yes it should..

Reyginus: Lololol. How am I being dishonest by asking for clarification. I read something new from your last response and I am trying to solidify it in my head.

Please, a coma for 20 years is not death because a coma for 20 years is death. Tell me why it is death.

See the twister again?


Any normal person would understand by now that one will never wake up from a coma of 20 years.

Kay 17: ^^
The treatment is graceful death, which is a relief in the circumstances. Many people across ages and times, have used suicide as a pyschological relief. Hence its unimportant haggling over the metaphysical state of a deadman.

you encourage suicide as a psychological relief?

quivah:

At certain level.... yes it should..

Is this 'certain level' by nature of being a 'certain level' good or will the 'certain level' be evil?
Better still
Will any good 'certain level' render a good phenomenon impotent or will the 'certain level' promote a good phenomenon?

Logicboy03:



See the twister again?


Any normal person would understand by now that one will never wake up from a coma of 20 years.

Lol. That's not the question, bro. The question still is, how is a 20 year coma death?

Reyginus: Lol. That's not the question, bro. The question still is, how is a 20 year coma death?

Wow .....just wow