Elantracey: How come d so-called atheist re mute to dis

Logicboy03:



@ bold That is a misinterpration which muskeeto did....

Sha...i understand

Logicboy03:


Did you also notice the bleaching creams? Gaddem....indians dey bleach....it is now even normal for brides to go through bleaching process before the wedding.

Also an indian/asian mag came under fire for using only light skinned indian models

musKeeto:
A friend I had the discussion with claims it isn't. Rather, it was based on occupation. Merchants, tailors, farmers.. all divided along these lines..

Personally, after having lived here for over 3 years now, I've noticed that those of darker skin are usually from lower castes. Most Indians would quickly deny it, but skin color's a real issue here. Most of the clerks, security men and cleaners are dark skinned. The 'ogas at the top' are usually light skinned..

No dey laff my username joor...

wiegraf:

I love am. But I still haven't finished his book...how many years.. probably to do with that lazyness thing...

Have you tried epubs? I love those too. But you still need a device with a fairly big screen, most androids would suffice though. They're obviously much more superior to say pdfs when reading on mobile devices

wiegraf:

I love am. But I still haven't finished his book...how many years.. probably to do with that lazyness thing...

Have you tried epubs? I love those too. But you still need a device with a fairly big screen, most androids would suffice though. They're obviously much more superior to say pdfs when reading on mobile devices

musKeeto:

He's been fighting with me.. Would gladly have you take him off my back..

#goingThroughThreadNow

Hello Avi.. how you dey?

Alfa Seltzer:

When people see a thief being lynched, most of them would urge people on, thank their gods and some would even participate in the lynching. Would they have the same reaction if it was their own brother that is being lynched? So there you have the answer to your question. Points of view change when things become personal.

wiegraf:

This so much even if it isn't (ostensibly) strictly logical. A similar situation, where 'discretion' (for lack of a better term) is important would be the dreaded and nasty.... torture.

Sam Harris' views on this are a source of infamy in a lot of quarters, however



http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2#torture

The whole damned thing has to be read for context, but perhaps just the italicized is necessary. ABSOLUTELY NOT the same thing, but see the parallels? It's rather tricky.

Alfa Seltzer:

If the right to play golf for some could mean that one day, somebody could legally force me to play golf, then golf becomes bad for humanity.

My worry is not about those that have a death wish, it is about the ripple effect the legalisation of actualisation of the said death wish would have that I'm concerned about.




You should know that 3rd world countries are copy copy, follow follow countries. As soon as the western world legalises it, they will start clamouring for it and some can even be pressured into adopting them. In any case, it is not about who is doing it but about whether it is right or wrong to do.




Finding a cure for AIDS is not miracle. It is science. 'Incurable' diseases someday may become curable through research, not miracles.

Concerning rights infringement, again, my worry is about the ripple effect, not the actual act.





Passive in the actual act of the killing.



Unless I misunderstand what euthanasia means, I think "disposing of" the sick is a well suited classification.





Killing sick people is not a form of treatment.



Collective rights trumps individual rights especially where the granting of the said individual right is clearly not beneficial to the community.



GBAM!




I think you may have confused the word wanked-off with whacked-off.

Alfa Seltzer: Unless I misunderstand what euthanasia means, I think "disposing of" the sick is a well suited classification.

wiegraf:

You've not shown how this is detrimental to humanity, if there is a way of achieving it that is impervious to abuse, ie, so the bolded is moot.


If these are your arguments then;



And who says this is the what's happening? Abandoning people and killing them? Killing them? Yes. Murder? Definitely not. That's a salient distinction.

What exactly does philosophy have to do with this per say anyhow? It's an issue of individual rights, that's also important 'philosophically', no?



And the whole point is to put rigorous checks in place to make sure it's only applied in cases in which the patients involved have their full mental capacities and virtually no chance of survival.



And I'm not sure how you make this leap. Why in the world does legalizing euthenasia or (assisted suicide, better term which I would use) lead to less investment in medical research? That would be silly, what of future generations, or even cases of those similarly inflicted but who choose to fight on despite their poor prognosis?



And what of organ failures and such? What exactly is to be learned in these situations? And a patient that is dying is supposed to pass on his already failed genes? If his genes were any good or resistant, he wouldn't be dying now, would he? Also, are the patients now required to submit, against their will, to experimentation? (If you argue that abortion is an issue of the woman's right to do what she wants to do with her body (which is a valid argument as well imo), can you see how weak/hypocritical this stance is?)


So far, all I've read (granted I've not read the whole thread) is subjective, you simply don't like it. Your opinion does not override the rights of the individuals involved, at least I would hope not. I need not point out why, I hope (as well). It's not your life, not your decision to end it or not.

edits: nothing major, I think

Alfa Seltzer:

I'm not sure I understand your distinction between vegetative state people wishing to die and people in pain wishing to die. For me, they all fall under euthanasia as they are all people looking for other people to kill them.

I do not agree that a burden placed on the family of extremely sick people is greater than the burden placed on the family of extremely lazy ones. Infact, for the sake of humanity, extremely lazy people should be euthanised. But that's another debate.

There may be theoritical ways of avoiding the pitfalls but in practice, once the pandora box opens and the cat is out of the bag, the system would be abused. That's human. There is no human system that is immune to abuse. The real question then becomes, "is it worth it?".

Alfa Seltzer:

This point of view raises a lot of other questions why we we should be very cautious about this euthanasia thing. What do you mean by "to keep you 'alive'"? Is staying alive a burden on one's family? We might as well do away with unemployed people still living with their parents. Infact while we are at it why don't we euthanise disfigured babies and every other family member whose continued existence poses unnecessary burden on their families?

Family is more than finance and being healthy and happy. My family is still my family "in sickness and in health". And I hope they feel the same about me.

Alfa Seltzer:

Individualising social problems mostly lead to different perspective. Of course every individual, including me, would want the most personally beneficial position in any situation. That's why everybody takes bribe. It enriches the taker but impoverishes the group.

When people see a thief being lynched, most of them would urge people on, thank their gods and some would even participate in the lynching. Would they have the same reaction if it was their own brother that is being lynched? So there you have the answer to your question. Points of view change when things become personal.

Mr anony:
That's exactly what I'm saying. The law assumes that when you are in severe pain you are not in a mentally capable state to give consent over your death that's where an advanced decision document comes in to play

A second one is a lasting power of attorney document. . .this puts you under the care of someone else and that person now has the power to make that decision on your behalf. However he can only make such a decision after being advised by the doctors concerning what is in your best interest.

The lasting power of attorney must also have been in place before your condition commenced.

Mr anony:
Sorry perhaps i didn't make myself clear enough. The reason I talked about that law is that if the scenario you prescribed happened, he won't be granted his request because here in the UK he would be deemed mentally incapable of making such a decision because he is under the influence of pain. In fact that is one of the reasons of having an advanced decision document because that way you can't say he is simply delirious. He should have made his choice known before hand free of any duress. . . . .But then again the UK has the NHS so running out of funds is not an issue because the government covers the healthcare.

Alfa Seltzer:

I hope they check the psychological conditions of people filling those forms.

Alfa Seltzer:

I have yet to see someone sign such a document. Imagine authorizing people to kill you if you fall sick!
Logicboy, would you sign such a document?

Mr anony:
Interesting, I'd still say you don't have the right to kill him.

Now permit me to tell you what the law states here in UK. Here you have the right to make an advanced decision i.e. "if anything happens and I am in a vegetative state, pull the plug". But you'll have to make this decision and put it in writing and validate it legally before your calamity befalls you.

Alfa Seltzer:

Of course morality may dictate that we take a course of action that are detrimental to our general well being. You are seeing the problem from the point of view of the patient and what his best interests in the matter is. I am trying to look at the general picture. At the consequences for mankind if individual intrests takes priority over group interests.

As my little debate with Logicboy showed, these matters are not simple nor straightforward but we need to draw a line in the sand somewhere for the benefit of the group. If a few individuals have to suffer for mankind to progress, so be it. That's where I stand on the issue.

Emusan:

I agree with you they are unicellular but answer this simple question. Did animal evolve from plant?

Logicboy03:

Seriously bro? Stop thinking with a local Nigerian mind

There are few diseases/conditions that would leave you in such incurable pain. So, Euthanasia is limited to those diseases/conditions naturally.

If then patient is in stable mental condition, would he be easily be pushed to killing himself against his will?


A psychologist and not the same doctor would have to confirm the mental state

The witnesses would be the lawyer, a family member and a govt official



So, in short one would have to bribe a lawyer, a psychologist, a govt official, a doctor (plus nurses) and also somehow make the case that the patient is suffering from a condition that he doesnt, all in order to scam the system.

The paper trail would be intersting

Evil Brain: The problem with euthanasia is that some elderly or sick people may be pressured by relatives to take their own lives when they don't want to. Its not uncommon for very old people to have children who want them gone for their inheritance, or just to avoid the stress of taking care of them. I've actually been approached once by a useless guy who asked me if I could make his aged mother (my patient) pass on faster. Allowing euthanasia would give scumbags like him a legal way to get what he wanted. Old and sick people are the most vulnerable to suggestion, manipulation and pressure. It would be terrible if such people start being made to feel that they are being selfish or inconsiderate to their loved ones just by being alive.

Of course, I understand the need to help those who are suffering with terminal illnesses go out with dignity and without pain; but we should always be mindful of unintended consequences.