Personality Cafe banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
678 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
1. The first rule of slight club is ... you cannot agree with another INFP in this thread.

2. The second rule of slight club is ... you cannot agree with another INFP in this thread.

3. The third rule is ... you have to disagree in your post with something that the previous post said and provide your reasons for disagreeing.

4. The fourth rule is ... you then have to type some beliefs that you hold quite strongly but which could be controversial to others.

5. The fifth rule is ... no personal attacks stay on the topics in the posts.

6.The sixth rule is ... INFPs only.

Here's my post.

I'm an agnostic and I don't believe in a personal God. I am drawn to religion but I often doubt that it is a force for good in the world. If equality is calculated by having an equal number of men and women in top positions then I think there's a good chance it will never happen. I think that illegal drugs should be legalised and taxed. I think it's ridiculous that animals who are in pain are allowed a dignified death, but we don't allow people to choose when they will die in a safe and pain free environment.

Sometimes as an INFP I think I avoid conflict and take things too personally, but I also have strong feelings about ideas that I care about and that I have insights about. I thought having other INFPs with different values providing their input and take on things would be quite interesting to do ... or the thought of such a thing could be the last thing anyone wants and end up scaring all INFPs away.
 

·
Registered
INFP(?) 9w1 sp/sx ♀
Joined
·
1,221 Posts
Interesting... I'll give it a shot.

I'm an agnostic and I don't believe in a personal God. I am drawn to religion but I often doubt that it is a force for good in the world. If equality is calculated by having an equal number of men and women in top positions then I think there's a good chance it will never happen. I think that illegal drugs should be legalised and taxed. I think it's ridiculous that animals who are in pain are allowed a dignified death, but we don't allow people to choose when they will die in a safe and pain free environment.
Raised Catholic, I believe in a God, but not judgmental as described; I see this God as a controller of fate that helps people discover themselves by exposing them to new situations that allow their actions to define their character. However, I have grown to despise the idea of having specific organized religions. Yeah, it gives someone something to believe in and people to identify with, but I see spirituality as individual development, and there is no one fixed right way for anything spiritually.

Equality is not fully determined by the amount of men in women in power, but the treatment of the people as a whole, and it can happen (though there will be always be personal prejudices, it can happen on a general level). As long as leaders have an open-minded view (regardless of sex, gender, race, etc.), it can happen.

Illegal drugs should at least be regulated (especially if the user has offenses on their records like driving under the influence) for legal purposes because, legal or not, people are still going to use them.

For animal euthanasia, I understand that it is needed in certain cases, but in others, it seems like an easy way out of, say, a risky procedure. I am taking a Health Science course right now, and we were taught the first week of school that the main goal in (human) health care is to save lives, and it should be the same for animals (again, in this optimal scenario, there would be little need for euthanasia at all). Ideally, both human and animal healthcare will evolve to reduce the need for euthanasia altogether. The closest thing to euthanasia is ending life support in humans, and I think that's close enough to euthanasia as is; I mean, you're ceasing the continuation of a life either way. In conclusion, I think anything that can save a life should be done, animal or human, and euthanasia should not be as common as it is (though learned in my health class that human euthanasia is legal in Oregon).

Sometimes as an INFP I think I avoid conflict and take things too personally, but I also have strong feelings about ideas that I care about and that I have insights about. I thought having other INFPs with different values providing their input and take on things would be quite interesting to do ... or the thought of such a thing could be the last thing anyone wants and end up scaring all INFPs away.
Same here. I'm giving this a try, since I really need it. :tongue:

P.S. I totally understand and respect your points of view, and it was really hard to find little areas of disagreement for some of these. I just thought I'd help get this thing going.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
752 Posts
Interesting... I'll give it a shot.



Raised Catholic, I believe in a God, but not judgmental as described; I see this God as a controller of fate that helps people discover themselves by exposing them to new situations that allow their actions to define their character. However, I have grown to despise the idea of having specific organized religions. Yeah, it gives someone something to believe in and people to identify with, but I see spirituality as individual development, and there is no one fixed right way for anything spiritually.

Equality is not fully determined by the amount of men in women in power, but the treatment of the people as a whole, and it can happen (though there will be always be personal prejudices, it can happen on a general level). As long as leaders have an open-minded view (regardless of sex, gender, race, etc.), it can happen.

Illegal drugs should at least be regulated (especially if the user has offenses on their records like driving under the influence) for legal purposes because, legal or not, people are still going to use them.

For animal euthanasia, I understand that it is needed in certain cases, but in others, it seems like an easy way out of, say, a risky procedure. I am taking a Health Science course right now, and we were taught the first week of school that the main goal in (human) health care is to save lives, and it should be the same for animals (again, in this optimal scenario, there would be little need for euthanasia at all). Ideally, both human and animal healthcare will evolve to reduce the need for euthanasia altogether. The closest thing to euthanasia is ending life support in humans, and I think that's close enough to euthanasia as is; I mean, you're ceasing the continuation of a life either way. In conclusion, I think anything that can save a life should be done, animal or human, and euthanasia should not be as common as it is (though learned in my health class that human euthanasia is legal in Oregon).



Same here. I'm giving this a try, since I really need it. :tongue:

P.S. I totally understand and respect your points of view, and it was really hard to find little areas of disagreement for some of these. I just thought I'd help get this thing going.
Honestly, the only thing I didn't 'agree' with was God/Fate. I struggled with the thought of there being a God when I was a very young child, pretended I believed for a while to not cause a scene. It's fine if other people believe whatever they choose in my eyes, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them which I often don't. I just think either way respect should be given on both sides of the opinion. And things like creation stories should be either completely left out of public school, or only taught in a religion class that individuals can choose to take. Not taught in a biology class ect.

I don't think there we should still be practicing the death penalty personally. I don't have a good solution in response to not doing it however, I just find the fact sometimes people who are convicted of crimes are sometimes not actually guilty. That's enough for me to completely dismiss any form of capital punishment because there is a chance that we could be snuffing out an innocent life in response to fear or aggression.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
Debating for the sake of debating here:

If a person who is proven to be guilty is convicted to spend life in prison, it is perhaps more reasonable to end their life instead of 1) Essentially funding the existential 'death' of the inmate as he rots away towards death in prison and 2) Overcrowding facilities by holding onto morally incorrigible inmates for decades. If the death penalty is considered morally wrong, how are sentences to life imprisonment (figurative death) any morally better?

I believe that small, physically painless taps on the cheek and wrist, administered by parents towards children who are extremely disobedient is in no way a form of abuse. Light slapping and spanking at a young age is quite commonly practiced outside of North America. My French father never physically hurt me when lightly slapping my cheek as a child whenever I would cross the line - and I was honestly more terrified by the idea of his anger rather than the punishment of slapping itself. It only happened 2-3 times in my life (before the age of six), and I still to this day believe it helped instill some healthy fear and humility in me as I grew older afterwards. I still don't resent my father for doing it. I don't think I could personally do that to my own children, but I sometimes feel that political correctness nazis turn light spanking/slapping into an immense physical abuse issue. Words can 'hurt' as much as a light tap on the cheek, if used incorrectly. A light slap on the wrist is not physical abuse; but merely a more raw and comprehensible metaphor (for younger children) for the kind of punishment one will face in the future, if their chaotic and hurtful behavior persists.

*braces for an incoming outrage-nado*
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,481 Posts
I think it's ridiculous that animals who are in pain are allowed a dignified death, but we don't allow people to choose when they will die in a safe and pain free environment.
We euthanize animals quite early in disease processes because it is too costly to provide them keep them alive with therapeutic treatments. And therein in lies the historical motivation of "right-to-die" movements since the era of eugnenics. Expediency.

Yes, there are hard cases. But the fact remains that most people who choose to die with professional assistance are opting out of being physically handicapped and have conditions that other people live full and happy lives with.

Pointing this out isn't meant to imply that because someone else is happy another person should happy as well. It's meant to imply that the government has no right to make decisions regarding what a "quality" life is. It is dangerous and arrogant to do so.

Making suicide something that must be sanctioned by the government only for a certain group of people stigmatizes the disabled population and makes it easier for the those close to them to encourage their demise, either covertly or overtly.

You are either for easy access to suicide methods for ALL people, no questions asked, or you believe that something about disabled people makes their lives more intrinsically "more optional" than a nondisabled persons.


What if I told you that 50% of people in your city who are living in poverty will never leave poverty and that this greatly effects their quality of life? Would you be alright with the government legalizing assisted suicide just for them? If no, why not?

Again: They'll never leave poverty due to a low-average IQ + the economy. The poverty greatly effects their mobility and quality of life and they indicate to you that it is the main cause of their suffering. They specifically say that they hate being dependent on others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thread Killer

·
Banned
Joined
·
678 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Everyone thanks for contributing to this thread. Interesting perspectives. @WhateverLolaWants you broke the 4th rule of Slight Club, you were meant to disagree with something in @AmisAmora's post ;) Since I have a penchant for breaking rules you've made me question whether we should change that rule anyway to disagreeing with a previous post in the thread. It might make it more realistic, what do you think?

WhateverLolaWants I disagree with a number of your points. Firstly I think there are a number of reasons why we approach animals situation in the way that we do. One of those reasons is the inability for animals to articulate the amount of pain they are in or their desired course of action. If dogs and cats could articulate whether they wanted to be treated or not, or for their life to be prolonged or not I think we'd take that into consideration. Since they are unable to do so, humans make decisions based on economic realities and but also on their perception of an animal's pain and distress. In some cases particularly with pets and wealthy owners the availability of monetary resources to keep the animal alive, or lack thereof, is not the deciding factor in whether they make the decision to prolong or end life. In cases with extremely wealthy patients who desire to die the cost of prolonging life isn't the main deciding factor there either. So I doubt that expediency is the driving force in all of these situations.

Qualitative studies of those with with terminal conditions have shown a number of reasons for people wanting to end their lives including current and future pain, indignity, loss of control and present and future mental impairment. I think singling out one of those reasons and only dealing with that one isn't accurately portraying the experience of the patients requesting euthanasia.

As far as living full and happy lives I think that it really depends on the condition and severity of the condition that we are discussing, which is going to come down to an individual case by case basis in my opinion. What if the person already has lived a full and happy life and is going to die within a period of years anyway?

The argument could be made that the government by not respecting the wishes of the individual is overriding the one person who should have the final say in whether they choose to live or not. Subjecting somebody who has come to that conclusion to the ordeal of having to physically end their own life, alone and without comfort and assistance (since any family or friends present could be prosecuted) seems to be extremely cruel. With some conditions the loss of function means the individual may want to end their own life but they are incapable of doing so and so are trapped. The government and doctors already do make decisions in terms of withdrawing food and water so why not allow patients the choice. I find the arrogance in this situation on the part of the government to be the complete denial of autonomy of the individual to make the decision for themselves.

You raise a good point about the offering of assisted suicide and the circumstances in which we allow that to occur but I disagree. Monitoring the circumstances in which we collectively recognize a person's right to assistance in ending their own life is obviously required because of the risk of abuse and I do think in some circumstances that would even extend beyond what we call disability.

As far as people in an individual's life encouraging the demise of disabled individuals it's a horrible possibility I admit, but that cruelty is already occurring with those individuals torturing people they should love on a daily basis. They could influence individuals into making this kind of decision, but with the right checks and balances many of those cases of abuse can be detected where ordinarily they wouldn't be.

The issue of homelessness is a complicated one and such a small percentage of the homeless can be categorised as chronically homeless that it doesn't come anywhere near 50%. Most homelessness is a very different phenomenon than many imagine it to be. I will give you that the chronically homeless often suffer from serious disabilities such as drug and alcohol addiction, physical handicaps and mental illnesses but they make up a small percentage of the homeless population. They represent our collective failure to assist people in our own societies and we should be ashamed. It is more expensive to deal with the consequences of leaving them to rot and picking up the pieces afterwards than it would be to provide support and housing as a number of cities have shown. Why are we paying more to have people suffer more? It is nonsensical.

However for the sake of answering let's run with the 50% figure. I think first and foremost housing and medical support needs to be provided which makes a big difference in any link between homelessness and suicide and costs less than arrests and later hospital visits. For any underlying conditions they would need to be treated and I think treatment includes respecting their wishes, including in severe cases where they are suffering a right to end their life in a humane way. There would obviously need to be checks and balances in place.

I don't think expecting a person to blow their own head off with a shotgun rather than allowing them a dignified death is somehow less arrogant or more principled. Stephen Hawking may have exceeded all odds and had an incredible life, Michael J Fox may have had an inspiring life overcoming adversary, but I think Robin Williams had the right to leave this life in a peaceful way with his family around him rather than feeling that he had to die in such an excruciating way alone and I think the government and we as a society should have a way for people to do so if that is what they choose.

I'd respond to AmisAmora's post because there's a lot I'd like to say about it and it plays into this life and death discussion quite nicely, but I'll leave it open to see if anyone else wants to first and feel free to respond if you disagree with anything I've said above. These are interesting topics that I find fascinating exploring, they're controversial and sometimes because I often avoid controversy I'm less likely to engage, but I learn something from someone every time I have one so I'm thankful for your perspectives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,481 Posts
@Itsmyhead

I've read your post. It seems we have ideological differences. As I suspected, you feel that the lives of disabled people are worth less than abled people.

You did not confront my point that the majority of people choosing assisted suicide are not doing so to escape chronic pain or fatal illness.

Stephen Hawking did not exceed odds in terms of "full life". He exceeded them medically, sure, as he has rare form of ALS that is extremely slow to progress.

Most people who have his level of disability - full paralysis for a variety of reasons - adapt (with the right help) and go on to the previous level of happiness. This is not exceeding odds but actually the human norm. Almost all say they're glad to be alive even though at one point they were determined that they'd be better off dead and would have chosen that route if it was easy and sanctioned.

Choice does not happen in a vacuum. It is influenced. It is naive to think that disabled people would not choose death due to feeling like a burden or fear of being abused. Many, many do, yet here you are defending their "right to choose" over an abled person "right to choose".

I don't think expecting a person to blow their own head off with a shotgun rather than allowing them a dignified death is somehow less arrogant or more principled.
Assisted suicide is of interest to you I'd recommend you entertain the idea of Exit Bags and barbiturate cocktails for all people, no questions asked, rather than wanting the government to officially determine who has an "optional life" and who doesn't.

In terms of Robin Williams, the idea that he killed himself to avoid illness is unlikely. He has larger issues beyond the physical and mental. They're called life issues.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Thread Killer

·
Banned
Joined
·
678 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I've read your post. It seems we have ideological differences. As I suspected, you feel that the lives of disabled people are worth less than abled people.
I actually value the lives of disabled people, people who are suffering and are in pain enough to respect their individual wishes. I do not in any way think they are in any way worth less than other people. There are very few people in the world I would hope who would.
You did not confront my point that the majority of people choosing assisted suicide are not doing so to escape chronic pain or fatal illness.
Actually I did discuss that issue by talking about a qualitative study that named a number of issues that people gave for wanting the right to end their own lives. It mentioned the fact that while loss of dignity was one reason it was among a number of considerations. You didn't address the fact that just because dignity is given as the number one reason, doesn't mean that pain and fatal illness aren't major considerations and reasons in the decision of people to want their own lives to end. People are capable of having multiple reasons to want to end their own lives in a safe, considerate and mostly painless way surrounded by family and friends.
Stephen Hawking did not exceed odds in terms of "full life". He exceeded them medically, sure, as he has rare form of ALS that is extremely slow to progress.
I never said that Stephen Hawking did exceed expectations with a "full life" I said he's had an "incredible life" and I think you'd find few people who would disagree he's an incredible man, with an incredible mind who has done incredible things. The fact he's still alive is incredible given how quickly his condition usually leads to deterioration. He also backs people having the right to die and on this issue I respect his opinion a lot.
Most people who have his level of disability - full paralysis for a variety of reasons - adapt (with the right help) and go on to the previous level of happiness. This is not exceeding odds but actually the human norm. Almost all say they're glad to be alive even though at one point they were determined that they'd be better off dead and would have chosen that route if it was easy and sanctioned.
I don't think you can make a generalisation about people with a condition like that, it's all individual and while most may come to the conclusions you've stated and I'm happy for them, there are some people who still desire the right to die. Who are we to tell them they must continue to suffer when that is their choice? Stephen Hawking desires to have that right when the time comes too.
Choice does not happen in a vacuum. It is influenced. It is naive to think that disabled people would not choose death due to feeling like a burden or fear of being abused. Many, many do, yet here you are defending their "right to choose" over an abled person "right to choose".
I never said that choice happens in a vacuum. I also never said others can't be influenced by people in their lives. However, that can and does occurr with the status quo. Family, and those who should care for people can and do neglect, resent and make people wish they weren't still alive without the ability for that person to choose to end their life. I'm sure it unfortunately happens on a daily basis. I think it's naive to think the type of people who would torture someone they should love into wanting to die out of resentment aren't already doing that only without the person having any help or control in the situation. It's one of the reasons why I mentioned having checks and balances which would likely pick up abuse that most people currently don't seem to care about. That's why I think there should be regulation like there already exists for a lot of things in our society.
Assisted suicide is of interest to you I'd recommend you entertain the idea of Exit Bags and barbiturate cocktails for all people, no questions asked, rather than wanting the government to officially determine who has an "optional life" and who doesn't.
I like how you keep changing it to the government deciding when I'm talking about the individual's right to choose for themselves. At the moment it is the government denying people who make that decision the right to access to those resources if they so desire it, even when they are terminally ill and in extreme pain. Having checks and balances is to protect against abuse. It can't protect against all abuse, nothing is perfect and the current status quo doesn't protect against all abuse either. In my opinion, it should be open to anyone who is in pain or suffering which includes a lot of people. Some would argue for more restrictions than I would, some for less. The government's role would be to monitor the small number of people who want the option to ensure that the concerns you mention are addressed not to decide for people who haven't made that choice for themselves.
In terms of Robin Williams, the idea that he killed himself to avoid illness is unlikely. He has larger issues beyond the physical and mental. They're called life issues.
Robin Williams had a lot of issues and a lot of those issues were illnesses, including his depression, alcoholism and parkinsons. I think the idea that those two issues didn't play a massive role in his decision to be extremely unlikely. If society was accepting of people's right to die but also had an appropriate way of evaluating the situation it might decrease painful suicides, then again it might not. It's difficult to know if it would have made a difference in Robin's case and since we don't know what his actual condition was when he went through what he did we just don't know.

At no point have I made the argument that having a terminal illness automatically means that those individuals should be killed, but I have said that some want death and that in my opinion it is the benevolent thing to grant it to them. I don't view suicides, assisted or otherwise, as being mortal sins though and I don't believe that my morality should dictate what another person chooses for their own life.

It's a nice video you posted, I've watched it before and Stefan Molyneux is an interesting and provocative figure, but I don't agree with a lot of his opinions. I think he can be extremely dishonest and manipulative in some of the statements he makes, like when he lied about his psychologist wife being reprimanded for endorsing his "defooing" practice, literally telling vulnerable people to cut off ties with family and friends. I find a lot of the time he makes sweeping and hyperbolic statements that don't reflect reality. Once he even made the statement that anyone who disagrees with his anarcho-capitalist view of the world want him and anyone who agrees with him shot. It's quite frankly ridiculous and would be funny if it wasn't so scary. At other times he's suggested that there was no such thing as a good parent until he created his website and following. There are definitely some red flags surrounding the man and his movement, I'd have to watch the whole video to remember everything I disagreed with in it, it's an hour long and I have no desire to do that right now.

Thanks for engaging these are controversial issues for a reason and I appreciate your point of view even though I don't agree. I take your position to come from a deeply held love of disabled people and life and I hope you can see that despite the disagreement mine likewise comes from a love of life and and a respect of people who are suffering whether they are terminal or otherwise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
I disagree with one of the rules.

Rule #5 should be a two-part rule: No personal attacks AND no apologetic statements.

An apologetic statement is one that tries to soften the blow or make an excuse for why you have to disagree with someone. Whereas a personal attack is lashing out with your feelings, an apologetic statement is softening the blow with your feelings. Slight club should be devoid of both; I disagree is I disagree, nothing more.

Rules of Slight Club:

1. No agreeing
2. No agreeing
3. You must disagree and provide reasoning
4. You must put forth a controversial point
5. No personal attacks or apologetic statements, stay on the topic
6. INFPs only

Also, I'd like to point out that everyone has broken the new rule number 5 already.

---------------------

I am not happy with the direction the world is taking due to social media. Peer pressure is no longer from your small town - it is from the entire world. Prodigies, superstars and amazing talent are what you have to compare yourself to on youtube, and the opinion of the masses dictates what you should see in places like reddit. Pressure to succeed, as defined by societal values, is much more intense due to the image of everyone else 'succeeding' on your facebook timeline, instragram, pinterest, etc. Underground scenes makes you a hipster, mainstream content is buzzfeed crass, and to not know some new fad is to be shamed as an old person. What happened to the spirit of simpler times where the ideal of community was fostered and you found your place/people helped you find a place in society?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
I disagree with this very thread! Honestly, this whole discussion is madness.

The first (and by extension, second) rule is possibly the worst I've ever seen - it's bad enough that we're not allowed to voice agreement with the poster above, but not being allowed to voice agreement with any of this thread's participants? That goes against the spirit of cooperation, tranquility, and cohesion, and those things are very important to me!

And then there's the third rule. Not only do I have to respond to the post above, but I also have to provide a reason for disagreeing? Sure, thinking objectively and applying reasonable justifications might be a matter of ease for people of other types, but I find it a needless challenge!

The fourth rule is pretty lame too - I have to say something controversial? Well, I hate this thread (no disrespect to the author, of course - I'm sure he was well-intentioned, and far be it from me to attack his character), as opposed to other participants who have at least implied that they like it. Is that controversial enough?

I don't think ineffipy's Rule Five revision is enough to hammer the rules as a whole back into shape, and I don't understand what's wrong with apologetic statements.

Finally, why exclude non-INFPs from the discussion? If you guys want a truly competitive game, at least make it a challenge by letting the more methodical, logical types in on the action!

But even rebalancing the foundation of the club isn't enough, oh, no. As opposed to what people have said above, I think there is something wrong with all of the rules, and that leads me to believe that the very game itself is based on a flawed premise. Call the existence of this "Slight Club" a rant-inducing slight if you will, but I will speak my mind against it unapologet... unnap... without apology!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,481 Posts
I actually value the lives of disabled people, people who are suffering and are in pain enough to respect their individual wishes. I do not in any way think they are in any way worth less than other people. There are very few people in the world I would hope who would.

Actually I did discuss that issue by talking about a qualitative study that named a number of issues that people gave for wanting the right to end their own lives. It mentioned the fact that while loss of dignity was one reason it was among a number of considerations. You didn't address the fact that just because dignity is given as the number one reason, doesn't mean that pain and fatal illness aren't major considerations and reasons in the decision of people to want their own lives to end. People are capable of having multiple reasons to want to end their own lives in a safe, considerate and mostly painless way surrounded by family and friends.

I never said that Stephen Hawking did exceed expectations with a "full life" I said he's had an "incredible life" and I think you'd find few people who would disagree he's an incredible man, with an incredible mind who has done incredible things. The fact he's still alive is incredible given how quickly his condition usually leads to deterioration. He also backs people having the right to die and on this issue I respect his opinion a lot.

I don't think you can make a generalisation about people with a condition like that, it's all individual and while most may come to the conclusions you've stated and I'm happy for them, there are some people who still desire the right to die. Who are we to tell them they must continue to suffer when that is their choice? Stephen Hawking desires to have that right when the time comes too.

I never said that choice happens in a vacuum. I also never said others can't be influenced by people in their lives. However, that can and does occurr with the status quo. Family, and those who should care for people can and do neglect, resent and make people wish they weren't still alive without the ability for that person to choose to end their life. I'm sure it unfortunately happens on a daily basis. I think it's naive to think the type of people who would torture someone they should love into wanting to die out of resentment aren't already doing that only without the person having any help or control in the situation. It's one of the reasons why I mentioned having checks and balances which would likely pick up abuse that most people currently don't seem to care about. That's why I think there should be regulation like there already exists for a lot of things in our society.

I like how you keep changing it to the government deciding when I'm talking about the individual's right to choose for themselves. At the moment it is the government denying people who make that decision the right to access to those resources if they so desire it, even when they are terminally ill and in extreme pain. Having checks and balances is to protect against abuse. It can't protect against all abuse, nothing is perfect and the current status quo doesn't protect against all abuse either. In my opinion, it should be open to anyone who is in pain or suffering which includes a lot of people. Some would argue for more restrictions than I would, some for less. The government's role would be to monitor the small number of people who want the option to ensure that the concerns you mention are addressed not to decide for people who haven't made that choice for themselves.

Robin Williams had a lot of issues and a lot of those issues were illnesses, including his depression, alcoholism and parkinsons. I think the idea that those two issues didn't play a massive role in his decision to be extremely unlikely. If society was accepting of people's right to die but also had an appropriate way of evaluating the situation it might decrease painful suicides, then again it might not. It's difficult to know if it would have made a difference in Robin's case and since we don't know what his actual condition was when he went through what he did we just don't know.

At no point have I made the argument that having a terminal illness automatically means that those individuals should be killed, but I have said that some want death and that in my opinion it is the benevolent thing to grant it to them. I don't view suicides, assisted or otherwise, as being mortal sins though and I don't believe that my morality should dictate what another person chooses for their own life.

It's a nice video you posted, I've watched it before and Stefan Molyneux is an interesting and provocative figure, but I don't agree with a lot of his opinions. I think he can be extremely dishonest and manipulative in some of the statements he makes, like when he lied about his psychologist wife being reprimanded for endorsing his "defooing" practice, literally telling vulnerable people to cut off ties with family and friends. I find a lot of the time he makes sweeping and hyperbolic statements that don't reflect reality. Once he even made the statement that anyone who disagrees with his anarcho-capitalist view of the world want him and anyone who agrees with him shot. It's quite frankly ridiculous and would be funny if it wasn't so scary. At other times he's suggested that there was no such thing as a good parent until he created his website and following. There are definitely some red flags surrounding the man and his movement, I'd have to watch the whole video to remember everything I disagreed with in it, it's an hour long and I have no desire to do that right now.

Thanks for engaging these are controversial issues for a reason and I appreciate your point of view even though I don't agree. I take your position to come from a deeply held love of disabled people and life and I hope you can see that despite the disagreement mine likewise comes from a love of life and and a respect of people who are suffering whether they are terminal or otherwise.

It's not a matter of telling a paraplegic they do not have a right to die. It's a matter of saying they have more of a right to die than an abled person, which is exactly what you're saying.

The government IS deciding on matters of life value when they officially determine thorough legislation who is eligible for assisted suicide and who isn't. It reflects on all disabled people.

The fact that almost all disabled people oppose assisted suicide should perhaps clue you into how stigmatizing it is to be part of a population deemed "life optional". The majority of people who support the right-to-die movement and "mercy killings" (70% of people in my country think it's okay for a parent to kill their child if the child is disabled) are ABLED.

Your beliefs are likely subconsciously motivated by "illness disgust" more than you realise, a very common and primitive/subconscious response to disability and weakness in humans.

There are three options in debates surrounding this issue. You're either pro-life, for availability of effective suicide methods for all, or you think that the lives of disabled people are intrinsically more "optional" than an abled people. I do not believe you have a deeply held love or respect of disabled people and would say, based on your objective facts of your argument, you fall into the latter category.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thread Killer

·
Banned
Joined
·
678 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
It's not a matter of telling a paraplegic they do not have a right to die. It's a matter of saying they have more of a right to die than an abled person, which is exactly what you're saying.
I disagree with the above, what we are talking about is exactly that, it's a loved one being told they have to suffer when they could have a peaceful death and that even though it's that person's request, it's denied. As far as having "more" of a right to the treatment they desire, I think it's a poorly thought out point. If I requested chemotherapy I would be told that it is reserved for people who have cancer, if somebody is in terminal pain, it makes sense that they'd have access to different resources. Disabled means a lot more than paraplegic and is something you've tried to compound into the point about terminally ill people when it doesn't fully fit.

The government IS deciding on matters of life value when they officially determine thorough legislation who is eligible for assisted suicide and who isn't. It reflects on all disabled people.
The government making it illegal is them deciding for people to be tortured needlessly. I disagree that it does reflect on all disabled people. Stephen Hawking's disabled and he agrees with it. I'm sure plenty of disabled people agree with it. For all you know I'm disabled. If it passes through law I doubt it would even be extended to all disabled people, it's a conflation of two separate things. Let's say that it was though, all that disabled people who didn't want it would have to do is .... not ask for it.

The fact that almost all disabled people oppose assisted suicide should perhaps clue you into how stigmatizing it is to be part of a population deemed "life optional". The majority of people who support the right-to-die movement and "mercy killings" (70% of people in my country think it's okay for a parent to kill their child if the child is disabled) are ABLED.
I really don't trust you to speak on behalf of almost all disabled people. I also bet that disabled people are split down the middle on giving assisted suicide to people in chronic and/or terminal pain like everyone else. How stigmatizing do you imagine it is being in terminal pain and being denied relief? Have you ever spoken to anyone in that position? It might change your views, then again it might not. I think the majority of people asking for this for themselves are terminally ill, with a short time to live while they are wasting away in excruciating pain. Or that is their immediate future.

I don't know what country you live in but it sounds like a crazy place, what country would allow the killing of children? Are you sure they are killing disabled kids? Who allows or tolerates that?

Your beliefs are likely subconsciously motivated by "illness disgust" more than you realise, a very common and primitive/subconscious response to disability and weakness in humans.
Well I guess me supposedly having subconscious "illness disgust" is a slightly more charitable interpretation and is arguably better than me supposedly feeling "that the lives of disabled people are worth less" but I disagree with both. Stephen Hawking agrees too, do his feelings on the matter come from this same place? My beliefs come from my experiences and my feelings of compassion for people who want to have autonomy over their own lives.

There are three options in debates surrounding this issue. You're either pro-life, for availability of effective suicide methods for all, or you think that the lives of disabled people are intrinsically more "optional" than an abled people. I do not believe you have a deeply held love or respect of disabled people and would say, based on your objective facts of your argument, you fall into the latter category.
I disagree, I think there are plenty more options than your false trichotomy above. The term pro-life in the context of a person who is terminally ill and in pain or facing excruciating pain requesting to end their suffering is a poor choice of words in my opinion. I could give a more accurate word but I'd rather not. You seem to be the only one pushing for optional unregulated state sponsored suicide for all, although I'd be open to arguments for and against. I could see myself agreeing with it though because I've seen the aftermath of suicide in my own life and can only imagine what my loved one went through to end her own life in such a painful way.

Stephen Hawking holds comparable views to mine, but probably with more government regulation than me, so I guess he fits in your last one too. You really feel that he doesn't "have a deeply held love or respect of disabled people"? I find that to be patently absurd. You have no idea about my life, the relationship to disability in my life, or the feelings in my heart. So I guess the last thing to disagree with is your assessment of me, as somebody who has no deep love or respect for the disabled, based solely on my feelings and opinions about compassionately listening to the terminally ill and respecting their wishes.

I'm glad you contributed to this thread because it gave me the opportunity to completely disagree with someone about something which is rare.

I personally believe that we should use the DNA that we have from Neanderthals to bring them back from extinction. I'm curious to know what they really look like? what do they sing like? and how peaceful or war like they are? Who knows maybe the reason why they went extinct was because they were a more peaceful species and we were too aggressive for them, maybe world peace would be better served with them alive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,760 Posts
I personally believe that we should use the DNA that we have from Neanderthals to bring them back from extinction. I'm curious to know what they really look like? what do they sing like? and how peaceful or war like they are? Who knows maybe the reason why they went extinct was because they were a more peaceful species and we were too aggressive for them, maybe world peace would be better served with them alive.
Okay, I'll play Slight Club :)

I disagree that we should bring Neanderthals back from extinction. According to what we know, their brains were far less advanced. A Neanderthal would not fit into this world and would likely be a danger to themselves or others. So we would basically be bringing them back for our own entertainment and curiosity, which would be cruel. I also understand that they did not have advanced vocal cords like we do and likely had very limited vocal communication not being able to form a vast array of sounds and words as we do. In all probability, they went extinct because all humanoid species in that time were uncivilized and primitive, only knowing how to fight and kill for resources. Homo Sapiens won because they were smarter, able to communicate strategic ideas to each other, and more....... spry, I guess?

I don't think children should be allowed in the city limits of Las Vegas. Even though investors and rich people spend a lot of money on kid-friendly activities and attractions, they're just trying to entice parents who want to gamble and don't have anywhere to send their kids. Yeah, there's a lot of cool shows there, but just walking down the street, there's soft-porn images everywhere, not to mention bringing children into a gambling environment so they can get hooked on the idea as young as possible.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top