Ironworks Gaming Forum

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   Judge bans suicide show (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76267)

Skunk 10-20-2003 05:49 PM

I have absolutely *no* idea where he gets his figures and when they were collated - but the reality is rather different. While there *is* some trafficking - it is not nearly as bad as the article makes out - the police and the unions have made great strides to reduce trafficking - and most of the 'window' prostitutes in Amsterdam do indeed have full work permits, health checkups and frequent police visits.

If you could read Dutch, I could point you to the prostitutes union (yes, they have a union here!) who could tell you otherwise...Indeed, the prostitutes union works very hard themselves to ensure that other 'ladies of the night' are not illegals - they don't want unlicenced competition... Indeed, the 'Red Thread union' even spoke out against the EU enlargement because they are afraid of an influx of eastern european workers who will undercut their members...

In any event - it is not LEGAL to force someone to perform services against their will, and to refuse to allow them to leave. What you are talking about is kidnap and rape - which is something entirely different.

[ 10-20-2003, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

Yorick 10-20-2003 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Maelakin:
Suicide is the ultimate in selfish acts; however, it is also selfish in nature to keep someone here against their will. So who are you to tell someone that your needs are greater than theirs, especially when it pertains to their life.
When they are exhibiting signs of immense distress that indicate they are unable to make a correct decision about their life. Usually a suicide is attempted by a person in incredible agony. The primary concern is to end the agony. When in intense pain, the strongest desire is for it to end.

Pain clouds judgement. Suicide can seem at the time, to be the only alternative to existing in pain.

A person removed from the situation is often able to see solutions that the person caught in it cannot. Especially the seasonal nature of pain. For example, when extremely ill for a long period it is exceptionally difficult to visualise health. We normalise our current situation.

A suicider is clearly at a point of distress to the point when they make a decision about continuing existence they would not make if the pain was not there. The question would have to be asked as to how much we want to be protected from ourselves. Due to the fact that society has kept suicide illegal, it can be argued that the majority of decisionmaking individuals WANT to be protected from themselves given the extreme and temporary circumstances I am speaking about.

Picture Oddeuseus commanding his crew to chain him to the mast when they passed through the sirens territory.

That is what a sane and at that point, painless person is doing by asking society to make suicide illegal.


Quote:

Yorick
You are comparing apples and oranges here. Slavery takes away your ability to make decisions that alter the course of your life, while, debt is a choice you made at one time. One is a ramification of your decision making, while the other is forced upon you.
Not all debt is a ramification of choice. Some is indeed forced upon you.

In any case, I was making a point. ;)


Quote:

Yorick
By restricting a personal freedom, you give another protection from the after-effects associated with suicides. You are not bestowing any form of freedom at all; rather you are taking away a freedom for your own benefit.

When you start restricting personal freedoms based upon the psychological impact it may have upon another, you open a door best left closed. Anything could be construed as emotional damage, and the minute you start placing barriers in effect to stop these stimulants, you take away free will.
You're questioning the whole concept of society having laws that protect innocents here.

Emotional damage can be caused by sexual harrasment. Should a man have the freedom to DO sexual harrasment to a female colleague, or should the female have freedom FROM a highly stressful and upsetting workplace? Or having to restrict career options because of some bullheaded pigs refusal to respect a lady?

What of the emotional damage a teacher can cause a student? Should there be no restrictions on behaviour of teachers because they should be free to do whatever they wish?

Freedom of action only works where humans control themselves, Where they don't laws MUST protect the innocent or chaos reigns.


Quote:

Someone who feels blame after another commits suicide has a choice. They choose to feel that guilt. Feelings of emptiness associated with the loss of a loved one are normal, but a healthy individual, in mind and body, innately understands that they need to move on and resume life. Any who do not need to seek help.
Easier said than done. Perhaps you can tell everyone that for yourself?

Yorick 10-20-2003 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skunk:
[QB] Let's look at it from an entirely different perspective.
In British law-making, the legislature adheres to the principle that unforceable laws are pointless - hence the reason why suicide was decriminalised (it's hard to punish a dead person) but remains an offence to assist someone.

When someone desires to end his/her own life - the stage is already set: it is virtually impossible to prevent that person from committing the act without (inhumanely) locking them up in a paddded room - where their lives continue in increased agony.
I did as I said, physically prevent the person three times. It is not impossible given circumstances.

Quote:

As Billy Connelly quipped on the subject of the Catholic 'Rhythm Method' of birth control:
What?! At the point of ejaculation whip it out?! Father, at the point of ejaculation, wild horses wouldn't make my a*** go in the opposite direction!"
He should speak for himself. I've used that method many times in the past. Willpower. Excercises that which makes us human: Concious will over instinct. You should try it. Good excercise in increasing willpower strength. Long term consequences over short term satisfaction. No way I'm going to decide to have a child just so I can get my rocks off. ;)

Quote:

If you criminalise suicide, if you make it illegal to commit suicide, you force that person to 'go underground'. Rather than risk discovery and 'imprisonment', that person will tell no-one of his plans.

This means that someone has to 'discover' the body. This means that relatives will never get to say 'Goodbye' or understand or get to ask 'Why?'. They will just get a sudden withdrawl of that person's life: out of the blue. It may also mean that the act of suicide may endanger others (jumping off a building, in front of a truck etc.)

So, in actual fact, I would argue that a legalised form of suicide is actually kinder on the relatives than a society that forbids it in all circumstances.
It is already illegal. You are speculating on something that already exists.
Some tell, some don't. Some have spontaneous suicide, others plan it. The circumstances are all different. What we do achieve by making it illegal, is make it legal for a person to be detained until they are in a better frame of mind.

Yorick 10-21-2003 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
No, I wasn't trying to incite you. Look, you saw his religion as irrelevant -- that is not necessarily the case. Depending on his beliefs, it could very well be relevant.
Which is why I said this: "Now that's just being pedantic and presenting a belief-dependent argument.

I kept my own beliefs about the afterlife out of the equation.

Skunk 10-21-2003 03:29 AM

Quote:

What we do achieve by making it illegal, is make it legal for a person to be detained until they are in a better frame of mind.
No, what you achieve by suicide is the endangerment of others, increased emotional distress with regards to the suicide's own families and cruelty to the person who wishes to end his/her own life.

If someone is serious about ending their life (as opposed to a 'cry for help'), you will not be able to stop them. Most people are intelligent enough to know that sticking your fingers in the wall socket probably won't kill you (even in the UK where voltages are much higher); but if you choose to fly a kite next to a high-capacity power line, you are as likely to be successful as pointing a .44 magnum at your head or diving off a 12 story building.


And this doesn't answer the question about the terminally ill - the area where most people would like to see suicide decriminalised. The guy who has to choose between 3 months of intense pain or three months doped to the gills before death? Hold on to him until he 'feels better'?
Living in the Netherlands where Euthanasia under these circumstances *is* legal, I can only sing in praise of it as humane practice that answers the right of an individual to dispose his/her own life at the time and place of their choosing - and act which allows both the suicidee and relatives the chance to say goodbye and come to terms with the death. It's one of things that the Dutch really have got right.


Finally, and probably my last take on this issue.
To me, the most poignent images of the tragic events of 9/11 were the suicides. The people who jumped from the building a little while before its collapse.
Perhaps, rather than label those people as 'criminals', we should honour the extraordinary courage, presence of mind and sheer logic to which they approached their situation. They were cool headed individuals who, upon seeing the choice before them, being burnt to death or ending their own lives, chose the latter option.

In so doing, not only did they reaffirm that their lives were theirs alone to dispose of, they also cheated the terrorists out of their deaths. Nothing can take that fact away from them, nor deny their extraordinary courage.

Rokenn 10-21-2003 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skunk:
I have absolutely *no* idea where he gets his figures and when they were collated - but the reality is rather different. While there *is* some trafficking - it is not nearly as bad as the article makes out - the police and the unions have made great strides to reduce trafficking - and most of the 'window' prostitutes in Amsterdam do indeed have full work permits, health checkups and frequent police visits.

If you could read Dutch, I could point you to the prostitutes union (yes, they have a union here!) who could tell you otherwise...Indeed, the prostitutes union works very hard themselves to ensure that other 'ladies of the night' are not illegals - they don't want unlicenced competition... Indeed, the 'Red Thread union' even spoke out against the EU enlargement because they are afraid of an influx of eastern european workers who will undercut their members...

In any event - it is not LEGAL to force someone to perform services against their will, and to refuse to allow them to leave. What you are talking about is kidnap and rape - which is something entirely different.

Here is somw more information on modern slavery world-wide. Also there was another report release earlier this year that I'm having trouble finding on the web that went into a great deal of detail on modern slavery.

Yorick 10-21-2003 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skunk:

Finally, and probably my last take on this issue.
To me, the most poignent images of the tragic events of 9/11 were the suicides. The people who jumped from the building a little while before its collapse.
Perhaps, rather than label those people as 'criminals', we should honour the extraordinary courage, presence of mind and sheer logic to which they approached their situation. They were cool headed individuals who, upon seeing the choice before them, being burnt to death or ending their own lives, chose the latter option.

In so doing, not only did they reaffirm that their lives were theirs alone to dispose of, they also cheated the terrorists out of their deaths. Nothing can take that fact away from them, nor deny their extraordinary courage.

I was going to use this to support my own argument, but reconsidered due to the insensitivity factor, but no worries...

You are aware that it got very hot up there? Intense heat is what melted the steel skeleton of the towers, let alone humans. They were in intense pain - seeking the end of which is the primary concern for those who seek to end their life.

Cheating terrorists out of death was certainly not on their minds. We down below didn't know who was responsible. Those upstairs wouldn't have. There were no news crews giving us speculations on the TV. Confusion reigned. Some made it to the top of the tower only to find the door rendered unopenable because of jumpers in the past. One guy surfed down on debris of the towers as they fell (in a ball) and miraculously survived.

Instinct.

Do you really think a terminally ill patient would end their life if they weren't in extreme agony or discomfort? Making pallative care better, cheaper, more effective and more dignified is the solution, not making the right to die legal. I abhor euthenasia. It is a cop-out on behalf of society and a failure to address the needs of terminally ill patients to live out the remainder of their life pain-free, dignified and self-aware. Relishing each and every moment of self awareness on this planet as a gift.

[ 10-21-2003, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Skunk 10-21-2003 12:14 PM

You can not be 'pain-free' and self-aware at the same time with many, many terminial illnesses - I'm trying to square how its dignified to be on such high a dosage of painkillers that a patient has trouble remembering their own name when they are conscious.

I really find it hard to believe that anyone who finds themself requiring the assistance of another to fulfill their own lavatory requirements as 'dignified'. Walk up and down any cancer ward and you'll find all sorts of examples of such dignified living.

I think that you would have to see euthanasia in action and speak to both the patient and the relatives concerned before making your mind up on this - unless of course, you are ill-disposed to the idea as result of religion.

But hey - why not read how dignifed it is from someone who fought her way through the British courts in the hope that they would be humane towards her:

"I am only 43 years old. I desperately want a doctor to help me to die. Motor neurone disease has left my mind as sharp as ever, but it has gradually destroyed my muscles, making it hard for me to communicate with my family. It has left me in a wheelchair, catheterised and fed through a tube. I have fought against the disease for the last 2 years and had every possible medical treatment.

I am fully aware of what the future holds and have decided to refuse artificial ventilation. Rather than die by choking or suffocation, I want a doctor to help me die when I am no longer able to communicate with her family and friends. I have discussed this with my husband of 25 years, Brian who has come to terms with what I want and respects my decision. He says that losing me will be devastating for him and our two children but he would be pleased to know I had had the good death I want. I want to have a quick death without suffering, at home surrounded by my family so that I can say good-bye to them.

If I were physically able I could take my own life. That's not illegal. But because of the terrible nature of my illness I cannot take my own life - to carry out my wish I will need assistance. Should a doctor give me the assistance I need, he or she will be guilty of a crime that carries a lengthy prison sentence. As the law stands it makes no sense. The law needs changing so that I, and people like me, can choose how and when we die and not be forced to endure untold suffering for no reason."

http://www.justice4diane.org.uk/story.asp

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/198000...randmum300.jpg http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/160500..._300pretty.jpg
<font size="1">The transformation did not appear dignified to Ms Petty - I agree with her.</font>

Diane petty eventually died of asphyxiation as a result of her illness - it took a full 16 hours. **shudder** One of Saddam Hussein's henchman couldn't have arranged a more terrifying or tortuous death if he'd tried...

Maelakin 10-21-2003 01:53 PM

After reading through this thread a couple times, I decided to restructure the way in which I presented my support for a person to have a right to commit suicide.

Yorick has mentioned pain in conjunction with suicide, but has failed to fully detail what exactly is being presented. In this situation, pain is defined as anything within a person’s life that requires the ability to cope in order to overcome. Whether the pain is caused by a physical, emotional, or mental state doesn’t matter, it only matters that the person is experiencing something within their life that they need to deal with in some fashion.

Suicidal thoughts occur when a person no longer feels they have the capabilities required in order to cope with the situation. The pains of life are offset by our coping abilities, and when pain exceeds our abilities we often feel as if we cannot continue. Most commonly, this leads to depression and the search for an exit.

The normal method for treating people with suicidal tendencies is teaching the individual how to cope with their current situation. Thus, when you increase a person’s ability to cope, you increase their will to live. The common belief is that no matter the situation, a person can be taught the needed skills to cope with any situation, thus removing the option of suicide as an exit.

Where this logic fails, however, is when the result is already a forgone conclusion. Skunk gave a perfect example of this situation. You have a lady who will die independent of any action we may take. Her continuing to live is not dependant on her ability to cope. We have no recourse in this situation.

She was in sound frame of mind, and she made a decision on how she would like to leave this life. When you put aside all religious beliefs, there is no reason she should not be allowed to act upon her decision. She could have gone home, said her goodbyes in a peaceful manner and passed on while surrounded by friends and family. Instead, her family witnessed her in extreme pain as she suffocated over a 16-hour period.

This person at her time of death was not capable of cognitive thinking, and due to the laws that prevented her from taking her desired course of action; her family was forced to endure watching her suffer. She had come to terms with her passing, as had her family, yet they were forced to follow a course of action dictated by another.

The arguments here against allowing suicide at best have been presumptuous assumptions. Each one of them is based off one person knowing what is better for another. I concede to the fact that there are many that can be helped and should be given every opportunity to receive help. Where the argument breaks down comes from the assumption that everyone wants help. There are those that truly want to end their lives.

The ability to act as one sees fit, where the action applies to a specific individual, should not be restricted in any manner. Instead of removing one person’s right to own themselves in order to “protect” innocents, it should be the responsibilities of all to make sure people are educated on the matter. It should also be the responsibility of the people to provide a humane means for carrying out ones will towards oneself.

In any case, society should not stand for, not support any situation where one individual is given the right to exert their will onto another, especially in cases where the actions of an individual pertains to themselves.

Timber Loftis 10-21-2003 03:15 PM

Gosh, you guys went and got all *DEEP* on me. And, here I just wanted to TELEVISE the darned thing. :D *runs*

Good post, Maelakin. You're likely to get hit with a Yorick-stick(*) though because you didn't address how far that liberty can go and when one person can enforce their will on another. Clearly, liberty does not extend to the right to walk up and punch someone. But where does liberty stop? What harm to another done by an individual's action is the threshhold at which we can exert society's will on them?
________________________________
(*)Note: A Yorick-stick is very similar to a Willow Stick, and looks like this: [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]
________________________________

The hitting example is clear -- your liberty infringes on another person's liberty. But, what about smoking? Can your right to destroy your lungs (via one form of lengthy legal suicide, nonetheless :D ) be stopped so that you don't infringe on another's right to breathe clean air? What if that other person is so incredibly sensitive to smoke that you can't smoke within 100 feet of them?

What if you exercising your liberty is going to hurt someone's feelings? They aren't physically harmed by you smoking, but it makes them feel really bad and oogey inside -- is that enough to infringe on your liberty? What about really attenuated harms? You exercising your right to not wear a seatbelt just may result in costing taxpayers all an extra $0.0001 a year, so is that enough to require seatbelts? Obviously, in most states it is (Grrrr.... bastards).

My problem with not allowing suicide is that the harm you prevent is too attenuated. The harm one person's suicide causes to others is not at all comparable to their right to do what they will with their own body and very existence. If you own yourself any at all, don't you at least own the "OFF" switch? This becomes especially true where legalized suicide is concerned. In the places where it is legalized, numerous forms must be filled out, doctor approval is often required, and psychiatric review is a must. There are also affirmative statements regarding improper influence/ duress that must be made which help to address the earlier concern I stated: that the right to die can become the obligation to die. Family counseling can be required -- yes, that means the person wanting to commit suicide would have to inform his relatives and deal with that whole issue up front -- no surprises, less grief.

So, since legalized suicide can be done in a way to minimalize the associated harms, and since ownership of your very existence is a paramount liberty, there is a very strong argument in favor of legalized suicide -- as a right.

But, then again, seatbelts are required in all states but 1. (New Hampshire, home of Live Free or Die.)

[ 10-21-2003, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Yorick 10-22-2003 12:34 AM

"Do you own the off-switch"

Good point.

To those that believe they solely own their own lives, I would ask how they brought themselves into this world and what they did to earn their life.

I would point out that we owe our very existence to other people. Other peoples actions brought us into the world, and enabled our survival and equipped us with skills to survive. In a primal nuclear society, the person should by rights stay alive to take care of those that took care of them. Returning the favour.

But we have lost that primal need... or have we?

If you really lose the will to live, you will die. People die of a broken heart. Suicide is an override switch to drastically end pain. It is not evidence of a loss of the will to live.

Yorick 10-22-2003 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skunk:
You can not be 'pain-free' and self-aware at the same time with many, many terminial illnesses - I'm trying to square how its dignified to be on such high a dosage of painkillers that a patient has trouble remembering their own name when they are conscious.

I really find it hard to believe that anyone who finds themself requiring the assistance of another to fulfill their own lavatory requirements as 'dignified'. Walk up and down any cancer ward and you'll find all sorts of examples of such dignified living.

I think that you would have to see euthanasia in action and speak to both the patient and the relatives concerned before making your mind up on this - unless of course, you are ill-disposed to the idea as result of religion.


I have required assistance to use a lavatory. I have lain on a table, naked, lying in a pool of my own shit and blood in a hospital. I have fallen asleep and woken up in my own vomit in a hospital. I have needed assistance to walk down a hall, shower, shit, eat. All in hosptial.

I have lain for hours on your so derided mind numbing morphine, in your so derided 'vegetative state'.

I have screamed for hours due to burning pain without painkillers in hospital. I have also been unable to breathe due to severe knifelike pain in my lungs. I have felt the relief of pathadine and morphine. Felt numbing lack of care for anything due to blood loss.

I have been tested, and tested and tested. Nuclear medicine, berium meals, cat scans, blood test after blood test, had my shit tested, urine tested, x-ray after x-ray.

During my times in hospital I have spoken to a man in hosptial without a functioning stomach, who was in hospital for over a year. I've watched my Great Grandfather lose his mental faculties and die at age 99; watched my paternal grandfather lose his faculties and dignity dying of cancer in a nursing home; seen my own father lie in a coma for three months, visited my aunt in a mental institution due to severe brain damage, and yet seen the art she's created and the love she has had for my sister.

I've also seen my uncle die due to cancer, and yet spend the last year of his life, coming to know Jesus and connecting with my father (his brother) in a way they never did before.

Life.

Priorities shift when you lose the ability to walk on your own. When you are unable to stand up. What life is, the definition of life can shift radically. I've been one of these relatives you've asked me to consult. I've experienced the lack of dignity you seem to abhor and fear. I certainly did not enjoy morphine, but it was better than being dead. It was still life. I got off it as soon as I was able, but it was still preferable to not existing. I was fed intravenously, unable to swallow even water, but I had life. I may not have had any dignity, but I had life.

Life is such a gift, and each succeeding moment an undeserved miracle I treasure. To throw away that gift... would be the highest insult to those that have loved me, to those that brought me into the world, to my God who gave me the spark of life. I owe it to those that know me to stay alive. OWE it. I owe it to those that have invested time in me, to perpetuate my own existence. My life is not my own. My gifts as a musician are not my own. If they bring others enjoyment, I must stay alive and keep creating so that their life is enhanced.

That is my perspective. It has helped keep me alive during my own darkness.

Finding reason to live is one of the most vital things we can do.

[ 10-22-2003, 01:15 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Chewbacca 10-22-2003 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick:

To those that believe they solely own their own lives, I would ask how they brought themselves into this world and what they did to earn their life.

Another foray into into the realm of belief to answer this question....

Soul power!!! Merely existing "earned" me this life. I owe my very existence to the creative yearning of the universe. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yorick 10-22-2003 01:47 AM

This is what gets me.

I present an opinion about Islam. Because it differs from Skunks, he assumes I know nothing of Islam or the Qu'ran, when the opposite was the case. My opinions were a result of my extensive research and reading for myself, the writings concerned.

Now in this thread, again, because I presented an opinion Skunk disagreed with, he presumes I needed to speak with cancer sufferes BEFORE making up my mind?

I do not present strong opinions without reason. What I have learned, the values I now hold are hard won. I am a Christian BECAUSE of difficult experiences, not because I am naive and sheltered. I have extensively tested my faith, which is why I am SO ASSURED that what I believe is true. I hold my opinions about suicide precisely because I have faced those very feelings down. I hold firm opinions on euthenasia precisely because of my experience with cancer patients. To the above post I could have added the scores of people I've known in the various churches my father was a minister of.

I've had so many dear old women and men I've loved as a child pass on. So many battle and lose to cancer. Life is so precious. As a child, one of the most pronounced experiences I had was to go to a luncheon for deaf people in my fathers area of ministry. Amongst the deaf people there was an old man who was both blind and deaf.

I was probably only 12 or so, but I had learned enough sign language to be able to speak with him, by making those signs on his palm. So he could feel the images. That was his communication.

When he was a small boy, he had a bookshelf fall on his head, which had damaged his brain so he lost his sight and hearing.

As you can imagine, his plight haunted the young and sensative me, and even as I write this, tears are welling up in my eyes.

He lived his life to an old age without sight and sound.

Thus at an early age, I gained appreciation for these faculties, but also appreciated that life could still be enjoyed even when not all is perfect in us. When things go awry. I later read Joni Ericsson-Tadas biography of a quadraplegic who came to know Jesus after a horrible diving accident, and ended up with a recording and painting career as well as touring, preaching and singing from her wheelchair. She painted by putting brushes in her mouth.

I went and saw a concert of hers. She was well known in the Christian community. An inspiring woman of God.

We had in our congregation a security guard who had been shot in the back, and lived as a paraplegic from then on. We knew him before and after. We also had couples where one would completely lose mental faculties. But we also had a man healed of cancer. I also knew a woman healed of blindness in one eye, and a friend of mine healed of chronic back damage.

But anyway....

I cannot do anything but hold strong opinions after the reality I have been shown. I value my life. I always was intent to learn from others experiences, and value what they did without having to lose those things as they did. Even so, a car accident that left me in a neck brace for months, and the numerous times in hospital, as per the above post, reinforced, and revitalised my priorities and opinions. Things like 9/11 and everything in my life I experience as I go perpetuate all this.

I love my God, I love the life he has given me. I am so so thankful to be aware, right now. To be alive right NOW. If I die as soon as this is posted I will be happy to have lived those few extra moments. [img]smile.gif[/img] It's a beautiful thing life. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 10-22-2003, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Yorick 10-22-2003 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chewbacca:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yorick:

To those that believe they solely own their own lives, I would ask how they brought themselves into this world and what they did to earn their life.

Another foray into into the realm of belief to answer this question....

Soul power!!! Merely existing "earned" me this life. I owe my very existence to the creative yearning of the universe. [img]smile.gif[/img]
</font>[/QUOTE]??? I think you're missing the point somewhat. Earn implies previous action. I am also speaking about your physical being, not your soul. A sucicider is not chosing to destroy their soul, but to end their physical existence. As such, my question, is regarding the physical being.

The point being, without the choices and actions of your parents you would not exist in your current physical manifestation. Without others feeding you and providing you with shelter and protection, you would have died within hours out of the womb.

GForce 10-22-2003 02:36 AM

Hmmm, interesting. I believe the actions of previous lives or actions earns one their current physical life. We can't transcend and freely leave this earthly existence as long as we still have something anchoring us back down. yes physical life is precious, but so is death and what happens after. our spirits go on into the next life until we get it right. LOL. Man i know for sure I'm coming back. ;) Earth is a real intense spot and many come here for that experience. I know we are all doing our best. Be brave and smile often from the heart. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Chewbacca 10-22-2003 02:47 AM

Venturing deeper into the realm of personal belief and touching upon metaphysics....

I see the point you are making, Yorick but it doesn't matter from my perspective.

I believe "I" chose, not only my physical manifestation, but "I" also chose my parents as much as they chose me, at a soul level of existence.

Of course the little physical shell of a baby doesn't survive without care, shelter, and protection. That is part of the "deal". I don't owe my parents anything for it, certainly not my continuing physical manifestastion.

My beliefs are why suicide doesn't concern me as much as, say, war or murder. To me, suicide is a choice as much as choosing to live is, no one else takes the life of a suicider.

Of course this is not to say I *totally* advocate suicide, I certain advocate the right to die for the terminally pained, I also advocate the right to live in agony if one chooses. If a person is so sick they cannot take their own life, they deserve the choice to recieve assistance in doing so if they wish.

In the case of suicide caused by psycological/emotional trauma I do believe in free choice here as well, but I do not condone suicide in these cases either. I do not condemn it either as well. What is important is responding to the people who come forth and say "I want to kill myself" Allowing exploration of the thoughts and feelings that are at the root of this desire and so forth. I do consider voluntary discorporation to be a serious and permanent decision. It should be challenged, discussed, considered, and thought out.

Ultimately a person who seriously wants to do it, is going to.

Death is not something I fear or regret. My beleifs, my faith, lends me confidence that I will be with loved ones again. This is why I am not angry at the friends that have passed on because of suicide. I have no anger becasue they did not come to tell me their thoughts and feelings that led to such a decision. I know they did not do it to hurt me. Somehow, someway, they did it for themselves. I may not agree with their decision and I would have tried to talk them out of it if they came to me about it, but now it is done, I would rather just consider that they are free souls, with me now in heart and mind, and we will meet again.

Skunk 10-22-2003 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick:

To those that believe they solely own their own lives, I would ask how they brought themselves into this world and what they did to earn their life.

Your 'argument' effectively states that you own nothing; for example you can not possibley 'own' a computer - because you did not create the minerals from which it is composed.

As a result, everyone has the right to tell you what to do with it.
Indeed, on that same basis, I am telling you to stop writing posts on your computer - it is my right, as co-owner of your computer.

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick:

I have required assistance to use a lavatory. I have lain on a table, naked, lying in a pool of my own shit and blood in a hospital. I have fallen asleep and woken up in my own vomit in a hospital. I have needed assistance to walk down a hall, shower, shit, eat. All in hosptial.

But you were not terminally ill - unless you claim to be a ghost?

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorik:

Life is such a gift, and each succeeding moment an undeserved miracle I treasure. To throw away that gift... would be the highest insult to those that have loved me, to those that brought me into the world, to my God who gave me the spark of life.

If life is indeed a 'gift' - then it belongs to those to whom it was given. That is the differerence between a gift and a loan is it not? Or was your life 'loaned' to you?

You claim that your God gave life to you - that's fine - it's your right to believe that and act accordingly.

My life however, was not given to me: it was simply the result of a biological process. My body is a collection of minerals and my mind a series of electric impulses - and no, I have no 'soul'. And when I die, my body will return to the earth and atmosphere and feed the next generation of life; the energy and minerals will be scattered into multiple new organims in the never-ending process. That for me is the most beautiful aspect of death. And it is my right to believe in and put science before any notions of deities.

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick:

I do not present strong opinions without reason. What I have learned, the values I now hold are hard won. I am a Christian BECAUSE of difficult experiences, not because I am naive and sheltered. I have extensively tested my faith, which is why I am SO ASSURED that what I believe is true.

Nonethelss it remains your opinion and no-one has the right to force their opinion on others to the point that they end up exercising control over the lives of others: that would be slavery, pure and simple.

I am equally assured of the 'factuality' of my convictions on the basis my own life experiences. I have also extensively tested my beliefs in an arduous world and come to my conclusions on the basis of hard logic and scientific study. So should I now deny all religions the right to worship and live their lives in service to their gods and goddesses because I believe in the totality of the righteousness of my convictions?

I do not believe so - I do not believe that I have the right to physically force my beliefs on others. I will forcefully argue and debate my cause - but I will never attempt to seize the lives of others against their will - and I don't believe anyone else should either.

There is *no* love involved in forcing your will upon others.

[ 10-22-2003, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

Maelakin 10-22-2003 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick

I cannot do anything but hold strong opinions after the reality I have been shown. I value my life. I always was intent to learn from others experiences, and value what they did without having to lose those things as they did. Even so, a car accident that left me in a neck brace for months, and the numerous times in hospital, as per the above post, reinforced, and revitalised my priorities and opinions. Things like 9/11 and everything in my life I experience as I go perpetuate all this.

I love my God, I love the life he has given me. I am so so thankful to be aware, right now. To be alive right NOW. If I die as soon as this is posted I will be happy to have lived those few extra moments. It's a beautiful thing life.

Your beliefs are not mine. By basing your argument on your beliefs, you are in effect attempting to force your will upon me. In most situations, another attempting to force their will over another is a hostile action.

Why don’t you put aside your beliefs for one minute and try to understand that not everyone believes as you do. As such, when determining the basis of a LAW, there should be no connection to personal beliefs, rather each one should be evaluated as to not infringe on the personal rights of any person. Making suicide illegal infringes on my personal rights as a human being.

Take away religion and any other form of belief-based arguments, and turn only to empirical facts that exist in the world. When looked at in this respect, there is no reason not to allow another person to take his or her own life. You have your right to believe what you will concerning the act, but another should not have to be subjected to your belief and will concerning a decision they can make for themselves.

Timber Loftis 10-22-2003 10:31 AM

Yorick, I think having gone through so much yourself, you may be like the smoker who quits and becomes the most anti-smoking hostile advocate imaginable.

Anyway, the fact that I did not earn this life or chose to be born is no reason to say I can't end this life. In fact, since this life was thrust upon me, possibly against my will, I have every right to end it.

GForce 10-22-2003 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chewbacca:
I believe "I" chose, not only my physical manifestation, but "I" also chose my parents as much as they chose me, at a soul level of existence.

Of course the little physical shell of a baby doesn't survive without care, shelter, and protection. That is part of the "deal". I don't owe my parents anything for it, certainly not my continuing physical manifestastion.

Ditto. Not only is it my belief but also a truth for me. So good to read what you wrote from someone else other than myself. ;)

Yorick 10-22-2003 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skunk:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yorick:

To those that believe they solely own their own lives, I would ask how they brought themselves into this world and what they did to earn their life.

Your 'argument' effectively states that you own nothing; for example you can not possibley 'own' a computer - because you did not create the minerals from which it is composed.</font>[/QUOTE]That's right. Possessions are temporary things that flow in and out of your possession. Aboriginal Australians for example found the concept of property ownership, or ownership of animals inconceivable and ludicrous. There were problems when they would tresspass on a settlers land and eat their sheep.

How can you own the land?


Quote:

As a result, everyone has the right to tell you what to do with it.
Indeed, on that same basis, I am telling you to stop writing posts on your computer - it is my right, as co-owner of your computer.
Flawed logic. Not truly owning something, does not automatically mean others do.
Quote:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yorick:

I have required assistance to use a lavatory. I have lain on a table, naked, lying in a pool of my own shit and blood in a hospital. I have fallen asleep and woken up in my own vomit in a hospital. I have needed assistance to walk down a hall, shower, shit, eat. All in hosptial.

But you were not terminally ill - unless you claim to be a ghost?</font>[/QUOTE]This is unbelievable.... are you attempting to measure pain, discomfort, humiliation and fear from one human to another? It's only measurable within one human - as to, the worst thing you've experienced, or the best. My best experience is no better or worse than your best. It is just the best thing I've lived.

What I was pointing out, was that you described horrible losses of dignity. I pointed out that I had experienced humiliating losses of dignity myself. The very ones you described. Yes I was dying at the time - my blood pouring out of me - but what does that matter? Yes I got better. Thank God. I was left with the knowledge I gained from the experience. The reprioritisation, and changes in the relationships around me. Is it any less humiliating to lie in your own diahorrea mix of watery shit and a flood of your own blood as a young man than it is as an old man? Loss of dignity is loss of dignity. I had a tube shoved violently up my penis. Why attempt to belittle my own extreme situations? What does that prove? It took courage on my part to post my pains. Why not simply post your own life experiences instead of attempting to devalidate mine.

You told me to go and speak to relatives. I am a relative!! You described loss of dignity. I have experienced loss of dignity. I prefer life. That is the point. I prefered life even though at the time it seemed easier to simply give up. Life rocks.


Quote:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yorik:

Life is such a gift, and each succeeding moment an undeserved miracle I treasure. To throw away that gift... would be the highest insult to those that have loved me, to those that brought me into the world, to my God who gave me the spark of life.

If life is indeed a 'gift' - then it belongs to those to whom it was given. That is the differerence between a gift and a loan is it not? Or was your life 'loaned' to you?</font>[/QUOTE]A gifted loan which will be taken back when I die. This earthly life is not a permanent gift, but temporary.
I have therefore made a decision about what I do with that life, resultant in a sharing of that life.

Quote:

You claim that your God gave life to you - that's fine - it's your right to believe that and act accordingly.

My life however, was not given to me: it was simply the result of a biological process. My body is a collection of minerals and my mind a series of electric impulses - and no, I have no 'soul'. And when I die, my body will return to the earth and atmosphere and feed the next generation of life; the energy and minerals will be scattered into multiple new organims in the never-ending process. That for me is the most beautiful aspect of death. And it is my right to believe in and put science before any notions of deities.
Whether you have a soul or not is irrelevent. Regardless of whether you do or not, I have a soul, but that is beside the point. Due to the actions and decisions of OTHER PEOPLE, you have survived to this day. Your life and survival are a direct result of other people.

Quote:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yorick:

I do not present strong opinions without reason. What I have learned, the values I now hold are hard won. I am a Christian BECAUSE of difficult experiences, not because I am naive and sheltered. I have extensively tested my faith, which is why I am SO ASSURED that what I believe is true.

Nonethelss it remains your opinion and no-one has the right to force their opinion on others to the point that they end up exercising control over the lives of others: that would be slavery, pure and simple.

I am equally assured of the 'factuality' of my convictions on the basis my own life experiences. I have also extensively tested my beliefs in an arduous world and come to my conclusions on the basis of hard logic and scientific study. So should I now deny all religions the right to worship and live their lives in service to their gods and goddesses because I believe in the totality of the righteousness of my convictions?

I do not believe so - I do not believe that I have the right to physically force my beliefs on others. I will forcefully argue and debate my cause - but I will never attempt to seize the lives of others against their will - and I don't believe anyone else should either.

There is *no* love involved in forcing your will upon others. [/qb]</font>[/QUOTE]Is prison slavery? Are metal institutions slavery? Are you decrying the existence of these because your post seems to indicate so.

Secondly who is forcing their opinions on anyone here? We're discussing on the internet. However, were you to attempt suicide and I was able to stop you, I would exert the same right you are advocating as master of my own destiny and try to stop you. Who is right? Your actions will effect mine and mine yours? Is there some mystic scale of importance of effect? The same argument you present allows me to do this.

I have as I said, intervened in anothers suicide, and they are alive to this day, so given that PRECEDENT and the positive outcome, would do so again. You can hypothesise all you want, but the tangible results of a factual occurence speak for themselves.

In any case, the point stands that you were assuming a lack of experience/knowledge from me in two topics simply because I presented an opinion that differed from yours. That was my point. I have not made any suggestions you are an idiot, nor naive, and only reached the conclusion that you are completely unaware of Islamic theology due to your inability to form your own theological argument defending your position - relying totally on second opinions rather than the source material, and straw man deflections by presenting other religious works.

So, why not present your own experience of loss of dignity, loss of relatives to cancer or other terminal illnesses. I had the guts to do it in spite of an irrascible atmosphere. I am sure since you have such strong opinions that your personal experience must be expansive. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

But don't just ask me to "accept your word" as you did in the Islamic thread.

[ 10-22-2003, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Yorick 10-22-2003 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
Yorick, I think having gone through so much yourself, you may be like the smoker who quits and becomes the most anti-smoking hostile advocate imaginable.
Good point.

Yorick 10-22-2003 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chewbacca:
Venturing deeper into the realm of personal belief and touching upon metaphysics....

I see the point you are making, Yorick but it doesn't matter from my perspective.

I believe "I" chose, not only my physical manifestation, but "I" also chose my parents as much as they chose me, at a soul level of existence.

Perspecitive is reality, therefore reality is memory. If you don't remember something it may as well not have happened to you. (I think I believe this, but for the purposes of discussion, I'll pragmatically take this as certain belief)

It is impossible to prove you made the choice, nor discover why because you don't remember is. As such it is speculation.

My point is (and I do believe this for sure ;) ) Is that my view is based on tangible facts of this life. I would be dead were it not for other people, some random, some close to me, so I live my life giving back to other people - some random, some close to me.

I am not a slave to them. These are my choices. I've also found the Karmic/JudeoLaw principle of sowing where you reap applies. If you invest in people, that's where you get a reuturn. I have at times experienced a wierd cumulative scale, where I've received so much from a community that I've given beyond expected capacity, and yet still walked away feeling like I received more than I gave.


(Editted because the initial version was written in extreme haste)

[ 10-22-2003, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Yorick 10-22-2003 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Maelakin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yorick

I cannot do anything but hold strong opinions after the reality I have been shown. I value my life. I always was intent to learn from others experiences, and value what they did without having to lose those things as they did. Even so, a car accident that left me in a neck brace for months, and the numerous times in hospital, as per the above post, reinforced, and revitalised my priorities and opinions. Things like 9/11 and everything in my life I experience as I go perpetuate all this.

I love my God, I love the life he has given me. I am so so thankful to be aware, right now. To be alive right NOW. If I die as soon as this is posted I will be happy to have lived those few extra moments. It's a beautiful thing life.


Your beliefs are not mine. By basing your argument on your beliefs, you are in effect attempting to force your will upon me. In most situations, another attempting to force their will over another is a hostile action.

Why don't you put aside your beliefs for one minute and try to understand that not everyone believes as you do. As such, when determining the basis of a LAW, there should be no connection to personal beliefs, rather each one should be evaluated as to not infringe on the personal rights of any person. Making suicide illegal infringes on my personal rights as a human being.

Take away religion and any other form of belief-based arguments, and turn only to empirical facts that exist in the world. When looked at in this respect, there is no reason not to allow another person to take his or her own life. You have your right to believe what you will concerning the act, but another should not have to be subjected to your belief and will concerning a decision they can make for themselves.
</font>[/QUOTE]LOL! If I thought everyone believed the same as me, I wouldn't be discussing!

O.k. so could you explain to me the state of existence in which any individual is seperated from their beliefs? Absolute objectivity?

I'm only a human, and like you cannot seperate myself from my subjectivity. YOUR beliefs are all over your exaltation of empirical facts for example. Over your self defeating belief that one should seperate themselves from their beliefs when determining law.

Why don't you take a leaf out of your own book and realise not everyone believes the same as YOU. Not everyone believes in LAW. Every heard of ANARCHISM. Or crime or vigilanteism for that matter? A persons beliefs directly influence their approach to matters of law, even the concept of law itself. It cannot be any other way. We are subjective beings.

As to "forcing will" you have totally ignored the concept of LAW your are exalting. Law is exactly some humans excercising their beliefs of right and wrong over others.

By what right do we take away a persons freedom simply because they perform an action we other humans deem "unacceptable"? Police enforce the will of some over the will of others. People exerting will over others occurs every day. Influence, persuasion, force, coercion. Look around you.

What reality are you living in that this simple fact has eluded you? You are not holding any moral highground here. You are doing exactly the same thing you are deriding me for doing.

Skunk 10-22-2003 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick:

I have not made any suggestions you are an idiot, nor naive, and only reached the conclusion that you are completely unaware of Islamic theology due to your inability to form your own theological argument defending your position - relying totally on second opinions rather than the source material, and straw man deflections by presenting other religious works.

That is an unsubstantiated and calumnious allegation.

Timber Loftis 10-22-2003 08:06 PM

Yorick, you've stated the notion before that I can't use learned secondary sources to make points about a main source. It's called academia, dude. What else is a research paper, a treatise, a dissertation, or any other academic work? If you insist on discussing the bible, for instance, and insist we throw out all secondary works about the bible and only look to the bible for the bible, you've adopted deconstructionist theory and well, you've just made the discussion completely uninteresting for me.

Especially in the case where you know more about the text of the Bible than me. It makes you the de facto sole expert on the topic. With no other experts to refute you (who I would still argue are more knowledgable than you), I cannot help but lose on every point. Congratulations, but I think that's a hollow victory.

Yorick 10-22-2003 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
Yorick, you've stated the notion before that I can't use learned secondary sources to make points about a main source. It's called academia, dude. What else is a research paper, a treatise, a dissertation, or any other academic work? If you insist on discussing the bible, for instance, and insist we throw out all secondary works about the bible and only look to the bible for the bible, you've adopted deconstructionist theory and well, you've just made the discussion completely uninteresting for me.

Especially in the case where you know more about the text of the Bible than me. It makes you the de facto sole expert on the topic. With no other experts to refute you (who I would still argue are more knowledgable than you), I cannot help but lose on every point. Congratulations, but I think that's a hollow victory.

Of course not. I did quite clearly state a good historian will look at primary and secondary sources. Reading anothers analysis can be very beneficial. Only today I read a Jewish Rabbis thoughts on the nature of God as being beyond time for example, as well as the nature of time itself - measurable time (ala relativity) and absolute time. It was a wonderful thing to read such articulation and gave me much food for thought. It also provided for a wonderful exchange with the old Jewish guy who gave me the book.

My issue was that I posted relevent passages from the Qu'ran and Hadiths, and Skunk refused to analyse or offer alternate interpretations of the passages by analysising the passages concerned - something I've done when people post the bible in support of spurious allegation.

All he did was post the much maligned "Straw man" argument ;) and defended his interpretation, by presenting a BIBLICAL passage. If I was an atheist or Wahabist Muslim, what would the bible have to do with anything? We were talking about the Qu'ran!!!

I've had discussions with Muslims about this. Toned down of course due to the potential volitility factor. ;)

However the point remains, when we are having a discussion, it is pointless to simply post anothers words as your own argument in total. I can't very well argue with them if they're not here - though I would given the opportunity.

Religious understanding DOES need to reference the source material. It is the point of reference. It is quite frustrating arguing with people holding false views about Jesus or Christianity who haven't even read the bible. It's not that hard to read it!

If a person does engage in an argument without reading the respective source work one wonders what the agenda is.

Have you ever seen Cerek take up an arguement that derides Islam? No, he's read the bible, but not the Qu'ran. His expertise is in what the bible says, so those arguments are what he contributes to. Defending against incorrect assumptions about our faith. Very wise is Mr. Cerek.

Had I not read the Qu'ran/Hadiths I would not have made the comments I did. Pure and simple.

Deconstructionism or not, if you're going to hold opinions on the bible or qu'ran make sure you've read enough to hold those opinions. I would actually argue for holding off on making an opinion at all until you've read it. Every Christian is encouraged to read the bible FOR THEMSELVES and not solely rely on the words of their preacher for example.

It's not hard. Spoonfeeding is for babies. Feed yourself. ;)

Yorick 10-22-2003 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skunk:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yorick:

I have not made any suggestions you are an idiot, nor naive, and only reached the conclusion that you are completely unaware of Islamic theology due to your inability to form your own theological argument defending your position - relying totally on second opinions rather than the source material, and straw man deflections by presenting other religious works.

That is an unsubstantiated and calumnious allegation. </font>[/QUOTE]What is?

I reached a conclusion about your understanding given the nature of your arguing. I could quite obviously be wrong, by I described what my criterea for assessing and reaching a conclusion was. What the "substance" was if you like.

Even now, you are yet to post an alternate interpretation of the passages.

Educate me! Do you think I am glad such an interpretation exists? I sincerely wish it were not so, but how am I to simply accept you word without you elaborating? The first militant muslim I encounter holding the interpretations I posted would walk all over my argument in a second. I have read the dissertations of those who advocate a solely spiritual interpretation, and I don't buy it when I then read the qu'ran. Obviously, neither do the Osama Bin Ladens or Yasser Arafats of the world. Nor the mothers of Hamas suicide bombers.

Yorick 10-22-2003 11:40 PM

O.k. How is this for SIMPLICITY.

If you are going to have an educated discussion on how good a film/wine/tourist resort is, do you rely on the critics review or do you need to see the film, drink the wine, and visit the resort.

Ignoring the source is like a person deriding Matrix 2 saying "oh yeah, I heard it was crap". Well so did I. I heard it was crap too, but I went and saw it and decided for myself it was brilliant.

Yorick 10-23-2003 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
With no other experts to refute you (who I would still argue are more knowledgable than you),
One more thing... what the heck is this? What "experts" are you talking about? Who are you speaking about? What are you calling "an expert". Name them and where they're disagreeing with me.

Besides, what has that got to do with anything? You're automatically dismissing my position because.... I'm here? Why? Because I'm talking to you on the net? What possible reason? Because experts are always "them" and never "us" How very strange. How small minded. My opinions co-align with Cereks who is one of the few on this board who's read the bible in depth. Why is it not possible that Cerek or myself are actually "experts" choosing to discuss online for example? You've automatically excluded that possibility whatsoever.

What possible reason do you have for dismissing my opinions as being any less knowledgeable than anyone elses? And why even throw that in in such snide fashion? Where does that get us? Well here's news!! I happily admit that someone like C.S.Lewis is a wiser man than I. I go to church to hear words from a wiser man than I. What does that prove? I still read the bible for myself if he says something I had no understanding of. I still read the source work for myself if a preacher more "expert" than myself quotes it in church.

What you are advocating is lunacy. If I accepted your limitational viewpoint, I would still be in my fathers church, with all his intepretations, not my own, getting spoonfed all my beliefs. My father is an "expert" trained in Hebrew and Koine Greek, and with decades more bible reading, and teaching and preaching under his belt than I do. But I don't feel "inferior" or that my contrasting opinions are even wrong by simple virtue of his "expertise". I read the bible for myself, decide for myself, and have a personal ongoing relationship with God.

[ 10-23-2003, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Timber Loftis 10-23-2003 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick:
One more thing... what the heck is this? What "experts" are you talking about? Who are you speaking about? What are you calling "an expert". Name them and where they're disagreeing with me.
I'm referring to all the texts cited in the "bible contradictions" thread that you summarily dismissed because they were not the poster's original opinions.
Quote:

Besides, what has that got to do with anything? You're automatically dismissing my position because.... I'm here? Why? Because I'm talking to you on the net?
I'm not dismissing your position. I'm whining that you will dismiss mine if they are not based on my personal experience or knowledge but rather gained through secondary sources.
Quote:

How small minded.
Thanks. I try.
Quote:

My opinions co-align with Cereks who is one of the few on this board who's read the bible in depth. Why is it not possible that Cerek or myself are actually "experts" choosing to discuss online for example? You've automatically excluded that possibility whatsoever.
I am not summarily dismissing your points, or Cerek's (I don't mess with barbarians ;) ). I am just arguing that for me your opinion, or Cerek's, are opinions that I factor in with OTHER opinions from learned texts.
Quote:

What possible reason do you have for dismissing my opinions as being any less knowledgeable than anyone elses? And why even throw that in in such snide fashion? Where does that get us?
I wasn't saying you were not an expert. As I mentioned in the bible contradiction thread, however, I probably won't give your opinion as much credence as a theologian's with letters like Ph.D. backing them up. Sorry, as a lawyer, I've found that letters behind a name make an opinion more "expert." No offense is intended. Surely you will recognize that SOMEONE out there knows more than you about the bible.
Quote:

Well here's news!! I happily admit that someone like C.S.Lewis is a wiser man than I. I go to church to hear words from a wiser man than I. What does that prove? I still read the bible for myself if he says something I had no understanding of. I still read the source work for myself if a preacher more "expert" than myself quotes it in church.
Again, I think you are reading things into what I'm saying that I do not mean. Your personal reading and knowledge is valuable, and I won't deny that.
Quote:

What you are advocating is lunacy. If I accepted your limitational viewpoint, I would still be in my fathers church, with all his intepretations, not my own, getting spoonfed all my beliefs. My father is an "expert" trained in Hebrew and Koine Greek, and with decades more bible reading, and teaching and preaching under his belt than I do. But I don't feel "inferior" or that my contrasting opinions are even wrong by simple virtue of his "expertise". I read the bible for myself, decide for myself, and have a personal ongoing relationship with God.
That's all well and good... for you. But if I or someone else cites your father or another expert to refute a statement you make, please don't come back at us saying since it's not our personal knowledge it means nothing.

All in all, I think you read an insult where I didn't mean one.

Yorick 10-23-2003 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yorick:
One more thing... what the heck is this? What "experts" are you talking about? Who are you speaking about? What are you calling "an expert". Name them and where they're disagreeing with me.
I'm referring to all the texts cited in the "bible contradictions" thread that you summarily dismissed because they were not the poster's original opinions.
</font>[/QUOTE]You seem to forget that the "expert" who wrote those "contradictions" was a musician... like myself, who had less experience within christian music, bible colleges and the church than I have had. Why is this fellow considered by you an expert and I am not?

Secondly, they were not contradictions that Chewbacca had discovered himself or even read, Had he stumbled upon them naturally, he would have found no contradiction in 90% of them. In actual fact, all the contradictions were explained. I began by mowing through them before finding salf a dozen websites that refuted them.... saving my time. A couple of the "contradictions" were so brazenly odd, that no contradiction could be found to refute. The writer has ignored attempts to get him to elaborate on them.

Quote:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Besides, what has that got to do with anything? You're automatically dismissing my position because.... I'm here? Why? Because I'm talking to you on the net?
I'm not dismissing your position. I'm whining that you will dismiss mine if they are not based on my personal experience or knowledge but rather gained through secondary sources.</font>[/QUOTE]If you're going to argue that a film sucks, make sure you watch it. It's not too much of a request. I will dismiss the opinion of someone who bags the bible when they haven't read it. It's a foolish thing to do pure and simple.


Quote:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />How small minded.
Thanks. I try.</font>[/QUOTE]It's the "them" mentality. That it's always someone else who is an expert or a sucess or big or effective or whatever, instead of us, me, you. That is small minded in that it is disempowering and limits potential. There is no reason why someone on this board couldn't change the world. That is larger mindedness. POSSIBILITY.

Quote:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />My opinions co-align with Cereks who is one of the few on this board who's read the bible in depth. Why is it not possible that Cerek or myself are actually "experts" choosing to discuss online for example? You've automatically excluded that possibility whatsoever.
I am not summarily dismissing your points, or Cerek's (I don't mess with barbarians ;) ). I am just arguing that for me your opinion, or Cerek's, are opinions that I factor in with OTHER opinions from learned texts.</font>[/QUOTE]No you specifically said you regard these mysterious "other experts" as more knowledgable. That was what I took issue with.

Quote:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
What possible reason do you have for dismissing my opinions as being any less knowledgeable than anyone elses? And why even throw that in in such snide fashion? Where does that get us?
I wasn't saying you were not an expert. As I mentioned in the bible contradiction thread, however, I probably won't give your opinion as much credence as a theologian's with letters like Ph.D. backing them up. Sorry, as a lawyer, I've found that letters behind a name make an opinion more "expert." No offense is intended. Surely you will recognize that SOMEONE out there knows more than you about the bible.</font>[/QUOTE]Of course, and I named C.S.Lewis - who had no theology degree, yet who is arguably the most influencial Christian writer in the modern era.

Bear in mind I have TAUGHT at Bible colleges in three countries.

As a rule America seems to emphasise college education and letters after peoples names. Hence the internet colleges that sell meaningless degrees.

The letters mean nothing. What you do with them means everything.

I'm a self taught musician who didn't go to music college and yet have been more sucessful than 99% of musicians. Similarly, my first bible college was the family dinner table.

But this is not about me.... it is about the notion that for some reason, THEY, must be more knowledgeable than someone here. It's most odd.


Quote:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Well here's news!! I happily admit that someone like C.S.Lewis is a wiser man than I. I go to church to hear words from a wiser man than I. What does that prove? I still read the bible for myself if he says something I had no understanding of. I still read the source work for myself if a preacher more "expert" than myself quotes it in church.
Again, I think you are reading things into what I'm saying that I do not mean. Your personal reading and knowledge is valuable, and I won't deny that.


Quote:

What you are advocating is lunacy. If I accepted your limitational viewpoint, I would still be in my fathers church, with all his intepretations, not my own, getting spoonfed all my beliefs. My father is an "expert" trained in Hebrew and Koine Greek, and with decades more bible reading, and teaching and preaching under his belt than I do. But I don't feel "inferior" or that my contrasting opinions are even wrong by simple virtue of his "expertise". I read the bible for myself, decide for myself, and have a personal ongoing relationship with God.
That's all well and good... for you. But if I or someone else cites your father or another expert to refute a statement you make, please don't come back at us saying since it's not our personal knowledge it means nothing.

All in all, I think you read an insult where I didn't mean one.</font>[/QUOTE]I stand by what I've said.

sultan 10-23-2003 02:45 AM

i hope it's not too late to mention that there was a fascinating in depth feature in the september national geographic on slavery, and how it is alive and well in the world, including in europe and america.

and for the record, i support the right to die.

Skunk 10-23-2003 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick:

I reached a conclusion about your understanding given the nature of your arguing. I could quite obviously be wrong, by I described what my criterea for assessing and reaching a conclusion was. What the "substance" was if you like.

Yorick, you are in effect stating that because I reached a different conclusion to you, I could not have studied the material involved - despite the fact that I have already stated that I had done.

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick:

Even now, you are yet to post an alternate interpretation of the passages.

A proper answer would require not only the quotation of verses, but also the context, mainstream interpretations and historical perspectives.
But this is a public forum - not a bible or Qu'ran class and a 5,000 word hermeneutical answer would be interminable for the majority of readers.


Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick:

I have read the dissertations of those who advocate a solely spiritual interpretation, and I don't buy it when I then read the qu'ran. Obviously, neither do the Osama Bin Ladens or Yasser Arafats of the world. Nor the mothers of Hamas suicide bombers.

And now you have moved from disparaging my charactor to vituperating Islam.

Do the beliefs of the KKK represent the mainstream views of Christians? Go to their websites (I will *not* link racist material) and you will find that they justify their actions with bible verses. This man also believed that he was upholding Christian doctrine - and isn't short of a bible verse or two either. No-one with the slightest knowledge of Christian doctrine believes that they are acting according to the mainstream interpretation of their faith - to claim otherwise would be offensive to most Christians.

Perhaps you should consider how offensive your statement was towards Islam.

In any event, until you apologise for your unfounded vilification of Islam and for disparaging me, I see no reason to continue any further dialogue with you in this or other threads.

Maelakin 10-23-2003 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick

LOL! If I thought everyone believed the same as me, I wouldn't be discussing!

You fail to grasp the point. Your argument is for making (keeping) suicide illegal. The basis of this argument is based upon your personal beliefs, and creating or enforcing a law that only takes into account your beliefs deprives another of their right to believe as they wish. You are in effect stating that your opinion weighs more than theirs.

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick

O.k. so could you explain to me the state of existence in which any individual is seperated from their beliefs? Absolute objectivity?

I never stated that an individual is capable of absolute objectivity. However, I am saying that all people need to learn how to set aside their personal and religious beliefs when determining courses of action that have a direct effect upon society.

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick

I'm only a human, and like you cannot seperate myself from my subjectivity. YOUR beliefs are all over your exaltation of empirical facts for example. Over your self defeating belief that one should seperate themselves from their beliefs when determining law.

You’re assuming that my opinions in this thread are directly related to my personal beliefs. In fact, my personal opinions on the effects of suicide drastically differ from those based upon empirical data. However, when determining a course of action that others must follow, I do not allow my beliefs to impede making a decision that takes into account the beliefs of others. So in this case, no, I am not like you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick

Why don't you take a leaf out of your own book and realise not everyone believes the same as YOU. Not everyone believes in LAW. Every heard of ANARCHISM. Or crime or vigilanteism for that matter? A persons beliefs directly influence their approach to matters of law, even the concept of law itself. It cannot be any other way. We are subjective beings.

As I have stated, my opinion in this matter is not based upon my beliefs, instead I base my opinion knowing that others hold a different opinion than I do. You are right in saying that a person’s beliefs influence matters pertaining to laws. However, there are people who are able to understand the difference between an opinion based on their beliefs and an opinion that takes into account others beliefs.

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick

As to "forcing will" you have totally ignored the concept of LAW your are exalting. Law is exactly some humans excercising their beliefs of right and wrong over others.

By what right do we take away a persons freedom simply because they perform an action we other humans deem "unacceptable"? Police enforce the will of some over the will of others. People exerting will over others occurs every day. Influence, persuasion, force, coercion. Look around you.

You are making a grievous assumption here concerning my usage of the word Law. You seem to think laws are made to limit the actions of another individual. I, however, think laws are there to protect our personal freedoms. Politicians and religious leaders have taken the concept of law too far and corrupted laws in order to control a populace. Just because they use laws in this manner does not mean that I need to accept their methods.

When used in this way, laws do not force another’s will upon anyone, but they provide protection from having another person force their will upon you.

As to people using influence, persuasion, and coercion to force their will against you, ultimately, if physical force is removed from the equation, the choice is still yours to do as you please.

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick

What reality are you living in that this simple fact has eluded you? You are not holding any moral highground here. You are doing exactly the same thing you are deriding me for doing.

I don’t remember claiming to be on any moral high ground. As point in fact, one has to believe in some structure of morals in order to do so and I am sure my morals do not match that of those around me in all cases. As such, it becomes counter intuitive to even mention morals in the discussion.

I can also state with absolute certainty that my argument does not compare to yours at all. Your argument on this topic is based upon your personal beliefs while my argument is not. This alone removes any possibility of comparison based on the composition of our arguments.

The simple fact is suicide does not infringe on anyone’s personal rights. In addition, a person committing suicide is in no way forcing their beliefs or will upon another.

In another posted you state that another person is small-minded. I leave you with a question:

Is the person who believes others should live and be controlled according to his views small minded, or the skeptical person who questions the validity of another through a medium that allows for supreme ambiguity?

Yorick 10-23-2003 02:01 PM

Sorry Maelakin, but you are being hypocritical in your arguement.

Your belief in what is right or wrong is determining your views on this matter. You believe it is wrong to bring in theology into a social question. Yet this is your belief, and directly influencing your ideas.

You cannot, we cannot, I cannot, seperate the self from belief. Even attempting objectivity itself is reliant on the belief that pursuing objectivity is of value!! It contradicts itself.

Doctor, heal thyself.

Yorick 10-23-2003 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skunk:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yorick:

I reached a conclusion about your understanding given the nature of your arguing. I could quite obviously be wrong, by I described what my criterea for assessing and reaching a conclusion was. What the "substance" was if you like.

Yorick, you are in effect stating that because I reached a different conclusion to you, I could not have studied the material involved - despite the fact that I have already stated that I had done.

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick:

Even now, you are yet to post an alternate interpretation of the passages.

A proper answer would require not only the quotation of verses, but also the context, mainstream interpretations and historical perspectives.
But this is a public forum - not a bible or Qu'ran class and a 5,000 word hermeneutical answer would be interminable for the majority of readers.


Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick:

I have read the dissertations of those who advocate a solely spiritual interpretation, and I don't buy it when I then read the qu'ran. Obviously, neither do the Osama Bin Ladens or Yasser Arafats of the world. Nor the mothers of Hamas suicide bombers.

And now you have moved from disparaging my charactor to vituperating Islam.

Do the beliefs of the KKK represent the mainstream views of Christians? Go to their websites (I will *not* link racist material) and you will find that they justify their actions with bible verses. This man also believed that he was upholding Christian doctrine - and isn't short of a bible verse or two either. No-one with the slightest knowledge of Christian doctrine believes that they are acting according to the mainstream interpretation of their faith - to claim otherwise would be offensive to most Christians.

Perhaps you should consider how offensive your statement was towards Islam.

In any event, until you apologise for your unfounded vilification of Islam and for disparaging me, I see no reason to continue any further dialogue with you in this or other threads.
</font>[/QUOTE]I have repeatedly stated that a person committing even self defense goes AGAINST Jesus example and teaching, and that a person commiting violence of the OFFENSE is following Muhammads life example, whether or not the teaching is limited to a spiritual context or not.

Comparing the action of the follower with the source material they claim to follow is the sure way to ascertain if they practice what they preach. Otherwise I could walk around calling myself a Buddhist... no really I am. I don't follow Buddha, don't believe in pantheism, nor reincarnation, nor Nirvana. I support war and achieving goals through violence. I don't advocate detatchment, in fact I advocate hedonism and hoarding possessions.

But I'm still Buddhist!!! Yeah!

Or... perhaps I am an atheist. But I believe in God.. that's right, a creator... but I'm an atheist!

Or maybe I am really a Muslim!! I follow Muhammad Ali, and believe that boxing is the key to salvation! Parkinsons disease is actually a higher state of conciousness! The Prophet David Koresh was Muhammad Ali in idiot form. I love them both because I am a good Muslim-Atheist-Buddhist!!

Chaos! Chaos! What are we to do?!!

***READ THE SOURCE THE PERSON CLAIMS TO FOLLOW.***

A Christian murdering in the name of Jesus is doing nothing of the sort.
A Muslim waging war in the manner Muhammad did, IS doing so.

Timber Loftis 10-23-2003 02:16 PM

I think we've all gotten really ivory tower here. Let's bring it down a notch. Seems to me we own *some* part of ourselves. I would bet the vast majority of posters on this board agree with that statement, and Yorick your belief that we do not own ourselves any at all is not only not mainstream, it's exceedingly rare from my experience.

I would also assert that if we own *some* part of ourselves, it is likely that we do own the OFF switch, because the ability to be dispossessed of ownership or destroy what you own is likely one of the most basic elements of ownership. It seems to me. I don't know that I would say this is mainstream, but I think it seems reasonable.

Then again, I guess it depends on the nature of your limited ownership of self. A shareholder owns part of a corporation, but it takes a super-majority of the special voting stock guys to close the thing down and end it. So, I realize there are arguments against this conclusion.

I think in the end we can come to at least two certainties. One, if you own yourself absolutely, you have a right to die. Two, if you own yourself in the majority then you should and probably do have a right to die.

Then again, seatbelts are required in 49 states.

[ 10-23-2003, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Yorick 10-23-2003 02:37 PM

But is there an "off switch" Timber? To commit suicide, you must directly interfere with the natural course of your life. We all die. Murder, manslaughter and suicide are those lives ending as a result of HUMAN INTERVENTION. That's not switching the "off-switch".

If there is an "off switch" it is losing the will to live. As I have said repeatedly, REPEATEDLY, humans who lose the will to live die. That is the off switch. Proactively terminating ones life is overwhelmingly a way of escaping accute pain.

If you really don't want to live, you will die. If you want to end pain under any circumstances, self destruction such as suicide (or chemical escapism) are behavioural paths often chosen by those unable to see alternatives.

[ 10-23-2003, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved