Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

echo1

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    4291

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by echo1

  6. Posted

    It seems to me that most gun crime involves hand guns anyway. I think gun laws should be more about making sure that only responsible people get their hands on them, rather than banning things that look like assault rifles.

    Aren't there states that have bans against black guns?

    And the students also where unarmed.

    School children running around with guns? That's going to end well.

  7. Posted

    "Dell Inspiron" =notebook! you mean XPS, demention or optiplex for desktop. Anyway. If you get a highend card you will need 600W PSU easy to make it work, so just make sure you got it !

    Wee bit out of date there, they replaced the Dimension branding with Inspiron a few years back. Go look at your nearest Dell site.

    sesdelta: Depends on how good the PSU inside the Dell is.

  8. Posted

    Again....dint mention obamas name. I love it how people like you jump to conclusion on everyone. If you haven't noticed recently the government has been putting in fear into its citizens through illegal searches at the airports, it has been harassing them, and doing illegal search on civilians in the streets. They have been limiting freedoms, and turning America more and more into a police state, if you cant see that, then you truly are blind to the truth, and deserve to get lied to.

    You call your own government terrorists. Then you accuse me of jumping to conclusions before elaborating further on how you think your government are terrorists. Lolwut?

    Also, you never told us which illustrious crue of gun-toting yokels you belong to.

    C'ome be serious I had been to th US in the recent years...since 2002 it feels like a police state to me,

    Agreed. I'd waiver the right to own a gazillion M16s than have something like the PATRIOT act.

  15. Posted · Edited by echo1

    How would a person being not in a sound state of mind be a benefit to society, or Humanity in general? You're opening a topic of eugenics, I'm up for eugenics.

    I think you're missing the point. From a legal perspective, the people who are not in a sound state of mind are often regarded as incapable of making rational decisions. AFAIK, if someone who has threatened or attempted suicide is brought into a hospital, they are deprived of a lot of their rights to make medical decisions about themselves. And of course, you have things like pleas of insanity in criminal law - if someone suffers from a mental illness that affects their judgment in the particular circumstance, the degree to which they are held responsible for their actions is lessened.

    I'm sure you'd agree that asking someone to kill you is a pretty serious step to take, and if you have some form of serious depression, you are pretty much automatically incapable of making rational judgments about the value of your own life. So how do you reconcile the ability of such a person to request that their life be ended with the fact that in certain other important matters, the validity of that person's decisions is seen as invalid because of their mental state?

    Of course, you could argue (correctly) that someone in extreme pain with nothing to look forward to but their own death is not going to be in a 'sound state of mind', but obviously there are varying degrees and types of these things. What I was saying was a criticism of things like the Swiss system where they give manic depressives the right to ask the health system to kill themselves for them.

    This is the internet, assuming that people are retarded instead of being sarcastic isnt all that weird. Especially when it comes to topics like these. ;)

    I'm not sure if this sarcasm thing was directed at something that I said. I don't recall being sarcastic. Hyperbolic for effect, sure. The circumcision thing was an example of the latter. Neither was it particularly relevant given that it was example to address a point brought up in relation to something else I had said earlier.

  16. Posted · Edited by echo1

    Demagoguery - an art you excel at.

    I'm sure the person who is such pain, having expressed his wish to be relieved of it - to die with dignity, would gladly lend his ear to your proposed solutions to the problem we're discussing. But having dealt with that before, I'm confident in this matter, over any shadow of a doubt, that said person would just spit in your face.

    That's great. You have a lot of pain, spitting at people, breaking people's legs, and dolphins suffocating themselves, but you can't actually say what is wrong with my argument. It's quite funny to watch really.

    Logic - not a trait of yours.

    I have problems with people like him having any power over matters such as the one we have at hand here; that power being - a right to vote.

    I'm not quite sure, if I'm fully represented in the Party spectrum: where can one find a public Party for the shipment of all illiterate plebes off planet Earth?

    So in other words you were talking out of your ass? Thanks for answering my question.

    And what about the right to vote? I don't recall saying that any one should be denied the right to democratic political representation. Please show me if I suggested otherwise.

    ---------- Post added at 08:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:12 PM ----------

    How is this relevant to the discussion? The argument is that people have the right to make decisions regarding their own life, not someone else's.

    The point is that there are plenty of scenarios where people's freedoms are restricted or denied, even when no one else is affected. Sometimes they are limited to specific circumstances such as the fact that children have very little legal autonomy. Sometimes they are universally applicable, such as the bans and restrictions on various drugs, many of which will have no effect on anyone other than myself if I take them. Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but it's an important starting block to note that people don't get automatic rights until the bigger picture is looked at.

    I would certainly be opposed to people being allowed to make decisions about the life and death of another person; at no point did anyone in this thread argue in favor of that. Your argument is beginning to sound like nothing more than a unsubstantiated slippery slope.

    Well, I provided examples of people making decisions about the death of others in countries where euthanasia is legal. I also showed how these countries have no problem with letting people who are not in a sound state of mind make the most serious irreversible choice that one person could possibly make. So the slippery slope is not an inherently 'unsubstantiated' piece of scare mongering invented by religious people, it does happen in the real world.

    The question of course, is the slippery slope inherent with euthanasia, or is there some way of 'fixing' it? I say that it's an inherent problem (and have explained elsewhere probably a few more times than once). Some might say that it can be made to work in a way that it is only there for the people who really need who are in a position where they can make that choice. There are many valid reasons on both sides. These are the interesting aspects of a euthanasia debate, not dolphins choking themselves, or whether my cat has a soul.

  17. Posted · Edited by echo1

    Demagoguery, you excel at it.

    Now, the last I checked, a demagogue was someone who tugged on people's emotional strings to make people agree with them. It's ironic that you use this term given that you then say -

    Answer us this: How it is it Humane to let a person suffer indescribable pain?

    Again, you're trying to short circuit any meaningful discussion of the issue by trying to force me into a guilt trip, and make me out to have no empathy. If you can show me where I ever doubted that suffering indescribable pain is a bad thing, please do point it out. The problem is that the issue is far more complicated than just "This person is in pain, they should automatically have the right to get their doctors to kill them", a concept that you appear to have an inability to grasp.

    I'll be judging your right to life the way you answer that question, and don't go after this sentence before answering, will you.

    You need to lay off the pills. Or perhaps take more of them...

    The sole reason they didn't include A Right to a Humane death, to die without suffering in the Charter of the Human Rights back in 1945, is because of all the death that preceded the years before and it wasn't the right time, or place to do that.

    If that's an actual fact, I would like to see some sort of citation for it. Else, please stop talking out of your ass.

  18. Posted

    No because then your are not deciding what is good for yourself but what is good for someone else.

    Well, you're somewhat missing the point that I was making. Decisions are made on the behalf of children (and grown ups) all the time, and I was questioning the morality of some such decisions. I think in a roundabout way you agreed with the actual point I made.

  20. Posted · Edited by echo1

    I use "kosher" as a figure of speech for something that is acceptable. As far as I know, this is a relatively common phrase and not necessarily limited to Jewish people. In this circumstance, I'm using it to refer to things that could be considered objectively wrong - things such as people being killed without their explicit permission/consent by their doctors or families. Elsewhere I've shown that the former was quite common place in at least one country that allows euthanasia. I'm sure the latter has happened more than a few times, I just am unaware of any noteworthy examples or studies into the matter.

    For one thing, suicide is not illegal in most countries (I saw 'not illegal' as opposed to 'legal', as it's hardly encouraged, and if you threaten or attempt suicide, you'll probably be hospitalized which seems to me as a pretty logical thing to do). The issue is that euthanasia is of course assisted suicide. And once you drag other people into the process of doing the killing, it raises a multitude of ethical issues, some of which I have discussed above.

  24. Posted · Edited by echo1

    I can see where you're coming from, but at the same time, psychotherapy or counseling isn't like treating an infection, the success depends entirely on how the person interacts with the process, so if you get someone who has sold themselves on the idea of suicide, they're probably going to resist the process so that they will skip to the bit where they get to die.

    The other issue is that unlike someone rotting away from a debilitating paralysis, a person with suicidal tendencies likely has the means to kill themselves by their own hands. So telling them to go to a doctor so they can die doesn't necessarily offer advantages, especially if they know that someone might try and talk them out of it or hospitalize them. You talk about dignity and humanity, but if you're going to be dead, you probably wont care about that kind of thing. In fact, some people go out in deliberately gruesome ways in order to send a sort of final 'fuck you' to the world. On the flipside, if you care about what happens to others after you die, the odds are that you may have doubts and stop short of going through with suicide.

    I'm all for getting help to people who are in these situations, but I'm not sure if this sort of 'scamming' of suicidal people in order to get them to seek psychiatric help is really the best idea, either on principle or in practice.

  25. Posted · Edited by echo1

    We need to stop pumping life sustaining drugs into terminal cases while we're at it. Comfort measures should be all that are taken.

    In most places, you are legally entitled to refuse such treatment. But there is of course a difference between letting someone die, and making someone die. I have no issues with the former, the latter makes me nervous.

    ---------- Post added at 09:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 PM ----------

    I would even go further and allow the exit option to people that have been suffering big mental illnesses (depression for example) for years.

    In my country suicide is actually the main cause of death for men between 25 - 40.

    If we'd legally allow people to commit suicide in a humane way (as in not jumping in front of trains, from buildings, hanging, cutting wrists, shooting themselves) we'd also cut out a lot of trauma's with people finding them.

    Besides that, a guided medical death could allow these people to at least talk to someone before they take harsh measures.

    I know a few people who've went through phases of severe depression that left them suicidal. Given that some of them are close friends of mine, I'm quite happy not to live in a world were we facilitate people killing themselves so to not inconvenience bystanders.

    The worst thing about a suicide is not being able to say goodbye, euthanasia enables people to say goodbye and confronts them with themselves.

    If they're not interested in saying goodbye, they're going to kill themselves anyway aren't they? Think about it. I just don't think that legislation should suggest that people who are not thinking straight should be free to kill themselves is necessarily a desirable thing.

    ---------- Post added at 09:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 PM ----------

    An interesting debate to say the least. Again, a very touchy subject with infinite amount of grey areas.

    One thing that would concern me is the financial interests and bottom line of hospitals. They may urge under-financed and under-insured patients that suicide is a viable option only to serve there own interests and save costs.

    That, and if you consider diseases like MS that tend to be the disease in question in many high profile cases of euthanasia - if it becomes the 'done thing' for people with such conditions to kill themselves off, where's the incentive to search for a cure or suitable treatment? Research expertise is few and far between, and costs a lot of money. They cater to the interests of the people who give them money, and they tend to favor diseases in which there is sufficient interest in curing, so the sad fact is that unless there are people suffering from these things, the people with the potential power to fix them cant and/or wont care.

×