How would you chose to die?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: How would you chose to die?

Post by The Voice of Time »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I would hazard to say that the reason you aren't making a lot of sense on this topic is because you aren't arguing from a logical, rational, and reasonable standpoint. There is no rational reason I can think of to allow people to suffer when their desire is to be put out of their misery.
They wouldn't exist to experience what it means to "be put out of their misery"! They would be dead! I'm in my full rationality, certainly everything I said is as logical as it can be, unless you've not read logic before (I'm practically looking like the front page of a book on logic in my paragraphs!) and reasonable is purely your point of view and a point of view which I think you only have because I don't agree with you and have the logic to prove why I'm right and why you are fundamentally wrong.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9157
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: How would you chose to die?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

The Voice of Time wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I would hazard to say that the reason you aren't making a lot of sense on this topic is because you aren't arguing from a logical, rational, and reasonable standpoint. There is no rational reason I can think of to allow people to suffer when their desire is to be put out of their misery.
They wouldn't exist to experience what it means to "be put out of their misery"! They would be dead! I'm in my full rationality, certainly everything I said is as logical as it can be, unless you've not read logic before (I'm practically looking like the front page of a book on logic in my paragraphs!) and reasonable is purely your point of view and a point of view which I think you only have because I don't agree with you and have the logic to prove why I'm right and why you are fundamentally wrong.
It doesn't matter how much 'logic' you read, either you can think logically and rationally or you can't. So far you haven't given a single rational argument for why it's ok to force people to suffer. The thing here is that YOU are deciding for others what they should or shouldn't endure. As I keep saying, suffer all you want. If others don't want to suffer then it's up to them to decide. It's no-one else's business but theirs. How would you like someone else to decide you can't watch porn any more?
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: How would you chose to die?

Post by The Voice of Time »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:If others don't want to suffer then it's up to them to decide. It's no-one else's business but theirs. How would you like someone else to decide you can't watch porn any more?
I would say they were wrong and prove why. Just like I did with you, I don't want you to promote allowing people to descend into desires for death, instead I'm trying to show you how you must promote their ascension out of a desire for death instead.
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: How would you chose to die?

Post by The Voice of Time »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:So far you haven't given a single rational argument for why it's ok to force people to suffer.
No I haven't, because I don't think it's okay for people to suffer. But I don't think it's okay for people to do a lot of things or be affected by a lot of things, I don't kill them because of it. There's no connection between "not suffering" and "dying", that's my point. You have to conjure it from imagination, making it merely a delusion, and I proved how it's a delusion, in that simple first sentence in the answer you just answered.

PSSST! Only read this if you can stomach the philosophical content, if not, don't so I don't have to read your whines of incomprehension:

Essentially, a rational argument cannot be provided, neither can a counter rational argument, because the whole way of thinking is "irrational" at its foundation, you can't make proper rational arguments inside an irrational argument, the argument will inherit the rationality or in this case irrationality of its parent argument. Like a lower classification inheriting from a higher classification the shared properties that puts them in the same hierarchy.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9157
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: How would you chose to die?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

The Voice of Time wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:If others don't want to suffer then it's up to them to decide. It's no-one else's business but theirs. How would you like someone else to decide you can't watch porn any more?
I would say they were wrong and prove why. Just like I did with you, I don't want you to promote allowing people to descend into desires for death, instead I'm trying to show you how you must promote their ascension out of a desire for death instead.
Excuse me, but you haven't proven anything. You saying it doesn't make it so. This is going nowhere fast. I think I've wasted enough time on it.
Pssst! Do you believe everything you read, or do you think for yourself sometimes?
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: How would you chose to die?

Post by Blaggard »

The Voice of Time wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:So far you haven't given a single rational argument for why it's ok to force people to suffer.
No I haven't, because I don't think it's okay for people to suffer. But I don't think it's okay for people to do a lot of things or be affected by a lot of things, I don't kill them because of it. There's no connection between "not suffering" and "dying", that's my point. You have to conjure it from imagination, making it merely a delusion, and I proved how it's a delusion, in that simple first sentence in the answer you just answered.

PSSST! Only read this if you can stomach the philosophical content, if not, don't so I don't have to read your whines of incomprehension:

Essentially, a rational argument cannot be provided, neither can a counter rational argument, because the whole way of thinking is "irrational" at its foundation, you can't make proper rational arguments inside an irrational argument, the argument will inherit the rationality or in this case irrationality of its parent argument. Like a lower classification inheriting from a higher classification the shared properties that puts them in the same hierarchy.
I made a rational argument once, never again, they just get ignored by people vociferously arguing irrationality in a sort of reciprocal delusion some call bs.
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: How would you chose to die?

Post by Blaggard »

The Voice of Time wrote:
Blaggard wrote:Seems much more moral, it strikes me as ghoulish and morbid to let people die in agony and stand by and watch for some misplaced sense that somehow they should experience death in all it's horrible pain; it seems actually quite cruel and malevolent, the sort of thing a torturer or sadist might enjoy, but meh, each to their own, as I said though your reasoning is immoral in my view.
The variable that decides the outcome is not whether they experience pain or not. Pain is "irrelevant" to whether a person should live or die, we don't "die for pain" in the same we don't "live for pain". I don't see why you expect somebody to want to watch, except to be there for the person who is experiencing the moment, as that person would likely enjoy that more than being alone. In my view your reasoning is immoral, and I've proven myself right if you took the time to read, and proven you wrong.
Blaggard wrote:Let's be clear here we're not talking about people who might recover we are talking about people in the terminal stage of incurable diseases. Likewise those who have been eviscerated and no amount of medical attention can save are best off not being left to die a death that is so agonizing their screams can be heard from a mile away.
Why are you presuming the person cannot be treated with sedatives? Which century are you living in exactly? For modern well-equipped hospitals, this depiction is irrelevant. I also find it troublesome, that you talk about evisceration when obviously a person can not survive very long without its entrails, unless we are talking about some less important part of the body. In that time left, I would try to establish contact with the person first of all, so as to make the most out of the moment, perhaps try and get some final words for instance? I'd still prefer to heavily sedate the person than outright killing it, especially since the person is gonna die so soon anyways. There's really not any incentive to kill the person even faster when it already happens so quickly. Not that a prolonging of the person's death would really make a better case for killing it. Pain is no fun, but the person still wouldn't be able to experience relief when in death the person would not exist to experience relief, like sowing seeds without reaping a harvest.
Yeah and this is probably the worst argument I have ever seen for prolonging someone's agony, your reasoning is goullish SoB, sure get the last "kizmet Hardy", but when Nelson asks for an end why not provide it, why look on as a man dies in agony like some odd voyeur to eek out something that is as inevitable as gravity making things fall.
K - ‘Kiss me Hardy’

The death of Nelson: Lord Nelson lay dying in the cockpit of HMS Victory during the Battle of Trafalgar on 21 October 1805, Nelson was twice visited by his close friend and flag-captain, Thomas Hardy.

When the moment came for the two men to part for the last time, Nelson then very close to death, asked Hardy to kiss him. Hardy kissed him on the cheek; 'Now I am satisfied,' said Nelson, 'Thank God I have done my duty'. Hardy stood up and then having spent a few moments looking down silently at his friend, knelt and kissed him again on the forehead. 'Who is that?' asked Nelson, now barely able to see. 'It is Hardy.' 'God bless you Hardy.'

This touching request so wholly in keeping with Nelson's character, and indeed with the spirit of the age in which he lived, was misunderstood by later generations who found it embarrassing. As a result the ludicrous legend was invented that persists to this day, that Nelson actually said 'Kismet Hardy', which is Turkish for 'fate'.

The famous request for the kiss and the other words uttered at the same time, were recorded by Surgeon William Beatty in his meticulous and very detailed account of Nelson's death, published in 1807. That in itself should have been sufficient to scotch the 'Kismet' theory; but it has proved remarkably persistent with its supporters straining credibility further by suggesting that perhaps Beatty misheard. Even if he did, this of course does not explain why Hardy kissed Nelson twice. In fact, Beatty's recollection is supported by the written testimony of two other eyewitnesses: Rev. Alexander Scott the Victory's Chaplain who was sitting next to Nelson; and Walter Burke the Purser who was supporting the bed under Nelson, both of whom heard and recorded Nelson's words.
http://www.rmg.co.uk/explore/sea-and-sh ... s-me-hardy
Pain is no fun, but the person still wouldn't be able to experience relief when in death the person would not exist to experience relief, like sowing seeds without reaping a harvest.
No offence but did you read what I wrote because this all has been answered by the posts above and you seem to belabouring something that needs not.

Your whole argument relies on prolonging agony so that one might die with some imaginary fiction, but to do so in agony and suffering well beyond a moral view; it's perhaps one of the most morally egregious arguments I have ever heard about prolonging the suffering of the dying person. As I say though each to his own, and as I already said your moral character tends towards the sadistic and malevolent in this argument.
Last edited by Blaggard on Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: How would you chose to die?

Post by The Voice of Time »

Blaggard wrote:Yeah and this is probably the worst argument I have ever seen for prolonging someone's agony, your reasoning is goullish SoB
Did you just call me Spheres of Balance?

Anyways. Why is the argument bad... can you actually tell me why? Is it just an opinion you don't need to justify?
Your whole argument relies on prolonging agony so that one might die
No it does not. That's not an argument even. And I certainly do not advocate prolonging agony if it can be helped, but death won't help it. It might make it more pleasant for the beholder if the beholder is indifferent to whether the person is killed or not or if the person takes joy in the other person getting killed, but it won't help the person who is killed as in death they will not be able to reap the harvest as they've ceased to exist.
Last edited by The Voice of Time on Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: How would you chose to die?

Post by Blaggard »

The Voice of Time wrote:
Blaggard wrote:Yeah and this is probably the worst argument I have ever seen for prolonging someone's agony, your reasoning is goullish SoB
Did you just call me Spheres of Balance?

Anyways. Why is the argument bad... can you actually tell me why? Is it just an opinion you don't need to justify?
Yeah I think I did, sorry multitasking, like most men I am fucking awful at it.

I told you why the argument is bad, it prolongs suffering for no practical reason, you don't accept the argument, we are at an impasse SoB aka (always known as) VoT. ;)
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: How would you chose to die?

Post by The Voice of Time »

Blaggard wrote:it prolongs suffering for no practical reason
And what does a practical reason imply? I'm not certain what that is supposed to mean in this situation.

(PS, edited my post to accommodate the edit you did and which I didn't catch the first time and where you answered my initial question)
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: How would you chose to die?

Post by Blaggard »

The Voice of Time wrote:
Blaggard wrote:it prolongs suffering for no practical reason
And what does a practical reason imply? I'm not certain what that is supposed to mean in this situation.
I am pretty sure you know what I mean, you have read the argument, you have dismissed it there's no point beating a dead horse by repeating myself, now you can tackle the arguments or you can vacillate endlessly: the choice is of course yours, but the arguments are there nonetheless.
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: How would you chose to die?

Post by The Voice of Time »

Blaggard wrote:I am pretty sure you know what I mean, you have read the argument
No I don't know what it means ("practical" is not mentioned anywhere else in your writing), if you refuse to continue arguing that's up to you, but I don't feel done or satisfied just yet, I'd like to continue if you can... actually I think it's rather fruitful to see if you actually can tell me what "practical reason" implies, since it is in fact a vague definition. What's practical is subjective, although several vague definitions are popular, but many of them might involve money, or material gain, for instance, and I presume it's not those, but then again I don't know, since it's a subjective word with no clear meaning in this situation, and so I can't criticize a word I don't know the exact meaning of.

Give me an exact meaning, instantiate it... what are the metrics for what's practical?
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: How would you chose to die?

Post by Blaggard »

The Voice of Time wrote:
Blaggard wrote:I am pretty sure you know what I mean, you have read the argument
No I don't know what it means ("practical" is not mentioned anywhere else in your writing), if you refuse to continue arguing that's up to you, but I don't feel done or satisfied just yet, I'd like to continue if you can... actually I think it's rather fruitful to see if you actually can tell me what "practical reason" implies, since it is in fact a vague definition. What's practical is subjective, although several vague definitions are popular, but many of them might involve money, or material gain, for instance, and I presume it's not those, but then again I don't know, since it's a subjective word with no clear meaning in this situation, and so I can't criticize a word I don't know the exact meaning of.

Give me an exact meaning, instantiate it... what are the metrics for what's practical?
Yeah I've seen this bullshit before, you present a perfectly reasonable answer the person can't contend with so they make the claim that you are opting out of arguing because they failed to argue your cogent points. It's lazy VoT, either contend with my contentions or get the fuck out my dojo, Either way I am sure you will tick a win in your win box for talking excessive amounts of crap in lieu of tackling anyone's point.

I don't have the ego or feel the need to be right on this issue, clearly you feel the need to not be wrong on this issue, I shall hence let your proceed into the mindlessness of just going around in ever decreasing circles you seem so enamoured of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXFh-mYh2dQ

"Round like a circle in a spiral, like wheel within a wheel."

I am well aware that you may well have an argument or counter argument, but this sort of mental masturbation in lieu of one, is beneath me.

And might I add people wonder why philosophy is useless or claim philosophy is useless, it's because of things like this. You are ok in your reason and logic, but when you abandon it to just talk around in ever decreasing circles everyone just thinks you're unimportant, unimaginative and just trotting out analytics like some dumb kid, I have to admit I am with Hex in one association about philosophy, you are not cozy chatters per se, but you are steadily killing yourselves with utter banal meaningless prose and circular reasoning. It seems such a shame for such a noble art to go out that way; killed by its own hubris. If you are studying philosophy at degree level, in the morning march into the professors office and shoot him in the head. It is the only way to be free of this nonsense. ;)

Like the kid who says why endlessly in response to any question you are doing no more than that if you chose to avoid any rational argument by semantics.
Last edited by Blaggard on Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: How would you chose to die?

Post by The Voice of Time »

Well that was abruptly hostile of you ^^
you have dismissed it there's no point beating a dead horse by repeating myself, now you can tackle the arguments or you can vacillate endlessly
I think it's fair to say this sounded like you did not want to continue discussing with me, so I was not making that up. If this did indeed not mean you didn't want to discuss any more, then I apologize for a wrong inference. I was not entirely sure how to interpret it.
I don't have the ego or feel the need to be right on this issue, clearly you feel the need to not be wrong on this issue
I don't mind being wrong, I love being wrong! It makes it so easy, I can just lie down and submit to another person's superiority, I've done it plenty times and it's a relief I tell you. However, I mind it when a problem is left unresolved by others, namely the problem of reaping the harvest (that a dead person cannot benefit from not experiencing pain because the person does not exist because it's dead), especially as it seems to be totally ignored and treated as a pure inconvenience.
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: How would you chose to die?

Post by Blaggard »

Yeah but all these points were already answered VoT and you ignored them, it seems hence useless to repeat why dying in agony is useful?

Do you see?

You're just ignoring all salient points to make vacuous points that are after all and when it addresses them need not be made, that if you answered previous points, would be entirely unnecessary, it is a wheel within a wheel, this is not philosophy is it VoT for you this is SPARTA!

I hope you pass that philosophy degree but if you continue to use circularity and ignorance of previous arguments, you might find you wont, which is no one's fault not even the Romans, although it is yours...

Suffice to say answer the fucking points or don't, but your membership in my dojo may well be revoked if you don't. ;)
Post Reply