Kevorkian Papers and the Culture of Death

Originally posted by ivanhoe

I once read a post of yours stating that 90 (?) percent of Bbarr's assumptions were wrong. The two of you were going to debate that. I'm still waiting .... what happened ?

Sorry... I never said that. Please search it and show me it. It seems to me that you are a little confused.

Michael (aka LittleBear)

Originally posted by LittleBear
Please resign, ivanhoe. Your personal attacks against bbarr are a total nonsense. If you are trying to make him appear as the bad guy of the movie, the only thing you are getting is to put yourself in a ridiculous position. bbar has a formal preparation that cannot be beaten. Since my early days into the knowledge engineering profession, I have not seen ...[text shortened]... ast time too that I'll put my paw 🙂 into this debate.

Regards
Michael (aka LittleBear)

Little Bear: " bbar has a formal preparation that cannot be beaten. Since my early days into the knowledge engineering profession, I have not seen so clearly exposed arguments as those of bbarr."

I agree. That's making his ideas even more dangerous. The wrappings of his ideas are very seductive, I admit that. People who are sensitive to such things, shiny colorful glittering logical beads and mirrors, are flabbergasted. His show is brilliant. But remember what he and his fellow travellers are trying to sell: The acceptation of killing human beings.

Originally posted by LittleBear
Sorry... I never said that. Please search it and show me it. It seems to me that you are a little confused.

Michael (aka LittleBear)

Maybe it was Huntingbear. You bears all look alike, but you are surely different when we get to know you.

I see, so you agree with bbarr ... that's why you gave me that advice ..... isn't it ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Little Bear: " bbar has a formal preparation that cannot be beaten. Since my early days into the knowledge engineering profession, I have not seen so clearly exposed arguments as those of bbarr."

I agree. That's making his ideas even ...[text shortened]... are trying to sell: The acceptation of killing human beings.

Yes, I have found it! Let me review the original post by bbarr. If I don't re read it I'd be speaking about my post out of context.

BTW, which are his "dangerous" ideas from your point of view? As for me, I agree with him, so am I a dangerous bear?

Just let me see my previious posts, please.

Regards
Michael (aka LittleBear)

Originally posted by LittleBear
Yes, I have found it! Let me review the original post by bbarr. If I don't re read it I'd be speaking about my post out of context.

BTW, which are his "dangerous" ideas from your point of view? As for me, I agree with him, so am I a dangerous bear?

Just let me see my previious posts, please.

Regards
Michael (aka LittleBear)

His ideas of killing people, human beings, remember ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

His ideas of killing people, human beings, remember ?

* Note to previous message:
You were right, ivanhoe.
I have found all the posts, and it was a missunderstanding from my part that bbarr and me "cleaned up" a posteriori. All the posts are in the same thread.
* End of Note.

Of course I remember, and I can't see nothing dangerous in them.

But I've said that I don't want to argue in this thread; I have just expressed my opinion, and I'll not repeat it here. Just see above (my first and supposedly last intervention in the thread...)

Regards
Michael (aka LittleBear)

Originally posted by Acolyte
Bbarr, I think you're going to have to make explicit the virtues of logic, and demonstrate that you have applied logic correctly, in order to make any progress. Once you've achieved that, ivanhoe will be forced to confront your assumptions and arguments directly instead of trying to dispute the foundations on which they are based.

Is this a joke 😕?

Originally posted by royalchicken
Is this a joke 😕?

😉

Originally posted by Acolyte
😉

I do not dispute the merits of logic. You can prove whatever you want with logic. It all depends on the assumptions. Many of my opponents assume that I do not understand logic or that I deny the merits of logic. I guess that is a prejudice against believers. I'v stated in a post that we need reason and logic, but we must not permit Reason to domineer Love. When I stated that notion Bbarr was lost. He could not follow me there.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

I do not dispute the merits of logic. You can prove whatever you want with logic. It all depends on the assumptions. Many of my opponents assume that I do not understand logic or that I deny the merits of logic. I guess that is a prejudice against believers. I'v stated in a post that we need reason and logic, but we must not permit Reason to domineer Love. When I stated that notion Bbarr was lost. He could not follow me there.

I have to say that I truly don't understand what you mean by "we must not permit Reason to domineer Love" - the sentence does not make sense to me.

First, by capitalizing "reason" and "love" do you mean something different from the normal non-capitalized use of these words?

Love is an emotion, and reason... well, reason ISN'T. I simply don't see a way to put them against each other in a comparison... apples and oranges, you know. Are you saying that beeing reasonable, and asking for people's actions to have reasonable basis somehow detracts from people's ability to love? If so, then that is an argument that needs to be made, because to me at least it seems highly counter-intuitive, and against my experience.

If that is not what you mean, then what specifically do you mean? Can you give an example of "reason domineering love"?

-Jarno

Originally posted by Pyrrho
I have to say that I truly don't understand what you mean by "we must not permit Reason to domineer Love" - the sentence does not make sense to me.

First, by capitalizing "reason" and "love" do you mean something different from th ...[text shortened]... Can you give an example of "reason domineering love"?

-Jarno

Jarno: "If that is not what you mean, then what specifically do you mean? Can you give an example of "reason domineering love"? " Jarno

The contributions to the discussions of the advocates of abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are based on Reason. THey do not want Love to enter the discussion. They just can't understand what it is all about.

Maybe you can explain how for instance love for the unborn fits in with the abortion discussion on the side of the advocates of abortion? They are completely lost there. They do not understand what that means.
That's what I mean when I say that reason is domineering love.

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Ivanhoe, I'm still wondering why you capitalize reason and love, but for the other part, let me see if I understood you correctly;

You are saying that the proponents of abortion rights and active euthanasia are acting counter to our hea ...[text shortened]... p each other and try to minimize unnecessary suffering.

-Jarno

First of all I was not speaking of love as a feeling, but more as an attitude towards people and the world. If you use the romantic concept of love you will be very confused when you read my posts. As I've stated before I would wish people and certainly Freethinkers had a more critical attitude towards the dominating ideology and ways of thinking in our societies. Therefore your " ....are acting counter to our healthy instincts to love " becomes a statement that is beyond my understanding.

Jarno: " ...... you should rather use reason yourself to support your views!"

Are you stating that I'm NOT using reason and logic to support my views ?

Jarno: "Secondly, in the case of active euthanasia, my emotions, especially my capacity to love, speak very strongly FOR granting the choise of euthanasia to people who are suffering slow and agonizing deaths. "

You assume that your opponent is in favour of "people suffering a slow and agonising death". This is a misconception on your part.

Your concept of compassion is another one than mine. Your attitude is that we should end suffering by killing. My opinion is that we should ease the suffering and pain of people as much as possible, being there for people, being supportive and caring without looking at it as a burden. Here love comes into the debate. Killing is an act of violence, an act of war and therefore not acceptable in my view when facing an unwanted pregnancy, easing suffering of ill people, human deficiencies or problems connected with not knowing how to live anymore, wanting to commit suicide. An unwanted situation is being looked upon in our domineering culture as senseless, meaningless suffering for the human being(s) involved. In my view the fundamental problem lies there that our domineering culture is not able to give meaning to suffering anymore. It has to be ended as soon as possible because it is senseless, meaningless, purposeless. It is in fact non-sense. Only the things we want are meaningful, the situations we do not want and cause difficulties and are making us unhappy should be ended as soon as possible. This all in concordance with the instant mentality of our consumer orientated shallow materialistic society. It has always been an unanswered question for me why critical people like the progressives in Europe and the liberals in the States are perfectly willing to go along with this domineering culture and decided to embrace the ultimate consequense of this shallow culture and that is what has become to be known as the Culture of Death, the "new" answer to our suffering in a shallow, materialistic, egotistical (not loving) culture.
Can you answer that question for me ?

I hope you've noticed that my posts are full of logic and reason, although I do not press you to agree with me. My reasoning is not meant to be forcing. Besides that I have indicated were love and sacrifice (oops !) comes into the debate.

My complaint is that even the Freethinkers agree with that shallow materialistic egotistical culture and not only accept but fervently advocate the ultimate consequenses of that culture: the Culture of Death.

Are you stating that I'm NOT using reason and logic to support my views ?

Of course any inteligeable argument uses logic and reason, but that was not my point. What I wanted to point out is that I get the picture from reading your posts that you tend to avoid critical examination the basis of your assumptions that are behind your positions in these matters by using reason and logic - so much seems apparent, for example, from your replies to Bbarr's arguments, and direct questions in this thread. You do provide counter-arguments, but rarely to the actual arguments made, but rather different arguments, usually regarding the state of society, and what you perceive as the "big picture".

Further, what I must critisize is that it appers to me that your method of arguing involves taking your opponent's position, presenting it as a more extreme position, and then and grouping it together with other extreme views which nearly everyone would naturally think are unreasonable. Positions that your opponent is, in reality, very unlikely to hold. So instead of scrutinizing the actual position of your opponent, as your opponent argues it, it seems to me that you rather critisize some other, mor extreme position that is related to it only by a stretch of imagination.

An example of this is right here in your reply to my last post:

Your concept of compassion is another one than mine. Your attitude is that we should end suffering by killing. My opinion is that we should ease the suffering and pain of people as much as possible, being there for people, being supportive and caring without looking at it as a burden.

You seem to take my position, present it in a way that attaches it to some view that is irrational (and that has nothing to do with my actual views), and then use the contrast between your view, and this other view that you ascribe to me in an attempt to argue against my view.

Naturally I don't have "an attitude that we should end suffering by killing" - in the vast majority of cases of suffering, killing isn't even an option I would consider. Killing is, in my view, as should be clear from our previous discussions on the matter, an extreme resort, in cases of suffering where the suffering will inevitably end in death anyway, where the patient has nothing but suffering and indignity to look forward to, and where the patient himself, in full control of his mental faculties, pleads for a mercy killing. This view is hardly justly described as an "attitude that we should end suffering by killing" - death isn't but a footnote in my thoughts on suffering, and how it should be dealt with, so it's hardly fair to present my view as if death was central to it. If someone breaks a leg, I'll recomend a doctor to put a cast on it, and for him to suffer the pain and discomfort involved in recovery, I don't promote putting him out of his misery. If a soldier gets seriously wounded on the battlefield, and requires an amputation to save his life, and there is very little in the way of anasthesia available, then the doctor is justified in causing great suffering in the amputation to save his life - even in such a case I would not promote killing to end the suffering. However, if a patient is in the last stages of cancer, and what little relief he gets from the pain comes at the cost of clouding his mind in a drugged stupor, if he's unable to control his bowel movements, defacates himself and suffers the agony of embarasment and indignity in addition to his other pains, if he himself sees no future and meaning in such a lingering death and requests aid in dying faster and more mercifully, then I do think that it would be cruel and inhumane to deny him that. If this view is what earns the ominous lable of supporting "The Culture Of Death", then I am guilty as charged; though if this is the case, then the lable seems to cover a so broad range of views that it becomes almost meaningless.

My "attitude" is that we should avoid such extreme measures except for extreme cases (with conditions that I've previously explained), and that preventing suffering by medical aid, psychiatry, or the simple support and comfort of friends and family, is quite naturally the first (and in most cases the only) option. My "attitude" is though, that euthanasia should not be ruled out as a last resort, for cases where it would seem to me to be unconscionable to deny it.

You go on to critisize the tendency of the modern society to look for "quick fixes", and again this seems to me to be an argument that tries to attach "guilt by association" - since, as you argued before, my attitude is that of promoting killing as solution, I must also be looking for quick fixes. I wouldn't recognize my own views on much of anything you wrote in that paragraph.

Note that you too suggest that suffering should be prevented with medicine, and eased compassionately by caring for people - the only differense in our views as to the practical handling of suffering is in a tiny minority of cases of suffering, where the question of euthanasia arises. It seems quite a leap to me to claim that just on the basis of this one differense, a supporter of euthanasia must be shallow in his dealings with suffering. The critisism is clearly off the mark.

So does suffering have a purpose? Here is where our worldviews lead to different conclusions - your worldview states that there is some purpose, a purpose which we don't really know, but which is still there, while my worldview leads to the conclusion that suffering doesn't have any "self-value". This doesn't mean that acts where suffering is involved are without value, it just means that the suffering by itself has no value that would compell us to presereve it, even if we had the means to prevent it. Someone who donate's one of his kidneys to save the life of someone else may suffer, and we may rightly say that his act was a noble one, but the nobility of it is not in the suffering itself, but rather in the act of sacrifice to help another. I see nothing wrong in relieving suffering though, and a desire to relieve suffering fast is hardly a mark of shalowness. Avoiding suffering that is necessary on the path to a visible, good goal, for the simple reason that one doesn't want to suffer is another matter all together. In order to train for a profession, one might have to study things one finds dull and agonizingly tedious, or go through physical training that requires extreme effort; that suffering should not be avoided, because it is clearly necessary in order to achieve the goal. The suffering has purpose because it is the only way to the goal. Purpose is something that we humans instill, and ascribe to things; so if we choose to place value to suffering, then that suffering has value in the sense that people think of it as valuable. But inherent value - I don't believe that suffering has any inherent value.

My complaint is that even the Freethinkers agree with that shallow materialistic egotistical culture and not only accept but fervently advocate the ultimate consequenses of that culture: the Culture of Death.

I don't think that many freethinkers support the sort of a world that you would have them supporting - the vast majority would not recognize their views in the ways you describe them; I know I don't. And you really haven't made the case that the views that freethinkers here actually hold would have adverse consequences, or lead inevitably (or even with reasonable likelyhood) to more extreme views. Again, I think that the differences we have are due to a fundamental difference in world view, and much of it are simply things we have to in the end agree to disagree on.

-Jarno