if god came to earth,

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Starrman: [b]"Bbarr is none of these, his ideas are reasoned, do not sanction hatred, misdirection or the removal of rights."

.... but they do entail the removal of rights, the Right to Life. Exactly my point.

You didn't read the relevant thread.[/b]

You can't remove rights from those who don't have them and you can freely give away your rights if you so choose. Your (note the presumptuous capitalisation) Right to Life is misrepresentation.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Well, Starrman ?

Well what? Ask me a question of your own devising and I'll answer it, reproduce your misappropriation of someone else's views and ask me if I agree and I'll acknowledge how much you bore me.

Originally posted by Starrman
Well what? Ask me a question of your own devising and I'll answer it, reproduce your misappropriation of someone else's views and ask me if I agree and I'll acknowledge how much you bore me.

Do you agree with Bbarr's ideas concerning the moral permissibility of killing certain disabled people ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Do you agree with Bbarr's ideas concerning the moral permissibility of killing certain disabled people ?

😴

Originally posted by Starrman
😴

Maybe it would be a good idea to get to know the different positions of the debaters involved and start commenting afterwards, instead of doing it the other way around.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Maybe it would be a good idea to get to know the different positions of the debaters involved and start commenting afterwards, instead of doing it the other way around.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to take up a debate of your own devising, instead of laying claim to other people's answers, falsely touting them as supporting Nazism and then constantly dragging the thread off topic.

For the third time now, I'm not concerned with the euthanasia debate, I'm concerned with your conduct and misrepresentation.

Originally posted by Starrman
😴

As I stated in my thread "First they came ..... ", those who consider themselves "progressive" or "liberal" ( ... and I reckon you consider yourself a member of one of these groups) do not want to criticise the ideas concerning der "Gnadentod" or "Killing out of Mercy" and the criterium of "Lebensunwertes Leben"or "Lives not Worth Living". They didn't then and they are not doing it now. You, among others, are the living proof of that. You even protect those advocating and spreading these dispicable ideas.

Admit it, you support these Nazi ideas of mercy killing.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
As I stated in my thread "First they came", those who consider themselves "progressive" or "liberal" ( ... and I reckon you consider yourself a member of one of these groups) do not want to criticise the ideas concerning der "Gnadentod" or "Killing out of Mercy" and the criterium of "Lebensunwertes Leben"or "Lives not Worth Living". They didn't then and they ...[text shortened]... se dispicable ideas.

Admit it, you support these Nazi ideas of mercy killing.

You've yet to show how that idea is equivalent to Bbarr's by anything other than the association of the term euthanasia being falsely equivalent to mercy killing. You have sidestepped the clear point of motivation and permissibility of action which Bbarr and I have mentioned. The fact of the matter is you disagree with euthanasia so you are demonising it and anyone that permits it, on the grounds of your own faith and nothing more.

I say for the final time now; present a debate of your own and I will take it up with you: continue to make a claim you have yet to support about another thread which you have brought into this one, continue to suggest anyone supporting euthanasia is a Nazi, and you'll get nothing more from me than mod-alerts.

Originally posted by Starrman
Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to take up a debate of your own devising, instead of laying claim to other people's answers, falsely touting them as supporting Nazism and then constantly dragging the thread off topic.

For the third time now, I'm not concerned with the euthanasia debate, I'm concerned with your conduct and misrepresentation.

Starrman: "Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to take up a debate of your own devising, instead of laying claim to other people's answers, falsely touting them as supporting Nazism and then constantly dragging the thread off topic."

Then why don't you comment in the thread that is dealing with the subject you seem to be so interested in ?

Starrman: "For the third time now, I'm not concerned with the euthanasia debate, I'm concerned with your conduct and misrepresentation"

Misrepresentation ? Then why don't you comment on my objections and comments regarding your false claims in this thread ?

By the way, this isn't a debate about euthanasia anymore, but a debate about plain murder.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Starrman: [b]"Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to take up a debate of your own devising, instead of laying claim to other people's answers, falsely touting them as supporting Nazism and then constantly dragging the thread off topic."

Then why don't you comment in the thread that is dealing with the subject you seem to be so interested in ?

S he way, this isn't a debate about euthanasia anymore, but a debate about plain murder.[/b]

You're a disgustingly twisted person, how you can talk about murder on only the back of views which oppose yours? It's the sort of thing I expect from a ten year old or a hatemongering Nazi. Just grow up, ivanhoe, I'm done with you here.

Originally posted by Starrman
You've yet to show how that idea is equivalent to Bbarr's by anything other than the association of the term euthanasia being falsely equivalent to mercy killing. You have sidestepped the clear point of motivation and permissibility of action which Bbarr and I have mentioned. The fact of the matter is you disagree with euthanasia so you are demonising it ...[text shortened]... anyone supporting euthanasia is a Nazi, and you'll get nothing more from me than mod-alerts.

Starrmann: "You've yet to show how that idea is equivalent to Bbarr's by anything other than the association of the term euthanasia being falsely equivalent to mercy killing."

I don't believe this ... "association" ... are you joking ? .... Read the thread "First they came .... " and educate yourself on the historic facts I present there and then join me there:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=68106&page=5

Starrman: "You have sidestepped the clear point of motivation and permissibility of action which Bbarr and I have mentioned.

No, I have not sidestepped this issue. The motivation and "permissibility of action" as you put it are the same. You simply are not capable of accepting this fact. That's why you, Bbarr and others are trying to fabricate differences, which all boil down to the assumption that "we" are the good guys meaning well equipped with the correct motivations and "they" who are/were doing exactly the same are the bad guys because they alledgedly had the wrong motivations. The motivations regarding killing disabled people in the twenties, thirties and early fourties of the last century in Germany and Bbarr's motivations regarding killing disabled people with lives not worth living are the same. You simply cannot accept that fact and you try to circumvent it by assuming all sorts of fabrications which do not correspond with the historic facts.

Starrman: " .... continue to suggest anyone supporting euthanasia is a Nazi, ... "

Strawman, Starrman.

Please, be more accurate. My claim is that Bbarr's ideas regarding killing certain disabled people are fundamentally the same as the Nazi ideas during the twenties, thirties and early fourties of the last century regarding this issue. Please, keep that in mind.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
...killing certain disabled people are fundamentally the same as the Nazi ideas during the twenties, thirties and early fourties of the last century regarding this issue. Please, keep that in mind.

The Nazis always were ahead of their time.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]Starrmann: "You've yet to show how that idea is equivalent to Bbarr's by anything other than the association of the term euthanasia being falsely equivalent to mercy killing."

I don't believe this ... "association" ... are you joking ? .... Read the thread "First they came .... " and educate yourself on the historic facts I present there and then j ...[text shortened]... urties of the last century regarding this issue. Please, keep that in mind.[/b]

The motivations are not in the slightest bit the same, it has nothing to do with history, it has to do with the here and now and what reasonable use of the concept of euthanasia is. That euthanasia occurs does not make it a Nazi process. You are directly using the term Nazi to insult, it's not a strawman at all.

Stop generalising and clearly present your support for the claim that euthanasia is wrong. I'll let you into a little secret, that the Nazis killed people doesn't count.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
The Nazis always were ahead of their time.

The sad fact is that Bbarr thinks he and his liberal friends are being original in proposing these ideas.

Originally posted by Starrman
I'll let you into a little secret, just because the Nazis killed people doesn't make it wrong.

Nice one Dodger.