10 Dec 05
Originally posted by joelekCertain death may be a better word for it...not imminent.
Sorry. You're right. I am assuming the jumpers were faced with imminent death, and I haven't read all of the posts on this thread.
If there have been posts (or documentaries) that show that people were jumping without the likelihood of being burned alive, obviously my post is irrelevant and illfounded. I was just assuming their (possible) reasons for jumping.
It isn't suicide...it's murder as they created a situation where the only options are death.
10 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioYou are making people dizzy, Nemesio.
The reason it [b]is important Palynka is because you are saying that
there is some significant difference between the two. And yet, you are
unable to define the difference in any way whatsoever.
That tells me that there is, in fact, no difference between the two and
that your distinction between the two cases is arbitrary and has nothing
to do with different moral frameworks.
Nemesio[/b]
This is what Palynka stated:
06 Dec '05 12:10 :: 0 recommendations
Originally posted by Nemesio
As someone said, analogies are imperfect, but they can strive
to clarify a person's position.
Let's make a few scenarios:
Option 1: A person is in a room of a burning building. It is on
fire because of an electrical failure and not because of any malice.
The person is trapped and the flames are becoming unendurable.
They may choose to let the f ...[text shortened]... or things distinguishes that scenario from the remaining three
(or whatever number).
Nemesio
Option 1: Not a suicide.
The person who jumps has no intent of killing himself. Death is inevitable at that time. He has but the choice of the type of death, not the moment. The moment is already there!
A few seconds may make a difference for no1marowdy, but for me his decision has nothing to do with the moment. It's like saying that all ancient sailors who were forced to "walk the plank" commited suicide if they jumped. Ridiculous.
Option 2: Suicide. Dying quicklier is the sole purpose of taking the pill, even if the man would prefer to live a normal life, given the chance.
Option 3: Suicide. For me euthanasia is a form of suicide. Again the action/decision taken has the sole objective of terminating one's life quicklier.
Option 4: Suicide. Obviously.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nemesio: "That tells me that there is, in fact, no difference between the two and
that your distinction between the two cases is arbitrary and has nothing
to do with different moral frameworks."
You are taking people, and maybe yourself, for a ride, Nemesio .... indeed ... on a merry go round.
It was the marauder who jumped on the sentence "the moment is already there" and introduced his silly and completely irrelevant "Time theory". Now you want Palynka to "prove" marauder's silly "Time theory". Palynka adressed this point, but you chose to ignore this. You simply continue, as usual, like a tank.
You have a talent for completely obscuring and confusing things. I wonder whether you do this because of your inability of having serious academic debate or whether you do it on purpose.
My guess is that, for some reason, you are not willing or able or not interested to actually hear what your opponent is saying. You simply keep cherrypicking in your opponents posts what you seem helpful in achieving to "prove" what you want to prove in order to make your point, whatever that may be. The unchosen cherries are continuously ignored by you. If people do not agree with your methods you keep insisting they answer your warped questions, based on wrong conclusions about your opponents stances. If they refuse to play your games, oh yes you play games, you threaten to stop talking to them or you take refuge in insults and other degrading actions. Does this sound familiar to you ?
Check it out, Nemesio. You are playing powergames. You should play with the marauder, but sadly these days are over. I forgot ... who won ?
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by windmillParrot.
Certain death may be a better word for it...not imminent.
It isn't suicide...it's murder as they created a situation where the only options are death.
If you're able to, please give a rational answer to this question that was asked of you several pages ago:
What possible difference does the cause of the situation you are in have on the ultimate decision?
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeGo ahead and re-write it; I don't care. I would say that some people are having a discussion regarding the moral impermissibility of suicide despite your vague criticism of the content of my first post. Others are trying to avoid such a discussion by trying to change the meaning of the word "suicide" or by supposing things happened that didn't. Either way, people seem interested. So people are talking about the subject in a forum; what else could I possibly want but to stimulate some intellectual discussion?
What exactly is it you are trying to prove, marauder.
What is the "moral problem" you are presenting here ? If it is the moral (im)permissibility of suicide you couldn't have chosen a more obscure and confusing introduction in your first post.
What is it you want ?
10 Dec 05
6 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderIf you want to stimulate some intellectual discussion you should for instance stop calling people "parrots" .... not to mention the other less colorful birds who are firmly sitting on your shoulders and whose names you chose to insult people, my valiant marauder. Furthermore you should become aware of your own intentions. You claimed you wanted to wage war ... remember ? Stimulating interesting intellectual debate and waging war do not mix very well, marauder. This thread proves this.
Go ahead and re-write it; I don't care. I would say that some people are having a discussion regarding the moral impermissibility of suicide despite your vague criticism of the content of my first post. Others are trying to avoid such a discussion by trying to change the meaning of the word "suicide" or by supposing things happened that didn't. Eith ...[text shortened]... bject in a forum; what else could I possibly want but to stimulate some intellectual discussion?
10 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by windmillhear hear
Everything u have written here is not based on facts but assumptions that u would seem to believe to be true...so how childish are u to talk about their eternal destination.You run as fast as you can down a given road maurader and fail to get the simple things right first.I assume this also affects the real world you live in also.
10 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhen people merely say the same thing over and over and over again without justifying their position by logical answers to pertinent questions, they are acting like trained parrots (and badly trained ones at that).
If you want to stimulate some intellectual discussion you should stop for instance calling people "parrots" .... not to mention the other less colourful birds who are sitting on your shoulder, my valiant marauder. Furthermore you should become aware of your own intentions. You claimed you wanted to wage war ... remember ? Stimulating interesting intellectual debate and waging war do not mix very well, marauder. This thread proves this.
I said I was willing to wage "war" against RBHILL's or anybody else's racism, sexism or bigotry. That remains true. I'm not interested in an "intellectual discussion" about how certain people are inherently inferior to RBHILL, such as blacks or women or how Catholics believe that the Pope is a god as anyone who would holds such views deserves only scorn and ridicule for such beliefs. This thread as nothing to do with any of that so you are using a non sequitur and a particulary dumb one at that.
10 Dec 05
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: " I said I was willing to wage "war" against RBHILL's or anybody else's racism, sexism or bigotry. That remains true."
When people merely say the same thing over and over and over again without justifying their position by logical answers to pertinent questions, they are acting like trained parrots (and badly trained ones at that).
I said I was willing to wage "war" against RBHILL's or anybody else's racism, sexism or bigotry. That remains true. I'm not int ...[text shortened]... thing to do with any of that so you are using a non sequitur and a particulary dumb one at that.
As we all know marauder, your definition of what constitutes bigotry entails more or less everything you do not agree with.
.... and even if they repeat themselves this doesn't give you a justification for abusing them.
.... maybe you should take into account that not everybody is as old, wise, rational and intelligent as you are .... have you ever considered this possibility ?
.... as I stated before, if this thread was intended to be a discussion about the (im)permissibility of suicide you surely constructed the most obscuring and confusing opening post possible.
10 Dec 05
It's interesting to watch the xtians twist and squirm when faced with the choice between condemning people trapped on a ledge of a burning building and others dying of a terminal disease.
I'd like to see some fundies turn up at the funeral of a "9/11 jumper" spouting off that the person was going to Hell, well, actually I wouldn't because lynching is barbaric.
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightCould you name one debater who would like to send one of the september 11 jumpers to hell because they alledgedly committed suicide ?
It's interesting to watch the xtians twist and squirm when faced with the choice between condemning people trapped on a ledge of a burning building and others dying of a terminal disease.
I'd like to see some fundies turn up at the funeral of a "9/11 jumper" spouting off that the person was going to Hell, well, actually I wouldn't because lynching is barbaric.
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou are only proving their logical inconsistency and incoherency; Darfius was quite willing to condemn to Hell everybody who committed suicide. Nobody has shown any ethical difference between someone shooting himself to avoid an agonizing death through an incurable disease and the similiar decision the people on the Towers made.
Could you name one debater who would like to send one of the september 11 jumpers to hell because they alledgedly committed suicide ?
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: "Nobody has shown any ethical difference between someone shooting himself to avoid an agonizing death through an incurable disease and the similiar decision the people on the Towers made"
You are only proving their logical inconsistency and incoherency; Darfius was quite willing to condemn to Hell everybody who committed suicide. Nobody has shown any ethical difference between someone shooting himself to avoid an agonizing death through an incurable disease and the similiar decision the people on the Towers made.
That's your opinion. But assuming this is true, can you enlighten us and tell us what the difference is ?
10 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KneverKnightCould you please elaborate. I seem to be missing your point.
No.
EDIT: Kinda the point, isnt it?
EDIT: KK: "It's interesting to watch the xtians twist and squirm when faced with the choice between condemning people trapped on a ledge of a burning building and others dying of a terminal disease."
... the choice between condemming ..... (?)
That is the situation they are being manipulated in by Nemesio and the marauder. Besides, it speaks in someone's advantage if they twist and squirm when faced with the choice forced upon them between condemning people ...... etc ". Don't you agree ?
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeNone as far as my ethics are concerned.
Marauder: "Nobody has shown any ethical difference between someone shooting himself to avoid an agonizing death through an incurable disease and the similiar decision the people on the Towers made"
That's your opinion. But assuming this is true, can you enlighten us and tell us what the difference is ?