Topic: UK Suicide Bill passes
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #121,903
And yet the idiots that passed it will still tell you with a straight face that it's immoral and wrong to hang murderers.
Erik !saAqdaazn2 joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 31 minutes later[^] [v] #1,331,369
Can't wait for all the radical lefties to threaten suicide if they don't get their political way
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,377
Humans are dishonest, what can we say? Same with the abortion argument, it'd be more honest have the baby and toss it on a hillside/river like they used to historically - at least that's honest.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,386
boof joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 37 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,389
@OP
> And yet the idiots that passed it will still tell you with a straight face that it's immoral and wrong to hang murderers.
you've neglected some key points that conveniently undermine your point
> And yet the idiots that passed it will still tell you with a straight face that it's immoral and wrong to hang murderers.
you've neglected some key points that conveniently undermine your point
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 23 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,390
boof replied with this 1 year ago, 17 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,391
@1,331,369 (Erik !saAqdaazn2)
> Can't wait for all the radical lefties to threaten suicide if they don't get their political way
no, that's not the text of the bill at all.
> Can't wait for all the radical lefties to threaten suicide if they don't get their political way
no, that's not the text of the bill at all.
boof double-posted this 1 year ago, 39 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,392
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,396
@OPenis one has a choice
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 58 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,399
@1,331,392 (boof)
So you're just here to make a drive by troll shot? You can't say that there's an obvious problem and then refuse to say what the obvious problem is.
What's pretty obvious to me is that it has been affirmed that the state has the right to take life, under certain circumstances.
So you're just here to make a drive by troll shot? You can't say that there's an obvious problem and then refuse to say what the obvious problem is.
What's pretty obvious to me is that it has been affirmed that the state has the right to take life, under certain circumstances.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 20 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,403
@previous (A)
You don't know what's in the bill. Show us what is so upsetting to you. Post the relevant section from the text of the bill or shut the fuck up.
You don't know what's in the bill. Show us what is so upsetting to you. Post the relevant section from the text of the bill or shut the fuck up.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 39 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,406
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,442
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 4 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,477
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 8 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,503
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 24 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,504
@OP
> And yet the idiots that passed it will still tell you with a straight face that it's immoral and wrong to hang murderers.
Someone making the decision to end their own life is not at all the same thing as someone making the decision to end someone else's life.
> And yet the idiots that passed it will still tell you with a straight face that it's immoral and wrong to hang murderers.
Someone making the decision to end their own life is not at all the same thing as someone making the decision to end someone else's life.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 50 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,512
Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,513
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,520
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,521
@previous (A)
You are the fucking retard. The state isn't killing anybody by limiting its own power. Here's a better question; should the state have the power to limit your freedom to choose suicide? Britons have decided that in certain circumstances, no, it should not.
You are the fucking retard. The state isn't killing anybody by limiting its own power. Here's a better question; should the state have the power to limit your freedom to choose suicide? Britons have decided that in certain circumstances, no, it should not.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 year ago, 25 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,523
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 44 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,526
Indie the Grate joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 48 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,533
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,545
@1,331,521 (G)
@1,331,523 (H)
The state is killing these people by providing an official suicide service.
@1,331,526 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> That isn't what you're saying
I literally just did.
@1,331,523 (H)
The state is killing these people by providing an official suicide service.
@1,331,526 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> That isn't what you're saying
I literally just did.
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,561
@previous (A)
Your feigned outrage is some roundabout play at complaining about universal healthcare, is it?
Is Obamacare "killing people" when patients have access to assisted suicide in the 10 U.S. states where it is legal?
Your feigned outrage is some roundabout play at complaining about universal healthcare, is it?
Is Obamacare "killing people" when patients have access to assisted suicide in the 10 U.S. states where it is legal?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 38 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,563
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,567
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,585
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 day later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,766
@OP
I don't think those are the same thing, though. I don't think that the state killing a criminal (who presumably doesn't want to die) is the same as the state enabling the death of somebody who, due to medical issues, wants to die and will not get better. One is intended as an act of mercy to end suffering, the other is done for justice and to protect wider society. Yet here, @1,331,520 (A) you don't seem to grasp that the issue is nuanced and reduce it all to the state killing someone.
For what it's worth, I'm not necessarily against the death penalty. I watch a lot of true crime content, and I do think that there exist people who are just so inherently evil, and whose crimes are so horrific, that rehabilitation isn't possible and they should probably just be killed. But I consider this a separate issue to voluntary euthanasia.
I don't think those are the same thing, though. I don't think that the state killing a criminal (who presumably doesn't want to die) is the same as the state enabling the death of somebody who, due to medical issues, wants to die and will not get better. One is intended as an act of mercy to end suffering, the other is done for justice and to protect wider society. Yet here, @1,331,520 (A) you don't seem to grasp that the issue is nuanced and reduce it all to the state killing someone.
For what it's worth, I'm not necessarily against the death penalty. I watch a lot of true crime content, and I do think that there exist people who are just so inherently evil, and whose crimes are so horrific, that rehabilitation isn't possible and they should probably just be killed. But I consider this a separate issue to voluntary euthanasia.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,781
@previous (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
Well listen, it's all down to a fundamental principle, isn't it. Does the state have a right to justify a situation where it can kill someone?
Well listen, it's all down to a fundamental principle, isn't it. Does the state have a right to justify a situation where it can kill someone?
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 1 year ago, 7 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,807
@previous (A)
In my opinion, the two situations are so different in intention and context that they can't really be compared. The state euthenasing a cancer patient whose life is constant agony out of a sense of mercy has nothing really to do with the state executing a violent criminal as a punishment. Trying to reduce it to a binary yes/no choice is far too simplistic.
In my opinion, the two situations are so different in intention and context that they can't really be compared. The state euthenasing a cancer patient whose life is constant agony out of a sense of mercy has nothing really to do with the state executing a violent criminal as a punishment. Trying to reduce it to a binary yes/no choice is far too simplistic.
(Edited 2 hours later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,826
@previous (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
I'm not talking about the merits of the justification, but whether the state should have the ability to create a justification.
I'm not talking about the merits of the justification, but whether the state should have the ability to create a justification.
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,829
@previous (A)I suspect that we are at an impasse, here. Further discussion will probably just go around in circles, with us disagreeing on whether these issues are related or not. So I shall respectfully bow out.
But I won't leave you empty-handed. I shall post a random picture from my phone's gallery instead. I am going to close my eyes and select one at random, so you may be in for a real treat.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,831
@previous (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
It's a good picture. But I still kindly request that we should talk about the fundamental principle of whether a state can justify the killing of a citizen - even when the motives, context and scenario it uses to create that justification are very different.
Are you suggesting that the state has a right to kill in one context, but has no right to kill in another context?
It's a good picture. But I still kindly request that we should talk about the fundamental principle of whether a state can justify the killing of a citizen - even when the motives, context and scenario it uses to create that justification are very different.
Are you suggesting that the state has a right to kill in one context, but has no right to kill in another context?
(Edited 54 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,331,845
@previous (A)
The state isn't doing any killing in this scenario. A terminally ill person requests a suicide permit from the government, a court holds a hearing to determine if the person qualifies and applied of their own volition. A permit is granted or not granted. That's it. The state is out of the picture now.
The state isn't doing any killing in this scenario. A terminally ill person requests a suicide permit from the government, a court holds a hearing to determine if the person qualifies and applied of their own volition. A permit is granted or not granted. That's it. The state is out of the picture now.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)