Left-wing insanity reaches new levels

[P@triot]

Suicide is the ending of a life, and like abortion and the death penalty, is full of complexities. Can you end a life? Sure that's simple. Should you and under what conditions? Not simple. If it were it would not be such a hot topic in ethics.

It's only a "hot topic" because the left has an agenda. And that agenda does not have the best interest of the United States in mind.

No state should prevent suicide and no state should sanction suicide. They should stay the hell out of it and stick to the function of government.

 

[Coyote]

Suicide is the ending of a life, and like abortion and the death penalty, is full of complexities. Can you end a life? Sure that's simple. Should you and under what conditions? Not simple. If it were it would not be such a hot topic in ethics.

It's only a "hot topic" because the left has an agenda. And that agenda does not have the best interest of the United States in mind.

No state should prevent suicide and no state should sanction suicide. They should stay the hell out of it and stick to the function of government.

I disagree...it's not a "hot topic" because of partisan agendas. These are genuine ethical issues.

Let me put it to you this way....

"No state should prevent suicide"....

Should they prevent heart attacks? I.E. if someone has a heart attack...should we do anything?

Suicide is a symptom of a sick mind - often.

A sick mind can get better.

If someone has a heart attack - we intervene.

If someone has a sic, mind - we don't intervene.

What's the sense in that?

 

[P@triot]

Ethics ARE complex - ever more so in this era where our scientific accomplishments outstrip our ethics

Nothing outstrips ethics unless you allow it to.

 

[Coyote]

Ethics ARE complex - ever more so in this era where our scientific accomplishments outstrip our ethics

Nothing outstrips ethics unless you allow it to.

That's easy to say...but ethics have to adapt to new situations - how do you develop ethics to adapt to new situations?

 

[P@triot]

Let me put it to you this way....

"No state should prevent suicide"....

Should they prevent heart attacks? I.E. if someone has a heart attack...should we do anything?

When someone is having a heart attack - a person calls for help. Do they do that during a suicide? A person having a heart attack wants help. A person committing suicide does not. Why does the government insist on providing "help" where no help is desired? It's not "help" at all if someone doesn't want it.

 

[Coyote]

Let me put it to you this way....

"No state should prevent suicide"....

Should they prevent heart attacks? I.E. if someone has a heart attack...should we do anything?

When someone is having a heart attack - a person calls for help. Do they do that during a suicide? A person having a heart attack wants help. A person committing suicide does not. Why does the government insist on providing "help" where no help is desired? It's not "help" at all if someone doesn't want it.

It depends. People say those who commit suicide often have a trail of suicide attempts that are a call for help.

Another thing is - a brain illness affects thinking. A person in that state might not be able to call for help.

That leads me to ask: why are brain illness' held to a DIFFERENT standard than illness' of other parts of the body?

For example a person in the throws of a heart attack or stroke or a seizure might NOT be able to call for help.

A person who is suicical might not be able to either because his/her very thinking is affected by the illness.

So why the difference between a brain illness and an illness of some other part of the bod?

 

[P@triot]

That's easy to say...but ethics have to adapt to new situations - how do you develop ethics to adapt to new situations?

My dear....morals do not change even if situations do. Whether it's 1776 and I'm with a virtuous woman covered head-to-toe or it's 2076 and I'm with a promiscuous woman who is naked, I don't rape her. See? The situation changes but the morals do not.

 

[Coyote]

That's easy to say...but ethics have to adapt to new situations - how do you develop ethics to adapt to new situations?

My dear....morals do not change even if situations do. Whether it's 1776 and I'm with a virtuous woman covered head-to-toe or it's 2076 and I'm with a promiscuous woman who is naked, I don't rape her. See? The situation changes but the morals do not.

Sweetheart...they do...

Just a few examples:

The ethics and morals of slavery.
Rape - yes...rape wasn't "rape if the woman was "promiscuous"...or if the woman was your wife.
You could rape a slave and it wasn't unethical...nor was it "rape".

 

[Bush92]

That's easy to say...but ethics have to adapt to new situations - how do you develop ethics to adapt to new situations?

My dear....morals do not change even if situations do. Whether it's 1776 and I'm with a virtuous woman covered head-to-toe or it's 2076 and I'm with a promiscuous woman who is naked, I don't rape her. See? The situation changes but the morals do not.

Sweetheart...they do...

Just a few examples:

The ethics and morals of slavery.
Rape - yes...rape wasn't "rape if the woman was "promiscuous"...or if the woman was your wife.
You could rape a slave and it wasn't unethical...nor was it "rape".

Stupid. Happend rarely. You could not rape a slave and get by with it either. Typical liberal college history shit.

 

[Bush92]

This is the sort of absurdity that could only come from the left. In a state where suicide is legal, San Francisco is spending $211 million of the tax payer's money to prevent people from committing suicide.

After 1,600 people, tragically died since 1937 by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge, an obstacle to suicide will soon run the 9,000-ft. length of the bridge.

What’s perplexing is that this compassionate enterprise is taking place in a liberal state where assisted suicide is legal, and where, in 2011, out of 802,400 pregnancies, 184,552, or 23%, ended in abortion.

San Francisco is a city whose majority likely endorses the 3,000 abortions performed every day in America. Yet Bagdad-by-the-Bay plans to spend 211 million in taxpayer dollars to deny one person, every two weeks, the right to choose to do what California law otherwise maintains should hinge solely on personal choice.

Now that is a very special kind of stupid that isn't found anywhere else in the world than the bat-shit crazy left-wing ideology.

Articles: Preventing ‘Back Alley’ Suicides in San Francisco

Hope they are all Democrats. Good riddance.

 

[Coyote]

That's easy to say...but ethics have to adapt to new situations - how do you develop ethics to adapt to new situations?

My dear....morals do not change even if situations do. Whether it's 1776 and I'm with a virtuous woman covered head-to-toe or it's 2076 and I'm with a promiscuous woman who is naked, I don't rape her. See? The situation changes but the morals do not.

Sweetheart...they do...

Just a few examples:

The ethics and morals of slavery.
Rape - yes...rape wasn't "rape if the woman was "promiscuous"...or if the woman was your wife.
You could rape a slave and it wasn't unethical...nor was it "rape".

Stupid. Happend rarely. You could not rape a slave and get by with it either. Typical liberal college history shit.

Evidence?

 

[P@triot]

So why the difference between a brain illness and an illness of some other part of the bod?

Because we know how to fix other parts of the body. That's not the case with the brain. We can't cure mental retardation, or autism, or down's syndrome, etc.

 

[Coyote]

So why the difference between a brain illness and an illness of some other part of the bod?

Because we know how to fix other parts of the body. That's not the case with the brain. We can't cure mental retardation, or autism, or down's syndrome, etc.

The fact that don't (yet) know how to fix all illness' of the brain shouldn't effect the ethics should it?

We can't cure many cancers...or ....heart disease...or...diabetes...or...epilepsy....we just treat them the best we can.

How does that affect ethics?

 

[P@triot]

Sweetheart...they do...

Just a few examples:

The ethics and morals of slavery.
Rape - yes...rape wasn't "rape if the woman was "promiscuous"...or if the woman was your wife.
You could rape a slave and it wasn't unethical...nor was it "rape".

You're attempting to point to people without morals as "proof" that morals "change". Yes - there were some dirt-bags who raped slaves. Just like some dirt-bags today rape women. That doesn't mean morals change - it just means that dirt-bags lack morals. That's what makes them most dirt-bags.

 

[Coyote]

Sweetheart...they do...

Just a few examples:

The ethics and morals of slavery.
Rape - yes...rape wasn't "rape if the woman was "promiscuous"...or if the woman was your wife.
You could rape a slave and it wasn't unethical...nor was it "rape".

You're attempting to point to people without morals as "proof" that morals "change". Yes - there were some dirt-bags who raped slaves. Just like some dirt-bags today rape women. That doesn't mean morals change - it just means that dirt-bags lack morals. That's what makes them most dirt-bags.

No, I'm pointing out that "ethics" change.

White men having sex with female slaves wasn't considered unethical - it was a "right" of the slave owner.

Slavery wasn't considered unethical.



To fast forward it - consider the current era, consider the evolving ethics of the way humans treat other species.

 

[Bush92]

That's easy to say...but ethics have to adapt to new situations - how do you develop ethics to adapt to new situations?

My dear....morals do not change even if situations do. Whether it's 1776 and I'm with a virtuous woman covered head-to-toe or it's 2076 and I'm with a promiscuous woman who is naked, I don't rape her. See? The situation changes but the morals do not.

Sweetheart...they do...

Just a few examples:

The ethics and morals of slavery.
Rape - yes...rape wasn't "rape if the woman was "promiscuous"...or if the woman was your wife.
You could rape a slave and it wasn't unethical...nor was it "rape".

Stupid. Happend rarely. You could not rape a slave and get by with it either. Typical liberal college history shit.

Evidence?

Oh God...here we go again!

 

[Bush92]

That's easy to say...but ethics have to adapt to new situations - how do you develop ethics to adapt to new situations?

My dear....morals do not change even if situations do. Whether it's 1776 and I'm with a virtuous woman covered head-to-toe or it's 2076 and I'm with a promiscuous woman who is naked, I don't rape her. See? The situation changes but the morals do not.

Sweetheart...they do...

Just a few examples:

The ethics and morals of slavery.
Rape - yes...rape wasn't "rape if the woman was "promiscuous"...or if the woman was your wife.
You could rape a slave and it wasn't unethical...nor was it "rape".

Stupid. Happend rarely. You could not rape a slave and get by with it either. Typical liberal college history shit.

Evidence?

H-Net Reviews

 

[Bush92]

That's easy to say...but ethics have to adapt to new situations - how do you develop ethics to adapt to new situations?

My dear....morals do not change even if situations do. Whether it's 1776 and I'm with a virtuous woman covered head-to-toe or it's 2076 and I'm with a promiscuous woman who is naked, I don't rape her. See? The situation changes but the morals do not.

Sweetheart...they do...

Just a few examples:

The ethics and morals of slavery.
Rape - yes...rape wasn't "rape if the woman was "promiscuous"...or if the woman was your wife.
You could rape a slave and it wasn't unethical...nor was it "rape".

Stupid. Happend rarely. You could not rape a slave and get by with it either. Typical liberal college history shit.

Evidence?

7 to 10% was all.


Miscegenation in the Antebellum South

 

[bripat9643]

This is the sort of absurdity that could only come from the left. In a state where suicide is legal, San Francisco is spending $211 million of the tax payer's money to prevent people from committing suicide.

After 1,600 people, tragically died since 1937 by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge, an obstacle to suicide will soon run the 9,000-ft. length of the bridge.

What’s perplexing is that this compassionate enterprise is taking place in a liberal state where assisted suicide is legal, and where, in 2011, out of 802,400 pregnancies, 184,552, or 23%, ended in abortion.

San Francisco is a city whose majority likely endorses the 3,000 abortions performed every day in America. Yet Bagdad-by-the-Bay plans to spend 211 million in taxpayer dollars to deny one person, every two weeks, the right to choose to do what California law otherwise maintains should hinge solely on personal choice.

Now that is a very special kind of stupid that isn't found anywhere else in the world than the bat-shit crazy left-wing ideology.

Articles: Preventing ‘Back Alley’ Suicides in San Francisco

We spend many more times that amount of taxpayer money killing people...seems like this is a much better idea.

Plenty of people need killing.

 

[P@triot]

Slavery wasn't considered unethical.

Sure it was. Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson vehemently opposed it. Morals don't change.