[Serious Thread] Assisted Suicide.

[KrazyHorse]

Dude! I'm saying they were murder.

I know, and that's what makes you silly.

[Drake Tungsten]

Seriously, nye, the easiest way to stop looking like a complete fool is just admit "yeah, I didn't read the post, and I've been trying to make up **** to cover that up ever since", especially since that admission wouldn't affect your argument in the least.

It's a little late to be backing away from Tardville now.

[notyoueither]

"the article does not discuss the legality of the death camps"

"the author says he thinks they were legal"

So you can't spot elementary contradictions in your own posts.

OK. I grant you that.

Allow me to clarify.

The author has an opinion. I asked for evidence that the death camps were legal under German law. An opinion of an author does not count for much, when the reviewer has to state 'for him.' Pretty lonely position.

Incidentally, the author also posits that the US and Canada were part of the Holocaust. Are you still on board?

[notyoueither]

I know, and that's what makes you silly.

Why?

[KrazyHorse]

Because you've taken an indefensible position. Just claim that "murder" and "immoral killing" are not synonymous. You trapped yourself in a definitional war which you can't win for no reason.

[Kuciwalker]

The author has an opinion. I asked for evidence that the death camps were legal under German law. An opinion of an author does not count for much, when the reviewer has to state 'for him.' Pretty lonely position.

Yes, and that's a credible counterargument, but 'where does it mention the Holocaust' is not. You didn't read the post. Admit it and move on to things that are worthwhile.

Incidentally, the author also posits that the US and Canada were part of the Holocaust. Are you still on board?

The author is 100% correct.

[KrazyHorse]

I'll take the non-**** version of this argument:

1) "murder" is "unlawful killing"
2) No, many of the killings of the Holocaust were not murder. This doesn't mean they weren't horribly wrong
3) assisted suicide may or may not be murder currently (depends on jurisdiction). Doesn't affect its morality. If it's not wrong to kill yourself then it's not wrong for somebody else to help you kill yourself more painlessly/easily. Freedom of contract. It may be wrong to ASK a friend or relative to kill you because of the emotional burden this places on them. Still, it's not a matter for the law. If assisted suicide is against the law, the law should be changed.

[Kuciwalker]

I'll take the non-**** version of this argument:

1) "murder" is "unlawful killing"
2) No, many of the killings of the Holocaust were not murder. This doesn't mean they weren't horribly wrong
3) assisted suicide may or may not be murder currently (depends on jurisdiction). Doesn't affect its morality. If it's not wrong to kill yourself then it's not wrong for somebody else to help you kill yourself more painlessly/easily. Freedom of contract. It may be wrong to ASK a friend or relative to kill you because of the emotional burden this places on them. Still, it's not a matter for the law. If assisted suicide is against the law, the law should be changed.

Guys, any one of you could have made this argument right at the start and Drake would have just made a few trolls and left. But you engaged him on ridiculous grounds and let him lead you to the frigging Holocaust and back.

[KrazyHorse]

Who are you talking to? I didn't engage until now.

EDIT: I was mainly just letting Drake play. But I actually believe something close to that argument, so I'm not going to let him romp all over the ***** if it looks like it's discrediting that position

[notyoueither]

Because you've taken an indefensible position.

What is indefensible?

Just claim that "murder" and "immoral killing" are not synonymous.

Why?

Murder is an act defined by the state. The problem with the Nazi equation is that it was a criminal state.

What do we say about the Taliban?

Milosevic?

Chauchesku?

There are governments that go beyond the law, either local, International, or both.

You trapped yourself in a definitional war which you can't win for no reason.

I'm not sure what this means.

Definitional war. Check.

Can't win for no reason... huh? I'm not familiar if this is a phrase I should know.

Meaningless?

[Drake Tungsten]

If it's not wrong to kill yourself then it's not wrong for somebody else to help you kill yourself more painlessly/easily.

I disagree. It doesn't necessarily follow that it's morally just for another person to kill you (even with your permission) just because it's morally just for you to kill yourself.

Also, it's not clear that killing yourself is morally just in the first place. I think it is, but I have no basis for that other than personal preference.

[KrazyHorse]

I disagree. It doesn't necessarily follow that it's morally just for another person to kill you (even with your permission) just because it's morally just for you to kill yourself.

It doesn't but it's a reasonably justified position in terms of the idea of freedom of contract.

[notyoueither]

Guys, any one of you could have made this argument right at the start and Drake would have just made a few trolls and left. But you engaged him on ridiculous grounds and let him lead you to the frigging Holocaust and back.

I very much doubt it. That Drake would have left, that is.

And I pointed out the Godwin.

[Kuciwalker]

Who are you talking to? I didn't engage until now.

EDIT: I was mainly just letting Drake play. But I actually believe something close to that argument, so I'm not going to let him romp all over the ***** if it looks like it's discrediting that position

I was talking to nye and St Jon.

[Drake Tungsten]

It doesn't but it's a reasonably justified position in terms of the idea of freedom of contract.

True. That being said, I'm just not sure if I'm comfortable with freedom of contract being allowed to encompass matters of life and death. That's how you end up with **** like that German guy who arranged to murder someone else on Craigslist.