Guest Jason Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 In article <fgsknf$3d1$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <fgkptb$8le$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <jdtpi31jp62epc1ccrturfpdgtjiqng65v@4ax.com>, Al Klein > >>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >>>> Many people (the majority of human beings, in fact) believe that Jesus > >>>> WAS NOT the son of any god. I guess that means that you'll be giving > >>>> up Christianity, right? > >>> You might let those people know that they were not alive when Jesus was on > >>> this earth so how would they know. > >> Neither were you. So how deep is that hole that you're digging, anyways? > > > > I trust the testimony of the witnesses that were alive during that time period. > > And those witnesses would be? Where can we find writings directly from > them (not these hearsay writings that were made years later)? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John Quote
Guest James Beck Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 In article <Jason-0711071218260001@66-53-212-85.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says... > In article <5pe02lFqsumtU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Jason-0611071918480001@66.53.220.228... > > > In article <jc62j35r2l218rb27tooj038aq3ukium69@4ax.com>, Al Klein > > > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > > > > > >> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:57:25 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > > >> >In article <5pbareFqkdqsU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > >> ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message > > >> >> news:2doui3lgc0aba28k52qp9umuq6uhc4hfls@4ax.com... > > >> >> > On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 11:38:13 -0500, "Robibnikoff" > > >> >> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >>"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >>snip > > >> >> >>> I did not mean that every doctor does mercy killings every day. > > > My point > > >> >> >>> was that many different doctors conduct mercy killings every day. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >>Cite? > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Jason-proof. http://tinyurl.com/24bq6o Over 1.5 MILLION hits, so > > >> >> > it > > >> >> > must be so. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > http://tinyurl.com/ytve2s is also interesting. > > >> >> > > >> >> Are you fucking kidding me? THIS is his proof? > > >> > > > >> >If you choose to believe that no doctors ever perform mercy > > > killings--so be it. > > >> > > >> You can't tell the difference between "there's at least one mercy > > >> killing performed a day" and "no mercy killings are ever performed"? > > > > > > Mercy killings are performed every day in America. I don't know how many > > > are performed each day. > > > > Then why did you assert that "many different doctors perform mercy killings > > every day"? > > Because I believe that statement. > Just like your belief in the old man in the sky, believing it does not make it so. I believe in facts, not feelings. Jim Quote
Guest James Beck Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 In article <Jason-0711071219550001@66-53-212-85.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says... > In article <mup805-6vq.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:16:11 -0800, Jason wrote: > > > > > In article <pe62j31r05im470hi9ce847l9gf9v6ji75@4ax.com>, Al Klein > > > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > > > > > >> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:00:22 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > > >> >In one state, it's now legal for doctors to conduct mercy killings. They > > >> >are now trying to make mercy killings in Californa to be legal. > > >> >Eventually, mercy killings will be legal in almost every state. > > >> > > >> Why are you against making it easier for the dying to commit suicide? > > > > > > I believe that option should be available for everyone that is on their > > > death beds and in terrible pain. > > > > But suicide, according to many, is the one unpardonable sin. So you're > > arguing for the sending of such people straight into the torments of > > hell and eternal damnation, and probably taking the doctor with them. > > > > Why do you hate people so much you'd want to see them suffer eternally, > > simply because they're suffering here and want to end it? > > I never stated that suicide is an unpardonable sin. I believe that is a > teaching of the Catholic church. I am not a Catholic. > Ah, got the Popeil Pocket Hairsplitter out again. Pick and choose from the christianity salad bar. Jim Quote
Guest James Beck Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 In article <Jason-0711071234030001@66-53-212-85.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says... > In article <fgsknf$3d1$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <fgkptb$8le$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >>> In article <jdtpi31jp62epc1ccrturfpdgtjiqng65v@4ax.com>, Al Klein > > >>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > > >>>> Many people (the majority of human beings, in fact) believe that Jesus > > >>>> WAS NOT the son of any god. I guess that means that you'll be giving > > >>>> up Christianity, right? > > >>> You might let those people know that they were not alive when Jesus was on > > >>> this earth so how would they know. > > >> Neither were you. So how deep is that hole that you're digging, anyways? > > > > > > I trust the testimony of the witnesses that were alive during that > time period. > > > > And those witnesses would be? Where can we find writings directly from > > them (not these hearsay writings that were made years later)? > > Matthew, Mark, Luke and John > How about ACTUAL historical texts. Once again, for the thousandth time, using your little black book to prove that your little black book is true is circular logic. There is no proof that such a miracle happened, belief is not proof, BTW. You know, he can put all this unrest to rest by just making a personal appearance and doing something miraculous. It is always interesting how all these miracles happen at a time and place that they are not possible to verify today. Jim Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 In article <MPG.219bee90933d277898a2d5@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > In article <Jason-0711071219550001@66-53-212-85.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, > Jason@nospam.com says... > > In article <mup805-6vq.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:16:11 -0800, Jason wrote: > > > > > > > In article <pe62j31r05im470hi9ce847l9gf9v6ji75@4ax.com>, Al Klein > > > > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:00:22 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >> > > > >> >In one state, it's now legal for doctors to conduct mercy killings. They > > > >> >are now trying to make mercy killings in Californa to be legal. > > > >> >Eventually, mercy killings will be legal in almost every state. > > > >> > > > >> Why are you against making it easier for the dying to commit suicide? > > > > > > > > I believe that option should be available for everyone that is on their > > > > death beds and in terrible pain. > > > > > > But suicide, according to many, is the one unpardonable sin. So you're > > > arguing for the sending of such people straight into the torments of > > > hell and eternal damnation, and probably taking the doctor with them. > > > > > > Why do you hate people so much you'd want to see them suffer eternally, > > > simply because they're suffering here and want to end it? > > > > I never stated that suicide is an unpardonable sin. I believe that is a > > teaching of the Catholic church. I am not a Catholic. > > > Ah, got the Popeil Pocket Hairsplitter out again. > Pick and choose from the christianity salad bar. > > Jim The Catholics base many of their beliefs on church tradition. Most non-Catholics base their beliefs on the Bible--not church tradition. The Bible does NOT state that suicide is an unpoardonable sin. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 In article <MPG.219bf108fd6e3d9a98a2d6@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > In article <Jason-0711071234030001@66-53-212-85.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, > Jason@nospam.com says... > > In article <fgsknf$3d1$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > Jason wrote: > > > > In article <fgkptb$8le$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > >>> In article <jdtpi31jp62epc1ccrturfpdgtjiqng65v@4ax.com>, Al Klein > > > >>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > > > >>>> Many people (the majority of human beings, in fact) believe that Jesus > > > >>>> WAS NOT the son of any god. I guess that means that you'll be giving > > > >>>> up Christianity, right? > > > >>> You might let those people know that they were not alive when Jesus was on > > > >>> this earth so how would they know. > > > >> Neither were you. So how deep is that hole that you're digging, anyways? > > > > > > > > I trust the testimony of the witnesses that were alive during that > > time period. > > > > > > And those witnesses would be? Where can we find writings directly from > > > them (not these hearsay writings that were made years later)? > > > > Matthew, Mark, Luke and John > > > > How about ACTUAL historical texts. > Once again, for the thousandth time, using your little black book to > prove that your little black book is true is circular logic. > There is no proof that such a miracle happened, belief is not proof, > BTW. You know, he can put all this unrest to rest by just making a > personal appearance and doing something miraculous. It is always > interesting how all these miracles happen at a time and place that they > are not possible to verify today. > > Jim If you choose to believe the Bible does not contain truth--so be it. Bumber sticker on a car that is owned by a college student: "Parents--Can't live with them and can't live without...their money. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 In article <MPG.219bee4e977e1c5998a2d4@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > In article <Jason-0711071218260001@66-53-212-85.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, > Jason@nospam.com says... > > In article <5pe02lFqsumtU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > > > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > news:Jason-0611071918480001@66.53.220.228... > > > > In article <jc62j35r2l218rb27tooj038aq3ukium69@4ax.com>, Al Klein > > > > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:57:25 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >> > > > >> >In article <5pbareFqkdqsU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > > >> ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> >> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message > > > >> >> news:2doui3lgc0aba28k52qp9umuq6uhc4hfls@4ax.com... > > > >> >> > On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 11:38:13 -0500, "Robibnikoff" > > > >> >> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >>"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >>snip > > > >> >> >>> I did not mean that every doctor does mercy killings every day. > > > > My point > > > >> >> >>> was that many different doctors conduct mercy killings every day. > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >>Cite? > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > Jason-proof. http://tinyurl.com/24bq6o Over 1.5 MILLION hits, so > > > >> >> > it > > > >> >> > must be so. > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > http://tinyurl.com/ytve2s is also interesting. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Are you fucking kidding me? THIS is his proof? > > > >> > > > > >> >If you choose to believe that no doctors ever perform mercy > > > > killings--so be it. > > > >> > > > >> You can't tell the difference between "there's at least one mercy > > > >> killing performed a day" and "no mercy killings are ever performed"? > > > > > > > > Mercy killings are performed every day in America. I don't know how many > > > > are performed each day. > > > > > > Then why did you assert that "many different doctors perform mercy killings > > > every day"? > > > > Because I believe that statement. > > > Just like your belief in the old man in the sky, believing it does not > make it so. I believe in facts, not feelings. > > Jim Mercy killing is legal in one state. Mercy killing is legal in various countries. Therefore, many different doctors perform mercy killings every day. Quote
Guest James Beck Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 In article <Jason-0711071324460001@67-150-123-232.lsan.mdsg- pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says... > In article <MPG.219bf108fd6e3d9a98a2d6@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James > Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > > > In article <Jason-0711071234030001@66-53-212-85.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, > > Jason@nospam.com says... > > > In article <fgsknf$3d1$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Jason wrote: > > > > > In article <fgkptb$8le$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > > >>> In article <jdtpi31jp62epc1ccrturfpdgtjiqng65v@4ax.com>, Al Klein > > > > >>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > > > > >>>> Many people (the majority of human beings, in fact) believe > that Jesus > > > > >>>> WAS NOT the son of any god. I guess that means that you'll be giving > > > > >>>> up Christianity, right? > > > > >>> You might let those people know that they were not alive when > Jesus was on > > > > >>> this earth so how would they know. > > > > >> Neither were you. So how deep is that hole that you're digging, > anyways? > > > > > > > > > > I trust the testimony of the witnesses that were alive during that > > > time period. > > > > > > > > And those witnesses would be? Where can we find writings directly from > > > > them (not these hearsay writings that were made years later)? > > > > > > Matthew, Mark, Luke and John > > > > > > > How about ACTUAL historical texts. > > Once again, for the thousandth time, using your little black book to > > prove that your little black book is true is circular logic. > > There is no proof that such a miracle happened, belief is not proof, > > BTW. You know, he can put all this unrest to rest by just making a > > personal appearance and doing something miraculous. It is always > > interesting how all these miracles happen at a time and place that they > > are not possible to verify today. > > > > Jim > > If you choose to believe the Bible does not contain truth--so be it. > > Bumber sticker on a car that is owned by a college student: > "Parents--Can't live with them and can't live without...their money. > I would just settle for FACTS, which it is very short on. Jim Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:19:54 -0800, Jason wrote: >> Why do you hate people so much you'd want to see them suffer eternally, >> simply because they're suffering here and want to end it? > > I never stated that suicide is an unpardonable sin. I believe that is a > teaching of the Catholic church. I am not a Catholic. Last I checked, the reasoning behind it went something like this: A sin can be forgiven, but only if the person who committed it asks for forgiveness. A dead person cannot ask forgiveness. Thus suicide involves the sin of killing - murder, if you prefer - without any ability to ask forgiveness for having committed the sin, thus there can be no forgiveness, thus the person is condemned. So. Does forgiveness come _without_ asking for it? If so, we atheists don't need to do a damn thing. Does it come from someone _else_ asking we be forgiven? I'm sure there are a few folks, somewhere, praying along those lines - "please forgive everybody" - so we atheists again don't need to do a damned thing. How nice; in contradiction to pretty much everything the resident theists would have us believe, if either of these is true, everyone - believer or not - is virtually guaranteed forgiveness. Of course, we're still left with two possibilities, one being that killing isn't a sin, in which case much of the history of the church is excused, but we've also just invalidated a lot of other nonsense, such as the religious anti-abortion stance: go ahead and kill, not like there's any spiritual/moral reason not to. Or, of course, the last option, in which the dead can in fact ask for and receive forgiveness, in which case we atheists will be in the situation to "change our minds later" - see God and ask forgiveness then. None of which gives anyone a compelling reason to waste time and energy on the religion; after all, since you're virtually guaranteed to be forgiven and/or given a chance to ask it after you're dead, why waste your time dicking around with something so pointlessly tedious here? Ain't that sweet; Jason's pet fantasies come down to a choice between making his religion essentially irrelevant, or admitting that murder (even of self) isn't a sin so feel free, go ahead. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:10:44 -0800, Jason wrote: > In the first case, the doctor should have referred the young and healthy > person to a psychologist. She wasn't "young and healthy", she was just "young". You yourself said she had clinical depression. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:32:18 -0800, Jason wrote: >> Oh, of course. We forget, nuclear materials cannot be used for thing >> such as, oh, nuclear power plants. Those run on last week's leftovers. > There have been several books written about the end goal of Muslim > fanatics. There's been a lot written about God, too, and despite this there has yet to be a single shred of a reason to take the notion seriously. Loo, just because you're silly enough to accept as absolute truth any piece of random written gibberish doesn't mean we are. We require evidence of claims. So far you've offered none for your claims about gods, nor have you offered any for your claims about Iran. -- The Cross is the only hope for the world. -- Charles Rollins Only if we put more Christians on the things. -- David Worrell Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:16:11 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <pe62j31r05im470hi9ce847l9gf9v6ji75@4ax.com>, Al Klein ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:00:22 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >In one state, it's now legal for doctors to conduct mercy killings. They >> >are now trying to make mercy killings in Californa to be legal. >> >Eventually, mercy killings will be legal in almost every state. >> >> Why are you against making it easier for the dying to commit suicide? > >I believe that option should be available for everyone that is on their >death beds and in terrible pain. I have watched a close relative die and >that relative had great amounts of pain and suffering. If you have NEVER >watched a relative die in that sort of situation--I don't expect you to >agree with me. > You're claiming to be in favor of it, but you keep making posts against it. -- Al at Webdingers dot com "The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" - Treaty with Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress, signed by John Adams Quote
Guest Charles & Mambo Duckman Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 Jason wrote: > The president of Iran has clearly stated that "Israel must be wiped off > from the map of the world". I swear, if you were standing next to me, I'd start punching your fucking face with my foot every time you said this goddamn sentence. You must have said this something like 500 times already. Change the fucking tune. You're really annoying. -- Come down off the cross We can use the wood Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:18:08 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <jc62j35r2l218rb27tooj038aq3ukium69@4ax.com>, Al Klein ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:57:25 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >In article <5pbareFqkdqsU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >> >> news:2doui3lgc0aba28k52qp9umuq6uhc4hfls@4ax.com... >> >> > On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 11:38:13 -0500, "Robibnikoff" >> >> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >>"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >> >> >> >> >> >>snip >> >> >>> I did not mean that every doctor does mercy killings every day. >My point >> >> >>> was that many different doctors conduct mercy killings every day. >> >> >> >> >> >>Cite? >> >> > >> >> > Jason-proof. http://tinyurl.com/24bq6o Over 1.5 MILLION hits, so it >> >> > must be so. >> >> > >> >> > http://tinyurl.com/ytve2s is also interesting. >> >> >> >> Are you fucking kidding me? THIS is his proof? >> > >> >If you choose to believe that no doctors ever perform mercy >killings--so be it. >> >> You can't tell the difference between "there's at least one mercy >> killing performed a day" and "no mercy killings are ever performed"? > >Mercy killings are performed every day in America. Yes, you've said that before. You still haven't produced the slightest shred of evidence to back it up. > I don't know how many are performed each day. Just about none. If you have evidence - not feelings or beliefs, EVIDENCE - to the contrary, post it. > As you know, mercy killings are LEGAL in one >state. > As you claim you want - to enable the dying to get help to commit suicide. -- Al at Webdingers dot com We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. - H. L. Mencken Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 In article <32v905-6vq.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:19:54 -0800, Jason wrote: > > >> Why do you hate people so much you'd want to see them suffer eternally, > >> simply because they're suffering here and want to end it? > > > > I never stated that suicide is an unpardonable sin. I believe that is a > > teaching of the Catholic church. I am not a Catholic. > > Last I checked, the reasoning behind it went something like this: > > A sin can be forgiven, but only if the person who committed it asks for > forgiveness. > > A dead person cannot ask forgiveness. Let's say a person takes 20 pills and knows that those 20 pills will kill him. That person could ask for forgiveness before he died. Let's say that a person jumps out of a 30 floor building. That person could ask for forgiveness before that person hits the ground. Let's say that a person shoots himself in the heart. That person could ask for forgiveness before he died. > > Thus suicide involves the sin of killing - murder, if you prefer - without > any ability to ask forgiveness for having committed the sin, thus there can > be no forgiveness, thus the person is condemned. > > So. Does forgiveness come _without_ asking for it? If so, we atheists > don't need to do a damn thing. Does it come from someone _else_ asking we > be forgiven? I'm sure there are a few folks, somewhere, praying along > those lines - "please forgive everybody" - so we atheists again don't need > to do a damned thing. How nice; in contradiction to pretty much > everything the resident theists would have us believe, if either of these > is true, everyone - believer or not - is virtually guaranteed forgiveness. > > Of course, we're still left with two possibilities, one being that killing > isn't a sin, in which case much of the history of the church is excused, > but we've also just invalidated a lot of other nonsense, such as the > religious anti-abortion stance: go ahead and kill, not like there's any > spiritual/moral reason not to. > > Or, of course, the last option, in which the dead can in fact ask for and > receive forgiveness, in which case we atheists will be in the situation to > "change our minds later" - see God and ask forgiveness then. > > None of which gives anyone a compelling reason to waste time and energy on > the religion; after all, since you're virtually guaranteed to be forgiven > and/or given a chance to ask it after you're dead, why waste your time > dicking around with something so pointlessly tedious here? > > Ain't that sweet; Jason's pet fantasies come down to a choice between > making his religion essentially irrelevant, or admitting that murder (even > of self) isn't a sin so feel free, go ahead. Mercy killing of a man or woman that is on their death bed and is in terrible pain---is VERY different than the suicide of a young and healthy person. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 In article <mep4j3hac8g27vdpp9rnt4hb7gkak7jmjg@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:16:11 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >In article <pe62j31r05im470hi9ce847l9gf9v6ji75@4ax.com>, Al Klein > ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:00:22 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > >> >In one state, it's now legal for doctors to conduct mercy killings. They > >> >are now trying to make mercy killings in Californa to be legal. > >> >Eventually, mercy killings will be legal in almost every state. > >> > >> Why are you against making it easier for the dying to commit suicide? > > > >I believe that option should be available for everyone that is on their > >death beds and in terrible pain. I have watched a close relative die and > >that relative had great amounts of pain and suffering. If you have NEVER > >watched a relative die in that sort of situation--I don't expect you to > >agree with me. > > > You're claiming to be in favor of it, but you keep making posts > against it. Each case is different. I have stating in several posts that mercy killing should only be performed on people that are on their death beds and in severe pain. In addition, that person should have told the doctor that he wants to be mercy killed. Those are the mercy killings that I am in favor of. Of course, I am not in favor of the mercy killing of healthy people. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 In article <j4v905-6vq.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:10:44 -0800, Jason wrote: > > > In the first case, the doctor should have referred the young and healthy > > person to a psychologist. > > She wasn't "young and healthy", she was just "young". You yourself said > she had clinical depression. Good point--you are correct. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 In article <Gumdnc8IiKlj-K_anZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > > The president of Iran has clearly stated that "Israel must be wiped off > > from the map of the world". > > I swear, if you were standing next to me, I'd start punching your fucking > face with my foot every time you said this goddamn sentence. You must have > said this something like 500 times already. > > Change the fucking tune. You're really annoying. I feel the same way about the stupid people that repeat over and over and over that Iran is developing nuclear materials that will be used for peaceful purposes. Every intelligent person knows that Iran could use oil to produce all of the electric power that is needed. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:20:06 -0800, Jason wrote: >> A dead person cannot ask forgiveness. > Let's say a person takes 20 pills and knows that those 20 pills will kill > him. That person could ask for forgiveness before he died. Yet he hasn't died - nor killed anyone. The sin has not yet been committed. > Mercy killing of a man or woman that is on their death bed and is in > terrible pain---is VERY different than the suicide of a young and > healthy person. What "young healthy person"? You were discussing someone with clinical depression so severe they were seriously contemplating suicide. This, in your befuddled little mind, qualifies as "healthy"? You're an idiot. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:25:44 -0800, Jason wrote: > In article <j4v905-6vq.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:10:44 -0800, Jason wrote: >> >> > In the first case, the doctor should have referred the young and healthy >> > person to a psychologist. >> >> She wasn't "young and healthy", she was just "young". You yourself said >> she had clinical depression. > > Good point--you are correct. Good, we're getting somewhere. So now we have two people, each in - to them - unbearable suffering. Yet it's okay to kill one, but not the other. Since we cannot know as an absolute that either is incurable, this cannot be the deciding factor. Since only they can determine whether the suffering is unbearable - and in the example, both have agreed it is - this cannot be the deciding factor. Thus it's either age or gender; it's okay to kill old people, or it's okay to kill males. Which is it? It's a mortal sin to kill a girl, but guys, well, hell, nuke 'em by the dozen? Quote
Guest Richard Clayton Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <mep4j3hac8g27vdpp9rnt4hb7gkak7jmjg@4ax.com>, Al Klein > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:16:11 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>> In article <pe62j31r05im470hi9ce847l9gf9v6ji75@4ax.com>, Al Klein >>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:00:22 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>> >>>>> In one state, it's now legal for doctors to conduct mercy killings. They >>>>> are now trying to make mercy killings in Californa to be legal. >>>>> Eventually, mercy killings will be legal in almost every state. >>>> Why are you against making it easier for the dying to commit suicide? >>> I believe that option should be available for everyone that is on their >>> death beds and in terrible pain. I have watched a close relative die and >>> that relative had great amounts of pain and suffering. If you have NEVER >>> watched a relative die in that sort of situation--I don't expect you to >>> agree with me. >>> >> You're claiming to be in favor of it, but you keep making posts >> against it. > > Each case is different. I have stating in several posts that mercy killing > should only be performed on people that are on their death beds and in > severe pain. In addition, that person should have told the doctor that he > wants to be mercy killed. Those are the mercy killings that I am in favor > of. > > Of course, I am not in favor of the mercy killing of healthy people. Does a person own his own life? Does he have the right to choose not to live any longer, even if in perfect physical health? -- [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.] Richard Clayton "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings." Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:28:17 -0800, Jason wrote: > In article <Gumdnc8IiKlj-K_anZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo > Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >> > The president of Iran has clearly stated that "Israel must be wiped off >> > from the map of the world". >> >> I swear, if you were standing next to me, I'd start punching your fucking >> face with my foot every time you said this goddamn sentence. You must have >> said this something like 500 times already. >> >> Change the fucking tune. You're really annoying. > > I feel the same way about the stupid people that repeat over and over and > over that Iran is developing nuclear materials that will be used for > peaceful purposes. Every intelligent person knows that Iran could use oil > to produce all of the electric power that is needed. They could, sure. However there are problems with this. Oil is expensive - and marketable. You don't get rich consuming the most important commodity you can sell, you get rich by selling it. Nuclear power is somewhat less polluting. Granted, the end products need some rather special care, but you're not pumping out millions of tons of noxious fumes into the air, either. Hmm. A quick dig around: FOR THE MONTH: May 2007 Total monthly nuclear production: 7,690,000 MWh(e) net 1 Equivalent usage: 7,900,000 Canadian homes Wholesale value: 307,400,000 Cdn. dollars MONTHLY AIR POLLUTION AND GREENHOUSE GASES AVOIDED: Carbon dioxide (CO2) avoided: 6,500,000 tonnes Nitrogen oxides (NOx) avoided: 25,400 tonnes Sulphur dioxide (SO2) avoided: 29,200 tonnes Particulate emissions avoided: 9,200 tonnes Deaths due to respiratory illness avoided: 15 - 90 Oil is a strictly limited resource; nuclear power to all intents and purposes isn't. If you're building a new power infrastructure, doing so based on a resource which you know is going to disappear in the comparatively near future doesn't exactly win one many genius points. Oil has many uses besides power generation - plastics, organic chemicals, waxes, asphalt, lubricants. The impact of forgoing oil would be significant on virtually every field, including - thanks to the organic chemicals - areas such as medicine. Burning the oil as fuel, when it is so useful in other areas and there are fuel alternatives, is simply irresponsible. So, of course, Jason sees nuclear materials, concludes the only possible explanation is nuclear arms, and advocates what is arguably the most irresponsible possible alternative when it comes to power generation. That's our Jason. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 In article <4faa05-6vq.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:25:44 -0800, Jason wrote: > > > In article <j4v905-6vq.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> [snips] > >> > >> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:10:44 -0800, Jason wrote: > >> > >> > In the first case, the doctor should have referred the young and healthy > >> > person to a psychologist. > >> > >> She wasn't "young and healthy", she was just "young". You yourself said > >> she had clinical depression. > > > > Good point--you are correct. > > Good, we're getting somewhere. > > So now we have two people, each in - to them - unbearable suffering. Yet > it's okay to kill one, but not the other. > > Since we cannot know as an absolute that either is incurable, this cannot > be the deciding factor. > > Since only they can determine whether the suffering is unbearable - and in > the example, both have agreed it is - this cannot be the deciding factor. > > Thus it's either age or gender; it's okay to kill old people, or it's okay > to kill males. > > Which is it? It's a mortal sin to kill a girl, but guys, well, hell, nuke > 'em by the dozen? Let's leave sex out of it. The person that is suffering from clinical depression is a male and the elderly person that is on their death bed is a male. The doctor of the elderly man is certain that the man will die within the next three months. The doctor also knows the man will be in a great amount of pain until the death takes place. The man and the members of his family has requested a mercy killing. The doctor unplugs all of the machines that are keeping the man alive and the man dies. I agree with the doctor's decision. The other man that has clinical depression is a different case. There are many options to treat that man. He could be given a medication such a Prozac and referred to a psychologist. If a doctor decided to mercy kill that man--I would not agree with that doctor's decision. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 In article <8cca05-6vq.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:28:17 -0800, Jason wrote: > > > In article <Gumdnc8IiKlj-K_anZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo > > Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > >> > The president of Iran has clearly stated that "Israel must be wiped off > >> > from the map of the world". > >> > >> I swear, if you were standing next to me, I'd start punching your fucking > >> face with my foot every time you said this goddamn sentence. You must have > >> said this something like 500 times already. > >> > >> Change the fucking tune. You're really annoying. > > > > I feel the same way about the stupid people that repeat over and over and > > over that Iran is developing nuclear materials that will be used for > > peaceful purposes. Every intelligent person knows that Iran could use oil > > to produce all of the electric power that is needed. > > They could, sure. However there are problems with this. > > Oil is expensive - and marketable. You don't get rich consuming the most > important commodity you can sell, you get rich by selling it. > > Nuclear power is somewhat less polluting. Granted, the end products need > some rather special care, but you're not pumping out millions of tons of > noxious fumes into the air, either. > > Hmm. A quick dig around: > > FOR THE MONTH: May 2007 > > Total monthly nuclear production: > 7,690,000 MWh(e) net 1 > > Equivalent usage: 7,900,000 Canadian homes > > Wholesale value: 307,400,000 Cdn. dollars > > MONTHLY AIR POLLUTION > AND GREENHOUSE GASES AVOIDED: > > Carbon dioxide (CO2) avoided: 6,500,000 tonnes > Nitrogen oxides (NOx) avoided: 25,400 tonnes > Sulphur dioxide (SO2) avoided: 29,200 tonnes > Particulate emissions avoided: 9,200 tonnes > Deaths due to respiratory illness avoided: 15 - 90 > > > Oil is a strictly limited resource; nuclear power to all intents and > purposes isn't. If you're building a new power infrastructure, doing so > based on a resource which you know is going to disappear in the > comparatively near future doesn't exactly win one many genius points. > > Oil has many uses besides power generation - plastics, organic chemicals, > waxes, asphalt, lubricants. The impact of forgoing oil would be > significant on virtually every field, including - thanks to the organic > chemicals - areas such as medicine. Burning the oil as fuel, when it is > so useful in other areas and there are fuel alternatives, is simply > irresponsible. > > So, of course, Jason sees nuclear materials, concludes the only possible > explanation is nuclear arms, and advocates what is arguably the most > irresponsible possible alternative when it comes to power generation. > > That's our Jason. If you choose to believe that the president of Iran is developing nuclear materials to be used for peaceful purposes--so be it. If you are correct, why did Iran seek to hide one of their nuclear facilities from the U.N. weapons inspectors? Did you know that back in the days when Hitler was killing millions of Jews, there were people like you living in America. They did NOT want America to get involved in that war. I doubt that you would admit that Iran is developing nuclear weapons until the day that a nuclear missile from Iran is fired into the central portion of Israel. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57465-2004Nov17.html washingtonpost.com Powell Says Iran Is Pursuing Bomb Evidence Cited of Effort to Adapt Missile By Robin Wright and Keith B. Richburg Washington Post Foreign Service Thursday, November 18, 2004; Page A01 SANTIAGO, Chile, Nov. 17 -- The United States has intelligence that Iran is working to adapt missiles to deliver a nuclear weapon, further evidence that the Islamic republic is determined to acquire a nuclear bomb, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Wednesday. Separately, an Iranian opposition exile group charged in Paris that Iran is enriching uranium at a secret military facility unknown to U.N. weapons inspectors. Iran has denied seeking to build nuclear weapons. Mohammad Mohaddessin, of the National Council for Resistance in Iran, uses satellite imagery to pinpoint what the group says is a previously unknown nuclear facility in Iran. (Laurent Rebours -- AP) "I have seen some information that would suggest that they have been actively working on delivery systems. . . . You don't have a weapon until you put it in something that can deliver a weapon," Powell told reporters traveling with him to Chile for an Asia-Pacific economic summit. "I'm not talking about uranium or fissile material or the warhead; I'm talking about what one does with a warhead." Powell's comments came just three days after an agreement between Iran and three European countries -- Britain, France and Germany -- designed to limit Tehran's ability to divert its peaceful nuclear energy program for military use. The primary focus of the deal, accepted by Iran on Sunday and due to go into effect Nov. 22, is a stipulation that Iran indefinitely suspend its uranium enrichment program. The issue of adapting a missile is separate from the question of enriching uranium for use in a weapon. "I'm talking about information that says they not only have these missiles, but I am aware of information that suggests that they were working hard as to how to put the two together," Powell said, referring to the process of matching warheads to missiles. He spoke to reporters during a refueling stop in Manaus, Brazil. "There is no doubt in my mind -- and it's fairly straightforward from what we've been saying for years -- that they have been interested in a nuclear weapon that has utility, meaning that it is something they would be able to deliver, not just something that sits there," Powell said. Iran has long been known to have a missile program, while denying that it was seeking a nuclear bomb. Powell seemed to be suggesting that efforts not previously disclosed were underway to arm missiles with nuclear warheads. Joseph Cirincione, director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Powell's remarks indicated that Iran was trying to master the difficult technology of reducing the size of a nuclear warhead to fit on a ballistic missile. "Powell appears to be saying the Iranians are working very hard on this capability," Cirincione said. He said Powell's comments were striking because the International Atomic Energy Agency said this week that it had not seen any information that Iran had conducted weapons-related work. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 In article <T1vYi.5441$b%1.2615@trnddc01>, Richard Clayton <pockZIGetnZIGerd@verizon.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <mep4j3hac8g27vdpp9rnt4hb7gkak7jmjg@4ax.com>, Al Klein > > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:16:11 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > >>> In article <pe62j31r05im470hi9ce847l9gf9v6ji75@4ax.com>, Al Klein > >>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:00:22 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> In one state, it's now legal for doctors to conduct mercy killings. They > >>>>> are now trying to make mercy killings in Californa to be legal. > >>>>> Eventually, mercy killings will be legal in almost every state. > >>>> Why are you against making it easier for the dying to commit suicide? > >>> I believe that option should be available for everyone that is on their > >>> death beds and in terrible pain. I have watched a close relative die and > >>> that relative had great amounts of pain and suffering. If you have NEVER > >>> watched a relative die in that sort of situation--I don't expect you to > >>> agree with me. > >>> > >> You're claiming to be in favor of it, but you keep making posts > >> against it. > > > > Each case is different. I have stating in several posts that mercy killing > > should only be performed on people that are on their death beds and in > > severe pain. In addition, that person should have told the doctor that he > > wants to be mercy killed. Those are the mercy killings that I am in favor > > of. > > > > Of course, I am not in favor of the mercy killing of healthy people. > > Does a person own his own life? Does he have the right to choose not to > live any longer, even if in perfect physical health? According to the 2005 edition of the Time Almanac--30,622 Americans committed suicide in 2001. If people want to kill themselves, there is not much anyone can do about it. It's my opinion that doctors should not help healthy people to commit suicide. There is one famous book that provides detailed instuctions on various ways to commit suicide. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.