🚀 go-pugleaf

Darcy Brown <visualiz@ont.com> wrote in article
<visualiz-ya02408000R2404970136410001@news.ont.com>...
>  "rod speed" wrote:
> > Patrick Canion <pspat@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote in article
> > > _nantko@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema) wrote:

> > > I have always accepted that the basis for my argument
> > > is on faith alone in what the Bible teaches.

> > Fine, you are welcome to your quite remarkably silly collection of fairy storys.
> > Just dont try telling me that I must operate in a particular way because of some
> > crap in that collection of silly fairy storys thanks. Your loopy ideas are your problem. 

> Fine, you are welcome to your own ideas too. 

Not when you fundys succeed in ramming your quite remarkably silly ideas 
on assistance with suicide down others throats via legislation Darcy. 

> However, that is not the issue here. 

Corse it is. 

> > > >Not only do you deny any person the right to take his life and death in his own
> > > >hands, you also try to defend this ugly idea with something very selfish.

> > > No, from the perspective of euthanasia I am trying to deny the 
> > > right for another person to assist someone to take another's life.  

> > Soorree, we allow those who require or desire assistance with anything from
> > starting their car to fixing their car to building a house to educating their children
> > to get assistance with that. No reason what so ever why that isnt just as valid
> > with ending your life with as much dignity and effectiveness as you can organise. 

> > I dont have the slightest interest in what you fundys think. You shouldnt be 
> > able to ram your quite remarkably silly 'christian' views down others throats. 

> If you don't care what the "fundys" think you can quit 
> writing stupid narrow brained remarks like that. 

No thanks, not when they try ramming their extremely narrow minded views down
our throats, when the vast bulk of us think their ideas on assisted suicide stink. 

You thought police dont get to have any say whatsoever on our remarks Darcy. 

> stay with the issue of euthansia-not trying to condem what someone believes.

I'll condemn whatever I like Darcy, PARTICULARLY when 
those damned fundys try to ram their extremely narrow minded 
and extreme minority views down our throats via legislation. 

> What euthanasia does do is take away someone life. 

What we are discussing with VOLUNTARY euthanasia is getting 
assistance with ending your life, assisted suicide essentially. 

You claim that book of fairy storys has a problem with that ?  
Who cares ? We also dont care that its got an utterly obscene 
approach to adultery either. You dont get to ram that one down 
our throats via legislation either. Or divorce either for that matter. 

> There are reasons why it should be considered and reasons why it should not. 

Pity the fundys didnt give a damn about what the great majority of us
want when we have done that considering Darcy. They ram their views 
down our throats via legislation anyway. Thats an utter obscenity. 

> However, it is a completely different ball game than "fixing someone's car" 
> and to use that as an analogy is simply ridiculous and down right ignorant. 

Crap. We allow people to get a decent result by getting some assistance with
doing it right with everything else, and it makes a HELL of a lot more sense with
suicide than the car too. If the repair of the car is fucked up, its not anywhere
near as important as if the suicide is fucked up. I'll takes some assistance on
using a method that isnt going to fail thanks. You can do whatever you like. 

> > > I have not argued at all about suicide - something which I believe is tragic, wrong, 

> > Corse its not. There are plenty of situations where suicide is perfectly appropriate. 

> I am beginning to think so too....maybe you should consider? 

No thanks.

> > > but also impossible to solve with a legislative response.

> > Well, you did manage to get one thing right. 

> > > Whilst it would appear that you view my logic as preposterous, 

> > He/she aint alone. 

> > > my desire to see as many of you as possible spend eternity in 
> > > Paradise, where there is only peace, not pain; is this so selfish?

> > Quite remarkably silly actually. Are you seriously suggesting that every other
> > group of fundys should be able to have their stupid belief system enshrined in
> > law so that we all get to end up in their 'paradise' whether we like it or not too ?

> > Barking mad. 

> Dont worry, law is taking all religious aspects out one by one 

Great. There are less and less people who havent noticed that that thing 
is just a collection of fairy storys written by illiterate goat herds that has 
no value at all anymore on the basic policy issues like whats appropriate 
with adultery, divorce, food hygiene, suicide, lending money etc etc etc/

We've worked out a better way to decide that stuff now, and that doesnt involve
what some complete arsehole of a god may or may not have handed down. Or
got some angel to whisper in the ear of some spiv and con man like Mahomet. 

> and the whether you get anywhere after life would  have to be up to you anyway-not the law.

You dont say ?

> > I dont even WANT to end up in your paradise if its got people like you in 
> > it thanks. Nothing remotely resembling paradise for me. It would be hell 
> > in fact.  And if I did think that my actions here would make a difference 
> > on that stuff, I would deliberately do what ensured I wouldnt get there. 

> Question: it would be hell to be in a pardise with a person 
> who is against euthanasia or it would be hell to be in a 
> paradise with someone else who wants you to be there?

It would be a hell stuffed with fundys. Nothing remotely resembling paradise. 

> > > > Perhaps for xian trying to get more souls into your so-called
> > > >heaven is a Good Thing, for a non-xian this boils down to trying to
> > > >get more people into your shop. This may be good for you, but is not
> > > >necessarrilly good for others, notably your clients. Even if things
> > > >work the silly way you describe, I prefer to take my chances and leave
> > > >this world the way I prefer.

> > > Fair enough - but why the need to involve someone else? 

> > For precisely the same reason we do with everything else Pat. Some of 
> > us arent very good at some things, and you dont get much practice doing 
> > suicide. It may well make a hell of a lot of sense to get some assistance to 
> > ensure that its done properly and you dont end up a vegy or worse instead. 

> This is a damn grey area that we all can yell at each other about, but it
> comes down to a life and death situation that is different with every scenario. 

Fact remains, if there is ever a situation where some professional help makes a 
hell of a lot of sense, suicide is one of them. Fundys have banned that. That stinks. 

> Euthanasia cannot be legal accross the board 

Pity we are discussing VOLUNTARY euthanasia, assisted suicide. 

> nor can it be completely illegal either. 

Corse it can. Makes no sense tho. 

> Someone in a "vegy" state, meaning they are living by electricity alone and have 
> no hope of recovery, I do believe need to be killed, because they are already dead. 

Pity those damned fundys wont even allow that either. 

> Nature should take its course.

No thanks, we dont do that with any other medical area, no reason we 
have to at the end of life either if the person whose life it is doesnt want to. 

> We can keep the body alive but if the mind and soul are gone there is no point. 

Yep. Pity the fundys dont even agree with the termination of life then either. 

> However, we tend to let Technology play the part of GOD. We try show off the 
> power we have of keeping a dead person alive and killing a person who is alive. 

Thats not why it happens the vast bulk of the time Darcy.

> If there is a cure for a disease and you go to 
> the hospital, they should heal you not kill you. 

Soorree, the person involved gets to decide that.

> If you want to commit suicide-do it at your own house and on your own time. 

No thanks, its completely insane forcing people to do one of the most important
things they can ever do in their life with no assistance whatsoever. Barking mad. 

> It is not in the job description, or it should not be, for a 
> doctor to kill you when he has the means to heal you. 

Soorree, you dont get to rule on that any time soon. Its what the majority of us
want that should decide that. And the person whose life it is in the ultimate too. 

> If there is no cure, I am sorry, but let nature do its thing. 

Soorree, you dont get to ram your views on that down my throat if its MY life Darcy. 

You are welcome to do whatever you like with your own. 

> We all face it  at some point, some more painfully than others, but 
> you cannot make it someone else's responsibility or task to kill you.

Soorree, you dont get to rule on that either. Its what the majority think that matters. 

> > > Let me make a few disclaimers:
> > > 1.  I make no money from arguing against euthanasia.
> > > 2. My salvation is assured by the blood of Christ; 

> > Usual completely meaningless stuff so beloved of fundys. 

> > > it is not dependant upon my own efforts, and therefore 
> > > I do not need converts to earn 'salvation points'.

> > Your silly belief systems are your problem. Dont try 
> > ramming them down others throats via legislation. 

> No one is ramming anything down anyone throat. 

Pigs arse they arent. They have legislation that rams the views of a 
small minority down everyones throat on assisted suicide. That stinks. 


> > > 3. The responsibilty for building the church is Jesus', not mine.  I
> > > will gain no extra power or influence on Earth because of my stance.

> > > So, if by faith you accept Christianity (or maybe even if you don't), please 
> > > believe that I am coming from this from purely altruistic motives.

> > Soorree, doesnt give you the right to ram your quite 
> > remarkably silly views down others throats using legislation. 

> What is all this about "raming" and "throats"?

Rather obvious really, thats what the legislation does. 

> > > >>Not to mention the (IMO) inevitable moral consequences 
> > > >>on society of becoming de-sensitised to accelerated death.

> > We managed to survive that stuff in time of war fine. We can with assisted suicide too. 

> We went to war and killed each other not because we had a 
> right to but because we had to protect ourselves. Remember? 

Pity Pats line was a complete dud. 

> There is a difference.

Tell Pat. 

> People died but it wasn't by choice......

Sometimes it was. 

> > > >Well, well, that's an exciting idea! As if societies give a shit about accelerated 
> > > >death. You tell the same thing to soldiers and hangmen, don't you?

> > > Well, maybe societies don't care, but when has that been excuse?  In the past 
> > > many a society hasn't cared about slavery - it doesn't change the absolute 
> > > stance on the morality of the issue.  But I care - so I'll do something about it.

> > By ramming your quite remarkably silly views down others throats via legislation.
> > No thanks, a rigorous separation between church and state is the only way to go. 

> No, by spreading his/her ideas. 

I'd have absolutely no objection to them doing that as long 
as they didnt get too carried away and say kept knocking 
on my door to do that after I had told them to bugger off. 

In fact they have rammed that minority view down our throats via legislation. That stinks. 

> If you are so damn narrow minded and don't want 
> to listen to others ideas and points, then maybe 
> you should spend your time somewhere else. 

I'm quite happy to discuss their position, AS LONG AS they 
dont try ramming their minority views down others throats 
via legislation. Which is precisely what they did, Pat included. 

> > And if you damned fundys want to start stoning each other to death 
> > again over adultery, soorree, you cant, we wont allow that anymore. 

> > > Of course, in the end as useful as legislation is, 

> > Thats the way we do things now, whether you like it or not. 

> > > the Old Testament shows us that no amount of 
> > > lawmaking can make a person do the right thing.  

> > Thats crap too. It often does when the law imposes stuff the person doesnt
> > care about too much, and there is a very high risk of getting caught etc. 

> What about illegal guns in school? That is against the law, and they don't do the right 
> thing because it is against the law and there is a very high risk of getting caught.

They do actually, there are very few guns in our schools. If North Americans
cant get their act into gear on the very high risk of getting caught.....

> > Your 'old testament' is a complete dud. Hardly surprising given 
> > its just a quite remarkably silly collection of fairy storys.

> You are a dud. The 'old testament' is a great book 
> whether or not you are a christian or a jew or whatever. 

Fairy storys. There werent no flood, there aint enough water for one 
of those. The illiterate goat herds that wrote it didnt realise that. 

All the dietary crap is just that, complete crap, we have FAR better ways
of working out whats safe to eat and how to make food safe to eat now. 

It makes absolutely no sense to stone people to death 
for adultery either.  We've worked out a better way now. 

Lots of the very basis stuff like the ban on usury has passed its useby date too. 

And I sure wont be groveling to some utter obscenity of a 
god purportedly described in that OT any time soon either. 

> I havn't read all of it but i know it IS a collection of stories, 

Most of them fairy storys that cant possibly have actually happened like 
that. We've worked out how to work out what happened FAR better now. 

> a collection of stories that make you think, 

Make me piss myself laughing actually, particularly what Lot etc got up to. 
Sure, it may have had some value for some illiterate goat herds 3K years ago.
Pity the world's moved on more than a tad and the bin is the best place for it now. 

> which, I might add, you need to do before writing this crap. 

Watch out you dont go blind now. 

> If this book has so many religions based on it and so many people talking about it for 
> 2 thousand years, perhaps there is something that is not so "remarkably silly" in it. 

Or perhaps its just a rather graphic example of the craving of the human mind
for a tidy explanation for how things are as we see them, and we have worked 
out MUCH better ways of deciding how things got to be how they are today now. 

Lots of religions had quite remarkably loopy ideas about human sacrifice too, and about 
all that does is illustrate rather obscenely how fucking weird the human mind can be. 

> However, I do want to add that I do not know how this topic has changed 
> for discussing euthanasia to insulting each others religious beliefs.

Coz thats the basis on which those damned fundys got to ram their quite
remarkably silly views on that down our throats via legislation Darcy.

Pat even raved on about being keen on ensuring that more of us
ended up in paradise, even if we were too stupid to believe in it. 

> > > This has already been demonstrated in the NT - now they're proposing 
> > > something along the lines of "ok, well we can't legalise euthanasia, so 
> > > let's keep it illegal but we'll change the penalty to a $50 fine".  
> >  
> > Yep, looks like they might well work out how to 
> > make a obscene gesture at you damned fundys. 
> > 
> > > Disgusting.
> >  
> > So kill yourself. 
> > 
> > > Patrick Canion
> > > Pastor, Manning Assembly of God, Western Australia
> > 
> > Keep your silly fundy ideas for those who need a crutch for their minds.

> At least some people do have ideas they put in their minds.

Sure beats you putting your dick in your hand Darcy. 

> Darcy
> College Student

Your problem. 

> Sick-of-close-minded-people.

Watch out you dont go blind now boy.