🚀 go-pugleaf

Iain Jameson <Iain.Jamesonx@dsto.defence.gov.au> writes:

> >Iain Jameson <Iain.Jamesonx@dsto.defence.gov.au> writes:
> 
> >> David Moss wrote:
> >> 
> >> > RTI is not about "the right to die" as many of its proponents claim.
> >> > We already have a god-given (or natural if you prefer) right to die
> >> > which every one of us will one day exercise. RTI is about the right
> >> > to kill. IMHO that right should be as limited, tightly controlled and
> >> > if possible, never exercised. RTI would make it commonplace.
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> Yes it is. Again with this 'god-given' thingy.
> >> You have no right forcing this 'god-given' thiungy onto anyone
> >> who does not believe it, or want it. 
> 
> >Interesting that you should focus on "god given" instead of "natural" 
> >which is in parenthesis and might be in this case considered an defining
> >term.  I think most reasonable people would see "god given" as the vernacula
> >of "natural" in this context.  Is this some sort of counter bigottry bigottr
> 
> Because David means 'god-given'. Or at least that's how he comes
> across.
> Perhaps David should never have used the 'god given' expression 
> if he didn't mean it.

To you any way. because you cannot (or are unwilling to) conceive
of a secular argument against euthanasia.  If the veracular was never
employed it would make for a pretty dull argument. 

> >> 
> >> Which is the whole point. So please stop forcing your personal opinions
> >> and religion onto people who don't want them.
> >> 
> 
> >I consider you to be forcing your opinions down my throat.
> >Kindly stop it.
> 
> How can I be Jan? I did say please!

The same way David M is "forcing" his "personal opinions"
on you.   

What difference does "please" make in any case?  For that
matter what difference does it make if the arguments presented in
this thread are secular or religious.  Every one has a right to
present his argument and express his opinion.

> 
> >Unless of course you are willing to support freedom of speach.
> 
> 
> What? Like you are supporting freedom of choice?
> 

To bring it back to the point: read the first paragraph again.
It is a "right to kill" with a side issue on the right to express an
opinion, which you started, that we are discussing.  

> I'm quite happy for you and David to have opinions. That's your right.
> Try reading the whole thread before saying otherwise.
> 

But not the right to express it.  You say so above, in this
thread, it is not deleted in this very post, I quote: "You have
*no right* to force this god-given thiungy..." (asterisks mine
typo yours).  This is the issue no need to read the rest of the
thread: it is right here!!!    

> It's your belief that no one is allowed choice that annoys me.
>

YOU have no idea of my belief.  If you are annoyed with
what you think is my belief then that is entirely your
problem, not mine  

> The choice to voluntary end your own life in particular.
> You have no right to deny me, or anyone else, that choice.
> 

Feel free to jump of a cliff any time you like, unless you
are clinically depressed I won't even try to stop you, it's
your choice.  I would not dream of denying you the right to
kill yourself.  I would however deny you the right to insist
that someone else *should*  do it for you.  This is no longer
merely a question of your choice. 


Jan