🚀 go-pugleaf

jan@orchide.dialix.oz.au (jan) writes :

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

>> David Moss wrote:
> > 
>> > wrightd@autobahn.mb.ca (David C. Wright) writes:
>> > 
>> > >In group talk.euthanasia, article <5b7spu$kap$1@euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au>,
>> > >d-moss@adfa.oz.au (David Moss) wrote:
>> > >>wrightd@autobahn.mb.ca (David C. Wright) wrote:
>> 
[snip]
>> > >However, Euthanasia law, no matter how badly implemented, or how poorly
>> > > enforced, will only affect a few people at worst.  Even if your doomsday
>> > >scenario comes true, a completely free euthananasia law will only affect a
>> > >few thousand people world-wide, and it will only affect persons who are
>> > >unable to defend themselves.

> I had to return this text that Mr Jameson had deleted as it is relevent.
> (Speaking of arguments from the gutter]


Actually I didn't write the above.



>> > 
>> > 
>> > Tell that to the disabled of Nazi Germany. Ooops, you can't can you?
>> > They were "put out of their misery".
>> > 
>> 
>> Well here we see David's true colours.
>>
>> Incapable of producing a valid argument he lowers himself
>> into the gutter.

> Iain just what is wrong with learning the lessons history
> has to offer?  What is invalid about a real counter example
> from history where rather than only few thousand defenceless
> people, more than 70,000 in one country, in less than two
> years died as a result of a poorly enforced law.  There
> was no euthanasia law to enforce. 


Nothing, when it is relevant. David just showed he is totally 
clueless by bringing the final solution and murder into the debate,
when they have nothing to do with it.

Don't make that mistake yourself.

Euthanasia is voluntary. The terminally ill person asks for help
to die with dignity. David is incapable of understanding that.

I hope you can.


>Who was it that said that those who refuse to learn the lessons
>of History might be condemned to relive them?  

No idea, you tell me.


>> 
>> I should have seen it coming.
>> 

> Are capable of seeing anything coming if you are unwilling to
> learn the lessons from history?  What do we pay historians for
> entertainment?  We pay novelists for that.  Isn't part of their
> charter to record history so we as a society can learn from our
> mistakes?

What lesson would that be? The bogus one introduced above by David?

David's history lesson has nothing to do with this debate.
I'm sure he knows it. If not, perhaps he should start reading
up on history.


>> 
[snip]
>> 
>> > 
>> > Do I really have to quote back the RTI Act _again_ ?
>> > Read it, its about killing people. Suicide has been legal in Australia
>> > for 20 years.
>> > 
>> 
>> You really have no idea do you David?
>> 
>> No one is being killed. Just because you think they are doesn't
>> mean it is true.

>Two people dead. They didn't die of natural causes, and they
>weren't killed so they must still be alive. Hey! wait a minute
>this is clearly absurd.

You don't know David do you?

I would reply to this, but it's so silly, there is
no point.

Ah, what the hell ... What a pathetically stupid arguement.

There.


[snip]
>> 
>> > 
>> > >You have contradicted yourself.  You state that an accomplice is culpable,
>> > >and then state the an assisting physician is expressly exempt from
>> > >culpability.
>> > 
>> > Re-read wht I said. To clarify, killing people is illegal throughout
>> > Australia, except in the Northern Territory when carried out under the RTI 
>> > 
>> 
>> David's ignorance rears its ugly little head yet again.
>> 
>> Killing people is illegal. Euthanasia has nothing to do with
>> killing. It is the voluntary ending of ones own life.

> Ending ones own life is not killing oneself: interesting paradox.  
> Euthanasia  Eu (good) Thanatos (death) has nothing to do with killing
> it also does not mean allowing to die from natural causes: more absurdity.

David naively states that someone else is doing the killing.
He knows this is wrong, but continues to say it.

Don't make the same mistake.

The dying person takes their own life. There is no killing
in the sense David means, ie murder.

He is being deliberatly obtuse on the subject.


>> 
>> 
[snip]
>> 
>>  

>The rest is the same.  Iain just loves making absurd statements.


Good one Jan, guess it's time to stop posting when the above
so thoughrly demolishes everything I have written.


>Jan


Sigh, another person who doesn't know the difference between
the unwanted ending of a persons life, murder, and the asked for,
voluntary ending of a life, voluntary euthanasia.

Or the absurdity of comparing voluntary euthanasia with
nazis murdering the disabled.


Iain.


---

Remove any x's from my email address if you feel
the need to email me.