Man with locked-in syndrome dies - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Cone;37357201]so you want the law changed but you don't believe that the government is capable of auditing for illness (mental or physical) in a satisfactory manner? I've got one question for you: [I][B]who the fuck else is there to do it?[/B][/I] I mean, you don't trust doctors (whether they're on the government payroll or not), government officials, surgeons, or basically anyone who is actually trained to search for symptoms of illness. so, essentially, you're saying that you think that the law should go to keep yourself from looking like a dick whilst simultaneously saying that nobody could ever do it well, and thus that changing the law would be pointless. you're being retarded, dude.[/QUOTE] Jesus Christ I never said that there isn't a way to do it , I just said the issue is where the fucking borders are, what decides wheter a case goes into the freekill category or not...

[QUOTE=SEKCobra;37357133]Well that's good then, I am not doing anything else here, but say that I understand the decision of the court and believe it is right, because as right as such a law change might be, I believe it should also be [B]done[/B] right.[/QUOTE] Okay, so just to confirm, you are saying that you are glad that they condemned this man to suffer?

[QUOTE=Cone;37357217]so you're saying that nobody cared before people had reason to care. no shit Sherlock[/QUOTE] So now you are saying that this one guy is the only one deserving euthanasia? Because you literally just said that no one had a reason to care before, saying that every other case before this one was no reason. This is what you just said. I don't think this really is what you want to say, but I don't see how else this could be interpreted. Euthanasia has been an issue for decades now, actually. And I bet there were far worse cases than this one.

[QUOTE=SEKCobra;37357258]So now you are saying that this one guy is the only one deserving euthanasia? Because you literally just said that no one had a reason to care before, saying that every other case before this one was no reason. This is what you just said. I don't think this really is what you want to say, but I don't see how else this could be interpreted. Euthanasia has been an issue for decades now, actually. And I bet there were far worse cases than this one.[/QUOTE] So then how bad must it be for someone before euthanasia is considered ethical?

[QUOTE=SEKCobra;37357258]So now you are saying that this one guy is the only one deserving euthanasia? Because you literally just said that no one had a reason to care before, saying that every other case before this one was no reason. This is what you just said. I don't think this really is what you want to say, but I don't see how else this could be interpreted. Euthanasia has been an issue for decades now, actually. And I bet there were far worse cases than this one.[/QUOTE] I'm saying that it was only brought to the public's attention recently. you must be purposefully interpreting the things I say to make me look like a dick, because I cannot see how you got that from what I said.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;37357234]Okay, so just to confirm, you are saying that you are glad that they condemned this man to suffer?[/QUOTE] You know that this isn't what I'm saying, this is the kind of bullshit that puts any proper discussion to a halt, when you start purposely misinterpreting everything. I am saying that until there is a proper way for euthanasia in the UK, no one, including him, should receive it. At least not sanctioned and executed by the state, I am morally not really opposed to his family granting his wish anyway. [editline]22nd August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=S31-Syntax;37357276]So then how bad must it be for someone before euthanasia is considered ethical?[/QUOTE] That is exactly my point. I do not have an answer to it, and what I am saying is, that until we do, we can't perform it.

[QUOTE=SEKCobra;37357283]You know that this isn't what I'm saying, this is the kind of bullshit that puts any proper discussion to a halt, when you start purposely misinterpreting everything. I am saying that until there is a proper way for euthanasia in the UK, no one, including him, should receive it. At least not sanctioned and executed by the state, I am morally not really opposed to his family granting his wish anyway.[/QUOTE] "You know that this isn't what I'm saying, this is the kind of bullshit that puts any proper discussion to a halt, when you start purposely misinterpreting everything." you mean like you beginning with your very first post?

[QUOTE=SEKCobra;37357283]You know that this isn't what I'm saying, this is the kind of bullshit that puts any proper discussion to a halt, when you start purposely misinterpreting everything. I am saying that until there is a proper way for euthanasia in the UK, no one, including him, should receive it. At least not sanctioned and executed by the state, I am morally not really opposed to his family granting his wish anyway. [editline]22nd August 2012[/editline] That is exactly my point. I do not have an answer to it, and what I am saying is, that until we do, we can't perform it.[/QUOTE] But you won't answer anything about whether or not you agreed with the courts ruling past "you agree with it". I asked about his condition, and you said you weren't judging it specifically, and you completely ignored that you kinda HAVE to judge them specifically. There is no blanket solution to this.

[QUOTE=J!NX;37357294]"You know that this isn't what I'm saying, this is the kind of bullshit that puts any proper discussion to a halt, when you start purposely misinterpreting everything." you mean like you beginning with your very first post?[/QUOTE] Uhm, you obviously meant that the system is doing wrong here by condemning this specific person to the lawfully correct faith that everyone else get's as well. You never said "Fuck the System for not letting us change these laws", and if you had I'd have argued that you are wrong, because it is very possible to do so, and apparently is happening in the UK right now.

What the hell else am I supposed to interpret out of "I agree with their choice" and saying you refuse to comment on every single point that would help determine whether their choice was right.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;37357314]But you won't answer anything about whether or not you agreed with the courts ruling past "you agree with it". I asked about his condition, and you said you weren't judging it specifically, and you completely ignored that you kinda HAVE to judge them specifically. There is no blanket solution to this.[/QUOTE] My believes about euthanasia aren't the point of this discussion, for that simple reason I am not specifying them. I am trying to argue in a objective way, and I am not giving any regard to my subjective opinion on euthanasia while doing so.

oh god my sides

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;37357326]What the hell else am I supposed to interpret out of "I agree with their choice" and saying you refuse to comment on every single point that would help determine whether their choice was right.[/QUOTE] I am not saying I agree with it, I am saying it is impossible for them to allow something that violates current legislation. They do not even have the power to make such a judgement. [editline]22nd August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=J!NX;37357370]oh god my sides[/QUOTE] HAHA OH MY GOD YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE SO STUPID BWAHAHA YOU FUCKING PSYCHOTIC IDIOT XDDDD MY ARGUMENTS ARE SUPERIOR!!!

[QUOTE=J!NX;37357370]oh god my sides[/QUOTE] I was kinda sorta almost on your side but this post is stupid. This isn't how you debate things.

Seriously, it's one thing to think of my first post as tasteless, or not get what I actually meant by it, it's not very clear on that, but everything after that has just been stupid bullshit from you J!NX, you are obviously not trying to get my side here or understand what I actually meant (Or in any other way participate in any actual discussion here), others in here seem to at least try to do so.

[QUOTE=SEKCobra;37357374]I am not saying I agree with it, I am saying it is impossible for them to allow something that violates current legislation. They do not even have the power to make such a judgement. [editline]22nd August 2012[/editline] HAHA OH MY GOD YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE SO STUPID BWAHAHA YOU FUCKING PSYCHOTIC IDIOT XDDDD MY ARGUMENTS ARE SUPERIOR!!![/QUOTE] Just shut the fuck up already, Jesus Christ. A sick and disabled person living vegetable's life should have the right to end his/hers misery. It's fucking stupid how you don't have the right to end your own suffering of living in a bed without moving at all because of "etics". Would you rather have your father die, or keep him in his bed for years watching him suffer? You don't even know what his family was through for the entire time.

[QUOTE=SEKCobra;37357374]I am not saying I agree with it, I am saying it is impossible for them to allow something that violates current legislation. They do not even have the power to make such a judgement. [editline]22nd August 2012[/editline] HAHA OH MY GOD YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE SO STUPID BWAHAHA YOU FUCKING PSYCHOTIC IDIOT XDDDD MY ARGUMENTS ARE SUPERIOR!!![/QUOTE] The point of going to court over it is to decide whether or not current legislation is valid in saying he has no legal right to have his life ended. You're saying it is valid, are you not?

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;37357460]The point of going to court over it is to decide whether or not current legislation is valid in saying he has no legal right to have his life ended. You're saying it is valid, are you not?[/QUOTE] I am saying the court should have considered the case thourughly and that as long as I am not presented with the opposite, I will assume that the court ruled for the best under current legislation, it is not impossible that the judge didn't account for something or that there were other mistakes, but unless I know about it, the court did what was right. This doesn't change the fact that the legislation can very well be wrong.

[QUOTE=SEKCobra;37357494]I am saying the court should have considered the case thourughly and that as long as I am not presented with the opposite, I will assume that the court ruled for the best under current legislation, it is not impossible that the judge didn't account for something or that there were other mistakes, but unless I know about it, the court did what was right. This doesn't change the fact that the legislation can very well be wrong.[/QUOTE] Okay, I just wanted to confirm then. SO just to make sure I have this down correctly: Whether or not we personally agree with it, you are saying that with the information that we have present, we have no choice but to assume that they made the right choice given the circumstances?

Yes unless there has been a fuckup, which we don't know about, I believe that the court ruled in the best interest of the man with the options they have under the legislation that has been put in place by "the people". It doesn't matter to me wheter this specific case would have been different under differnet circumstances, as long as these laws are in effect, these laws need to be upheld. I do on the other hand believe that there should very well have been some sort of emergency vote or something to get the lawchange done without causing our victim more shit than necessary.

[QUOTE=BlkDucky;37357413]I was kinda sorta almost on your side but this post is stupid. This isn't how you debate things.[/QUOTE] What else is there to debate when the person you're debating with misreads every one of your posts and continues with an old argument? :v: Cobra has no reading comprehension as of now. [QUOTE=SEKCobra;37357374]I am not saying I agree with it, I am saying it is impossible for them to allow something that violates current legislation. They do not even have the power to make such a judgement. [editline]22nd August 2012[/editline] HAHA OH MY GOD YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE SO STUPID BWAHAHA YOU FUCKING PSYCHOTIC IDIOT XDDDD MY ARGUMENTS ARE SUPERIOR!!![/QUOTE] well actually they are so [QUOTE=SEKCobra;37357569]Yes unless there has been a fuckup, which we don't know about, I believe that the court ruled in the best interest of the man with the options they have under the legislation that has been put in place by "the people". It doesn't matter to me wheter this specific case would have been different under differnet circumstances, as long as these laws are in effect, these laws need to be upheld. I do on the other hand believe that there should very well have been some sort of emergency vote or something to get the lawchange done without causing our victim more shit than necessary.[/QUOTE] "I believe that the court ruled in the best interest of the man" if you watched the video you'd know that they basically totally ignored his case

Holy shit, I came to this thread about death of that man and I see SEKCobra arguing with everyone. Respect that man for that time, instead of fucking fighting with each other and cut yourself a break because you are arguing for like an hour or something. At least 30 minutes. You are fucking impossible.

Guys refrain from personal insults or anything that counts as flaming kay?

SEK I think you're being far too obtuse for anyone to get much of a grip on what you're saying. just lay it all flat, mang, and try to press enter twice instead of once - it makes it look like a wall of text.

[QUOTE=J!NX;37357607]"I believe that the court ruled in the best interest of the man" if you watched the video you'd know that they basically totally ignored his case[/QUOTE] Do we have the transcript from the case?

[QUOTE=SEKCobra;37357569]Yes unless there has been a fuckup, which we don't know about, I believe that the court ruled in the best interest of the man with the options they have under the legislation that has been put in place by "the people". It doesn't matter to me wheter this specific case would have been different under differnet circumstances, as long as these laws are in effect, these laws need to be upheld. I do on the other hand believe that there should very well have been some sort of emergency vote or something to get the lawchange done without causing our victim more shit than necessary.[/QUOTE] He wanted to die because his life was basically nothing but suffering. Ive been through this thread and good god, you're acting like a sociopath. Like, seriously dude, think for a second.

I am saying that the law needs to be changed, probably should have been put in some kind of priority process for that, but that while current laws remain no one should be euthanised legally because that would take away the point of having them and people following them. I was also pointing out that such a change is extremely complicated because it involves and could conflict several others, as well as the tolerance for euthanasia needs to be figured out and defined, which in itself is very complicated. I hope this clears things up.

[QUOTE=SEKCobra;37358042]I am saying that the law needs to be changed, probably should have been put in some kind of priority process for that, but that while current laws remain no one should be euthanised legally because that would take away the point of having them and people following them. I was also pointing out that such a change is extremely complicated because it involves and could conflict several others, as well as the tolerance for euthanasia needs to be figured out and defined, which in itself is very complicated. I hope this clears things up.[/QUOTE] Okay, but still, you said that the judges ruled in favor of the guy, when he wanted to die because he was in constant pain and completely paralyzed.

[B]Dude's saying its a fucked up situation. [/B]The law can't handle it currently and changing it so it does is really fucking hard. Based on the way the law is set up now, how do you authorize someone to end the life of another without the one that carried it out immediately being guilty of 1st degree murder?

Ha ha oh wow are you guys still going ?