rickyk95
49
I find it hard to refute... — rickyk95

I find it impossible to refute.

Fooloso4
506

You are pathetic...and are unsuited for a philosophical discussion. — Frank Apisa


I assume you fail to see the irony! Believing (or guessing) that repeating the same thing and petulantly crying "You are pathetic" is a suitable example of philosophical discussion. — Fooloso4

You assume wrong...I actually see the irony.

I intentionally did what I did.

You are an insult to philosophic considerations...because you do not grok such a thing.

Now...go away and do more blind guessing...and then pretend it is not blind guessing by calling it "believing."

iolo
46
Why's it a cage? It's just a fact, surely? Why this aimless scepticism? — iolo

Hey, Iolo. How things going?

Alan
19

There's no cage! — Frank Apisa


I second this, there's no cage. It's only about exploring your potential, finding out what things you like etc. — Alan

Thank you, Alan.

Shamshir
290
↪Frank Apisa
Better to live in a desert sandbox
than with a quarrelsome and nagging wife Frank.
Proverbs 21:19 :cool: — Shamshir

Sorry your marital situation is so bad, Shamshir.

tim wood
2.4k

It is a guess...a blind guess.
And "faith" is the absurd insistence that it is correct no matter what. — Frank Apisa

Ok. There are things called presuppositions. Of those, some are so-called absolute presuppositions (APs). As such, they have nothing to do with guesses. They are not guesses. To confuse the two is just a lack of information/knowledge. But now you have that knowledge - you've been told. From this moment on your claim isn't mere ignorance, the condition of us all, but stupidity.

What presuppositions and absolute presuppositions are is just a little bit tricky because articulated, they're propositions, and as propositions they're not appearing as what they are (which is presuppositions), which leads to your kind of confusion. That is, a presupposition is something that is presupposed. An absolute presupposition is absolutely presupposed. For the purposes of this thread, this simply means that Christians don't ask if God exists. Period. Non-Christians certainly can, but their question goes to existence, which answer to - or speculation on - the question of existence is simply irrelevant to a Christian because it is always already a presupposition of his faith and thinking.

To be sure, Christians are perfectly capable of asking about, questioning, the existence of their Christian God, But to the degree that they're Christians who comprehend their religion, they know it's a no-sense question. To the degree they think the question is of any relevance, to that degree they're not Christian. By this understanding it should be clear that many people who call themselves Christians, aren't really Christians. Or they are, but seriously confused.

I assume this holds for other religions as well and not just Christianity.

As to presuppositions and absolute presuppositions, just stop and think for a moment how many are a part of your life and thinking even minute-by-minute. Most of them are so trivial they're hardly worth calling up and articulating. But if you work at it, You'll find more than you know what to do with.

A very readable exposition can be found in An Essay on Metaphysics, R. G., Collingwood. — tim wood

This is about confusion on religion, Tim.

EVERY comment on the "tenets" of EVERY religion...is a blind guess about the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

Some people are simply going to refuse to acknowledge this...including people who argue FOR the existence of gods and those who argue AGAINST the existence of any gods.

That is something we all have to accept...and I now accept you are one of those people.

Obviously there are people here who would have preferred the young woman step in front of a moving train or tractor trailer to end her misery.

It is their right to feel that way.

I just disagree.

VagabondSpectre
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa
Whether or not a seventeen year old is cognizant enough to make the decision for themselves is the relevant issue. "We" do need to make decisions on behalf of children all the time. — VagabondSpectre

And, of course, YOU want to be able to decide if a person is "cognizant enough...just as I am sure you would want ME to be the judge if YOU are...right?

— NKBJ

Whatever does the job for you.

There is no cage!

Shamshir
283

One is unknown. There may or may not be a GOD — Frank Apisa

Both are unknown. There may or may not be a Great-great-grandfather. — Shamshir

You actually are arguing that you may NOT HAVE A GREAT, GREAT GRANDFATHER?????

Apparently I am talking with someone who should stick to the playground sandbox.

But every goddam person who has ever lived has had a father...which means everyone's father has had a father...which means everyone who has had a father has had a grandfather. And the grandfather has had a father...and that father has had a father...which means that every one has had a father, a grandfather, a great grandfather, and a great, great grandfather. — Frank Apisa

And going back far enough, your progenitor did not only believe in God but was created by God. — shamshir

Go back to the sandbox.

Are you going to tell your progenitor he's wrong?
Go ahead. :yum:

The sandbox.

NKBJ
1k

But NKBJ will not be able to acknowledge it. — Frank Apisa


You are unable, I think, to acknowledge, that a person can be unable to think clearly. Perhaps you are in favor of letting children choose to use heroin as well? Or I suppose you would advocate for getting rid of all care facilities for those with mental disabilities?

You, very simply, are not being empathetic to the various states of mind that can befall a person and are superimposing your current ability to make autonomous decisions on others. — NKBJ

You are an intrusive individual who apparently wants to substitute your decision for the decisions of the people who actually have the right to make them.

Get off your high horse, before you fall an damage your massive ego.

NKBJ
1k

And "death" is a decision that each individual should be able to make for him/herself...without the intrusion of people like you. — Frank Apisa


IF that person is in full control of their mental capacities, the case is more convincing. However, not when we're talking about a child and a mentally ill person who is likely unable to think clearly. In that case we have the overriding duty to save that person from themselves. — NKBJ

DEATH IS A DECISION THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE FOR HIM/HERSELF...WITHOUT THE INTRUSION OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU...WHO THINK THEY CAN DECIDE WHETHER AN INDIVIDUAL CAN MAKE THAT DECISION.

Butt the hell out of other people's business on issues like this.

You do NOT have an "overriding duty to save that person from themselves"...although you do seem to have an overriding duty to massage your ego.

Anyway...to show you that we can agree at times...I am here to acknowledge your are doing a hell of a job with that latter item.

Sorta like the forest that hides the trees.

Wallows
8.2k
I don't feel as though all the alternatives were exhausted before her final decision.

Like what?

MDMA assisted psychotherapy, prescription antidepressants, more therapy. So on so forth. — Wallows

HER final decision.

SHE also gets to make the decisions on what "alternatives" must be considered.

YOU do not get to "feel" what alternatives must be considered.

Shamshir
283

No...they cannot. — Frank Apisa

Because? Both are unknown. — Shamshir

One is unknown. There may or may not be a GOD.

But every goddam person who has ever lived has had a father...which means everyone's father has had a father...which means everyone who has had a father has had a grandfather. And the grandfather has had a father...and that father has had a father...which means that every one has had a father, a grandfather, a great grandfather, and a great, great grandfather.

Going further back in that chain is probably beyond you...so try not to hurt yourself thinking about it.

Ask one of the older kids in the playground. They might be able to get through to you.

Shamshir
282

Anyone with a brain KNOWS they had a great, great grandfather. They KNOW they their great, great, grandfather also had a great, great grandfather. — Frank Apisa

By the same logic anyone may KNOW there is a God. — Shamshir

No...they cannot.

But it requires a functioning brain to see the difference...so you are at a major disadvantage here.

unenlightened
3.6k

Yes, with the primary exception being when the person suffers from mental illness. — Hanover


Think I would say unconsciousness and infancy are more primary.

The rape analogy is a total mischaracterization because rape is about hurting someone for one's own gratification. Force-feeding is perhaps aggressive and painful, but it is solely for the benefit of the receiver. — NKBJ


The analogy is appropriate to the feelings of the person the receiving end, rather than the feelings of the performer of the act. Interesting that you seem to regard the feelings and motivation of the rapist or medic more significant that those of the victim/patient. But from their pov both are violations of the body by forcible penetration of an intimate orifice against one's will, and in such a case, forced feeding would almost certainly be experienced as a third rape. — unenlightened

Good thinking and reasoning.

Thanks for speaking up on the issue.

Benkei
1.9k

A 17 year Dutch girl was euthanized at her request with her mother's approval because she could not cope with the sexual abuse she experienced 3 years prior. https://www.foxnews.com/world/dutch-rape-victim-euthanasia — Hanover


It's probably been pointed out already but she committed suicide and this wasn't euthanisia. She starved herself and the Dutch code of ethics for doctors prohibits them to give treatment where this treatment is refused by the patient. (Just so that the moron who suggested to force feed her knows.)

You've called it an experiment and I think also vile. It isn't. The process is actually too strict with hopelessly depressed people like Noa Pothoven and others having to resort to suicide by jumping off buildings, in front of trains, hanging themselves and all that stuff that traumatise those left behind or those confronted with the act or its results in real life.

Euthanisia is part of palliative care. It's grounded in the principle to minimise suffering for patients. In most cases it's done either because people are quickly deteriorating with a disease that will kill them, avoiding needless suffering since the end can't be avoided or because they suffer to such an extent that even painkillers can't block the pain and there's no possibility for improvement. Euthanisia for mental suffering is very rare: they can be counted on one hand in any given year. — Benkei

Excellent post, Benkei.

Right on the button.

NKBJ
1k

Are you actually going to put forward an argument to support your claim that we should force feed people, or are you going to content yourself with one-line jibes? — andrewk


I'm sorry my argument went beyond you. But I'll spell it out for you, again, if that's what you require.

Force-feeding is possibly a minor, temporary harm that results in life, the possibility of recovery, hope, joy, and everything else good life has to offer. Some suffering, yes, but also the good stuff.

Death is the ultimate harm. The end. Lights out. No chance for nothing anymore. No choices anymore. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200. — NKBJ

And "death" is a decision that each individual should be able to make for him/herself...without the intrusion of people like you.

YOU...the ultimate decider of what is right or wrong for others.

What a laugh.

andrewk
2.1k

If the choice is force feeding or death, clearly force-feeding is the better alternative. — NKBJ

I very strongly disagree with this, and it seems many others on here do too, so at least you should concede that the 'clearly' in your claim is inappropriate. — andrewk

Right on the button, Andrew.

But NKBJ will not be able to acknowledge it.

VagabondSpectre
1.6k
Comprehending what's right in these kinds of edge cases necessitates looking closely at the specific details. It's messy, but making a firm judgment requires a great deal of nuance. For all we know at the outset, force-feeding her could amount to a good deed in the long run as Hanover suggests, or it could be tantamount to rape as @andrewk points out.

Is there a situation where we should let someone take there own life?

What would be the range of permissible circumstances?

How must age factor in, using extreme/edge cases like this one as a sanity check?

The answers are (1)Yes, (2) it's complicated, (3) it's really complicated.

On the one hand, accepting her suicide makes me feel like we're viewing life as a commodity that can just be written-off when it is no longer pleasing to the consumer. On the other hand, I don't know the full set of details in this specific case. I did read that she suffered prolonged periods of institutionalization (for depression, suicidal behavior, and a string of medical issues, such as organ failure (possibly related to her refusing to eat)). Maybe her life really was a living hell, and maybe she really was broken beyond any reasonable hope of repair or recovery. If we could predict the future then we might be confident that "letting her go" is the most compassionate thing we can do, or we might actually know better and make the decision for her (much in the way a parent makes decisions for their children despite their naive protests).

But we cannot know the future, so we can only go with our best guess in each individual case, and mistakes are inevitable. — VagabondSpectre

WE should be very, very, very, very careful about even trying any of this that you suggested using "we."

Decisions in these areas are for "I" to make...NOT we.

Shamshir
281

I "believe" in God"...is nothing but a blind guess about the unknown REALITY.

I "believe" there are no gods...is nothing but a blind guess about the unknown REALITY. — Frank Apisa

Yeah, those two sentences are blind guesses - your own.

Anyone who hasn't seen their Great-great-grandfather, believes they have this unknown to them grandfather.
Are those people blindly guessing? — Shamshir

Anyone with a brain KNOWS they had a great, great grandfather. They KNOW they their great, great, grandfather also had a great, great grandfather.

This is supposed to be a forum devoted to philosophy. Once in a while people like you ought to act like it is.

tim wood
2.4k

Yeah, that is what I said. It is a guess. That is what a presupposition is. — Frank Apisa


No. They are not the same. A clue is in the words: "presupposition," "guess." If you spell them out you can see they are not the same words. If that's a problem, at least you can see that one is longer than the other, has more letters. I'll make it even more conspicuous. To a Christian, God is an absolute presupposition of his beliefs. His creed starts, "We believe..,". See that? Ab-so-lute pre-sup-po-si-tion. Way longer than "guess." And zero reason to confuse the two. — tim wood

It is a guess...a blind guess.

And "faith" is the absurd insistence that it is correct no matter what.

"Beliefs" in religion...

...are nothing more than blind guesses being disguised.

I "believe" in God"...is nothing but a blind guess about the unknown REALITY.

I "believe" there are no gods...is nothing but a blind guess about the unknown REALITY.

I "believe" "God" is please with this and is offended by that...is nothing but a blind guess about the unknown REALITY.

andrewk
2.1k
For anybody favouring the forceful intervention route, I suggest you watch the scene in the recent movie Suffragette where a hunger-striking suffragette is force-fed in prison.

The rape analogy is neither accidental, nor imaginary. — andrewk

Anyone favoring "forceful intervention" in matter like this...should be force fed themselves...through their asses.

It seems almost inconceivable to me that people actually feel they have that much say over what others do on issues like this.

Merkwurdichliebe
1.1k

Two...I do not give a rat's ass what you venture to call it. — Frank Apisa


Oooweee...someone is testes. :yikes: — Merkwurdichliebe

That was funny...although it would have been a lot funnier if you had proofed it before posting.

Hanover
4.6k

And a whole bunch of audacity, pretentiousness, pomposity, and sticking his nose where it does not belong. — Frank Apisa


Generally laws apply to other people too, which allows us to stick our noses into the affairs of other's. What you allow your daughter to do and what she decides to do might be my business, as what I do might be hers. — Hanover

Bullshit.

Anyway...I do not have a daughter...or a son for that matter. Early on I decided I would not be a good parent and opted not to father any progeny.

If I did have kids, though, I would treat them as I do others who are not my kids...I would allow them to make decisions on issues like this on their own and keep my goddam nose out of what is NOT MY BUSINESS.

When did the script flip where I became the proponent of government intervention and everyone else became libertarians?

Beats me. I loathe Libertarianism...and barely tolerate libertarianism.

I just happen to think on issues like wanting to live or die..on assisted suicide...or wanting to abort or not abort...the decisions are difficult enough without others intervening unless invited.

It occurs to me though that I have been over the top in response to your wanting to intervene without invitation. I apologize...although if you persist, I probably will do it more.

But now you are not talking about euthanasia at all, but about forcible treatment against one's will on the grounds presumably of mental incompetence.

Which is a bit off topic. — unenlightened

Yup...a bit off topic.

And a whole bunch of audacity, pretentiousness, pomposity, and sticking his nose where it does not belong.

My sister is in from California...and we will meet for three or four hours of talk. We talk almost every day on the phone, but something is different about conversation person to person...and I am looking forward to it.

She comes east almost every year...and we meet and talk...almost always in one of The Big Apple's museums. Tomorrow will be at a favorite of ours...the Met. I'll stand in a room with the works of Van Gogh and be moved close to tears to be that near to the great man. I'll see some works of Rembrant, Rubin, Fra Angelico, Breugel the Elder, and so many others.

I'll be in heaven. Truly.

I care not whether others even like the paintings and sculptures I adore. I'll just be near them and feel something I cannot describe.

Hope all of you people have a great day, too.

How is it that you can divide 8 apples among two people but not 8 volts by 2 ohms? — Alan

For the same reason that you can divide 8 apples among two people but not 8 pears by 2 peaches?

Shamshir
274

It is not a "belief" — Frank Apisa

No, it isn't. — Frank Apisa

Any proof, other than you believe it isn't?

What's and where's the infallible proof that determines it's not a belief? — Shamshir

Sorry, Shamshir, I've got better things to do than arguing with a kid looking for attention. Stick with the other kids in the playground. They like this stuff as much as you.

Shamshir
273

I do not do believing — Frank Apisa

That's a belief — Shamshir

It is not a "belief"...but if it makes your life more worth living to suppose it is...go for it. Cost me nothing...and brings a bit of cheer into your life.

Consider it charity on my part...rather than pity.

I know that it is not a belief. — Frank Apisa

That is also a belief. — Shamshir

No, it isn't. But you obviously need to think it to be...so have a ball.

Anything to help someone like you who needs the help.

And I know that it's a belief in the same way you know it isn't.
Canny, right?

You couldn't be canny if you worked for John Steinbeck.

Shamshir
270

One...it is not a "belief." I know it. — Frank Apisa

You believe you know it.
It's possible you don't. — Shamshir

I do not do believing.

I know that it is not a belief.

Merkwurdichliebe
1.1k

And people who just do not want to make a blind guess about the question because there is no unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess...ARE CORRECT. — Frank Apisa


That's a pretty strong belief. I may even venture to call it piety. — Merkwurdichliebe

One...it is not a "belief." I know it.

Two...I do not give a rat's ass what you venture to call it.

I like sushi
1k
↪Brett
↪Frank Apisa
To add to the above, how are we to insult anyone if all words are deemed ‘polite’?
— I like sushi

“I did not attend his funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it.”
― Mark Twain

“Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go.”
― Oscar Wilde

“I've had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it.”
― Groucho Marx


Winston S. Churchill
“He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."

[On British Labour politician Stafford Cripps.]”

“He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends.”
― Oscar Wilde

“That woman speaks eighteen languages, and can't say 'No' in any of them.”
― Dorothy Parker, While Rome Burns

“A member of Parliament to Disraeli: 'Sir, you will either die on the gallows or of some unspeakable disease.'

That depends, Sir,' said Disraeli, 'whether I embrace your policies or your mistress.”

“He has Van Gogh’s ear for music.”
― Billy Wilder

I could go on...but...

Fooloso4
494
↪Frank Apisa


You have a misguided concept of how language actually works. It is intimately tied to norms, practices, and customs.

We should not be artificially designating certain words as "bad" and others as "good." — Frank Apisa


We do not artificially or arbitrarily designating certain words as "bad" and others as "good" any more than we artificially designating certain actions or behaviors as "bad" and others as "good." You may believe that painting a swastika on a synagogue is not bad. After all the symbol was used prior to the Nazis and did not carry that connotation. The fact is though, that now it does.

Words, like other symbols, carry connotations. Their meaning is not neutral until someone arbitrarily designates them good or bad. Words, like customs and norms have a history and change over time. It is not a matter of it being arbitrary as opposed to necessary, but a matter of convention.

I take my shoes off when I enter the home of people who take their shoes off in the house. It's a sign of respect. If I enter a church and I am wearing a hat I will take it off, but if I enter a synagogue and I am not I will put one on. Such practices may seem arbitrary but out of respect that does not prevent me from conforming. In the same way, if I am talking to someone who finds certain words objectionable, out of respect I will not use those words in front of them even though I might use the same words under different circumstances. The use of certain words in certain situations is just ill-mannered. But I suspect you have no regard for good manners either since they go hand in hand. — Fooloso4

I guess we cannot.

csalisbury
1.8k
@Frank ApisaWell *I* can't pick out any word and deem it unacceptable and expect a bunch of others to immediately develop similar intuitions about it. It would just be some weird thing I did. *Who* makes those decisions? You're aware of certain words being 'seen' as bad. its not something I did, of course, because I don't have that power. Who did it?


Ok. Imagine your friend tells you those things and you say it back to him in 'vulgar' language and he's visibly uncomfortable. 'oh you fucked that bitch?' you see your friend seems hurt. What happens next? — csalisbury

I would not do that.

I am talking about a concept here.

Jesus H. Fucking Christ. Can we have an actual philosophical conversation?

tim wood
2.4k

Fact is, in a religious discussion, any comment that contains the words "believe" or "belief"...is actually talking about a guess about the unknown. "I 'believe' (in) God"...really means, "My blind guess is that there is a GOD involved in the REALITY of existence." — Frank Apisa


Wrong. — tim wood

C'mon. Of course I am not wrong on this.

"I/we believe..," I suppose can mean that for some people, but not a Christian. — Tim Wood

It means that for a Christian as much as it means it for anyone else using it in a religious discussion.

And not in a discussion of Christianity. God is an absolute presupposition of Christianity...; — Tim wood

Yeah, that is what I said. It is a guess. That is what a presupposition is.

...as such, questions about the existence of God are simply nonsense questions. — Tim Wood

I do not think they are nonsense. I think they are guesses. They may even be correct. Some guesses are. But they may be incorrect...as many guesses are.

Bitter Crank
7.7k
↪Hanover
↪csalisbury
I've never been sexually abused or raped, so I do not know from personal experience how much trauma that can cause. Still, over a lifetime many of us are subjected to quite real traumatic experiences and their consequences with which we have to deal. I can be more philosophical about this than an adolescent (one would hope). I do believe there is a social element to trauma: How people react to one's trauma can aggravate or ameliorate it. Denying that a trauma occurred won't help, and neither will dilating on the awfulness of the trauma.

Getting good mental health care is essential; it might be a psychiatrist; it might be a parent; it might be a therapist; it might be peers, etc. And conversely, the same people can provide unhelpful care. One of the supposed benefits of a strong religious tradition is that it gives a traumatised person more beneficial contexts in which to place their suffering. (Of course, bad religion makes sexual trauma worse.). A strong secular ethical tradition can do the same thing too (positively and negatively).

It sounds like some of the agents that should have been on hand and helpful were either missing or were not helpful. Suicidal wishes (or euthanasia) should not be acceptable responses to trauma.
22 minutes ago — Bitter Crank

Bingo.

But always with the notion in mind that IF a person chooses suicide...and does not deviate from that...there should be a way for willing professionals to give aid in making the suicide as unmessy as possible. We can allow suicide with dignity...and still respect all the considerations you mentioned in your reply, BC.