The Right to Life

[Link of time]

Sorry in my 3 years of being here I haven't bothered to get acquainted with forum slang.

 

[DeletedUser23986]

Agree on euthanasia.

Well, lets consider what separates euthanasia from murder? The choice of the concerned party. An embryo cannot choose to live, it does not have a brain you can not say that it doesn't want to be killed.

So no murder. Unless the person wants to live, killing it cannot be called murder. Since want cannot exist without thoughts, I don't see how the entire process falls under the definition of murder.

 

[DeletedUser]

This thread is really inappropriate. It should be discontinued and locked.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

Follow this chain back. The "except for" clause was added after I said there was no guarantee.

it was added cause know one else was over thinking this like you. Either way the statement "It is guaranteed life assuming no impeding force is present" still stands true. In the event that there are no impeding forces it will undeniable gain life. In the event that there is a impeding force and it is a premeditated choice in which the outcome is know then it's murder. If it's something random then it's a tragedy but not murder.

With that out of the way I would like to remind you thank you can't argue that this statement isn't true because it excludes all things to make it false. That argument both admits that the statement is true when it excludes those things and you change the statement to show it's falseness so you are aren't even arguing that the statement in question is false anymore.

Just reread it. I may have used an extra pronoun but my meaning is not so heavily obfuscated that it is actually difficult to obtain.

I'll chalk it up to it's early and I'm sleep half asleep but i still don't see what you were trying to say. It looks like you were saying that life itself is murder but that's beyond stupid so clearly I'm still reading it wrong.

And laws are never changed?

totally irrelevant given that at the current state in time it is impossible and you have full knowledge of such.

Yes, the statement as a whole is correct. Again though, that was my point. As a whole, the statement is correct. It's validity is questionable without the second half.

Oh good so we're done here?
You are literally arguing that the statement is false because half of it is incorrect without the other half. You have also admitted that the statement is true as a whole. You have literally admitted that you are wrong.

A statement cannot be false because half of it is false without the other half. The point of the two halfs being together is it make the whole statement true. It's simple logic. But I'll break it down even more for you. 1+1=2 and hopefully we both know that is a fact. What you are doing is saying that "1+1 does not equal two as 1 alone does not equal two".

Well, lets consider what separates euthanasia from murder? The choice of the concerned party. An embryo cannot choose to live, it does not have a brain you can not say that it doesn't want to be killed.

So no murder. Unless the person wants to live, killing it cannot be called murder. Since want cannot exist without thoughts, I don't see how the entire process falls under the definition of murder.

What? Murder does not require the party being murdered to not want to die. That is no where in the definition. If you say that it is in the definition (which it's not) then I'll tell you that we need to release all convicted murder as we can't prove that their victims didn't want to be killed.

This thread is really inappropriate. It should be discontinued and locked.

That's pebble's decision and he thinks otherwise. However if you feel that pebble is wrong feel free to report him to BT. If BT thinks otherwise report him to Richie. If Richie thinks otherwise well then you're still wrong. Have a nice day.

 

[DeletedUser23986]

What? Murder does not require the party being murdered to not want to die. That is no where in the definition. If you say that it is in the definition (which it's not) then I'll tell you that we need to release all convicted murder as we can't prove that their victims didn't want to be killed.

Then you call euthanasia murder? Because its premeditated, and kills someone not deserving to die(regardless of the fact that he wants to)

This debate was never about the law or proving something. Just as you cannot prove the embryo will develop into a child and there will be no tragedy. If someone cannot think, cannot want to live or die, I don't see how its murder?

Also the entire thing about potential is flawed. Potential means something which doesn't exist yet, killing the potential cannot be called murder. A weapon has the potential of killing someone, so we should we ban weapons going by a similar argument? Then we move to other aspects of development which cause pollution, and which in turn is responsible for suffering of people in future. So we must ban development as whole, as it has potential to cause others to suffer.

Morover, the potential of someone being killed with weapons, or the pollution causing suffering to people is lot higher.

 

[DeletedUser49358]

This thread is really inappropriate. It should be discontinued and locked.

Inappropriate or just controversial? a thread about something like pornography would be inappropriate, a thread about abortion is just a controversial topic that can get messy if let unchecked but so far this one seems to be doing fine.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

Then you call euthanasia murder? Because its premeditated, and kills someone not deserving to die(regardless of the fact that he wants to)

frankly i would.

This debate was never about the law or proving something. Just as you cannot prove the embryo will develop into a child and there will be no tragedy. If someone cannot think, cannot want to live or die, I don't see how its murder?

yes we can. It literally happens ever day.
Cause the want to live is irrelevant in murder.

Also the entire thing about potential is flawed. Potential means something which doesn't exist yet, killing the potential cannot be called murder.

http://forum.en.grepolis.com/showthread.php?55853-The-Right-to-Life&p=953857&viewfull=1#post953857

A weapon has the potential of killing someone, so we should we ban weapons going by a similar argument? Then we move to other aspects of development which cause pollution, and which in turn is responsible for suffering of people in future. So we must ban development as whole, as it has potential to cause others to suffer.

Honestly? That would be a totally different debate and it has nothing to do with pebbles argument. Literally nothing. Zero! Pebble is discussing nothing along the lines of what you just said.

Morover, the potential of someone being killed with weapons, or the pollution causing suffering to people is lot higher.

see the above statement.

 

[DeletedUser36697]

As I said this Tab falls under the Forum rules and should be closed and locked.

this topic has nothing to do with the game and is at the least an Incendiary topic that does the Game no good. it falls under the category of politically extreme.

Forum Rules
Posting

Language

English only. Please limit other languages to well known quotes or provide a correct translation.
Anything deemed politically extreme, pornographic, illegal, or unsavory in any way is prohibited.
Racist or ethnic bashing comments are forbidden even if used in jest.
Comments that play down the use of illegal drugs or promote the use of said substances are strictly forbidden.
No use of profanity will be permitted (including masked profanity). If it's something a moderator feels is inappropriate, it will be edited.

 

[DeletedUser8396]

As I said this Tab falls under the Forum rules and should be closed and locked.

this topic has nothing to do with the game and is at the least an Incendiary topic that does the Game no good. it falls under the category of politically extreme.

Forum Rules
Posting

Language

English only. Please limit other languages to well known quotes or provide a correct translation.
Anything deemed politically extreme, pornographic, illegal, or unsavory in any way is prohibited.
Racist or ethnic bashing comments are forbidden even if used in jest.
Comments that play down the use of illegal drugs or promote the use of said substances are strictly forbidden.
No use of profanity will be permitted (including masked profanity). If it's something a moderator feels is inappropriate, it will be edited.

Don't really consider this political, mate. Now, if we related it to government policies on the matter, that argument might be made, but we're talking of the acts in and of themselves. Again, if you feel it violates that rule, report it to Baudin Toolan. However, as Skullyhoofd already linked to, there's already a thread discussing this in the DnD section a while back in which a past CM and several other past moderators replied to without as much as a hiccup.

 

[DeletedUser23986]

frankly i would.

well, then the logic doesn't work for you, but a lot of people do not consider it murder.

yes we can. It literally happens ever day.
Cause the want to live is irrelevant in murder.

It happens every day, but also every day tragedies happen. So it can not be considered guaranteed. So you blame people for murder because the cells which may or may not turn into human were removed?

Honestly? That would be a totally different debate and it has nothing to do with pebbles argument. Literally nothing. Zero! Pebble is discussing nothing along the lines of what you just said.

see the above statement.

I am talking about the very fact that murder, or any other crime cannot be considered on the basis of potential. Crimes are acts which can be defined. Not acts that have the potential to destroy others life.

You cannot bring in the thoughts of potential when judging someone. As much as those cells have the potential to grow into human, weapons have the potential to kill human. So if removing cells is murder, creating weapons is too. And almost every act we do has the potential to affects others adversely. If we act on the basis on potential consequences, we will cease to exist.

 

[DeletedUser49358]

It happens every day, but also every day tragedies happen. So it can not be considered guaranteed. So you blame people for murder because the cells which may or may not turn into human were removed?

I'm sorry but this is just a terrible argument, with this logic you could have every convicted felon of actual murder appeal their conviction on the basis that the person they killed could have died in a freak accident the next day and that killing them as the person may or may not have lived in the next day wasn't really murder because they would have died anyway. The fact of the mater is that the act of abortion completely eliminates any chance of those cells ever being formed into a life and weather or not they may or may not have formed into a child and given birth to is irrelevant on the basis that removing those cells is still killing a life.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

well, then the logic doesn't work for you, but a lot of people do not consider it murder.

really? I can see the argument that it's more humane and therefore should be protected under the law but it's seems to be clearly murder. Either way off topic but maybe for the DnD

It happens every day, but also every day tragedies happen. So it can not be considered guaranteed. So you blame people for murder because the cells which may or may not turn into human were removed?

"It is guaranteed life assuming no impeding force is present"
If said impeding force is premeditated then murder.

I am talking about the very fact that murder, or any other crime cannot be considered on the basis of potential. Crimes are acts which can be defined. Not acts that have the potential to destroy others life.

this isn't be considered on the basis of potential. It is a fact that the cells are guaranteed life assuming no impeding force is present. If said impeding force is premeditated then murder as you have removed the guarantee of life.

You cannot bring in the thoughts of potential when judging someone.
As much as those cells have the potential to grow into human, weapons have the potential to kill human. So if removing cells is murder, creating weapons is too.
And almost every act we do has the potential to affects others adversely. If we act on the basis on potential consequences, we will cease to exist.

Well I'm not.
Well the weapons are not guaranteed to kill. They probably will of course but that's not a guarantee. Removing the cells is a guarantee to kill.
Will I doubt we will cease to exist lol. Either way this is not a potential consequence here. It is premeditated and the outcome is fully known.

 

[DeletedUser23986]

"It is guaranteed life assuming no impeding force is present"
If said impeding force is premeditated then murder.

Murder is killing humans. The cells cannot be considered human. They may or may not develop into human, so how is it murder?

this isn't be considered on the basis of potential. It is a fact that the cells are guaranteed life assuming no impeding force is present. If said impeding force is premeditated then murder as you have removed the guarantee of life.

Whats to say that cells are guaranteed life? Who has guarantee them life? One has only removed the chance of gaining human life, before it became human, thats not murder. Also no one is killing it, it is unable to survive on itself. They are only removing it from their body, i don't see how thats wrong? Ever heard of passive death?

Well the weapons are not guaranteed to kill. They probably will of course but that's not a guarantee. Removing the cells is a guarantee to kill.
Will I doubt we will cease to exist lol. Either way this is not a potential consequence here. It is premeditated and the outcome is fully known.

If you don't take into consideration "potential consequences", why should you bother with of killing potential? murder is only defnined for humans. Those cells cannot be called human.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

Murder is killing humans. The cells cannot be considered human. They may or may not develop into human, so how is it murder?

http://forum.en.grepolis.com/showthread.php?55853-The-Right-to-Life&p=953857&viewfull=1#post953857

Whats to say that cells are guaranteed life? Who has guarantee them life? One has only removed the chance of gaining human life, before it became human, thats not murder. Also no one is killing it, it is unable to survive on itself. They are only removing it from their body, i don't see how thats wrong? Ever heard of passive death?

http://forum.en.grepolis.com/showthread.php?55853-The-Right-to-Life&p=953857&viewfull=1#post953857

If you don't take into consideration "potential consequences", why should you bother with of killing potential? murder is only defnined for humans. Those cells cannot be called human.

http://forum.en.grepolis.com/showthread.php?55853-The-Right-to-Life&p=953857&viewfull=1#post953857

You can keep saying stuff that pebble has already explained that's fine by me but I'm just going to keep replying with links.

 

[Link of time]

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;

For all you 'muricans out there. According to the good ol Declaration of Independence, it's astonishing it's not illegal in the states.

 

[DeletedUser49358]

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;

For all you 'muricans out there. According to the good ol Declaration of Independence, it's astonishing it's not illegal in the states.

Slavery was also legal in the United States when the Declaration was signed and took nearly 100 years to end it which means those dead white guys who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence were pretty big hypocrites to begin with. Anyway if you have the gull to quote the Declaration of Independence as if its some new concept that I've never heard of before and use the ever so popular 'muricans term that's used to mock Americans (and not in a joking manner) and think that you have the right to say what should and shouldn't be legal in another country then I'm done with you in this thread. I tried being nice and lenient with your "I'm always right" mentality thus far but if you're going to resort to something like this than I'm done, say whatever you like because I'll be ignoring it from now on you have shown zero respect to others throughout this whole discussion and now I'll be giving you that same amount of respect back.

 

[Link of time]

I'd like to let you know that I am American.

And FYI: I am always right

You're one of the only ones being remotely hostile mate.

 

[DeletedUser8396]

Both of you should calm down. No need to be hostile - I'd truly hate to close off any future discussion because people couldn't control themselves. Thus far things have been fine, but please don't cross that line.

 

[Link of time]

Back to the discussion, pebble?

 

[DeletedUser49358]

zero amount of hostility intended.