Moved Bilby/Algor Derail

[Algor]

Back on topic, I’m honestly trying to understand how Hamas managed to secure the bodies of the hostages for nearly two years amid constant bombardment. Were they able to move them each time they relocated, or did they have a location that somehow stayed protected the whole time? Gaza’s so densely monitored it’s hard to picture how that could go undetected for so long. The reason I ask is because part of the deal involves returning all the hostages, dead or alive , and given Hamas’s history, it’s hard to see why they’d prioritize safeguarding remains. Maybe Israel already knew where the hostages were and chose to strike anything deemed militant in hopes of pressuring Hamas to release them.

Reports are saying Hamas still hasn’t turned over all the hostages, maybe they’re scrambling to find remains they left behind somewhere along the way.

Despite islam, not because of islam.

You sure like rewriting history. You do realize that without 7th-century Islam, the violent tribal society it emerged from would’ve never given rise to the mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and philosophy that shaped civilization itself.

It was because of Islam, bruh, not in spite of it. Don’t let your hatred for the violent, reactionary and modern version of the faith erase the history that made your modern world possible.

Does Tswizzle actually value those things, or are they too "Woke"? Usually Republicans are trying to kill philosophy programs, not enroll in them.

Yeah, judging from his "contributions" here on climate change, it seems that TSwizzle is not a fan of science, and if we can credit Islam for its develpment, that is a strike against Islam in his eyes.

Hi bilby. Please pardon the OT intrusion.

I got your name from someone who used to post here, and who asked me something about one of your previous interactions. I swear I am not trying to troll, annoy you or give you a headache, but I think you could do everyone elsewhere a favour. Pleae consider this question and I’ll fill you in on some details once you answer it. It is not a trick, trap, or in bad faith. I’m an atheist poster on another forum where ai go by this name.

I personally oppose a “right to die”. I would not vote for instituting such a right, although I think I’m familiar with the topic, and my stance comes from a view if what a “ right”is: I think its a universal obligation adopted by consensus, not a thing in and of itself. I know you are in favour of some sort of right to die. If you thought I was standing in the way of your right to die, would you drive right over me?

No, This is not some sort of trap or anything like that: I will clarify if you want (it is tedious, but I will) if you answer.

 

[Algor]

Back on topic, I’m honestly trying to understand how Hamas managed to secure the bodies of the hostages for nearly two years amid constant bombardment. Were they able to move them each time they relocated, or did they have a location that somehow stayed protected the whole time? Gaza’s so densely monitored it’s hard to picture how that could go undetected for so long. The reason I ask is because part of the deal involves returning all the hostages, dead or alive , and given Hamas’s history, it’s hard to see why they’d prioritize safeguarding remains. Maybe Israel already knew where the hostages were and chose to strike anything deemed militant in hopes of pressuring Hamas to release them.

Reports are saying Hamas still hasn’t turned over all the hostages, maybe they’re scrambling to find remains they left behind somewhere along the way.

Despite islam, not because of islam.

You sure like rewriting history. You do realize that without 7th-century Islam, the violent tribal society it emerged from would’ve never given rise to the mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and philosophy that shaped civilization itself.

It was because of Islam, bruh, not in spite of it. Don’t let your hatred for the violent, reactionary and modern version of the faith erase the history that made your modern world possible.

Does Tswizzle actually value those things, or are they too "Woke"? Usually Republicans are trying to kill philosophy programs, not enroll in them.

Yeah, judging from his "contributions" here on climate change, it seems that TSwizzle is not a fan of science, and if we can credit Islam for its develpment, that is a strike against Islam in his eyes.

Hi bilby. Please pardon the OT intrusion.

I got your name from someone who used to post here, and who asked me something about one of your previous interactions. I swear I am not trying to troll, annoy you or give you a headache, but I think you could do everyone elsewhere a favour. Pleae consider this question and I’ll fill you in on some details once you answer it. It is not a trick, trap, or in bad faith. I’m an atheist poster on another forum where ai go by this name.

I personally oppose a “right to die”. I would not vote for instituting such a right, although I think I’m familiar with the topic, and my stance comes from a view if what a “ right”is: I think its a universal obligation adopted by consensus, not a thing in and of itself. I know you are in favour of some sort of right to die. If you thought I was standing in the way of your right to die, would you drive right over me?

No, This is not some sort of trap at all. I will explain once you answer, tho it is tedious.

 

[TomC]

I got your name from someone who used to post here, and who asked me something about one of your previous interactions. I swear I am not trying to troll, annoy you or give you a headache, but I think you could do everyone elsewhere a favour. Pleae consider this question and I’ll fill you in on some details once you answer it. It is not a trick, trap, or in bad faith. I’m an atheist poster on another forum where ai go by this name.

I know you well enough to believe that you don't mean to troll.
However, I know that Jagella the Troll, AKA Unknown Soldier, does like to troll. And he's enlisted you. Because he trolled so much on this (and many other forums) that he's been banned.
But I do think that you are a good person. I suggest scrolling through the thread in the morals section called "Do we have a right to die?" Bilby's post is #133. You'll get a sense for why he's banned from here, and many other forums.
Tom

 

[Algor]

I got your name from someone who used to post here, and who asked me something about one of your previous interactions. I swear I am not trying to troll, annoy you or give you a headache, but I think you could do everyone elsewhere a favour. Pleae consider this question and I’ll fill you in on some details once you answer it. It is not a trick, trap, or in bad faith. I’m an atheist poster on another forum where ai go by this name.

I know you well enough to believe that you don't mean to troll.
However, I know that Jagella the Troll, AKA Unknown Soldier, does like to troll. And he's enlisted you. Because he trolled so much on this (and many other forums) that he's been banned.
But I do think that you are a good person. I suggest scrolling through the thread in the morals section called "Do we have a right to die?" Bilby's post is #133. You'll get a sense for why he's banned from here, and many other forums.
Tom

I very much appreciate the vote of confidence, and can understand what you say and why. A yes or no might put paid to a lot of perfect silliness either way. It is true I am not so familiar with bilby, but if he chooses not to comment, it is no skin off my nose either way. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Maybe the 5 minutes of back breaking labour this all required, lol.

 

[bilby]

Bilby's post is #133. You'll get a sense for why he's banned from here, and many other forums.

Wait, I am banned?

 

[Shadowy Man]

I got your name from someone who used to post here, and who asked me something about one of your previous interactions. I swear I am not trying to troll, annoy you or give you a headache, but I think you could do everyone elsewhere a favour. Pleae consider this question and I’ll fill you in on some details once you answer it. It is not a trick, trap, or in bad faith. I’m an atheist poster on another forum where ai go by this name.

I know you well enough to believe that you don't mean to troll.
However, I know that Jagella the Troll, AKA Unknown Soldier, does like to troll. And he's enlisted you. Because he trolled so much on this (and many other forums) that he's been banned.
But I do think that you are a good person. I suggest scrolling through the thread in the morals section called "Do we have a right to die?" Bilby's post is #133. You'll get a sense for why he's banned from here, and many other forums.
Tom

I very much appreciate the vote of confidence, and can understand what you say and why. A yes or no might put paid to a lot of perfect silliness either way. It is true I am not so familiar with bilby, but if he chooses not to comment, it is no skin off my nose either way. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Maybe the 5 minutes of back breaking labour this all required, lol.

You should take your off-topic post to another thread. It appears you are here to specifically harass an individual on this site and I don't know if the moderators will tolerate this. You could have easily just sent Bilby a private message or started a separate thread. I recommend not continuing this line of questioning within this thread. You say "it is not a trick, trap, or in bad faith", but that is *exactly* what this looks like to a disinterested third party observer.

 

[Algor]

I got your name from someone who used to post here, and who asked me something about one of your previous interactions. I swear I am not trying to troll, annoy you or give you a headache, but I think you could do everyone elsewhere a favour. Pleae consider this question and I’ll fill you in on some details once you answer it. It is not a trick, trap, or in bad faith. I’m an atheist poster on another forum where ai go by this name.

I know you well enough to believe that you don't mean to troll.
However, I know that Jagella the Troll, AKA Unknown Soldier, does like to troll. And he's enlisted you. Because he trolled so much on this (and many other forums) that he's been banned.
But I do think that you are a good person. I suggest scrolling through the thread in the morals section called "Do we have a right to die?" Bilby's post is #133. You'll get a sense for why he's banned from here, and many other forums.
Tom

I very much appreciate the vote of confidence, and can understand what you say and why. A yes or no might put paid to a lot of perfect silliness either way. It is true I am not so familiar with bilby, but if he chooses not to comment, it is no skin off my nose either way. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Maybe the 5 minutes of back breaking labour this all required, lol.

You should take your off-topic post to another thread. It appears you are here to specifically harass an individual on this site and I don't know if the moderators will tolerate this. You could have easily just sent Bilby a private message or started a separate thread. I recommend not continuing this line of questioning within this thread. You say "it is not a trick, trap, or in bad faith", but that is *exactly* what this looks like to a disinterested third party observer.

I don't want to harass anyone. I'm unfamiliar with the forum and a bit of a IT luddite and klutz, and I'm happy not to add any posts if no one responds. Again, apologies for OT, I completely concede that your perception is reasonable and I won't respond to any further posts here unless they are directly and substantially concerned with what I brought up. The only reason I'm responding this is to clarify my intent and plans. Def not trying to annoy.

All I can do is try and play nice. Tnx.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

If you thought I was standing in the way of your right to die, would you drive right over me?

Not sure I understand this question, since people have the right to life as well, and you could ask the same thing with regards to the right to life. Let's say someone really needs to get to their family member to a hospital (in this situation, ambulances would take too long), but in their haste they swerve into someone with their car, killing them accidentally. Is that OK because their family member has a right to life? Obviously not.

 

[bilby]

Not sure I understand this question

The context is in the original (closed) thread:

https://iidb.org/threads/do-we-all-have-a-right-to-die.26791/

In that thread, I express my opinion that my life belongs to me, and that anyone else has no more moral right to decide that I may not choose to end it, than they have to decide that I must end it.

If someone else is determined that my life must end, then I have a moral and ethical right to defend it, by any means necessary.

And the reverse must also be true - if my life is my own (and it is absurd to suggest that it is not), then if someone else is determined to deny me the right to end it, then I have a moral and ethical right to prevent them from doing so, by any means necessary.

If my life is not mine, to dispose of as I please, then I am essentially the property and slave of whoever has taken on that right, whether it be an individual, or a collective (such as eg a government, or a church).

Any person threatening to take away my right to die, poses an equal threat to my life to that posed by a person threatening to kill me, and persons making such threats don't get to act all shocked and hurt* if I respond to their threats with an unequivocal warning that I will not stand for them.

Sadly, some folks are too far up themselves to understand that sealioning is an inappropriate response to a strongly held opinion that contradicts their own. And having been denied the ability to do so by being banned, have decided to continue the process either by proxy, or via a sock account.






* Well, they don't have any moral standing to do so. Of course, that doesn't prevent them from responding in an irrational and morally bankrupt fashion; But it does mean that I feel no particular qualms about their butthurt, nor any moral obligation to treat them as though they were somehow an injured party.

 

[Algor]

Not sure I understand this question

The context is in the original (closed) thread:

https://iidb.org/threads/do-we-all-have-a-right-to-die.26791/

In that thread, I express my opinion that my life belongs to me, and that anyone else has no more moral right to decide that I may not choose to end it, than they have to decide that I must end it.

If someone else is determined that my life must end, then I have a moral and ethical right to defend it, by any means necessary.

And the reverse must also be true - if my life is my own (and it is absurd to suggest that it is not), then if someone else is determined to deny me the right to end it, then I have a moral and ethical right to prevent them from doing so, by any means necessary.

If my life is not mine, to dispose of as I please, then I am essentially the property and slave of whoever has taken on that right, whether it be an individual, or a collective (such as eg a government, or a church).

Any person threatening to take away my right to die, poses an equal threat to my life to that posed by a person threatening to kill me, and persons making such threats don't get to act all shocked and hurt* if I respond to their threats with an unequivocal warning that I will not stand for them.

Sadly, some folks are too far up themselves to understand that sealioning is an inappropriate response to a strongly held opinion that contradicts their own. And having been denied the ability to do so by being banned, have decided to continue the process either by proxy, or via a sock account.






* Well, they don't have any moral standing to do so. Of course, that doesn't prevent them from responding in an irrational and morally bankrupt fashion; But it does mean that I feel no particular qualms about their butthurt, nor any moral obligation to treat them as though they were somehow an injured party.

Oh no, not trying to sealion you. Honestly I don’t really care either way in specific. In fact I think you might find the situation funny. Thank you for the clarification.

If you go to CARM and the atheism sec humanism board there is a thread in which you are depicted as the exemplar of a bad atheist: a dangerous maniac issuing death threats. Your “death threat” has been mentioned numerous times in other threads as well. I and several others have been trying to convince someone that what you had said in an interaction with that other was not a death threat in any significant immanent sense and that it was an example of a hypothetical and even metaphorical expression in an anonymous forum, not to be interpreted as a realistic or credible threat of vehicular homicide. Kid you not, it has been two years and he is still going on about vehicular homicide.

One of his responses was that if I felt so sure that you were not a real threat to his life I would do as I just did: toddle on over here and ask you as I did, the implication being that I wouldn’t dare. So I did and here you are oddly not trying to murder me. Imagine my shock.

I do not wish to be banned at CARM so I am not going to discuss the individual in question or link, but if you go to CARM discussion forums and search under my name and the term “pigeon chess”, and take the most recent example you will see the interaction.
Sorry to disturb you, and again many thanks. I’m just all terrified by the death threats and unhinged maniacs menacing me here, so I must flee in uncontrollable panic.
-Algor

 

[Algor]

If you thought I was standing in the way of your right to die, would you drive right over me?

Not sure I understand this question, since people have the right to life as well, and you could ask the same thing with regards to the right to life. Let's say someone really needs to get to their family member to a hospital (in this situation, ambulances would take too long), but in their haste they swerve into someone with their car, killing them accidentally. Is that OK because their family member has a right to life? Obviously not.

Its simply me hewing to an agreed question form another forum. Bilby answered fine.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Not sure I understand this question

The context is in the original (closed) thread:

https://iidb.org/threads/do-we-all-have-a-right-to-die.26791/

In that thread, I express my opinion that my life belongs to me, and that anyone else has no more moral right to decide that I may not choose to end it, than they have to decide that I must end it.

If someone else is determined that my life must end, then I have a moral and ethical right to defend it, by any means necessary.

And the reverse must also be true - if my life is my own (and it is absurd to suggest that it is not), then if someone else is determined to deny me the right to end it, then I have a moral and ethical right to prevent them from doing so, by any means necessary.

If my life is not mine, to dispose of as I please, then I am essentially the property and slave of whoever has taken on that right, whether it be an individual, or a collective (such as eg a government, or a church).

Any person threatening to take away my right to die, poses an equal threat to my life to that posed by a person threatening to kill me, and persons making such threats don't get to act all shocked and hurt* if I respond to their threats with an unequivocal warning that I will not stand for them.

Sadly, some folks are too far up themselves to understand that sealioning is an inappropriate response to a strongly held opinion that contradicts their own. And having been denied the ability to do so by being banned, have decided to continue the process either by proxy, or via a sock account.






* Well, they don't have any moral standing to do so. Of course, that doesn't prevent them from responding in an irrational and morally bankrupt fashion; But it does mean that I feel no particular qualms about their butthurt, nor any moral obligation to treat them as though they were somehow an injured party.

If you go to CARM and the atheism sec humanism board there is a thread in which you are depicted as the exemplar of a bad atheist

I thought all of us atheists were bad because we supposedly have no morality? Anyway I have no interest in any discussion about what is a "good atheist" or not. Only morons believe atheism is anything other than a lack of belief in gods, it says nothing about our morality.

 

[Jarhyn]

Back on topic, I’m honestly trying to understand how Hamas managed to secure the bodies of the hostages for nearly two years amid constant bombardment. Were they able to move them each time they relocated, or did they have a location that somehow stayed protected the whole time? Gaza’s so densely monitored it’s hard to picture how that could go undetected for so long. The reason I ask is because part of the deal involves returning all the hostages, dead or alive , and given Hamas’s history, it’s hard to see why they’d prioritize safeguarding remains. Maybe Israel already knew where the hostages were and chose to strike anything deemed militant in hopes of pressuring Hamas to release them.

Reports are saying Hamas still hasn’t turned over all the hostages, maybe they’re scrambling to find remains they left behind somewhere along the way.

Despite islam, not because of islam.

You sure like rewriting history. You do realize that without 7th-century Islam, the violent tribal society it emerged from would’ve never given rise to the mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and philosophy that shaped civilization itself.

It was because of Islam, bruh, not in spite of it. Don’t let your hatred for the violent, reactionary and modern version of the faith erase the history that made your modern world possible.

Does Tswizzle actually value those things, or are they too "Woke"? Usually Republicans are trying to kill philosophy programs, not enroll in them.

Yeah, judging from his "contributions" here on climate change, it seems that TSwizzle is not a fan of science, and if we can credit Islam for its develpment, that is a strike against Islam in his eyes.

Hi bilby. Please pardon the OT intrusion.

I got your name from someone who used to post here, and who asked me something about one of your previous interactions. I swear I am not trying to troll, annoy you or give you a headache, but I think you could do everyone elsewhere a favour. Pleae consider this question and I’ll fill you in on some details once you answer it. It is not a trick, trap, or in bad faith. I’m an atheist poster on another forum where ai go by this name.

I personally oppose a “right to die”. I would not vote for instituting such a right, although I think I’m familiar with the topic, and my stance comes from a view if what a “ right”is: I think its a universal obligation adopted by consensus, not a thing in and of itself. I know you are in favour of some sort of right to die. If you thought I was standing in the way of your right to die, would you drive right over me?

No, This is not some sort of trap or anything like that: I will clarify if you want (it is tedious, but I will) if you answer.

So, let's put it this way: I think someone can revoke their own rights to some thing or action or outcome, in abstract, by denying it if another.

If you deny the power of someone else to act in a way that does not harm you, you have denied of yourself, in abstract, to be free of anything that would otherwise be considered "harm".

By unilaterally denying their ability to act in some way, you give consent, not through mere words but by material actions, to have this right stripped from you to whatever extent you would impose against them.

With denying someone the right to kill themselves, you deny them the power to make decisions about their own life and death.

If we are to reflect this back on you as may be done, you have in so doing consented to a denial of your own right to decide whether you live or die!

In doing so, because we wish to retain as much of our rights even when we have otherwise "lost" them, the only pathway to having it is to respect rights to the extent that you may while protecting or preserving your own.

So if you offered someone no other choice to someone but either to kill you in their attempt to die, or to fail forevermore at that task, they would be more at their rights to kill you than you would be at your rights to force them to live, because your actions are unilateral, and their reactions are responsive.

It's another thing to just... Talk at them and beg them not to, or to expect some universal process of assurance that someone really does not have any other workable options but to end their life.

 

[Algor]

Back on topic, I’m honestly trying to understand how Hamas managed to secure the bodies of the hostages for nearly two years amid constant bombardment. Were they able to move them each time they relocated, or did they have a location that somehow stayed protected the whole time? Gaza’s so densely monitored it’s hard to picture how that could go undetected for so long. The reason I ask is because part of the deal involves returning all the hostages, dead or alive , and given Hamas’s history, it’s hard to see why they’d prioritize safeguarding remains. Maybe Israel already knew where the hostages were and chose to strike anything deemed militant in hopes of pressuring Hamas to release them.

Reports are saying Hamas still hasn’t turned over all the hostages, maybe they’re scrambling to find remains they left behind somewhere along the way.

Despite islam, not because of islam.

You sure like rewriting history. You do realize that without 7th-century Islam, the violent tribal society it emerged from would’ve never given rise to the mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and philosophy that shaped civilization itself.

It was because of Islam, bruh, not in spite of it. Don’t let your hatred for the violent, reactionary and modern version of the faith erase the history that made your modern world possible.

Does Tswizzle actually value those things, or are they too "Woke"? Usually Republicans are trying to kill philosophy programs, not enroll in them.

Yeah, judging from his "contributions" here on climate change, it seems that TSwizzle is not a fan of science, and if we can credit Islam for its develpment, that is a strike against Islam in his eyes.

Hi bilby. Please pardon the OT intrusion.

I got your name from someone who used to post here, and who asked me something about one of your previous interactions. I swear I am not trying to troll, annoy you or give you a headache, but I think you could do everyone elsewhere a favour. Pleae consider this question and I’ll fill you in on some details once you answer it. It is not a trick, trap, or in bad faith. I’m an atheist poster on another forum where ai go by this name.

I personally oppose a “right to die”. I would not vote for instituting such a right, although I think I’m familiar with the topic, and my stance comes from a view if what a “ right”is: I think its a universal obligation adopted by consensus, not a thing in and of itself. I know you are in favour of some sort of right to die. If you thought I was standing in the way of your right to die, would you drive right over me?

No, This is not some sort of trap or anything like that: I will clarify if you want (it is tedious, but I will) if you answer.

So, let's put it this way: I think someone can revoke their own rights to some thing or action or outcome, in abstract, by denying it if another.

If you deny the power of someone else to act in a way that does not harm you, you have denied of yourself, in abstract, to be free of anything that would otherwise be considered "harm".

By unilaterally denying their ability to act in some way, you give consent, not through mere words but by material actions, to have this right stripped from you to whatever extent you would impose against them.

With denying someone the right to kill themselves, you deny them the power to make decisions about their own life and death.

If we are to reflect this back on you as may be done, you have in so doing consented to a denial of your own right to decide whether you live or die!

In doing so, because we wish to retain as much of our rights even when we have otherwise "lost" them, the only pathway to having it is to respect rights to the extent that you may while protecting or preserving your own.

So if you offered someone no other choice to someone but either to kill you in their attempt to die, or to fail forevermore at that task, they would be more at their rights to kill you than you would be at your rights to force them to live, because your actions are unilateral, and their reactions are responsive.

It's another thing to just... Talk at them and beg them not to, or to expect some universal process of assurance that someone really does not have any other workable options but to end their life.

See my post #9.

 

[pood]

Not sure I understand this question

The context is in the original (closed) thread:

https://iidb.org/threads/do-we-all-have-a-right-to-die.26791/

In that thread, I express my opinion that my life belongs to me, and that anyone else has no more moral right to decide that I may not choose to end it, than they have to decide that I must end it.

If someone else is determined that my life must end, then I have a moral and ethical right to defend it, by any means necessary.

And the reverse must also be true - if my life is my own (and it is absurd to suggest that it is not), then if someone else is determined to deny me the right to end it, then I have a moral and ethical right to prevent them from doing so, by any means necessary.

If my life is not mine, to dispose of as I please, then I am essentially the property and slave of whoever has taken on that right, whether it be an individual, or a collective (such as eg a government, or a church).

Any person threatening to take away my right to die, poses an equal threat to my life to that posed by a person threatening to kill me, and persons making such threats don't get to act all shocked and hurt* if I respond to their threats with an unequivocal warning that I will not stand for them.

Sadly, some folks are too far up themselves to understand that sealioning is an inappropriate response to a strongly held opinion that contradicts their own. And having been denied the ability to do so by being banned, have decided to continue the process either by proxy, or via a sock account.






* Well, they don't have any moral standing to do so. Of course, that doesn't prevent them from responding in an irrational and morally bankrupt fashion; But it does mean that I feel no particular qualms about their butthurt, nor any moral obligation to treat them as though they were somehow an injured party.

Oh no, not trying to sealion you. Honestly I don’t really care either way in specific. In fact I think you might find the situation funny. Thank you for the clarification.

If you go to CARM and the atheism sec humanism board there is a thread in which you are depicted as the exemplar of a bad atheist: a dangerous maniac issuing death threats. Your “death threat” has been mentioned numerous times in other threads as well. I and several others have been trying to convince someone that what you had said in an interaction with that other was not a death threat in any significant immanent sense and that it was an example of a hypothetical and even metaphorical expression in an anonymous forum, not to be interpreted as a realistic or credible threat of vehicular homicide. Kid you not, it has been two years and he is still going on about vehicular homicide.

One of his responses was that if I felt so sure that you were not a real threat to his life I would do as I just did: toddle on over here and ask you as I did, the implication being that I wouldn’t dare. So I did and here you are oddly not trying to murder me. Imagine my shock.

I do not wish to be banned at CARM so I am not going to discuss the individual in question or link, but if you go to CARM discussion forums and search under my name and the term “pigeon chess”, and take the most recent example you will see the interaction.
Sorry to disturb you, and again many thanks. I’m just all terrified by the death threats and unhinged maniacs menacing me here, so I must flee in uncontrollable panic.
-Algor

You must mean Unknown Soldier, the well-known lackwit. And yes I’ve seen those threads at CARM and even posted there briefly, until I realized what a bunch of weirdos post there and stopped.

 

[Jarhyn]

Back on topic, I’m honestly trying to understand how Hamas managed to secure the bodies of the hostages for nearly two years amid constant bombardment. Were they able to move them each time they relocated, or did they have a location that somehow stayed protected the whole time? Gaza’s so densely monitored it’s hard to picture how that could go undetected for so long. The reason I ask is because part of the deal involves returning all the hostages, dead or alive , and given Hamas’s history, it’s hard to see why they’d prioritize safeguarding remains. Maybe Israel already knew where the hostages were and chose to strike anything deemed militant in hopes of pressuring Hamas to release them.

Reports are saying Hamas still hasn’t turned over all the hostages, maybe they’re scrambling to find remains they left behind somewhere along the way.

Despite islam, not because of islam.

You sure like rewriting history. You do realize that without 7th-century Islam, the violent tribal society it emerged from would’ve never given rise to the mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and philosophy that shaped civilization itself.

It was because of Islam, bruh, not in spite of it. Don’t let your hatred for the violent, reactionary and modern version of the faith erase the history that made your modern world possible.

Does Tswizzle actually value those things, or are they too "Woke"? Usually Republicans are trying to kill philosophy programs, not enroll in them.

Yeah, judging from his "contributions" here on climate change, it seems that TSwizzle is not a fan of science, and if we can credit Islam for its develpment, that is a strike against Islam in his eyes.

Hi bilby. Please pardon the OT intrusion.

I got your name from someone who used to post here, and who asked me something about one of your previous interactions. I swear I am not trying to troll, annoy you or give you a headache, but I think you could do everyone elsewhere a favour. Pleae consider this question and I’ll fill you in on some details once you answer it. It is not a trick, trap, or in bad faith. I’m an atheist poster on another forum where ai go by this name.

I personally oppose a “right to die”. I would not vote for instituting such a right, although I think I’m familiar with the topic, and my stance comes from a view if what a “ right”is: I think its a universal obligation adopted by consensus, not a thing in and of itself. I know you are in favour of some sort of right to die. If you thought I was standing in the way of your right to die, would you drive right over me?

No, This is not some sort of trap or anything like that: I will clarify if you want (it is tedious, but I will) if you answer.

So, let's put it this way: I think someone can revoke their own rights to some thing or action or outcome, in abstract, by denying it if another.

If you deny the power of someone else to act in a way that does not harm you, you have denied of yourself, in abstract, to be free of anything that would otherwise be considered "harm".

By unilaterally denying their ability to act in some way, you give consent, not through mere words but by material actions, to have this right stripped from you to whatever extent you would impose against them.

With denying someone the right to kill themselves, you deny them the power to make decisions about their own life and death.

If we are to reflect this back on you as may be done, you have in so doing consented to a denial of your own right to decide whether you live or die!

In doing so, because we wish to retain as much of our rights even when we have otherwise "lost" them, the only pathway to having it is to respect rights to the extent that you may while protecting or preserving your own.

So if you offered someone no other choice to someone but either to kill you in their attempt to die, or to fail forevermore at that task, they would be more at their rights to kill you than you would be at your rights to force them to live, because your actions are unilateral, and their reactions are responsive.

It's another thing to just... Talk at them and beg them not to, or to expect some universal process of assurance that someone really does not have any other workable options but to end their life.

See my post #9.

Nothing in that post seems to address anything I said.

I found the discussion interesting, so I answered, nothing more, nothing less.

I find the question to be roundly answered through the fact that our rights come from us respecting others to have said rights, and everyone benefiting when we all understand that.

The right to make decisions over whether to live at all is bound inextricably with the right to make decisions over whether not to die.

In some respects I would even consider the prevention of someone else's death by their own decision to be linked to the prevention of someone's right to CHANGE, because I find that all change is a death, however small, of what existed before.

If I did not have the right to die, I would not then have the right to learn or grow or change for myself, ending what was with something else.

Of course, I reserve the right to change, and thus to change so much that I am a mouldering corpse; I don't think that is a useful or wise or helpful change for pursuing any of the goals I find important, at this time, but I won't rule it out.

I would gladly throw myself in a meat grinder if it meant most assuredly that all my goals for the world and my peers would come to pass immediately, even as someone who would rather live long aeons to see the universe get cold.

Simply, the right to live is also the right to die, and when you can't interfere with the right to die without ceding the right to live (if you were to push it that far).

Of course it would take a lot of interference and a lot of really foolish interference no less to put someone in the position where you are holding their death hostage using your life.

 

[Politesse]

This must be the weirdest thread I've ever been quote-tagged into. Bilby, you running over Christians again? We talked about this, those bumpers are city property!

 

[pood]

Bilby is always running over Christians. That’s just what he does.

 

[Jarhyn]

The fact that this all revolves around Unknown Soldier and their lies/exaggerations/psychosis explains so much.

Unknown Soldier is a known Liar for Jesus, and has a track record of apologizing for the availability and legality of CSAM images. And to be clear, I'm not talking cartoons, I'm talking about photographs or that which is indistinguishable from a photograph.

If you would like, you can search for their created threads to find one, but I'm not wading through that muck myself.

He also has a track record of jumping to calling every dismissal of his existence a death threat.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The fact that this all revolves around Unknown Soldier and their lies/exaggerations/psychosis explains so much.

Unknown Soldier is a known Liar for Jesus, and has a track record of apologizing for the availability and legality of CSAM images.

Huh you mean the person overly obsessed with morality turns out to be a massive hypocrite?