What I'm saying follows logically from what Iostone asserted which I formatted in bold. If you want to make up a right for everybody to go ahead and do what they choose to do, then murderers and rapists like Ted Bundy have a right to murder and rape if they choose to.
What I said follows logically from Iostone's assertion that we can do what we choose. Those like he who make that assertion don't appear to fully realize the implications of their own assertion. The fact is that we very obviously have no right to do whatever we want to do and for obvious reasons.
Then why have I been insulted, called names, and cursed at when I argue against assisted death? That looks like denial to me.
Sure. My desire to have people live on is being denied or so that is the obvious aim of those here who hate my view. The obvious attempt here has been to bully me into silence.
But wait--Iostone stated very clearly: "Most people here have expressed support for the right of individuals top make their own choices, for themselves." Ted Bundy was an individual. If you agree with Iostone, then Bundy had the right to make his own choice to rape and murder--for himself.
No it doesn't. It doesn't remotely come close to that. You just decided to take their comment absurdly outside the context it was clearly spoken and created a hyperbolic what-if to try and make a reasonable statement seem nonsensical.
Yes. I do. I also assume that the people I'm conversing with have a rudimentary understanding of the English language and that, in general, they aren't sociopaths or psychopaths.
So an association fallacy to vilify your opponents as well?
Then please post how what Iostone said cannot be followed by what I said.
Let's look at some of that context from your side:
That looks like something like Ted Bundy might say to me.
To me the reasonable thing to do is to let Iostone tell us what he meant. I don't know you can know what he meant.
Symptoms (of sociopathology) may include disregard for others, a lack of empathy, and dishonest behavior. Sociopaths
I just said I wonder who Ted Bundy would side with. But hey--we all know the answer.
<removed> I've been bullied all through this thread.
I want to choose to fairly discuss an important issue with sensible, honest, moral people. That's obviously been denied me.
A truth! Yes, I cannot force anybody to live. That is correct.
Your posts remind me of Biblical fundamentalists who when a critic cites a Bible passage that glorifies violence will argue that the passage doesn't mean what it says.
The difference between Bundy and me is that Bundy wanted people dead, and I want them alive. Who do you agree with?
I think Rhea et al have seen what I meant quite well by my simple statement and that your Ted Bundy example, proves you are not interested in arguing in good faith on this issue, so I am done with you regarding it.
Can you post a real-life example of a person who wants to die but is being "forced to live"?
Make sure you get that ad hominem in there.
Why not point out fallacies in what I'm arguing?
Sure. I prefer that people live. Bundy wanted them dead. Whom do you agree with?
In some cases, yes, I would use force to prevent suicide if I could. For example, if a suicidal person was on a high ledge aiming to jump, then if I was able to I would force that person to safety. You, evidently, would just let that person jump to die.
Isn't Bundy terrible for killing all those women? He hated women and obviously preferred that they die. Bundy wanted death, the death of others, for himself. It is eerily similar to what I've seen argued on this thread.
That's not what I read. Please explain how what he said leads you to believe your own interpretation.
I emphasized it and explained the logical ramifications several times. The phrase "for themselves" in no way rules out what Bundy did. In fact, it supports what Bundy did.
That's a rather loaded question, don't you think?
I was clearly writing about disposing of a person taking their own life, not someone else's. So your example is not applicable. OTOH, it is quite clear that you will twist whatever anyone says to your own purposes.
That's not what you said before. You should choose your words wisely.
How did I twist what you said?
I think what I said here is perfectly clear. I see no reasonable connection to your Ted Bundy attempt at misdirection.
Many exchanges with you go like this:
I already have. The fact that you can’t be bothered to remember it speaks volumes.
I forgot to mention that I'd like you to cite an example I can check out of a person who is forced to live who wishes to die. Has there been anything in the news, for example?
