[@Odin] Since I saw a "loser" in there. (and Jesus everything else under the sun, now that I've read through it.) I've honestly never even seen children call each other "loser". While we're getting off into the weeds. May I point out that you've given me vague nonsense about my writing being hard to digest. Without giving any examples. Yet, you've already proven you're not writing coherently to make a case for your own arguments. Why did you separate quotes that many times? When arguing, when you weren't concise and it wasn't remotely necessary and just makes it harder to read? (Rather unpleasant actually.) You can't talk about my writing, when you admit that you didn't understand my questions and your own writing is vitriolic and horribly unfocused. I did my best to limit all the clutter, but you clearly can't talk to people without being disrespectful. So, I'll leave this as my last post... [quote=@Odin]Well, good news. Death is inherently emotional and personal [b]and not at all financial[/b] which is the way you're putting it forth[/quote] I've already shown that you're incorrect. If death didn't cost anyone any money, which is literally what you're saying. The funeral business would not exist. Let alone the whole hundred billion dollars of just dealing with suicide attempts alone. That's money and productivity being wasted on something that isn't necessary. [quote=@Odin]Have you been terminally ill? ? If so, congratulations, you know how it feels.[/quote] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority [quote=@Odin] I think that the 'person who knows what they are talking about' is the patient themselves. Whether you agree with euthanasia or not is up to you - [b] I certainly see why one would be against it but strongly disagree.[/b][/quote] [quote=@Odin][b]Claiming all suicide is bad is just willfully ignorant.[/b][/quote] Those statement in bold, among many other things you said are contradictory. You can't recognize a gray area, if you don't differentiate what's acceptable and what's not. And demonize those who have that opinion as ignorant and stupid. So despite all this talk about being a moron. You're tactically admitting that I'm correct by implying all suicide cannot be judged by anyone and is always a valid option if the person thinks so. (at least when we're talking about assisted suicide.) You haven't given me anything else. People aren't smart and some people are mentally ill and literally don't know what they're talking about. If someone is given a false diagnoses and gets depressed and kills themselves. Your argument is in favor of that happening, if no one can judge people who wish to kill themselves. (I've been talking about america law system and us enabling suicide, this whole time, by the by. Not like all my posts about it pointing that out matter...) As for all this dutch stuff, you're making arguments I'm not even talking about or discussing. I don't want assisted suicide here in america or to legalize suicide here. But since you bring it up, is this really what you want? Because the dutch have an all time high suicide rate...is that something you're fine with? (Rhetorical question, not assuming or straw-manning anything. And I never did.) https://nltimes.nl/2016/06/30/number-suicides-netherlands-time-high [color=ed1c24]Last year a massive 1,871 people committed suicide in the Netherlands, the highest number in the country's history, Statistics Netherlands announced on Thursday. That amounts to an average of five suicides a day in 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/13/netherlands-may-allow-assisted-dying-for-those-who-feel-life-is-complete[/color] [color=ed1c24]"Allow dying for people's whose life is complete?"[/color] What the fuck? And hence, the slippery slope argument expands. Which is precisely why I'm against this. And I don't even have to call you stupid/special a dozen times in order to point out why. Because my argument stands on reason. (Also you keep bringing up that doctors don't like cost money or struggle with money...again couldn't be further from the truth.) Also I don't want to be like the dutch... https://news.vice.com/article/only-in-the-netherlands-do-addicts-complain-about-free-government-heroin You never once stated before that you only just wanted assisted suicide. This is the first time, and it's also not a straw-man to ask, because you were previously vague in your statements and I just got through several people debating that. But now I get your point, you are simply defending the laws in the Netherlands you already have as viable and perfect without needs to make changes. Fine. Continue to eventually going down this path... https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/05/nathan-verhelst-euthanasia-belgium_n_4046106.html http://www.medicaldaily.com/assisted-suicide-tourism-right-die-387577 [hider=More that you won't read. I'm doing you a favor, less unpleasant writing of mine to deal with.] Helping someone end their life is morally and ethically complicated, and that’s reflected in the vague language of many countries’ laws, which has in turn contributed to confusion and court cases like Purdy’s. Some countries, like the Netherlands, explicitly legalize physician-assisted suicide in situations where certain criteria are fulfilled. Likewise, doctors in five U.S. states are legally permitted to prescribe lethal doses of medicine for patients who intend to end their lives. Belgium, with the world’s most liberal suicide laws, even explicitly permits euthanasia by lethal injection. The laws of other places are not nearly so clear. In 2015, German lawmakers passed a bill allowing assisted suicide for “altruistic motives” but banning the practice when conducted on a “business” basis. In Switzerland, inciting or assisting suicide for “selfish motives” has been illegal since 1942, implying that doing so is only punishable by law if the helper makes personal gains from the death. Former German Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries told the Associated Press that the German law “will open an era of great legal uncertainty,” and pointed out that it is unclear when a doctor behaves in “a business fashion.” If Switzerland’s vague law is any indication, however, right-to-die advocates will interpret the law in their favor. Since assisted suicide in non-selfish cases is not clearly regulated, the country has become a hot spot for the practice — not only among terminally ill Swiss citizens, but for anyone around the world hoping to end his life. For most patients hoping to end their lives, traveling to a region that allows assisted suicide is much easier than changing the law at home. Thus suicide tourism was born. The phenomenon has only grown and will continue to do so unabated, according to one team of Swiss researchers. They found that, between 2008 and 2012, 611 visitors came to Switzerland for the sole purpose of ending their lives. These people came from 31 different countries, but most hailed from Germany and the United Kingdom. The study authors write that “in the UK, at least, ‘going to Switzerland’ has become a euphemism for assisted suicide.” Suicide tourism is not confined to Europe. The widely publicized case of Brittany Maynard, a 29-year-old with terminal brain cancer, brought assisted suicide into the public sphere in the United States, causing an eruption of debate over the right to die and the hassles the current patchwork of state laws produces. Maynard, a resident of California, was forced to uproot her family to go through with her plan to “die with dignity.” “I met the criteria for death with dignity in Oregon, but establishing residence in the state to make use of the law required a monumental number of changes,” she wrote. “I had to find new physicians, establish residency in Portland, search for a new home, obtain a new driver’s license, change my voter registration, and enlist people to take care of our animals, and my husband, Dan, had to take a leave of absence from his job.” Canada, for example, has introduced an assisted suicide law that specifically limits the practice to citizens and residents, excluding foreigners. It can be difficult to understand why a country would withhold medical care, but the tough ethical questions aimed at countries with liberal assisted suicide and euthanasia laws can be hard to handle. Lawmakers must determine how severe a person’s condition must be before they can legally seek assisted suicide. Most associate the practice with terminal illness, but not all cases concern such an ailment. Comparing their findings to those in two earlier studies, the authors of the Swiss suicide tourism study said their research showed that doctors diagnosed an increasing proportion of neurological and rheumatic diseases among suicide tourists. “This implies that non-fatal diseases are increasing among the suicide tourists and probably also among Swiss residents,” they wrote. As assisted suicide becomes more common, an increasing number of cases will test the line between the humane and the unacceptable — a category that usually includes traditional, unassisted suicides. People are at a much higher risk for self-harm when suffering from mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression, for example, and the latter commonly afflicts those with serious, chronic illnesses. In an editorial concerning physician-assisted suicide, Dr. Morton Tavel, a clinical professor emeritus at the Indiana University School of Medicine, addressed the fine line doctors walk when navigating the law and individual cases. “Although such laws are humane and sensible, they can be abused and result in wrongful deaths,” he wrote. “We physicians commonly encounter severely depressed patients without life-threatening physical maladies, who, on their own, might opt to commit suicide. … Obviously, in such cases a caregiver’s assistance in suicide would represent a serious disservice.” [/hider] [i]For anyone that cares to read, there's a lot more I didn't put in along with all my other links.[/i] If you felt that I made any moral judgement on you for your opinion on assisted suicide. Your vagueness didn't help in that matter. But I apologize, and clarify. You aren't morally bankrupt if you happen to feel that certain way. But with how you spoke to me, can you tell why I don't remotely take your personal judgement on my character seriously or treat it with a bit of respect? You clearly never had good intentions and can't express yourself without ad-hominems. So why should I respect or consider your opinion of me or my writing? All that shit you flung at me, but where did I do the same? (period, let alone in this conversation.) If you want to fight the enemy, you first need a reason for that enemy to exist. And if it's "disagreeing" with you. You can't pretend you allow others to disagree with you. I know you don't have an answer, to be fair, you don't need one either, but I won't treat you politely in future, if you won't grant me the same common curiosity.