Being against death penalty, but pro assisted suicide, is like…what is the analogy?
Asked by
flo (
13313
)
May 17th, 2015
One can say no to death penalty for even serial killers, terrorists, for example, but be pro assisted suicide? Helpless patients whose only crime is to be in pain, or be pressured into wanting death by their greedy family for example, are given death instead of pain relief, all in the name of mercy.
What could be the analogy? As in it is far from consistent.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
111 Answers
Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Why are you assuming that patients who choose assisted suicide are helpless or pressured by family members?
I don’t see those two positions as inconsistent at all.
I agree with @marinelife . I would also observe that it is unrealistic to expect consistency in people. Consistency is a closed mindset.
The best, most successful mindset is from someone who listens and considers all sides of an issue and then makes an informed decision.
The worst, least trustworthy attitude is one where the person accepts one line of thinking without questioning it.
It’s like the difference between dining and forced feeding or enlistiment vs. the draft.
Because the people on death row are EXACTLY like a terminally patient in unbearable pain…. ~
Death penalty is to assisted suicide as rape is to a happy ending.
The examples you state of assisted suicide have actually little to nothing to do with neither assisted suicide, nor with euthanasia.
Force vs choice. Greedy families that are able to coerce the patient into a slightly earlier death are not the norm, your premise is wildly flawed.
Perhaps the person is pro-freedom to do what you want with your own life, but against making someone else die against their will?
Death penalty objections have several typical arguments behind them, including:
* Hypocricy: You’re punishing someone for killing, by killing them.
* Mistakes: Don’t want to kill innocent people, and the wrong people get convicted fairly often.
* Ineffectiveness: Studies indicate it doesn’t help discourage crime, and can actually increase it (e.g. it can make criminals more desperate to not be caught, causing them to victimize witnesses or make dangerous escape attempts, etc).
* Pacifism: Many people find killing to be plain morally unacceptable.
* Rehabilitation: Some killers can become good harmless people.
In short, for many people, there are objections to the death penalty, and they have little or nothing to do with suicide, for many people.
The question seems to think assisted suicide tends to involve tricking or manipulating people who don’t want to die, to be killed. I don’t think many people who are in favor of assisted suicide are for that. For those that are, I tend to imagine they’re either more interested in the profit margins of insurance companies or hospital corporations.
It is like being forced off the road vs deciding when you have reached your destination.
This is not an SAT test. These things are incomparable. One is a sentence imposed by the state. The other is a choice made by an individual.
…is like keeping obese people out of McDonalds, but feeding the hungry.
Allow death if death is imminent anyway.
“or be pressured into wanting death by their greedy family for example”
This isn’t how it works. It is legal here and three different doctors have to agree you have less than 90 days to live. They actually talk to you and shit and if you aren’t of sound mind they say no.
It isn’t like when you have the vet put down your dog.
They are not even remotely the same and even you can see that.
You really have a problem with assisted suicide don’t ya?????????
And when passed on the federal level it isn’t going to be an option, for depressed or obese people as much as you think it will be.
This topic is getting as old as abortion, or the capital punishment thing.
I will say again I would welcome assisted suicide for myself if I had a painful TERMINAL illness that I knew I would never recover from, WHY?WHY? WHY? do you not want people to have such an option? You like terminally ill people to suffer as long as possible??
That in it self sounds incredibly mean and evil.
Is like being pro dunk booth at carnival, against water boarding
Being against the death penalty but pro assisted suicide is like having an ounce of compassion in your body.
Like being against the factory farming of animals, and hunting deer for meat.
WTH? I don’t see any inconsistency. I hope you never learn why some people choose to commit suicide when faced with an agonizing terminal
illness.
Let’s see…my answer to the question is: being against death penalty, but pro assisted suicide is showing a consistency in moral compass, compassion, and empathy.
You do understand assisted suicide is not forced on people? They have to have legitimate terminal or agonizing illnesses to get help ending their life. In most US states people who are vegetables and put in writing they want to die in that state have to be starved and deprived of fluids to die? The doctor cannot “assist” in quick death, their only choice is to withhold nourishment and watch the patient wither away. I find it inhumane.
As someone with a progressive illness I would definitely like the choice to be able to legally procure a doctor assisted suicide if things reach a point that I deem unbearable. I am strongly against death penalty. I do not view the two things as contradictory.
@Adagio Thank you, mind saying that a bit louder, some here think it will be greatly abused and even the obese and depressed will be able to qualify for it.
Oh and sorry for your illness but super glad someone like you answered this question.
I don’t know if there is a way you can watch this NZ documentary item (22 min) that screened on NZ TV last night but it is more than pertinent to the subject at hand.
@Adagio Great video I hope all that are on this post for and against assisted suicide watch it.
Apples and oranges. The death penalty is about eliminating the most dangerous among us, those that can be be allowed back into society to protect the greater good. Assisted or suicide by choice is about ones right to put an end to their own suffering.
Edit: those that cannot be allowed back into society..bedtime for me. lol
To my mind, it’s the difference between choosing your own fate versus having others make decisions for you.
Would you like it if I told you what to do? Decided where you lived, what you ate, and otherwise took control away from you? I bet you wouldn’t. I would wager that you would prefer to have those decisions made by either yourself or, in the case you are incapable of making your wishes known, a designated person whom you trust to act in accordance with your wishes. I just cannot see you wanting important decisions made by others.
Note that they are not helpless. A prerequisite is being of sound mind and not under duress. If either of those conditions is false then yes, it is murder, not suicide. But “duress” is a bit tricky. Many people who are employed took their job under duress; they need to pay the bills and don’t normally have the luxury of waiting for the perfect job. Those that are susceptible enough to pressure to wanting death enough to qualify as “under duress” are the sort of people that were never capable of qualifying as “of sound mind” at any point in their lives anyways.
To even draw a distinction strongly implies that you do not believe in free will. That you don’t even trust yourself to make decisions. That you like being told what to do. If you disagree with me, then you are undermining your own position by demonstrating that you do have free will, enjoy the right to make your own decisions and feel entitled to have your own viewpoints rather than succumb to the collective will.
Oh wait… you have disagreed with me many times before…
@SQUEEKY2 I’m delighted you watched the video, it puts a very human face on the whole notion of assisted suicide.
I always thought it was funny. People are all killing yourself is so selfish. Seems like the real selfish act is is shaming a person in total misery to stay alive when they are in constant pain.
They aren’t tossing pills at depressed high school idiots that just got cheated on and can see no future without Allie/Ryan.
@JLeslie Even when given a death sentence, its still the inmates choice whether they want to accept the sentence or spend the next 20+ years in prison filing appeals.
Oh and sorry @flo to answer your question it is like comparing smart cars to transport trucks, the only thing they have in common is they both have wheels and drive down the road.
Capital punishment, and assisted suicide don’t even belong in the same question together much less comparing them against each other.
And @Adagio I really hope that lady lawyer has the strength left to get the laws changed, for her benefit and the thousands after her that might have the choice as to when they want to end their suffering.
@SQUEEKY2 Death has no correlation in a conversation about death?
And @cheebdragon are you saying these two subjects just because they both have death at the end does??
Then why can’t I use a smart car instead of a transport truck to do my job,after all they are both vehicles?
The 2 subjects in the question even though they have death as the end result, are so far apart even a diehard republican such as yourself has to see that?
Let’s simplify this, one is a punishment the justice system decides,due to committing a horrible crime,the other is a gift chosen freely by the individual to end needless suffering a bit early, you do see the difference right??????
Upon a little reflection, I came up with a slightly better analogy to illustrate the difference control makes.
Assisted suicide is like driving whereas the Death Penalty is like sitting in the back seat with a divider like most police cars and taxis have. A back-seat passenger may tell a driver to slow down or make a particular turn, but is powerless to actually affect the speed or direction of the car or where they wind up.
The driver controls the gas, brakes, and steering.
The driver controls the destination.
The driver controls whether you stay on the road or not.
The passenger can’t yank the wheel away to assume control; there is a barrier in the way.
The passenger is utterly at the mercy of the driver… who may have no mercy at all.
The passenger has zero control.
@cheebdragon Actually, no. Even if the inmate agrees, there are a few levels on mandatory review. While the inmate may “play along” and shorten the wait, they are still going to be on Death Row for quite a while.
Are you all reading the other responses? Please do, and debate with each other.
@jerv. Just because there is so much to do there.
1)_A prerequisite is being of sound mind and not under duress. If either of those conditions is false then yes, it is murder, not suicide.”
Therefore….? Are you saying that unethical or unprofessional people, don’t exist in the context of sick people and their care providers, it is only in the context of death penalty that mistakes or “mistakes” happen? That can’t be.
2)“Many people who are employed took their job under duress; they need to pay the bills and don’t normally have the luxury of waiting for the perfect job.”
a)Now we’re talking about vocabulary? Being at a job that you don’t like (which applies to most people) falls under being “under duress”? b) So, it is a bad thing then, it’s not “humane” thing, Okay.
3)”Those that are susceptible enough to pressure to wanting death enough to qualify as “under duress” are the sort of people that were never capable of qualifying as “of sound mind” at any point in their lives anyways”
Just go around telling people “If you have ever given in under duress, you were never capable of qualifying as “of sound mind” at any point in your life anyways, and by the way you deserve to die.
If you were mugged then it’s not about the mugger, it’s your fault, you should have fought the mugger.
@flo As usual, you have already made your mind up, but I’m bored so I’ll bite.
1) There are unethical people in all aspects of life. If you cannot assert your own will despite that, or cannot avoid the predation of scam artists and high-pressure used salesmen, you will have issues living as a functional adult regardless of health or desire to kill yourself.
2) As much duress as you are claiming would happen if greedy family members try to tell you to kill yourself, yes. In fact, moreso as ignoring greedy family members will result in status quo whereas not taking that job you hate will lead to a decline in quality of life.
3) I’m not sure which way you were going with that due to bad punctuation, but it looks like you just undermined your own argument there. Either that or you just did a 180. I can’t be sure though as it’s less clear than the broken English I hear from some of the recent immigrants I deal with as part of daily life in a metropolitan area.
Now then, take a crack at this; I’m curious what your views are there.
Every decision we make can be viewed as either maximizing pleasure or minimizing pain. It comes to the same thing, just a matter of whether you view the glass as being half empty or half full. The person committing suicide has come to the conclusion that the minuses of continuing to live outweigh the pluses. We are not in the person’s body, so it is not our decision to make. In the case of the death penalty, on the other hand, we are imposing our will on someone else.
@flo What are you looking for in this question??
For the rest of us to agree ,a greedy family member might convince a loved one who really doesn’t want to go yet to take it,so they can get their inheritance early??
Or a medical professional might make a mistake and give it when the person really didn’t want it??
Where those situations might happen. although I think you would have a better chance at winning the lottery, but because of those things we should just down and outright ban it???
I am very torn on the death penalty, I am not for it but certain monsters should no doubt be put to sleep.
With your logic on assisted suicide, we should also ban the automobile ,because someone with out a doubt will drive drunk and end up killing an innocent person, so we should outlaws cars right??
just in case a drunk drive has an accident?
Instead of screaming NO!! from your soapbox get on the wagon and make sure the legislation is done right and cases that you so fear, are so far apart no one will pay attention.
DID you even try and look at the video @Adagio posted, you really should.
People who do opt for assisted suicide can change their minds to if they wish but you don’t see that do you?
Again to answer your question it’s like comparing smart cars to transport trucks, only thing they have in common is both have wheels and drive down the highway.
@jerv “you have already made your mind up,” And of course you haven’t?
“There are unethical people in all aspects of life.” Is that what I stated in my post before yours, countering your post? omg. I don’t need to go any further. ‘nuf said.
I take back my “b) So, it is a bad thing then, it’s not “humane” thing, Okay.” in my post before last.
The analogy could be It is like having no problem with algebra, but having a problem with basic math.
I stand by the difference between driving and being a passenger.
If you cannot see the parallel, then it can only be by choice…. which means that you have control, thus proving my point.
BTW, nice sock puppet.
@LostInParadise Totally agree with the first half of your sharing but I don’t see the death penalty in certain instances as imposing our will on others. I see it as the common good removing the uncommon bad for the greater good of all.
@flo Yes, that is correct. I think it’d clear up this discussion and set a more honest tone.
As for the other, lets just say I noticed something I seriously doubt is coincidence.
@SQUEEKY2 You said ”it is like comparing smart cars to transport trucks, the only thing they have in common is they both have wheels and drive down the road. They are both vehicles, both get from point a to point b, both require a drivers license, probably come in the same colors and cost around the same amount of $$$....... they actually have a lot in common if you think about it.
Capital punishment, and assisted suicide don’t even belong in the same question together much less comparing them against each other.” What question do they belong in then? Would you rather compare Assisted suicide to kitten juggling? Christ, how many similarities are required before both subjects can be mentioned in the same question?
Capitol punishment and assisted suicide both end in death, however, they both require another person to administer or provide that end, placing a moral burden on others.
Do you really think anyone wants a terminal illness anymore than they want to be sentenced to death?
@flo Yes, it demonstrates the slippery slope argument is alive and well. By that logic, the fact that various places allow same-sex marriage mean you should be turning gay any minute now.
Seriously though, how many people have you seen walking down the street ripping fetuses out of women simply because Roe v Wade allows abortion? The truth is that euthanasia, where allowed, has requirements. Usually it’s suffering from an incurable and terminal ailment like inoperable Stage 4 Cancer or something that will lead to an unaviodable death with unneeded pain.
After that, I think you should chime in here as well.
@LostInParadise
1)“The person committing suicide has come to the conclusion that the minuses of continuing to live outweigh the pluses.”
Yes one of the minuses, is that the people around them are allowing or wanting them dead.
2)“We are not in the person’s body, so it is not our decision to make.”
But the decision to “help” them die or kill them is a decision.
@flo It is readily apparent that personal choice means nothing to you unless you are the one choosing what is right or wrong. About the only thing you’ve said so far that has any real merit is the decision to help someone die is a decision, but even then you seem to want to make that decision for everyone else anyways.
Many of us have pointed out the differences yet you refuse to see them. We’ve given you analogies as specifically asked for in the question and you’ve ignored them. So tell me, are you actually interested in the opinions and views of others, or are you just up on a soapbox again?
Before you answer that though, take a look at your own history, then take a look at the questions I recently asked you to chime in on, especially the first one as it’s directly relevant. If you say that you really do want to hear other’s opinions, you have a rather hefty weight of evidence to overturn.
@flo , Just to get some context on where you stand, how do you come down on abortion? Do you believe that children are given souls upon conception? I am thinking that maybe your objection to assisted suicide is religiously motivated. Just a hunch.
The term is “perfectly logical”. Death is not a punishment for those with terminal diseases, it is a release. They have a right to die with dignity.
Capital punishment is an entirely unrelated issue. Most times the prisoner does not consent, let alone request death (I know of only a handful of exceptions). The point is that the State should not have the power to take the lives of its citizens, but every citizen should have the right to die on their own terms, if fate allows.
@FireMadeFlesh What about all the non-consenting victims of brutal killers, what about their rights? I think heinous killers lose all their rights if convicted, after all, they had no mercy for the victims they tortured and mutilated. It’s okay for someone like Lawrence Bittiker, who has been on death row for 33 years now, to rape and torture young women with pliars and other tools, audiotape their tormented and terrified last minutes of agony, but god forbid the POS psycho suffers a little being put to death. Pffft!
@Coloma Pfft is right. I’m with you on that one.
@Coloma Actually, the conditions Death Row inmates live under are themselves bordering on “cruel and unusual punishment”. There have been arguments that while the death penalty itself is okay, making them live the way they do while they await execution is not. Spending year, even decades in solitary does inhumane things to the mind.
I believe that even those who commit heinous acts still deserve basic human rights; to argue otherwise is to forfeit any moral high ground as you become what you demonize. The death penalty is supposed to be punishment, not retribution.
Don’t take that to mean that I am against the death penalty; I’m just against hypocrisy.
@jerv Well yes, food, shelter medical care but I’m not too concerned about them being somewhat uncomfortable or kept in solitary. They’re still living better than your average non-criminal homeless person.
What they did to their victims has done inhumane things to their surviving family members minds too
Parents that had to hear their daughters begging for their life while the sick fuck twisted off their genitals with a pair of pliars. Too bad if the crazy goes a little more crazy in solitary.
@Coloma There is a difference between “uncomfortable” and “psychological torture” though. At least the homeless person gets scenery, human contact, and access to libraries.
Or are you willingly forfeiting any moral superiority and putting yourself on the same level just because you believe vengeance equals justice? Also bear in mind that the long wait is at taxpayer expense, you my money is paying for your sadistic pleasure, unlike the BTK killer who at least bought his own tools.
@jerv I do not believe in vengeance as justice, please don’t make that presumption, I am only saying that if a heinous criminal is a little bored and uncomfortable, well, prison isn’t supposed to be a vacation.If he wasn’t a highly dangerous Hannibal Lector type there would be no need to keep him in solitary. My tax money is paying to warehouse horrible monsters that long ago forfeited the privilege of luxury living. I take no pleasure in the pain of anyone but yeah, if I had to choose I’d rather see the psychopath suffer over his innocent victims.
This doesn’t make me or anyone sadistic it makes me a human being that is going to empathize with the victims over the perpetrator, it is always about the victims first and foremost.
@Coloma You underestimate the effects. Solitary truly does qualify as torture. There is a reason that even prisons consider solitary punishment. Why most other countries (even some that still have the death penalty) ended the practice.
“This doesn’t make me or anyone sadistic it makes me a human being that is going to empathize with the victims over the perpetrator, it is always about the victims first and foremost.”
I say that those who throw away their humanity so willingly as you are not human, but that’s just my opinion. I believe justice should be swift, and carried out without pleasure or cruelty.
@jerv Really, you are accusing me of being non-human because I feel more for the victims than I do their killers? Whatever.
I agree, justice should be swift and free of cruelty and while pleasure is not part of that equation any human would feel, at the very least, relieved especially the family members of victims. The ongoing torment of these family members and their need for closure is every bit as important as the criminals being punished and they deserve to see justice served whether this is life in prison or execution.
One last time, nobody deserves to die. What a barbaric idea! Killing someone does not undo the harm that was done. Two wrongs do not make a right. It is high time that we dispense with our need for revenge, and that is all “justice” comes down to.
There are two valid reasons for punishing criminals:
1. It takes dangerous people off the street.
2. It acts as a deterrence
And maybe, just maybe, we can rehabilitate some criminals so that they become contributing members of society. You want to save money? That is the way to do it.
The argument about saving money by a swift execution does not make much sense. Would you apply it to unarmed bank robbers who are put away for 20 years? You could save a lot of money. The percentage of psychopathic killers is small enough that the cost of jailing them is not significant.
@LostInParadise You’re right, the victims of the worst, most psychopathic murderers did not deserve to die, and psychopaths are not deterred by anything. These types need to be permanently eliminated, no comparison to bank robbers. I see nothing wrong with executing the most dangerous, violent offenders sitting in death row.
These people had zero regard for the multiple lives they destroyed during their killing sprees and wanting them gone has nothing to do with revenge, their deaths are no more significant than killing a cockroach.
If we actually executed the 3k+ death row inmates that would be a significant amount of money saved over decades and decades of warehousing these people for 20, 30, 40, 50 years or more.
Having more empathy for sick fucks instead of their victims is heinous in itself.
That’s my final statement.
I interpret what you say to mean that we should sink to the level of the worst criminals. I disagree and that is my final word.
@LostInParadise Humane euthanasia is not even comparable to the violent assaults/deaths these inmates often suffer at the hands of their prison peers.
Partly why they have to be kept in solitary, to protect them from their peers of which make short work of sexual predators, pedophiles and those that kill women. I used to feel as you do, for many years, but I have shifted the last few.
It’s a hot topic.
Death penalty is a problem in more that one dimension.
It is irrevocable, so wrong trials cannot be corrected.
It is so final that once someone has committed a crime that warrants a death penalty, they could as well resort to even more violent behavior… there’s nothing left to lose.
It turns the state into a killer, killing on my behalf. Since the state is ‘us the people’ it turns us into killers. I don’t want to be that.
Most arguments that favor the death penalty can be addressed by ‘prison for life’. That still has objections, but can at least be somewhat corrected.
Most modern countries don’t allow for the death penalty and I’m proud my country doesn’t either.
@Coloma , Sorry, I could not let that last comment of yours slip by. Are you saying that the death penalty is a kind of mercy killing because it protects the criminal from the brutality of fellow inmates? That has to be the strangest justification for the death penalty I have ever heard.
@LostInParadise No, that is not what I am saying, I am simply pointing out that prison violence/murder against other inmates is hardly a humane way to die but it happens every day.
If anything, this is how the death penalty plays out for many, dying at the hands of their prison peers.
@Coloma
That’s the oft-repeated myth at least. In reality those on death row aren’t really allowed to mix with other inmates. They’re kept isolated.
@Darth_Algar Yes, true, but many violent offenders not on death row are killed in prison. I wonder how many prison deaths there are at the hand of others inmates, something else to research.
This is interesting, but 10 years old now.
Percentages are lower than I would have imagined but still the highest for violent offenders being killed in prison.
www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/shsplj.pdf
Oh my bad. I assumed that when you said “death penalty” you meant those sentenced to the death penalty.
@Coloma I’m not worried about the suffering of those on death row. I honestly don’t care about them. What I am uncomfortable with is the devolving of personal liberties to the state. If we support the death penalty, since all are equal before the law, we give the state the right to put us to death if we fall foul of it. Consider it like the US’s closely guarded right to bear arms. Banning the death penalty protects ordinary citizens from over-reaching of the state.
Many governments go bad, and our current liberties are only the result of bloody conflicts, dating back to the rebellion against King John and the signing of the Magna Carta. That moment shifted the balance of power from the state to the people. If we make the state more powerful, we risk that legacy. If we condone capital punishment, a state can become despotic simply by charging and putting to death all opponents of the state.
@FireMadeFlesh That makes strong sense, thanks, and is certainly a better argument than the bleeding hearts. I’d be on that list then as I want to see State of Jefferson in CA. haha
@FireMadeFlesh , Something else to consider. Having the State engage in murder provides an endorsement of killing. If the State can do it, why can’t I? It may be that having a death penalty increases the murder rate. If murder was regarded as being so awful that it is too barbaric for the State to engage in it, a whole different message is being sent.
@LostInParadise Interesting idea, but it seems to me that the moral sensibilities of the state follow those of the people. All the various civil movements of the last 60 years have begun with the people, and the government has reluctantly followed once the movements reach critical mass. I’m not sure of any example where the government has successfully prescribed a moral principle to the people.
@FireMadeFlesh
That’s more or less my stance, although I wouldn’t go so far as to say I have no concern for those on death row. But yeah, my primary objection to the death penalty is that I do not trust the state with that kind of power.
@Darth_Algar I used to be opposed to capital punishment on compassionate grounds. But now I work in a paediatric hospital, I’ve seen things that have changed my mind. I’ll always oppose capital punishment, but if particular individuals were to be put to death… let’s say I wouldn’t exactly shed a tear.
I agree with you @FireMadeFlesh
We can have compassion but protecting innocents comes first.
I truly believe some are born bad seeds and others are created, nature/nurture, but regardless dangerous predators need to be kept away from society and for the worst of the worst, state aside, I have zero issue with them to put to death.
As an aside, I do wonder how many people who trust in the government to competently administer the death penalty otherwise don’t trust that the government can competently administer services such as police, education or even parcel delivery.
Then it is not just that the government is not to be trusted to act as our hit man but that the very act that we are entrusting it with is immoral.
I was not making the statement as an argument. I was just conjecturing that the driving force for your belief is religious in nature. You have not said anything to indicate otherwise. Trying to argue against a religiously held belief is a waste of time.
By the way, I don’t know that link/site above. I’m looking at it just like everyone else.
@LostInParadise Just make an argument, if you can, the same way I’m debating without asking anyone whether or not they are atheists.
If an argument is sound the argument is is sound.
Edited:
@jerv, Don’t bother, you’re composing. “I say that those who throw away their humanity so willingly as you are not human, ...” just to mention one example, does not a teacher make.
Humaine is the opposite of saying (indirectly) to patients *you’re right you don’t deserve to live.”
Under duress being at a job you don’t like/you hate. ‘Nuf said, again.
@flo Vet your sources before posting them. Otherwise, your arguments are unsound right from the start.
Also bear in mind that a repeated pattern of behavior leads to a reputation. That isn’t always a good thing because developing a reputation for not listening, not addressing the issue, or anything like that will lead to your words not being taken seriously. They may even get you mocked.
BTW, that little ad hominem is precisely why I cannot take you seriously.
@LostInParadise ” Trying to argue against a religiously held belief is a waste of time.”
While true, it is also possible to hold non-religious beliefs just as strongly. Sometimes it’s nationalism, sometimes just mental illness, but regardless, you are correct in that it’s pointless to argue with anyone who is so strong in their beliefs that the closest they come to listening is finding a specific way to insult you, and their only interest in the words of others is be able to give a more detailed response than, “You’re wrong!”.
@jerv Why do you think I challenge your posts?
@flo I would say that “challenge” is the wrong word there as that implies some solidity to your arguments that, to date, I have yet to see.
But you do disagree strongly and loudly, I’ll give you that.
@LostInParadise Yes, I do think sometimes killing in revenge is justified. Such cases are much rarer than killers’ belief that it is justified, but they do occur.
@jerv the answer to my question is Because no one else is. Added: And when no one is challenging someone it’s highly unlikely that it is because they are always right.
@marinelife “Why are you assuming that patients who choose assisted suicide are helpless or pressured by family members?” I am not assuming they are the only ones, my statement is missing “for example”. But you’re right it even makes my point more because there are
Sorry there was a disconnection (from my side).
To continue my post above:
...more people who would do the wrong thing. (to continue my post above)
Also @marinelife You wrote “I don’t see those two positions as inconsistent at all.” maybe by now you’ve changed your mind but if you would give reasons why not.
To quote James commenter under a NYT article
James
Philadelphia 12 April 2012
“If people really have a “right to die” at the time of their choosing, why have any limitations at all? Why not just treat suicide pills as a natural human right and make them available over the counter at a low price to people of all ages, regardless of mental state? Put them in vending machines. Why even bother dressing it up with the guise of external validation in the form of a doctor’s prescription? ...”
@flo “By the way, I don’t know that link/site above.”
Do you really expect us to take your arguments seriously if you apparently can’t be bothered to even read the links you post?
@flo I welcome opposing views that are based on provable facts and use logical deductions that arrive at a different conclusion. Conversely, I occasionally challenge even those I agree with in order to get them to step up their game, and actually enjoy being challenged in order to force myself to stay sharp. Whether I respect someone is totally independent of whether I agree with them, and whether I challenge them is independent of either.
But all work and no play makes @jerv a dull boy, so I occasionally take a break from that sort of thing for a little amusement, usually something with an element of schadenfreude. That’s why I’m here; I’m taking a breather after expanding on my opinions on capital punishment in another thread.
Probably my last post is invisible.
I was addressing you @jerv and @Darth_Algar (invisible thing) since you’re the ones still ” quote unquote debating or “debating”.
The quote from James is major, far from ignorable and yet, ..
Abortions, assisted suicide, and Capitol punishment are all mercy killings…..not to mention pretty effective forms of population control.
@cheebdragon I’m guessing you meant quote unquote mercy killings? Or “Mercy” killings.
Shame on you, White House! You’ve been a bad edifice! Go sit in the corner and think about what you’ve done!
Thank you all. I’m trying to understand some of the posts, for example @janbb and @dxs
To clarify, I was saying that one has nothing to do with the other.
@janbb Okay. But the why of it is the same. As @Adirondackwannabe wrote:
Permalink
at another OP.
@flo Sorry. I was just responding to @cheebdragon‘s ”Capitol punishment”. Mod me off if you must.
@dxs That’s funny. No need to mod it.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
