Explain how that is not what the argument against this is?Originally Posted by santa claus
They [politicians] presume they know best, they guess they know better than those the issue affects, etc etc and so on and so forth, ad infinitum
It is nothing short of arrogance of the highest order.
Again, that someone would face jail for letting animals live like this says it all really. Rank hypocrisy on the part of our political masters.
Last edited by roachcoach; 20-06-2011 at 02:39 PM. Reason: Removing possible ambiguity.
I think its a shame it must be particulalry hard For terry pratchett. My wifes Grandad had Alzheimers and towards the end it was Horrible he lived for nearly 10 years, He never died from alzheimers it was a stroke in the end. But the last few years watching his mind go was really unpleasant.
Imagine being terry pratchett and writing all those brilliant books and He's clearly a smart man having to sit there and lose it all slowly.
The issue, and their decision, has potential affect for them and their families, too. Hardly a thing to be arrogant about.
There is a difference between humans and animals. For example, I will kill and eat the latter, preferably when it is young, healthy and juicy. Seldom has there been a case of its family giving a hoot or of there being any threat of prosecution or it being on my conscience. However, eating an old wrinkly is another matter.
Agreed, it is not nice.
Last edited by santa claus; 20-06-2011 at 04:52 PM. Reason: quote update
Having cared for a number of people with terminal Alzheimer's in hospital, I am terrified by the thought of becoming demented. To become a frightened, confused, incontinent shell of a person (for more than a few hours on a Saturday night) is my worst nightmare, and I know I would make an advanced directive if I ever had such a diagnosis. Whether I would go for assisted suicide would depend on my partner and family's feelings
You might want to bear in mind for your family's sake that assisted suicide may negate any life insurance you have.
Anyone thought of that?
Ah yes its better to have your relative suffer a long a timely death because the kiddiewinkles might not get some cash.
I can't believe that arguement is from you....
(also not to mention sod all life insurances are sustainable once you're over 50, I think it would be a tiny fraction of people who were eligable for any insurance!)
What might be a better descussion is the pension issue....
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Most of them hedged, and did not come down categorically one way or the other. They said they were open to arguments, on a complex issue. Several of them did say they were not in favour, but also said they were open to arguments. Which is exactly what I'd expect a politician to say. And I didn't refer to an insignificant poll. I referred to a series of polls over about 20 years, and included reference to polls of medics pointing the other way. I quoted figures from one poll, but YouGov have done it several times over the years, and they are far from the only ones. And as I said, every time (or at least, every one I looked at, which was over a dozen, the results are broadly the same. I even gave the range. I just didn't bother to quote actual percentages from one after the other.
And no, I wouldn't agree that they have given considerable thought to it. I just don't know how much thought they've given to it. Maybe lots, maybe not. They have a position, sure, but how much thought it behind it I have no idea, nor for that matter, do I know if they were adopting a position for given reasons, perhaps religious ones, or as a result of careful perusal of actual evidence. They were, with one exception, politicians and politicians knowing they were going to go on Question Time at that. They will therefore, if they are properly briefed, have been aware of the questions likely to come up and this issue, after the Pratchet program, was one of them. They are therefore likely to have a pre-prepared position, but being politicians, it is as likely to be a position calibrated for a high-profile public response on a contentious issue as it is their actual, personal opinion.
Oh, for heaven's sake.
Have you read the threads recently about insulting behaviour? Or the rules?
If not, go and read them now.
I am sick and tired of decent threads being taken off course by that kind of remark, and I am sick and tired of asking people not to do that and being ignored.
Accordingly, that gets you a 7-day suspension.
Not trolling, but I don't see how describing the act of imposing your view on someone else who is compus mentus as arrogance is erm factually incorrect?
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Oh, please, that really is completely disproportionate and unwarranted.
Frankly, the scolding, hectoring, nannying moderation style which seems to have taken root here puts me off this forum far more than any "insulting behaviour" I've ever seen here.
Hang on TA, I'm not making it part of an argument, I simply stated it in case it was of benefit to others. I'm not even sure if it is fact and was hoping for clarification.
Surely all of us want to ensure our families don't suffer hardship after we're gone? This is not just about 'kiddiewinkles', it could be wives and parents (if they survive you). If a decision to go early affects their security, would you not want to take that into consideration?
They did hedge but, as you say, they will have known the question beforehand so they had time to be careful with their answers. They could have hedged and come down on the 'pro' side but they didn't.
I know you feel they gave a politician's response; it may just be too that it reflects their personal opinion.
My views are unpopular on this subject and it is best that I contribute no further in this thread. For what it's worth, I enjoyed the discussion.
Not trolling, but I don't see how describing the act of imposing your view on someone else who is compus mentus as arrogance is erm factually incorrect? We have repeatedly asked people to stick to the issues, not to personalise it. Referring to someone as having "arrogance of the highest order" and "rank hypocrisy" is exactly the type of term that's likely to provoke a response in kind from another member, which is why we have rules about doing it to other members - because it winds them up, wrecks threads and puts off yet other members from even posting.
EDIT - it will be clear from reading this thread that Santa and I are on diametrically opposed sides of this, yet we have managed to argue this, comprehensively and extensively, with resorting to personal jibes. We don't agree, no doubt never will, and challenge just about everything the other one says, but I haven't called him names, regardless of what I may or may not think of his position, nor he, me.
We're arguing about the issue, not exchanging jibes or insults.
Setting the tone for acceptable behaviour here is the job of the mod team, and the acceptable tone hasn't changed. What has changed is that we're fed up with being ignored when we ask nicely. So thank you for your opinion, but all I can recommend is that is you don't like the moderating tone or style, feel free to post elsewhere. There are plenty of forums where you can insult other members to your heart's content, but not here. If we have been hectoring, it's because we have tried and tried and tried to ASK people to not do this without enforcing it. That has ended. Now, it gets enforced.
This is NOT subject to discussion.
We have repeatedly asked people not to do this, and it's in been in the rules for years. We have just, a few days ago, had a thread asking this, and it's being ignored. We have asked nicely, we have cajoled, we have threatened, we have explained why we take this stance and it STILL happens.
So people are going to start getting suspended, or banned, if they persist in this.
And, the decision of what is warranted or not is for the moderators. So if the style so offends you, don't post here.
Now, discussion of this in this in this thread is over. Back on topic, please. Any further comments on moderating style in this thread will be deleted, and if anyone persists with it, well, I've now found the suspend button and will use it again.
I hadn't thought of it, but now you mention it, I don't see how anything changes.
First, lots of people don't have life insurance, either because they're wealthy enough to not need it, or poor enough to not be able to afford it. So it doesn't affect them.
Second, if you have life insurance and a terminal illness, talk to the life insurance company and then make your decision based on their answers, and your personal evaluation.
Third, if you have life insurance and not a "terminal" illness, then it still comes down to a personal decision, so it's nothing more than one factor for the individual to add to the consideration before deciding what they, as an individual, wish to do.
Which brings me back to my initial stance - the decision is, ultimately, for the individual. If someone doesn't want to go this route because of their religious views, then fine, that's their decision. If they don't because they'd rather fight or are happy with palliative care (which, generally, is very good), then fine. If they want to spend every last moment with their family, then fine. If they want the life insurance money to pay for the funeral, or to give their kinds a bit extra, then fine. It's their decision.
But what gives anyone else the moral right to say that I can't make the decision, for myself, that the level of pain and lack of dignity coming my way, or the side-effects of the medication necessary to numb the pain, is not an option I wish to face, and that, at the last possible moment acceptableto me, I can end it quickly, painlessly and with some dignity, in a manner of my choosing?
Clearly, there are issues with pressure, etc and safeguards are necessary. But we've done it in other areas with similar consequences. We've done it for DNRs and ADRTs, such as in people with conditions likely to be terminal in the absence of treatment to revive them, so we let the individual that is of sound mind and full mental capacity make exactly this decision, with safeguards about family pressure etc, in that situation. It is possible to construct a legal framework and an administrative procedure that puts those frameworks in place. And any life insurance is just one more factor for the individual to add to the mix before making his/her decision .... and, I'd suggest, FAR from the most important one.
santa claus (18-06-2011)
Once again, moderating decisions are being ignored.
Comments have been deleted, and I meant what I said - if those doing it persist, they will be suspended.
Back on topic.
Having received a PM from a member, I've reread what roachcoach said with a view that he wasn't referring to Santa but to politicians. It's certainly possible, maybe probable, that that's what he meant, and on that basis, I've lifted the suspension, and with an apology from me if I got it wrong, which it may well be I did.
The point remains, however, that action will now follow, and even if I get it wrong from time to time, personal jibes will be dealt with.
To roachcoach, it looks like I misread you, and for that, you have my apology.
To those that posted, even pointing out the same thing (that the remarks appear to be directed at politicians, not Santa), the PM route to me or another mod/Admin is the route, not ignoring an instruction not to continue posting on it in this thread.
If anyone wants to follow this up, don't do it in this thread, please.
Lowe (21-06-2011),roachcoach (20-06-2011)
My intent was indeed to level the scathing remarks at our political masters and have edited the post in question to level this off and draw a line under it.
The apology is well received, as is the integrity needed to confess a possible error and act on that possibility alone; that's hard enough, doing it in public, even moreso.
A misunderstanding on the toneless internet, accidents happen. No harm, no foul in this camp.
Onwards and upwards.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
