08 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI have done this allready.
Show why the assumption that someone who jumps off the 90th floor of a building knowing it will cause their death is committing suicide is "absurd, ridiculous and extreme".
Besides marauder, this is not the situation you presented in your initial post. You completely ignore the circumstances. Unacceptable, inhumane and irrational.
09 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeWell, from your earlier cut-and-paste, I thought you were saying the inbuilt assumption was that the Catholic position on suicide was as simplistic as "suicide=hell". According to the cut-and-paste, it is more complex and depends on e.g. the state of mind of the individual.
.... and that would be ?
Windmill is challenging the assumption is that the jumpers committed suicide.
09 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo, you haven't Ivanhoe; you've said it but you've failed to make a logical distinction between why those who choose on the ledge to avoid the painful death of being burned alive are not suicides, but those who chose to end their suffering of an incurable disease are suicides. So do it.
I have done this allready.
09 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt isn't??
I have done this allready.
Besides marauder, this is not the situation you presented in your initial post. You completely ignore the circumstances. Unacceptable, inhumane and irrational.
In the aftermath of the planes crashing into the WTC, some people went out to the ledges of the buildings. As the fires approached them, they jumped to the deaths; one woman was seen crossing herself before she jumped. As these people were jumping from more than the 88th floor, they knew it was suicide.
What have I changed????
09 Dec 05
Originally posted by dottewellWell, the post suffers from various defects.
Well, from your earlier cut-and-paste, I thought you were saying the inbuilt assumption was that the Catholic position on suicide was as simplistic as "suicide=hell". According to the cut-and-paste, it is more complex and depends on e.g. the state of mind of the individual.
Windmill is challenging the assumption is that the jumpers committed suicide.
It was constructed to catch some unwary fundamentalist as I stated before.
09 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy should I ? I showed the ridiculousness of your assumption. I'm not obliged in any way to make some comparison between the two positions you mentioned. It is simply not necessary to show the absurdity of the reductionism you are practising.
Stop the BS; you never state why there is a distinction.
You'd better read this marauder:
http://www.think.i12.com/fallacies.html
09 Dec 05
3 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeWell just as long as you're not slipping into the role of unwary fundamentalist yourself, to protect others...
Well, the post suffers from various defects.
It was constructed to catch some unwary fundamentalist as I stated before.
I thought you were on much stronger ground with your original point. It renders the second "assumption" irrelevant.
09 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderlol....Dumb minds think alike.
Your refusal to accept that it was suicide is absurd as you are attempting to create your own definition to replace a standard one. You have also steadfastly refused to discuss other instances of suicide that differ in no meaningful way from the situation faced by the people on the ledges. Parrot away if you wish that it isn't suicide because you don't want it to be, but rational thought is what's expected here not shrill emotionalism.
09 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeI know all about logic; use some. Show why the premise that someone jumping from the 90th floor of a building knowing that they will die immediately above hitting the ground is committing suicide is "absurd and ridiculous". In order to do so, you will have to draw a valid distinction between the motive of these unfortunate people who were in such a position through no fault of their own and choose to avoid suffering with unfortunate people who have an incurable, painful disease through no fault of their own and choose to avoid suffering, both by immediately ending their lives.
Why should I ? I showed the ridiculousness of your assumption. I'm not obliged in any way to make some comparison between the two positions you mentioned. It is simply not necessary to show the absurdity of the reductionism you are practising.
You'd better read this marauder:
http://www.think.i12.com/fallacies.html
09 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, then apparently you are the only one who is claiming these people committed suicide. It is an unacceptable formal and legalistic (I'm not even sure if this way of reasoning deserves the description "legalistic". It is simply too absurd for words) way of reasoning. It is reductionism of the most abject kind .... and I am not going to repeat why .... You're the fundamentalist here, marauder. Accept it !
It isn't??
In the aftermath of the planes crashing into the WTC, some people went out to the ledges of the buildings. As the fires approached them, they jumped to the deaths; one woman was seen crossing herself before she jumped. As these people were jumping from more than the 88th floor, they knew it was suicide.
What have I changed????
09 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeAgain, no logic. Do you even know what it is?
Well, then apparently you are the only one who is claiming these people committed suicide. It is an unacceptable formal and legalistic (I'm not even sure if this way of reasoning deserves the description "legalistic". It is simply too absurd for words) way of reasoning. It is reductionism of the most abject kind .... and I am not going to repeat why .... You're the fundamentalist here, marauder. Accept it !