09 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioIf I discussed like you I would start repeatedly asking you to define how long is very, very proximate and how long is imminent. Exactly how many nanoseconds is each one.
What I want is for you to explain why the timing of death makes a difference
at all -- why imminent death and very, very proximate death entail different
moral stances.
Nemesio
My ideas are there, I consider them to be as clearly defined as I could possibly do. If you don't wish to accept them, fine, but I'm done playing in this merry-go-round.
09 Dec 05
Originally posted by PalynkaThe reason it is important Palynka is because you are saying that
If I discussed like you I would start repeatedly asking you to define how long is very, very proximate and how long is imminent. Exactly how many nanoseconds is each one.
My ideas are there, I consider them to be as clearly defined as I could possibly do. If you don't wish to accept them, fine, but I'm done playing in this merry-go-round.
there is some significant difference between the two. And yet, you are
unable to define the difference in any way whatsoever.
That tells me that there is, in fact, no difference between the two and
that your distinction between the two cases is arbitrary and has nothing
to do with different moral frameworks.
Nemesio
09 Dec 05
Originally posted by Zippy BWhy would you think that someone would think that jumping 80+ stories would have
I don't believe that going through there heads was 'This is going to kill me but it will be easier than being burnt to death' I recon its more likely that they were thinking, 'If I stay I die - if I jump I might survive'.
a greater chance of survival than maybe being rescued from flames? Can you give
a rationale for this point of view?
Nemesio
09 Dec 05
Okay, read pages 1-5 and 20-24, so forgive me if I missed your bit.
I'm inclined to agree with no1 that jumping is suicide, and staying on the ledge is not.
I'm also inclined to agree with RBHILL (gasp) that all that matters is, if you like, being 'born again'.
I can understand the argument that suicide is the ultimate expression of lack of faith. I'm not prepared to say that it's as simple as that - and from what I read the Catholic position is not that simplistic either (I'm not Catholic by the way). I don't believe that in the period between when I commit a sin and when I repent of it/confess it I somehow become 'unsaved'. For much the same reason I'm not comfortable with Catholic concepts such as purgatory.
Beyond that, I will respond to comments if there are any.
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderEverything u have written here is not based on facts but assumptions that u would seem to believe to be true...so how childish are u to talk about their eternal destination.You run as fast as you can down a given road maurader and fail to get the simple things right first.I assume this also affects the real world you live in also.Mabey if u didn't have such a big head then people like myself could give you a greater enjoyment in life.🙂
Her intention was to kill herself by jumping from the building rather than being burned alive. That is why she crossed herself; she knew she was going to die.
You're a teenager, aren't you? Your posts are very immature and lacking in logic. Ivanhoe's are too, but the words you use seem to indicate that you're an adolescent. Betcha I'm right about that.
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by windmillIt would give me great enjoyment if you showed some knowledge of either A) Spelling or B) Logic. It is always amusing when people on this site presume to know something about my personal life; suppositions like yours are hysterical. Go do your homework, Junior.
Everything u have written here is not based on facts but assumptions that u would seem to believe to be true...so how childish are u to talk about their eternal destination.You run as fast as you can down a given road maurader and fail to get the simple things right first.I assume this also affects the real world you live in also.Mabey if u didn't have such a big head then people like myself could give you a greater enjoyment in life.🙂
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioWell, I know of no one that has survived an inferno such as existed at the top of the towers (well, except for Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego).
Why would you think that someone would think that jumping 80+ stories would have
a greater chance of survival than maybe being rescued from flames? Can you give
a rationale for this point of view?
Nemesio
I do know of people who have fallen from planes, with chutes that didn't open, and have survived.
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by joelekDo you know of anybody who has been rescued from a burning building?
Well, I know of no one that has survived an inferno such as existed at the top of the towers (well, except for Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego).
I do know of people who have fallen from planes, with chutes that didn't open, and have survived.
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, obviously. But if the flames are at my back, the whole room is on fire, actually the entire floor is on fire, the girders are melting, I'd take my chances with jumping. That's just me. You're welcome to chance the flames.
Do you know of anybody who has been rescued from a burning building?
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by joelekYou are again assuming things that didn't happen. Re-read my first post; you won't find any discussion of people being in rooms that are on fire or seeing girders melting. The lengths people in this thread will go to twist the facts and the definitions of words is remarkable.
Yes, obviously. But if the flames are at my back, the whole room is on fire, actually the entire floor is on fire, the girders are melting, I'd take my chances with jumping. That's just me. You're welcome to chance the flames.
If you get the National Geographic channel, I'm sure they'll re-run Inside 9/11. Perhaps after you see the admittedly disturbing footage and the descriptions in the show, you'll be better able to approach the subject rationally.
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderSorry. You're right. I am assuming the jumpers were faced with imminent death, and I haven't read all of the posts on this thread.
You are again assuming things that didn't happen. Re-read my first post; you won't find any discussion of people being in rooms that are on fire or seeing girders melting. The lengths people in this thread will go to twist the facts and the definitions of words is remarkable.
If you get the National Geographic channel, I'm sure they'll re-r ...[text shortened]... age and the descriptions in the show, you'll be better able to approach the subject rationally.
If there have been posts (or documentaries) that show that people were jumping without the likelihood of being burned alive, obviously my post is irrelevant and illfounded. I was just assuming their (possible) reasons for jumping.
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat exactly is it you are trying to prove, marauder.
You are again assuming things that didn't happen. Re-read my first post; you won't find any discussion of people being in rooms that are on fire or seeing girders melting. The lengths people in this thread will go to twist the facts and the definitions of words is remarkable.
If you get the National Geographic channel, I'm sure they'll re-r ...[text shortened]... age and the descriptions in the show, you'll be better able to approach the subject rationally.
What is the "moral problem" you are presenting here ? If it is the moral (im)permissibility of suicide you couldn't have chosen a more obscure and confusing introduction in your first post.
What is it you want ?
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDoctorS: "Staying in the burning building would have been an act of suicide as well. There was as much chance of survival staying as jumping."
Staying in the burning building would have been an act of suicide as well. There was as much chance of survival staying as jumping. It's a case of eternally damned if you do, eternally damned if you don't.
Neither, nor. In both cases the victim does not commit suicide.