10 Dec 05
Originally posted by dottewellI recced this post because it's drawing us back to the more interesting of the two 'halves' of this discussion.
But even if you establish all cases can be called suicide, this is only relevant to those people (a minority) who think suicide = hell in all circumstances.
I have given you some reasons why there is a moral difference between these cases (p19). Do you not agree?
It seem the Catholic church does not think suicide automatically means a one-way trip to hell.
What are you trying to prove?
To my mind, those of you who seem to think it's important to debate the precise factual circumstances of how a woman came to be jumping out of the towers on 9/11 are generally missing the point.
It's just one factual scenario for the more general question: for those who believe in an afterlife, do you believe that the manner of a person's death can affect where they go after dying?
Suicide is one of the situations where it's been thought, by some people at some time, that the manner of death affects the afterlife. No1 could equally well have asked about unbaptised babies and ideally we would be having a similar discussion.
Instead we're getting sidetracked into all sorts of hypotheticals about electrified rooms and ledges and so on.
Have a look at the title of the thread. It pretty much PRESUMES what many of you are arguing about - that jumping was suicide. Even if you don't agree with that presumption, if you're any good at logical argument you should be able to use that starting point and express a view about the QUESTION part - is the suicide damned?
10 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioYou are applying some sort of "game theory" in which you set all the rules and in which you determine the context and settings, by constructing these questions and their context. I reacted to the marauder's original question and I gave documented evidence of my position. I even disputed and gave the reasons why I disputed the ridiculous claim that the jumpers committed suicide. The way you and the marauder present things, in a very closed setting, is very vulnerable for manipulation on your and the marauder's part, as we can witness in this thread (the more than silly, hilarious, "Time Theory" from the marauder for instance and the inclination you and the marauder in particular have to ignore everything your opponent states and that does not fit in with your settings.).
Please, Ivanhoe, tell us with my four options, which are and are not suicide and
why not. Show us how to debate academically.
Nemesio
The way you present the material or your stance, I often wonder if you have a stance at all or that you are merely playing the role of the 'Quizz-Master" in all these encounters you engage in, is unacceptable.
Please, Ivanhoe, tell us with my four options, which are and are not suicide and why not. Show us how to debate academically.
I cannot enter such manipulated debates to discuss things academically because they cannot be considered to be academic discussions. The reasons for this I explained above.
10 Dec 05
Have a look at the title of the thread. It pretty much PRESUMES what many of you are arguing about - that jumping was suicide. Even if you don't agree with that presumption, if you're any good at logical argument you should be able to use that starting point and express a view about the QUESTION part - is the suicide damned?[/b]I don't understand how it is right to have an argument on a topic based on a possible lie.To me this is wrong....it makes me sad if you cannot see this because if things like this are acceptable then what follows next?Do we run a downhill slide into moral unacceptable behaviour?
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by orfeoI don't see how suicide can be damning, regardless of the circumstances of the suicide.
I recced this post because it's drawing us back to the more interesting of the two 'halves' of this discussion.
...
Have a look at the title of the thread. It pretty much PRESUMES what many of you are arguing about - that jumping was suicide. Even if you don't agree with that presumption, if you're any good at logical argument you should be able to use that starting point and express a view about the QUESTION part - is the suicide damned?
For that matter, I don't see how any particular sin can be damning.
The only thing that is damning is the condition of one's heart -- whether it is devoted to God or whether it isn't.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeMy examples serve to illustrate how absurd your position is. The fact that you
You are applying some sort of "game theory" in which you set all the rules and in which you determine the context and settings, by constructing these questions and their context. I reacted to the marauder's original question and I gave documented evidence of my position. I even disputed and gave the reasons why I disputed the ridiculous claim that the jum ...[text shortened]... se they cannot be considered to be academic discussions. The reasons for this I explained above.
refuse to answer them under the guise of 'game theory' fools no one.
If the examples are sooooooo transparently bogus, then it should be a piece of
cake for an 'academic debator' such as yourself to demonstrate the flaw in my
reasoning.
But you can't Ivanhoe. Not simply because your fundamental beliefs on this topic
are predicated on a flawed moral construct, but especially because you lack the
capacity to reason yourself out of a paper bag.
The analogies serve to get people to think, gee whiz...maybe my stance isn't well
defined. But you are impervious to this because you don't care if it is well defined
or not: if the Church says it, it must be true.
You are a mindless automaton and little posts like this just expose it.
Nemesio
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by dottewell
I do not believe taking one's own life is necessarily wrong. But it is something that has ethical implications. Surely you agree?
I'm not even sure what this says. All moral acts have ethical implications. If you don't
define the conditions that make things necessarily right or wrong and then discuss why
they are or aren't or how they affect the universe, you're just blowing smoke.
That's like saying, 'killing isn't necessarily wrong, but it has ethical implications.' It doesn't
say anything.
I have given you some reasons why there is a moral difference between these cases (p19). Do you not agree?
How about this: the people who jumped may have had a stronger negative impact on their
families who might have been content to think that they died of asphyxiation. Therefore
their act was wrong.
Now, that's a silly statement, but it parallels the notion of a person who is dying of a painful
disease choosing to kill themselves to avoid it.
It seem the Catholic church does not think suicide automatically means a one-way trip to hell.
As I said above, I don't think there is a single case of suicide that can be discussed
that the 'caveats' given in the RC Catechism don't apply to. Consequently, even
mentioning suicide as a 'grave sin' such that a person who performs it runs the strong
risk of going straight to Hell is just an example of a fear tactic used by the Church.
A person who is totally free from 'psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of
hardship, suffering, or torture' won't be committing suicide (or at least, I can't think of
an example where it would happen).
What are you trying to prove?
This is a discussion. I'm presenting my point of view and discussing why I think it makes
more sense than another person's point of view. If someone shoes me a point of view that
makes more sense than mine, I will thank him/her and adopt it. I would expect the same
from any other opened-minded individual.
It's not trying to prove anything (except for hot-headed Ivanhoe who thinks everything
is a competition). It's the pursuit of truth. Discussing and being prepared to abandon an
inferior line of thinking is all part of that pursuit.
Nemesio
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioYou still havn't answered if you think the deaths in the twin towers were murder or suicide and why?Surley this is the most relavent question to most as to the destination of those who died.Mabey you think some were and some were not...if so then please explain.
My examples serve to illustrate how absurd your position is. The fact that you
refuse to answer them under the guise of 'game theory' fools no one.
If the examples are sooooooo transparently bogus, then it should be a piece of
cake for an 'academic debator' such as yourself to demonstrate the flaw in my
reasoning.
But you can't Ivanhoe. Not s ...[text shortened]... t be true.
You are a mindless automaton and little posts like this just expose it.
Nemesio
11 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioI'm not even sure what this says. All moral acts have ethical implications. If you don't define the conditions that make things necessarily right or wrong and then discuss why they are or aren't or how they affect the universe, you're just blowing smoke.
Originally posted by dottewell
[b]I do not believe taking one's own life is necessarily wrong. But it is something that has ethical implications. Surely you agree?
I'm not even sure what this says. All moral acts have ethical implications. If you don't
define the conditions that make things necessarily right or wrong and then discuss why ...[text shortened]... eing prepared to abandon an
inferior line of thinking is all part of that pursuit.
Nemesio[/b]
Things can be more or less right (or wrong). The factors that make suicide more or less right were, inter alia, those I identified on p19.
the people who jumped may have had a stronger negative impact on their families who might have been content to think that they died of asphyxiation. Therefore their act was wrong.
Now, that's a silly statement, but it parallels the notion of a person who is dying of a painful disease choosing to kill themselves to avoid it.
It is a silly statement, because anyone who wanted a family member to die of asphyxiation would be plainly wrong. The clear difference with the second case is that family members do not want their loved one to die of e.g. cancer, they simply want to spend more time with them. And the calculation the patient has to make must include the fact that they can still make a positive contribution to life, even if only by helping, talking to, and simply being alive for their friends, family and others. It is a difficult choice with many morally relevant factors; those people jumping out of the Twin Towers had a much simpler choice.
Surely you see that?
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by dottewellHmmmm...a person's abilities.What one can offer to others.If there isn't anything left worthwhile....TT....then i guess suicide could be more morally acceptable if this is possible.If one can only offer negatives for whatever reasons then it would seem to make it even more acceptable.(pain,communication,love,understanding,self-sufficient etc).
[b]I'm not even sure what this says. All moral acts have ethical implications. If you don't define the conditions that make things necessarily right or wrong and then discuss why they are or aren't or how they affect the universe, you're just blowing smoke.
Things can be more or less right (or wrong). The factors that make suicide more or less ...[text shortened]... those people jumping out of the Twin Towers had a much simpler choice.
Surely you see that?[/b]
11 Dec 05
9 edits
Originally posted by NemesioAs usual you do not react to my substantial and serious criticism concerning your manipulating methods, in this case the "Multiple Choice, Quizzmaster" method, in stead of that you take refuge in degrading language, insults, insinuations and provocations.
My examples serve to illustrate how absurd your position is. The fact that you
refuse to answer them under the guise of 'game theory' fools no one.
If the examples are sooooooo transparently bogus, then it should be a piece of
cake for an 'academic debator' such as yourself to demonstrate the flaw in my
reasoning.
But you can't Ivanhoe. Not s ...[text shortened]... t be true.
You are a mindless automaton and little posts like this just expose it.
Nemesio
Please adress my criticism concerning your method.
EDIT: By the way, I never claimed to be an "academic" debater. I claim your methods are not academic, let's say they cannot be looked upon as scientific or if you wish objective and free. They are forcing, controlling and therefore manipulative, in this sence they are not "academic" as I explained in one of my earlier posts. An issue you chose not to adress.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeShall I deduce from this that you have successfully removed the log from your own eye?
As usual you do not react to my substantial and serious criticism concerning your manipulating methods, the "Quizzmaster" method, in stead of that you take refuge in degrading language, insults, insinuations and provocations.
Please adress my criticism concerning your method.
11 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles05 Dec '05 17:06 :: 1 recommendations
Shall I deduce from this that you have successfully removed the log from your own eye?
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles:
What if somebody gave them cancer? Would that then be murder and no longer suicide?
Ivanhoe: Listen to the marauder: "Rather than thinking up absurd hypotheticals, why not stay on-topic?"
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhy don't you take your own advice taken from me and stay on-topic rather than make this yet ANOTHER thread where all you do is criticize other people's debating methods? Start ANOTHER thread whining about how other people don't debate like you want, I prefer to keep this thread somewhat related to the moral permissibility of suicide. I started the thread and a fire must protect its source.
05 Dec '05 17:06 :: 1 recommendations
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles:
What if somebody gave them cancer? Would that then be murder and no longer suicide?
Ivanhoe: Listen to the marauder: "Rather than thinking up absurd hypotheticals, why not stay on-topic?"
11 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: "where all you do is criticize other people's debating methods?
Why don't you take your own advice taken from me and stay on-topic rather than make this yet ANOTHER thread where all you do is criticize other people's debating methods? Start ANOTHER thread whining about how other people don't debate like you want, I prefer to keep this thread somewhat related to the moral permissibility of suicide. I started the thread and a fire must protect its source.
Firstly, criticising the debating methods used in this thread is not "all I do" as you are able to discover if you read this thread.
Secondly, critising one's debating methods is an absolute necessity, because at the heart of a good and honest debate lies the fundament, the intention, of not trying to manipulate it ...... unless of course you are not trying to have an honest and open debate, but are engaging in verbal warfare ..... like you do so often as you have claimed recently.
Therefore criticising one's opponents's methods of debate, if necessary, is very much on topic. It is the heart of the debate. If the method stinks, the results can never smell like roses, marauder.