Euthanasia and the 1st Precept

[ronnewmexico]

Potato

Regarding this..."Ronnewmexico, you are making some extraordinarily sweeping generalizations and speaking for vast groups of people I suspect you are either not a member of or have very little experience with. Not all theists favor the death penalty for criminals. In fact, consistent opposition to the death penalty is an admirable policy position of more than one flavor of Christianity, in direct contradiction of your claims about theists.

Besides, aren't you the guy who slips meat to unsuspecting vegetarians? If you are not, I apologize for bringing it up"

Firstly I am not that guy who slips meat to unsuspecting vegetarians. It is against my moral philosophy to consume meat and dairy in any form and I encourage all others to not do so. It causes harm. Visitors to my home must consume such items. As to dog and cat food, I am not the richest of people and thusly can not buy designer animal foods but have found the cheepest brands typically contain mostly if not all grain products such as corn and thusly serve them this. It is not perfect but matches my circumstance and provides less harm to the animals. I also supplement with vegetables as replacement for bones and such.

AS to your second item....I nowhere state that all theists support the death penalty. I verse the death penalty argument from a theist persepective and a Buddhist perspective to explain the rational provided against such things as euthanazia.

ARe you setting up a straw man ripe for knocking down...please be advised such behaviors in discussion serve little to advance or maintain arguments. They serve only to do such to the lowest of human intelligence (perhaps in American media outlets) suchly. For rational educated audiences they do not. I do not equate the death penalty favorance with being theist, that is a absurd rediculous notion that cannot be derived from what I state.

If you want to win others to your cause for euthanasia, I say......try again . YOu will not win any by making up things I have supposedly said and then knocking them down.

If you have a cognative disorder or are not completely familiar with the English language I suggest you read the above posts again and then derive true factual statements from which to draw argument against. Here is a clue on reading and interpreting things even when (I fully admit) it may not be written in the clearest most concise fashion. If it seems to not make sense logically it is probably either not what the writer intended(through writer error perhaps grammatically) or we are reading it wrong. I firstly in that response, mention a Buddhist view on this thing and a possible Buddhist counter to antieuthanasia viewholders. I then propose some theoriticaly theist counters to rational presented. The conclusion of the entire discussion(this self initiated argument against myself really), is provided after the statement...NO, NO NO.

When you provide counters to my actual positions or things I have actually stated....
Then I will respond to those statements...not to this nonsense.

[Clueless Git]

Besides, aren't you the guy who slips meat to unsuspecting vegetarians? If you are not, I apologize for bringing it up.

But if you are that guy, why should we give any weight to your moral arguments, knowing that you deliberately engage in, and at one point seemed rather proud of, deceiving people into violating their own ethics?

'Lo Potato

That was Ron The Elder what done that matey.

I wouldn't name him for it but for one thing ...

Ron The Elder, after considering the replies he received to that admission, kinda "saw the light" and apologised for it.

To my mind, by the doing so, Ron The Elder did a very 'buddhist' thing.

[Huifeng]

Our 6 month old puppy has come down with a disease called Parvo. It is an extremely virulent digestive system disease, that kills on an almost 80% basis in young dogs. She has been hospitalized since saturday, but has not gotten any better, if anything, a bit worse. If she takes a turn farther downhill, I am wondering what is said out there regarding killing to end suffering. I really don't want her to die, but if it looks like she will anyway, I don't want her to suffer along the way. This disease kills by shutting down the major organs, so painkillers will only alleviate so much. Does anyone have any advice on this?

My condolences for you and your puppy.
I hope that she may be well, and healthy,
and you freed from the worry that you must be facing.



The first question to ask is this:
Will having your puppy put down guarantee that the her pain ends?
ie. do you know into what state she will be reborn.

Try to look after her as best you can.
She will certainly appreciate your love, even if she succumbs in the end.

[Huifeng]

Hehe, I should have read further before posting that last one!

I'm so glad the puppy is recovering.

_/\_

I second that!

Thanks, both of you. She is back to acting like a happy go lucky puppy, with only a few upper GI problems still going on, so it looks like all will be well.

Now, on the topic of people having animals as pets, there is a large chunk that people seem to be missing. Most breeds of dogs and cats cannot function in the wild anymore. The domestication has been completely bred into them, and they would just suffer and die if left out on their own in the wild.

Glad to hear of her good health! May she grow up to be a happy doggy!
And you as happy friend (I don't like the word "owner" too much!) along with her.

[ronnewmexico]

It appears...."Will having your puppy put down guarantee that the her pain ends?
ie. do you know into what state she will be reborn. "....I may not be singular in my opinion of this thing.

We simply do not know killing a animal (or human for that matter) ends pain and suffering. Everything I know leads towards it not ending those things. But the bottom line is....we simply do not know that it does. So if we do not know(for sure) that it does(end suffering and pain) we cannot perform a killing act.

All that seems to end is our view of the suffering, our perception of it, not the suffering itself.

This last post written by Ron New Mexico, not to be confused with Ron the elder, Ron the younger, Ron who may live in New Mexico or ARizona and considers himself Maitreya, Ron the Greater, nor Ron the Lesser, Son of Ron nor brother of Ron, sister of Ron, daughter of Ron, or Ronin, ETc. .... but just, ronnewmexico. I don't even know any of those peoples, nevertheless hold their opinions nor responsibility for their post or actions.

[Potato]

Ronnewmexico: English is my first language and I have no cognitive disorders. Thanks for trying to deflect my disagreement with you through armchair diagnosis, though. Are you a specialist in cognitive disorders by education or profession?

I apologize for getting you mixed up with Ron the Elder. I am sorry.

Now, as to your sweeping statements about theists favoring the death penalty, let's start with this one, taken from page 3 of this topic. How is it to be interpreted other than that you think theists all favor the death penalty?

And why exactly if death is thought to remove pain do even the theists consider the most heineous of sufferings due the most heinous of killers....not life but the death penalty.

[ronnewmexico]

Playing the straw man game again eh? You conviently forgot to add this part of that to which you have quoted..."when (I fully admit) it may not be written in the clearest most concise fashion."

So I put the blame perhaps on myself as well.

As to this well ....."How is it to be interpreted other than that you think theists all favor the death penalty?
ronnewmexico wrote:
And why exactly if death is thought to remove pain do even the theists consider the most heineous of sufferings due the most heinous of killers....not life but the death penalty."

This is not stateing in any fashion all theists favor the death penalty. Do you see words stateing....all theists favor the death penalty or do you see what you want to see or claim to see in what I write?

Death is thought even by theists to be the worst penalty that can be given to a person. AS per the death penalty in the secular but theistically framed American government, it is the worst penalty. It is a penalty given to the worst of the worst criminals. Show me a Buddhist or Buddhist framed secular government, that has the death penalty and I may state that as fact also...but there is none.

Nevertheless the quote makes no reference as to who does what by percentage or religious preference. The quote is in reference to suffering. If suffering is thought to be eliminated by killing why does anyone get the death penalty? If punishment is what is wanted, as payment for crime, or example to deter crime..... why then remove a person from suffering if killing is thought to do so?

It makes no sense...... You see if anyone really believed that, these criminals would not get the death penalty but life imprisonment.

No one even the theists of America believe death in their heart of hearts to remove suffering.

So your straw man is knocked down by myself who is stated to hold a position(some nonsense about theists all favoring the death penalty) I do not hold.

Deflect your argument.....I suggest you may now start to get real, as in get a real argument.

And play your little game elsewhere...it is not accomplishing your aim here. Erecting straw men ripe for knocking down, establishing positions others do not hold that obviously have holes through and through them, and then pointing out the holes in those straw men positions is.....a debate tactic if perhaps a person is in a early grade school, perhaps 3rd or 4th grade. I know that suffices for real debate in certain circles in the West(conservative talk show media mainly), but it will not play here. This is a educated crowd for the most part.

So you want to counter my assertations that we know not that killing removes suffering...fire away.
I will destroy each and every one of your counters. But this, what you present here, is not a counter...it is nonsense. Such cannot be destroyed only laughed away.

So I await your reply. Expectantly.