The Disrespect For Life

I disagree. When I was very young, some people told me that making fun of other peoples' tragedy was contemptible behavior, and I believe that.

Quote:

I disagree. When I was very young, some people told me that making fun of other peoples' tragedy was contemptible behavior, and I believe that.

Well, it's not our fault some people f*cked you up when you were a kid.

You didn't define either term, therefore, how can you disagree with what I said? I don't even think you understand what humor IS.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

I disagree. When I was very young, some people told me that making fun of other peoples' tragedy was contemptible behavior, and I believe that.

Well, it's not our fault some people f*cked you up when you were a kid.

You didn't define either term, therefore, how can you disagree with what I said? I don't even think you understand what humor IS.

Cycloptichorn

This is a lifelong failing of mine. People tell me jokes and I just sit there with absolutely no expression on my face at all. Once, in high school, the other kids chipped in and brought in a stand-up comic who stood in front of me and did his whole routine. Nothing. They took me to a physician who measured my head very carefully with large calipers, and he said that it is incurable.

parados wrote:

Quote:

I can respond for weeks and you will keep spinning the same fantastical tales of her condition wasn't serious and the only thing she needed was food put in her mouth.

I defy you to find any post of mine in which I said this.

You have a tendency to zero in on one rather irrelevant portion of a post that you think contains an exploitable flaw, when you find yourself unable to address the general meaning that the poster was conveying.

You have a point?

In other words, you don't dare do more than make unsubstantiated charges, and will not offer support for them when challenged. Everyone knows what that means.

Better to be a total sociopath who starves someone to death and then says that it's for her own good.

Taking a person off food is a bit different from taking her off dialysis.

There is a very pathetic, helpless person involved who will now be starved to death, and you show no sign whatever of empathy

Starving someone to death is not merciful and not much of a show of empathy.

One could equally well say that you are foisting your views on somebody for advocating the starvation of a helpless woman

She is not dying as is often claimed or implied by the people in favor of terminating her.

most of us just have a problem with the ethics of euthanizing people for convenience, particularly when they only require food and water to live.

Terry Schiavo was not allowed food in the sense that ...(b) people attempting to give her food orally were forcibly turned away.

Brandon wrote:

Quote:

parados wrote:

Quote:

I can respond for weeks and you will keep spinning the same fantastical tales of her condition wasn't serious and the only thing she needed was food put in her mouth.

I defy you to find any post of mine in which I said this.

We'll let Brandon's own words make the argument with him for a while....My response to Brandon's original question would be Brandon quotes concerning Terri Shaivo only needed food ... Consider this only part of the evidence to back up my statement... more can be found all over A2K

Better to be a total sociopath who starves someone to death and then says that it's for her own good.

Taking a person off food is a bit different from taking her off dialysis.

There is a very pathetic, helpless person involved who will now be starved to death, and you show no sign whatever of empathy

Starving someone to death is not merciful and not much of a show of empathy.

One could equally well say that you are foisting your views on somebody for advocating the starvation of a helpless woman

She is not dying as is often claimed or implied by the people in favor of terminating her.

most of us just have a problem with the ethics of euthanizing people for convenience, particularly when they only require food and water to live.

Terry Schiavo was not allowed food in the sense that ...(b) people attempting to give her food orally were forcibly turned away.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon,

What IS laughter? What IS humor?

Give a good definition of the two of those, and their causes, and you'll see why there really is NO inapporiate topic for jokes at all.

Cycloptichorn

I disagree. When I was very young, some people told me that making fun of other peoples' tragedy was contemptible behavior, and I believe that.

I can respond for weeks and you will keep spinning the same fantastical tales of her condition wasn't serious and the only thing she needed was food put in her mouth.

Terry Schiavo was not allowed food in the sense that ...(b) people attempting to give her food orally were forcibly turned away.

Since they both witheld food and prevented others from giving it to her, "killing" is a perfectly reasonable description.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon,

What IS laughter? What IS humor?

Give a good definition of the two of those, and their causes, and you'll see why there really is NO inapporiate topic for jokes at all.

Cycloptichorn

I disagree. When I was very young, some people told me that making fun of other peoples' tragedy was contemptible behavior, and I believe that.

Seriously, Brandon, give us some examples of what you find funny. Not just amusing, but what gives you a real belly laugh? Three Stooges? George Carlin? Napoleon Dynamite?

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon,

What IS laughter? What IS humor?

Give a good definition of the two of those, and their causes, and you'll see why there really is NO inapporiate topic for jokes at all.

Cycloptichorn

I disagree. When I was very young, some people told me that making fun of other peoples' tragedy was contemptible behavior, and I believe that.

Seriously, Brandon, give us some examples of what you find funny. Not just amusing, but what gives you a real belly laugh? Three Stooges? George Carlin? Napoleon Dynamite?

"Three Stooges," "Seinfeld," Woody Allen, many old sitcoms, etc.

As an aside, I will note that many people find release in humor from things that they find painful or frightening. In fact, most of humor is based on this.

Terri Shiavo had no swallow reflex. That is why the food tube was neccessary.

1. TS would live if she were given food (and water, of course)
2. It would be sufficient for her to live merely to place it in her mouth.

I have often said #1, but have certainly never claimed #2. I have no idea whether she could swallow or not, and have most certainly not once alleged that she could. Since half of what you attributed to me was something I had never, ever alleged, I pointed out that I had never said it.

You stated .

Quote:

:
Terry Schiavo was not allowed food in the sense that ...(b) people attempting to give her food orally were forcibly turned away.

This seems pretty clear in meaning to me. Terri was not allowed food because people weren't allowed to put food in her mouth.
("food orally" would be in her mouth or are you denying that meaning?)
You also stated

Quote:

:
Since they both witheld food and prevented others from giving it to her, "killing" is a perfectly reasonable description.

Also pretty clear in its meaning. Terri would not have died if others (those attempting to give food to her orally) had not been prevented from doing so.

Brandon,

Quote:

1. TS would live if she were given food (and water, of course)
2. It would be sufficient for her to live merely to place it in her mouth.

I have often said #1, but have certainly never claimed #2. I have no idea whether she could swallow or not, and have most certainly not once alleged that she could. Since half of what you attributed to me was something I had never, ever alleged, I pointed out that I had never said it.

I thought I was pretty clear in showing where you stated #2

Quote:

You stated .

Quote:

:
Terry Schiavo was not allowed food in the sense that ...(b) people attempting to give her food orally were forcibly turned away.

This seems pretty clear in meaning to me. Terri was not allowed food because people weren't allowed to put food in her mouth.
("food orally" would be in her mouth or are you denying that meaning?)
You also stated

Quote:

:
Since they both witheld food and prevented others from giving it to her, "killing" is a perfectly reasonable description.

Also pretty clear in its meaning. Terri would not have died if others (those attempting to give food to her orally) had not been prevented from doing so.

Please show me where I misinterpreted your meaning in these two statements. Since preventing others from giving her food orally was "killing" then it can only mean that giving her food orally would have meant she would have lived. What other possible meaning can there be?

I never, ever stated in any post that she could have been kept alive by being given food orally. It might have worked. It might not have. I have no idea. I only state in these quotes that no one was permitted to try.

Since they both witheld food and prevented others from giving it to her, "killing" is a perfectly reasonable description.

As for killing, anyone who deliberately sets in motion a chain of events in order to deliberately produce death in another person is killing him.