Drunk Driving Anyone?

Originally posted by Unicron!
You did ignore and some things werent mentioned in any website I ve mentioned.And I reminded you of a few things that her parents didnt take into consideration.

Anyways.My original point was that her parents avoided all the possibilities that indicate to a living hell for her in the future and that their act was for theirselves since we cant stand the loss of a person we love.

Look man, stop saying I have ignored you. That is the most pointless statement you can make to try to elicit symathy for your argument.  I think maybe you don\'t know the meaning of the word ignore.  I didn\'t ignore you. I DISAGREE WITH YOU.  You can\'t say my disagreement is not valid because I haven\'t listened to your argument.  I\'ve listened, and it doesn\'t hold up.

I agree that her parents want to keep her alive because they love her.  But you\'ve taken it a step further and said they should have had her killed instead.  Why would you say that when you can\'t be certain she won\'t have a useful and semi-productive life in spite of the injuries.  She can always choose to take her own life later if she finds it unbearable.  That\'s where your argument is turns to shit.  Murder is irreversable, but if you preserve her life, then she has the opportunity to make the choice her self.  Why is that so hard to understand?

Originally posted by Coredweller
Look man, stop saying I have ignored you. That is the most pointless statement you can make to try to elicit symathy for your argument.  I think maybe you don\'t know the meaning of the word ignore.  I didn\'t ignore you. I DISAGREE WITH YOU.  You can\'t say my disagreement is not valid because I haven\'t listened to your argument.  I\'ve listened, and it doesn\'t hold up.

I didnt say you ignored me,You ignored some of my statements.You dont seem to understand the seriousness of them.I ve mentioned mental issues which are the worse case.You insisted on her doing well based on simple logic and personal experience.Like injuries that can get better etc and because she seemd relatively ok in Oprah.I am not waiting you to agree.i am waiting you to try proove me wrong on my arguements.

I agree that her parents want to keep her alive because they love her.  But you\'ve taken it a step further and said they should have had her killed instead.  Why would you say that when you can\'t be certain she won\'t have a useful and semi-productive life in spite of the injuries.  She can always choose to take her own life later if she finds it unbearable.  That\'s where your argument is turns to shit.  Murder is irreversable, but if you preserve her life, then she has the opportunity to make the choice her self.  Why is that so hard to understand?

Her parents thought about nothing other than their personal feelings and avoided all the consiquences she would suffer.Thats was my point.Its immoral to live someone live and suffer just because you cant stand the loss.
She was fighting between life and death.But they choose to force her live by all means necessary and they avoided the self-evident.
As for taking her own life you make it sound as if its something easy.People that are thinking to commit suicide live in confusion.Even if things seem as if they cant get any worse you  still hesitate.Confusion and doubt fill your mind.Sometimes you create dellusions because you dont want to accept the truth.Also if she is under medical care to counter self-destruction tendencies and depression she wont commit suicide.She cant.She isnt let to.You dont know because you follow simple logic based on personal experiences.

1.  You say suicide is not an acceptable option, but murder is ok.  Explain that.  It makes no sense, because murder is irreversable, but Suicide can always be done later.

2.  How do you decide which injured person should be allowed to live, and which should be put out of their misery?  You have provided no rules to follow.  There are an infinite number of grey areas here where you would be entirely unqualified to judge.  You just looked at a picture of her and said "gosh we should kill her."  You can\'t say that someone should be killed without a clearly definable reason why.  

You say you\'re waiting for me to prove you wrong, but you haven\'t made any clearly definable argument.  You just say she should be killed because she might suffer.  

Everyone suffers in life at some point.  Some people are born with deformities and suffer from the beginning to the end of their lives.  Should they be killed to?  See point no.2 above.  You have no rules to apply, therefore your argument is ridiculous.

Her parents thought about nothing other than their personal feelings and avoided all the consiquences she would suffer.Thats was my point.

BTW, that is bullshit.  Maybe the parents were thinking about reducing her suffering by treating her injuries and allowing her to recover and restore her life.  You shouldn\'t say such a terrible thing about the parents as "they thought about nothing other than their own personal feelings."  You have no way of knowing, so that statement is pure BS.

Originally posted by Coredweller
1.  You say suicide is not an acceptable option, but murder is ok.  Explain that.  It makes no sense, because murder is irreversable, but Suicide can always be done later.

Thats not murder.She was fighting between life and death.And she was under great suffering.Unimaginable suffering.

Many people ask for euthanasia but nobody is offering it to them.Because its considered a murder.Even people that would have died anyways.

Murder is when you take someone\'s life against his own will

2.  How do you decide which injured person should be allowed to live, and which should be put out of their misery?  You have provided no rules to follow.  There are an infinite number of grey areas here where you would be entirely unqualified to judge.  You just looked at a picture of her and said "gosh we should kill her."  You can\'t say that someone should be killed without a clearly definable reason why.  

Who are you to decide that everyone should suffer the consiquences no matter how painful they are?You set one rule thats for sure.
No I didnt look at a picture.I ve told you already that I ve seen people!You are the one that judge from a distance based on personal experiences

You say you\'re waiting for me to prove you wrong, but you haven\'t made any clearly definable argument.  You just say she should be killed because she might suffer.

Mental traumas, incurable traumas, that consume you.I am bored to repeat exactly my arguement.Just read my previous post.

Everyone suffers in life at some point.  Some people are born with deformities and suffer from the beginning to the end of their lives.  Should they be killed to?  See point no.2 above.  You have no rules to apply, therefore your argument is ridiculous.

So they shouldnt.But her case isnt the same.She was almost dead.And its also tons harder to know that "THIS IS NOT THE REAL ME!LOOK HOW I WERE AND HOW I AM"!!

BTW, that is bullshit.  Maybe the parents were thinking about reducing her suffering by treating her injuries and allowing her to recover and restore her life.  You shouldn\'t say such a terrible thing about the parents as "they thought about nothing other than their own personal feelings."  You have no way of knowing, so that statement is pure BS. [/B]

What the...?Maybe the parents were thinking about reducing her suffering by treating her injuries?Thats indeed BS!
Thats not a common everyday injury.Or a curable injury.Or an injury that lives no "stains".
You still refer to external injuries(as if they are just injuries)!!You still didnt say anything about MENTAL INJURIES!!
Which prooves that you ignore my arguement.You talk as if its just the freaking injuries and the external pain that they inflict
You use common oversimplistic logic that only wipes the surface

Doctors don\'t care if you are missing both legs/arms and are all burned up. They are going to try and save your life regardless. The parent\'s input probably would not have come in unless she was on life support.

I really had trouble sleeping last night after seeing this link. I couldn\'t get her picture out of my head.

Dude, you were masturbating werent you?

Someone should just close this thread, its just arguing, and its revolting.

Originally posted by (e)
Dude, you were masturbating werent you?

 

Hahaha, Spudz made a funny

Originally posted by (e)
Dude, you were masturbating werent you?

:banghead: OMG u annoy the hell out of me

lol most famous matchups:

Unicron vs Cored
Gman vs luckee
Spudz vs Swifdi  <-- seems to be dying down, substitute Jumpman if neccessary

Anyone else I\'m missing?

Omen vs virgin assholes

LOL.

I stopped because I gave up on Unicron\'s bizarre emotion-based viewpoint.  I guess they don\'t teach developing and thinking about logical arguments in whatever school system he\'s from.  He prefers to base his argument on indefinable emotions and assumed beliefs that cannot be proven or disproven.

SirMystiq vs Gigashadow

I think there are many "_________ vs Gigashadow"  

Just kiddin man, it\'s all cool.  

Originally posted by Coredweller
I stopped because I gave up on Unicron\'s bizarre emotion-based viewpoint.  I guess they don\'t teach developing and thinking about logical arguments in whatever school system he\'s from.  He prefers to base his argument on indefinable emotions and assumed beliefs that cannot be proven or disproven.

Amen.

Originally posted by luckee
That was what 10-12 years ago? Tis a little different now and even includes beer and alcohol.
 

We all know that the only people saying drinking alcohol is healthy now are alcoholics.