Slashdot Mirror
Terry Pratchett Considers Assisted Suicide
cHALiTO writes "Beloved science fiction and fantasy writer Terry Pratchett has terminal early-onset Alzheimer's. He's determined to have the option of choosing the time and place of his death, rather than enduring the potentially horrific drawn-out death that Alzheimer's sometimes brings. But Britain bans assisted suicide, and Pratchett is campaigning to have the law changed. As part of this, he has visited Switzerland's Dignitas clinic, an assisted suicide facility, with a BBC camera crew, as part of a documentary that will include Britain's first televised suicide. Pratchett took home Dignitas's assisted suicide consent forms."
Well shit that sucks.
Half of me wants to cheer him on in the name of "the good fight." The other half wants to cry. I read a hell of a lot, but Discworld has given more joy than probably any other series.
It is every person's right to decide how they die. Not the governments.
If I were in his situation, I'd do about the same thing. I'd fill out the forms to be carried out in a few months. That way if he stopped progressing he could just do whatever, but if he kept progressing he may not be lucid so they could do their thing.
We'll miss you, Terry, but you have the power over your own life and I respect that.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
The powers that be do not like individuals making such important choices for themselves. They know what is better.
It's one thing to have a live news camera on scene when a crazy person jumps from a ledge or immolates themselves, but it's quite another when a show is being created with the purpose of people profiting (non-profit? Ha!) off a man's death. Western civilization is going down fast; I remember a time when this very scenario was the nightmare end of a slippery slope argument...
Conan the Barbarian and most of the characters of discworld would disapprove. If you're going to die, do it AWESOMELY.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I was deeply saddened by the news last year when i heard of his illness. Terry Pratchett is still one of my favorite authors and i wish him a lot of time left.
But i have to confess that i understand his reactions 100%. Rotting away with Alzheimer is my personal worst nightmare. Though i am not allowed to vote in the UK, i will give his initiative my full support whereever i can.
I believe that, if you have don't have the right to end your own life, you are not free at all. My life belongs to me, but to no goverment, to no society and to no god.
Yours, Martin
Suicide is mans attempt to keep control of what he never had any control of. Himself.
Legal suicide is an invitation for the 'state' to decide who is worthy to live and die because it immediately puts law makers in the position of deciding who's life is worthy of being required to live. As has always happened in the past legal suicide will not be fully voluntary for long , because it will be used as an excuse to not take care of those people who choose not to use the 'option' when they are no longer 'worthy' of support.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
http://catholicexchange.com/2011/06/14/154594/
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
If his Alzheimer's progresses, he *will* forget being allowed to leave the country.
It's a shame that it's happening to anyone, but especially to this man.
I've often wondered if it would be possible to set up a legal suicide service. Put checks and balances in, as well as a cooling off period, and let people who choose to die, die with grace, We are going to have large amounts of death due to climate change, and some people who survive will suffer. Countries have had policies on who would live/die in disasters for years. We need to stop thinking of a life as sacred and see it as it is.
Maybe he was saying homeopathy is legal assisted suicide?
Speaking as a libertarian:
Unless the government is claiming ownership of your body (which apparently the UK government is), you should be able to terminate yourself any time you want - especially if you're faced with a terminal illness. By not allowing him to commit suicide the government is basically making Mr. Pratchett the property of the queen. What year is this? 1772?
"The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory: it's so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law." - Judge Mansfield, Queen's Bench.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
It may be "Britain's first televised suicide", but PBS made a documentary on this topic before:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/suicidetourist/
Note that it was widely slammed as being some manner of disguised snuff movie. Watch it and make up your own mind.
Personally I think such statements are more indicative of the taboo that still rests on euthanasia (and death in general) than that they have any basis in the film's content or presentation.
In (not only) my opinion he should rather try some weed.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
So what is the issue here. Are they going to arrest him if he commits suicide? This much ado about nothing. You dont need the government to approve before you commit suicide. You can just do it. You can even do it painlessly without the need of another agency helping you along.
There is no fundamental right being denied here. You already have the right to end your life whenever you want to. He can kill himself today, without any issue what so ever.
The problem is he wants the right to allow someone else to kill him on his behalf. That is not suicide. For it to be suicide you must commit the act your self.
I visualize dementia as slipping deeper and deeper into a dream-fog. At some point I would stop caring about things. At some point I'd be incapable of executing something as complicated as a suicide. There is an intermediate state where the patient can get very frustrated and angry at not being able to do things. And possibly paranoid at the strange new things happening around them.
It is horrific to you loved ones and care givers. They'd experience you disappearing and require lots of care. If you were not rich, then any inheritance would go away too.
Late stage dementia you forget the basic functions of life like eating, coughing, defecating, breathing, etc. These cause medical complications which eventually kill you.
in Switzerland... *facepalm*
Recently there have been lots of positive and promising developments in this area. May be he could help fund the lab battling the disease. Some examples:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110602122250.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601075126.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110531135714.htm
What are they going to do? Throw your dead body in jail?
In a world where 'suicide' is legal, the government decides who has a 'right' to die, and adopts laws to hurry you along and out of the way. Those in 'charge' of the weak , the disabled, and children, decide if those vulnerable groups are wroth allowing to live.
The short of it is suicide is and should be illegal because it is immoral , if you don't believe in morality then there is no foundation for any law, and arguing about what 'should' or 'should not be' legal is vacuous, because thing only are or are not and there is no such thing as 'should be'.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
As was made all too clear in the Jack Kevorkian trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian) assisted suicide is not legal in the states either. (Though it is allowed in specific circumstances: Terri Schiavo, Death and Dignity Act, etc.)
Since so many of the people who disagree with assisted suicide also (inexplicably) support the death penalty, all we have to do is make suicide a crime, and make it punishable by death.
......I'd just suck-start a shotgun.
I don't think a lot of people know who Terry Pratchett is or the works he has created.
Maybe this publicity will create some new fans?
Ironically, just this week I finished the audiobook of Joseph Ellis's Founding Brothers, about the American revolutionary generation, which included a passage from one of Jefferson's letters to John Adams written toward the close of both their lives. I thought about Pterry's Death when I heard it:
(I wonder if Death came for Jefferson holding a kitten in his hand?)
people need to stop acting like Europe is less corrupt, more free, and more enlightened than the united states.
its just different thats all.
Hunter Thompson got it right the first time.
a common way for gangsters, thugs, criminals, and various corrupt officials to 'do away' with those who get in their way.
if suicide is not, at some level, regulated, then every murder will overnight become a 'suicide'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_a_Life_%28TNG_episode%29
Suicide is not immoral and those governments who are the harshest against human rights always outlaw abortion and suicide right off the bat. Abolishing suicide is just another attempt at government control of citizens.
Once deportations and the systematic mass murder of Jews began in WW2, SS guards severely punished individuals attempting to commit suicide as it was an expression of self- determination that ran counter to the Nazi total claim over the lives and bodies of the inmates.
You mean like throwing him off a boat?
Yeah, that would probably be effective.
I stole this Sig
My knee jerk was that he is a coward. Having a family member suffer through dementia, I then thought perhaps it's a selfless act, to spare the agony of one's friends and family. I can empathize, even if I don't necessarily agree with the premise.
But then I realized that it's a public announcement of the preplanned televised event of one's own death. That's a motivation of twisted proportion that I hope to never understand.
Morality is relative. What is moral to you can be immoral to others. Morality depends on culture and society. There is no single and universal morality.
Just as important as the right to die in a dignified manner at a time of your choosing is the right to cryonically preserve your head (or your whole body) so that you can be either revived or downloaded when the technology for such things arrives. There's still so much for Sir Pterry to see and do, and it would be a shame for him to end it all without a backup plan.
Democracy means not having a choice in what you do with your own body.
In a world where 'voting' is legal, the government decides who you should vote for, and adopts laws to make sure you do so. Those in 'charge' of the weak, the disabled, and children, decide who these vulnerable groups should vote for.
The short of it is democracy is and should be illegal because it is immoral.
Yours sincerely,
The Man
The alternative to legal assisted suicide, and a 'mild death' of course, is a 'wild death': people jumping from buildings and in front of trains in order to end their lives. As long as it is at the specific request of the person itself, as long as it is voluntary, I am pro.
The moral problem is not that Terry Pratchett wants to kill himself. That is between him and God. Assuming that he has finalized his estate, he's welcome to off himself and suffer any consequences that might avail him in the life hereafter.
However, Terry Pratchett is a coward. He doesn't want to commit suicide. He wants someone else to kill him when it gets so bad he can't do it himself. That is the slippery slope that we want to avoid; having other people decide when you are no longer fit to live.
Be a man about it Terry. Take a knife and stab yourself. Get drunk and go swimming in a deep, cold lake. Overdose on pills. Get a shotgun; go in style (to quote Hania Lee). Just don't ask someone else to commit excused murder because you don't have the guts to bother to do the deed yourself.
In a world where 'suicide' is legal, the government decides who has a 'right' to die, and adopts laws to hurry you along and out of the way.
I find your argument to be non sequitur. The idea isn't that the government gets to decide who dies, the idea of assisted/legal suicide is that YOU and you alone get to make that decision, no one else. That's kinda the difference between suicide, and murder. I don't see the slippery slope that's implied here. The individual should get to make the choice. As it is however, the government decides who *isn't allowed* to die, in a manner of speaking.. at least, with dignity.
Certain inalienable rights are granted to citizens and people, and control of your own fate should be one more of them, where "of your own fate" is key.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
In a world where 'suicide' is legal, the government decides who has a 'right' to die, and adopts laws to hurry you along and out of the way.
Okay, so your basic premise is that if individuals are allowed to choose whether to die, then the government will abuse that power to force individuals to die? So therefore, the government should be allowed to force people to live? In what kind of insane logic does that make sense?
Those in 'charge' of the weak , the disabled, and children, decide if those vulnerable groups are wroth allowing to live.
Yeah, because we have no established means for determining who can give legal consent. Right. Sure.
The short of it is suicide is and should be illegal because it is immoral , if you don't believe in morality then there is no foundation for any law, and arguing about what 'should' or 'should not be' legal is vacuous, because thing only are or are not and there is no such thing as 'should be'.
Okay, now that's some honesty there. Thanks. What you're really saying is, you are the moral guardian of all of us, who are apparently so immoral that we cannot take our own souls in our own hands. So you will use the power of the government to compel us to act in a moral way.
Thank you. I'm sure God will welcome me into heaven now, since the heavy hand of the state, guided by your infallible morality, prevented me from committing any sin.
Q: So T, you going through with this?
A: Yes, I feel it's the best
Q: What made you decide to take your own life?
A: THE HELL YOU TALKIN' ABOUT SONNY????
In a world where 'suicide' is legal, the government decides who has a 'right' to die, and adopts laws to hurry you along and out of the way. Those in 'charge' of the weak , the disabled, and children, decide if those vulnerable groups are wroth allowing to live.
As opposed a world where suicide is illegal, but murder is OK as long as we call it different things, like "female infanticide" or "death penalty" or "excited delirium" or "being an insurgent".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_infanticide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroshock_weapon_controversy#Validity_of_.22excited_delirium.22_term
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
Anyway, you should get your head out of your ass for once. Some of the most vocal groups against allowing people to choose their deaths is in the US. US is also a nation where healthcare coverage is lowest of any developed nations. Where if you don't have the money, you may as well don't bother going to a doctor for any chronic condition, like a disability or terminal illness.
Inability to legally end your own life puts a burden on your loved ones in case you ask them to help you. What's next? You can't have a living will telling doctors to disconnect life-support after 2 weeks?
He needs to do it spectacularly.
While not a church-goer in the traditional sense, I do believe in God and I believe that killing yourself is the ultimate F-You to God so, if he does kill himself, it may as well be spectacular...
Like take part in one of the Mythbuster episodes in place of Buster.
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
Watch it, and make up your own mind.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1715802/
In a world where 'suicide' is legal, the government decides who has a 'right' to die, and adopts laws to hurry you along and out of the way. Those in 'charge' of the weak , the disabled, and children, decide if those vulnerable groups are wroth allowing to live.
How do you figure? People are asking for the right to have someone else help them die, without having to worry about what happens to that someone else when they're gone. That's got just about nothing to do with what you wrote.
The short of it is suicide is and should be illegal because it is immoral
Says you. Your morals are not everyone's morals. There are many cultures where suicide is/was accepted as an honorable and dignified way to go.
If the difference between a mans nose a pigs snout primarily accidental, why not butcher men like pigs?
Economics. The amount of time and effort to raise humans until they are old enough to yield a decent amount of meat dwarfs that which it takes to raise a pig.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Explain 'immoral'. If any part of your argument rests on the point 'the Bible said so', explain why the Bible is a more valid source than any other religious text with diametrically opposed views on the matter, and indeed why your religion's morals should be imposed on the nation.
Great. We can do away with the entire legislative arm of every government on earth forever, because things are or are not legal and we have no need to think whether or not anything else should be legal or illegal. They have pondered all possible cases and never gotten the answer wrong. Yay. Thanks legislators. We'll put you out of your misery because you have nothing useful left to contribute to society. You'll die as heroes of humanity! ... Except for the whole bit where you crazy legislative types were bothering with the "should be" questions during the process of making things actually il/legal.
Although if
actually happens, the people in charge of deciding if someone else dies are murderers, and has nothing to do with suicide. And the immoral part is not legal suicide but the murder being committed by public servants.
You seem to be confused. Like any dilemma in life involving rational adult human beings, the moral and just solution requires voluntary will. The immoral and unjust solution requires coercion, which is the logical opposite and inverse of voluntary will. I invite you to answer the question yourself: on which side of this coin does government belong? (Hint: Everything government does and could possibly do is possible only because of guns.)
Jesus also specifically said not to pray in public (maybe you should have actually READ that book you keep yammering about). Good luck trying to explain to him someday why you repeated defied one of the most prominent commands in the most important sermon of his career.
If you think Jesus was forbidding public prayer, perhaps you should read John chapter 6 where Jesus prays in public.
We cannot predict the future. Somebody may come up with an important breakthrough in treatment. As long as you have life, you have hope.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
"Beloved science fiction and fantasy writer Terry Pratchett has terminal early-onset Alzheimer's. He's determined to have the option of choosing the time and place of his death, rather than enduring the potentially horrific drawn-out death that Alzheimer's sometimes brings. But Britain bans assisted suicide, and Pratchett is campaigning to have the law changed.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUGGESTIONS. PLEASE UNDERSTAND HAVE A VERY BUSY SCHEDULE. I'LL GET BACK TO YOU WHEN I FIND THE TIME. BUT REST ASSURED I _WILL_ GET TO YOU.
transfer all you possession to who you want hem to go to right now. You rights everything. Make them the legal owner.
2 months later jump off a bridge. If the UK want's to arrest a dead man, the dead man certainly won't care.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
arguing about what 'should' or 'should not be' legal is vacuous, because thing only are or are not and there is no such thing as 'should be'.
What an ignorant comment. Before laws are written or repealed, people determine that they "should" or "should not" be laws, followed by legislation. The only laws which existed before someone thought they should are the laws of physics. Furthermore, the very definition of suicide implies that it is the person's choice, thus government mandated euthanasia would not be suicide.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
wait, what was i saying?
switzerland - islamic minarets are illegal, killing yourself is legal. hooray for the 'enlightened' nazi bankers who tried to put a whistleblower in jail (Christoph Mieli)
What are they going to do if he kills himself? Give him the death penalty?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
In a world where 'suicide' is legal, the government decides who has a 'right' to die, and adopts laws to hurry you along and out of the way.
FWIW, I'm pretty sure that legal suicide isn't a prerequisite for that type of government behavior.
He'll forget about it in a couple of minutes.
"
and adopts laws to hurry you along and out of the way. Those in 'charge' of the weak , the disabled, and children, decide if those vulnerable groups are wroth allowing to live."
Thats jsut a treasure trove of logical fallacies right there.
It's not immoral to some people.
The loose knot society we have is a compromise to keep society as a whole together, because the best way humans know how to survive is to build societies.
"because thing only are or are not and there is no such thing as 'should be'."
I see you belief has left you bereft of logical thought.
Everything that is was once a should be.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Conan the Barbarian and most of the characters of discworld would disapprove. If you're going to die, do it AWESOMELY.
Cohen the Barbarian would probably be much more upset about you messing up his name, and for my money, dying on your own terms and in a method of your own choosing IS dying awesomely. I applaud you, Sir Terry
While we're at it, his full name is/was Genghiz Cohen the Barbarian (to wrap up as many simultaneous puns as possible), and he didn't exactly whimper off into that good night either. (Read The Last Hero if you don't know what I'm talking about.)
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Your statements are based on the belief that death is not desirable in all situations and exerting control over ones life is not reason enough to kill ones self. Again these are statements of belief. Please respect the beliefs of others who disagree with yours. As for your concerns of a slippery slope: every culture has laws against murder if people cannot be prosecuted under the existing laws for actions you deem improper then try and change the law but do not try and prohibit others from making an informed choice concerning their own life because you either disagree with them or believe it is wrong.
I support the individual's right to terminate their existence if they see fit, but am I the only one who sees a bit of subtlety to this particular situation? The illness he suffers from causes degradation of memory and cognitive ability. Is this really an appropriate mental state to be in when making this kind of decision?
Life sucks for everyone. People only care about this guy because he's famous, other people live and die without anyone's pity and have much sadder stories than this person.
Sure, every death is a tragedy, but that should work for everyone.
Who cares if he lives or not. He obviously doesn't care. Hell isn't short of writers or anything and Heaven knows that it doesn't need sci-fi writers.
In a world where 'suicide' is legal, the government decides who has a 'right' to die,
See, that's the basic flaw in the arguments you keep making. In the world where suicide is legal, the government has decided that it will not interfere with *any* individual's right to die as they see fit. Somehow, though, you keep making that into variations of the government picking and choosing who must die, without every explaining how you got from point A to point B.
The short of it is suicide is and should be illegal because it is immoral , if you don't believe in morality then there is no foundation for any law
There are two arguments here, and both are incorrect. First:
The short of it is suicide is and should be illegal because it is immoral
Immoral according to whom? Second:
if you don't believe in morality then there is no foundation for any law
That's just silly. Law is how an orderly society is best maintained - all agree to the same social contract that is law, and abide by those rules. Attempting to codify your morality into law is certainly not uncommon, but don't confuse it with law - and don't try to connect the two without any proof beyond your say-so.
Prior to the deportation of the Jews the Nazi's wiped out all of the disabled people in their country with the preported 'right to die with dignity'
The 'right to die' has been a common euphemism for 'right to state assisted murder' of the eugenics supports of Nazi , communists, fascist, and for years.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
I love Terry Pratchett and his writing. I love how his writing -- which started out pretty good -- has got even better and deeper over the years.
From his books, and interviews, and essays, it's pretty obvious that he's a pretty smart person, and probably values his intellect and personality.
Like him, I'd be pretty damn terrified of losing that. There are a lot of things I could live with, but losing my mind, actually losing my mind, that is terrifying. I too would NOT want to go through years of.. really, not being myself, not really being a /person/ anymore.
It's a hellish concept, and it's not like you get better eventually. I seriously hope that if it ever comes to that I'd be able to end my life in a calm, comfortable and, above all, dignified manner of my OWN choosing, rather than be subjected to a literal fate worse than death.
Hell, if my DOG ever gets to a place where she can't really be herself and wouldn't be able to actually be happy, I'd be able to do that for her.
I certainly hope that Terry Pratchett, who's brought so much joy and happiness to so many people, will be able to leave this world in a comfortable, painless and dignified manner of his own choosing. He deserves it. Everyone does.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
Foster has a hypothesis that's it's a certain gene, and in the presence of aluminum, Alzheimer's happens. He explains his theory in great detail with all the genetics and biochemistry here: http://hdfoster.com/sites/hdfoster.com/files/users/user6/Foster_Alzheimers.pdf
The treatment seems to be "take moderate doses of zinc". Zinc and aluminum are antagonists, whichever one you have more of chases other one out. Zinc is an essential element that is a component of many (most?) of the enzymes in our body that facilitate the tend if not hundreds of thousands of different biochemical reactions that take place every second. The body does not need and cannot use aluminum. Guess which one shows up in our diets in great abundance and which one is nearly always at below normal levels?
This is supposed to abate, but not reverse the ailment. Fosters record is above average, he was one of the leading explorers in the biochemical origin of disease.
The other thing is this report from a doctor whose husband had Alzheimer's, she heard about a coconut oil therapy, put him on it and he got better by the standard tests. http://coconutoil.com/AlzheimersDiseaseDrMaryNewport.pdf another report that speculates that the current (and possibly misguided, see Lustig's video on sugar ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM ) that was recently highlighted here) trend to low fat is causing all sorts of problems due to the shift in fatty acid profiles this entails: http://www.coconutdiet.com/alzheimers.htm
Both coconut oil and zinc are cheap, natural, essential with no side effects. Seems to me one has little to lose by trying it, and everything to gain. By Pascal's wager, it's worth a shot, no?
Can somebody pass this on to him?
(Pratchett, not Pascal. He's dead, Jim.)
Need Mercedes parts ?
Your statement only makes sense if YOU are at least in practice an atheist. I am not and respectfully disagree. The statement 'There is no single and universal morality' is a soft phrase for 'there is no such thing as morality'. Because a morality that is not universal is not a morality at all. One thing is clear of all non-atheist, we may disagree about what specifically is moral, but we all agree there is such a thing as morality.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
I wonder if Terry Pratchett has considered cryonic suspension. It might go well with what he is considering. Except that for an optimal cryonic suspension one probably needs to be in Arizona, where euthanasia is not currently legal.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
My mother in law is currently dying of cancer, in Oregon, with probably a few weeks to live. She's pretty depressed about it, though isn't considering suicide. My personal goal is to have her take the right medication so that she's as pain-free and comfortable as possible. Hospice is also covering 100% of all medical fees.
I guess what I'm saying is that legislating who can or can't commit suicide based on depression isn't necessarily the solution. Taking care of people so that they can be as high-functioning, pain-free, and financially secure is perhaps a more practical solution.
In more ways than the obvious ones. My mother has it, so I've had no choice but to learn about it. She can't really do chores any more though she still tries. She confuses clean and dirty dishes. She puts them in the wrong cupboards. She can't operate the washing machines any more, but she can and does still open the doors, stopping them. So we've had to either stand guard, or wash by hand, or use them at night when she is asleep. She's always thinking that people are coming over, or that we have to hurry up and go somewhere to meet people. She's beginning to have trouble remembering people. She really took to email, and was our family's big communicator. But about 2 years ago she stopped using it. Now she can't write anything but the most banal fluff. They say an early warning sign is difficulty with finances, and it was about 3 years ago we had to take over all the bill payments. The trigger was being 3 days late with a credit card payment. First time that ever happened, and the credit card company (Chase) wouldn't give an inch. I suppose the crisis made them hard ass. I paid the late fees and interest, and the entire bill, then I cancelled that credit card. A year later I finished cutting all ties with Chase, and closed my savings account with them.
How and when do you take the car keys away? We saw suspicious paint marks on the bumpers and doors, and knew we couldn't let her drive much longer. Dreaded having an ugly scene where we forcibly took her driver's license away. Making it harder was that her daily trips to the mall got her out of our hair so we could work. But we found a neat way around it. She was always misplacing her purse, with keys, credit cards, and all. In March last year, she got paranoid that thieves might break in, and hid her purse. Took us a week to find it that time. We used that to end her driving. Told her she couldn't drive until she found her license and car keys, and she didn't blow up and come down hard on us as it was obvious to her that it was her fault she'd lost her purse. We did not tell her when we finally found it.
Doctors, curse their greedy hides, are unable to do anything constructive about it. All they do is profit off our problems by selling us expensive prescriptions that may do nothing whatever. Aricept is a waste.
All that is pretty typical. It will get worse. I read that in the advanced stages, victims no longer have enough of a brain to coordinate walking, even if their bodies can still do it. So they have to use wheelchairs. We may ultimately have to put her in a nursing home. But I haven't yet told of a less obvious horror.
What I didn't know is how happy Alzheimer's victims are. She was always a moody person, prone to rampages over essentially trivial faults. She's a "sundowner", meaning that late afternoon is her triple witching hour so to speak. Her blood sugar bottoms out, and she becomes a hell of a grouch, more ready than usual to explode at any provocation whatever, and so ready to see provocation where there wasn't any. Got to feed her to calm her down and get her back to being just merely touchy and thin skinned. And then around 10 years ago, that changed. She became a much more pleasant, happy person. I took it as the wisdom of age. Thought she'd resolved to turn over a new leaf, and was succeeding. Everyone who met her told me how cool she was. And it gave me hope that people really can change, that genetics and formative events in our childhoods don't have to be our destinies. Now I understand that was the beginning of Alzheimer's. How can I express it? Horrifying to see that these improvements were thanks to irreversable brain damage, and that achieving happiness in life is perhaps not a worthy goal and not a real improvement.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Wyatt, I usually agree with your posts, but your first sentence here -- "governments who are the harshest against human rights always outlaw abortion and suicide right off the bat" -- is essentially just selection bias.
Counter-examples are just as abundant as examples. China, for example, has no problem with abortion. In fact, just the opposite: in some circumstances it has been mandatory. In 1920, the USSR became the first country to provide for free, on demand abortions with their "Decree on Women’s Healthcare."
v/r,
- aj
You are taking my sentence out of context. There is no 'should' if there is no morality. Ethics is the science of defining 'should' and 'should' not , aka 'right' and 'wrong'. And as you pointed out all laws first begin with a discussion of ethics.
There is no such thing as atheistic ethics no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' without God, because that implies laws that extend beyond what physically exists.
so there can be no valid argument from a non-religious standpoint for or against a law.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
i agree, but assisted suicide sure makes it a lot easier for those in power to eliminate those they don't value.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Why don't you just admit it: you believe that the laws should reflect your personal religious beliefs, and to Hell (literally) with anyone who disagrees.
If your argument is that we should listen to God, you'll have to make a pretty convincing point about why we should listen to your chosen God over anyone elses'.
I mean, if you could just go to Afghanistan, distribute bibles and wait to get killed by a bullet, knife, or roadside bomb.
Put a "Suicide Booth" on every street corner and make it cost $1. Melancholic robots need not apply. Of course, the antidepressant manufacturers will probably take a hit.
I met Terry Pratchett at Noreascon 4 (2004 World Science Fiction Convention in Boston) and didn't know at the time about his Alzheimer's diagnosis. It's possible that he didn't know it. My grandmother had Alzheimer's so I know what this can do. If he wants to end it before he stops being Terry Pratchett then more power to him.
It is often the case that those who suffer from Alzheimer's Disease live a happy life. My wife has recently been accepted in a home and for most of the time she seems quite happy with the life that she is living there. As a patient of Alzheimer's Disease you realize less and less what is going on when the disease progresses. But depressions and periodes of anxiety do occur. But it is often the people around the patient that suffer far more than the patient her/himself. I can testify this from first hand experience with respect to me, my children and our friends. In case I would be diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease that would be a reason for me to want to terminate my life and sparing the people around me the prolonged sufferings of having me see go backwards.
I think it should be possible to state that you want your life to be terminated when the disease has been progressed to a certain spcified level. There are some 'objective' milestones in the progress of the disease. Already dementia is one of the most expensive diseases in the western world, and especially in Europe, where the population is no longer growing, these costs are going to get much higher in the coming decades. Especially the last years are very expensive. That too would be a reason for me to consider early termination of my life, not wanting to put an unnecessary burden to society as a whole. But I also feel that people who do not want to terminate their life early, should get the best possible care.
There are currently 149 phase III trials (the last step before FDA approval) underway. There's a pretty damn good chance that at least a few of those could significantly slow down the progression of Alzheimer's for some patients in the next year or two. Since he is only in the moderate stage, it seems premature to completely give up hope...
Perhaps his intention is to highlight the need for additional funding for dementia research by doing something that's guaranteed to catch the media's (and thus politician's) attention.
50 years? Just freeze him in an iceberg.
I just don't understand opposition to assisted suicide. It seems like the worst kind of sadism. What kind of person would want to condemn someone else to die like that, when an alternative is so easily available?
This will probably never be read since I'm AC, but I'm posting anyway to make myself feel better.
"...rather than enduring the potentially horrific drawn-out death that Alzheimer's sometimes brings"
This seems to be a sentiment that is widely accepted. But, mainly by family & loved ones. ... is it painful? Or not? Or somewhat?
I wonder how the "sufferers" feel
I am not saying that it's one way or the other...terrible to watch; terrible to endure?
I don't know, myself. I hope that I never do.
"Ignorance is bliss"?
Don't want to offend, just asking.
A pox on web designers who feel that window.innerWidth == screen.availWidth
First, I am in full support of a person's right to choose their time and place of death when confronted with certain death anyway (I voted for Oregon's "Death with Dignity" law - both times it came up.)
Second, I fully understand the debilitating effects of Alzheimer's, having multiple relatives who have succumb to it late in life.
However, since when is Alzheimer's itself "Terminal"? I have yet to have a relative die "because of Alzheimer's".
According to the latest statistics (http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/yr13-tbl-1.pdf ,) the most common underlying illness that has prompted people to take advantage of Oregon's law is, by far, cancer. (Or, "Malignant neoplasms" as it is phrased in the report.) 80.8%. Next is ALS (aka "Lou Gehrig's Disease",) with 8%. Next Chronic lower respiratory disease (which covers lots of lung issues other than cancer,) with 3.8%, then AIDS at 1.5%, and "Other" rounding out the rest. They detail "Other" in the footnotes, and no Alzheimer's.
So, while I fully understand the desire of someone who is used to major functionality not wanting to succumb to the depths of Alzheimer's, to call it a Terminal Illness is lying to yourself.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
42
.
Eat more curry.
Supposedly Alzheimer's is extremely rare in Asia, and apparently turmeric root, a spice commonly found in curry dishes may be responsible. Actually if you do a little googling it sounds like a panacea -- antitumor, antioxidant, antiarthritic, antiamyloid, anti-ischemic, anti-inflammatory, anticarcinogenic.
Not to mention it's delicious, so it can't hurt. Frankly I need to convince my wife to eat more Indian and Thai food and this sounds as good of a reason as anything.
The short of it is suicide is and should be illegal because it is immoral , if you don't believe in morality
I believe in morality. I do not believe in YOUR morality.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Assisted suicide? And he's completely able bodied? Assisted suicide is for people who literally cannot kill themselves.
What a little fucking bitch...
There is no such thing as atheistic ethics no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' without God, because that implies laws that extend beyond what physically exists.
Why should the laws of man extend beyond what physically exists?
there can be no valid argument from a non-religious standpoint for or against a law.
Circular reasoning. You have declared only religious arguments to be valid, therefore only religious arguments can be valid.
Consider, for instance, that I consider someone stealing my wallet from me to be wrong because it decreases my score as measured in dollars. From this measure springs forth nearly the entirety of Property Law, without having to resort to the Ten Commandments.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I hope he forgets all about it.
I own every book that Sir Terry Prachett has written since he saw his fist dead body (being a cub reporter in them days really meant something,) and want to read every word he crafts into his great novels.
His passing will be a great tragedy.
Hopefully it will not come to pass before he finishes his next DiskWorld®© story.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
So the US is harshest against human rights because suicide is illegal in most states. Yes it is a crime to kill yourself in most of the United States. Wow I didn't realise that the US was as bad as China, Cuba, Iran or any of those other countries on the human rights watch lists.
He chose to die by that illness, because his lifestyle led to that decision. Just like Christ Jesus decided to die for the sins of men by living a sinless lifestyle to help others out of their problems.
Alzheimer's is fixable by drinking dark lagger ale, to get the metal-deposits out of the brain and body.
Also a note to everyone about Illinois, the word on the street is if you know you are "on your way out" then take a couple COPS with you. Jesus took a couple COPS with him on his way out, IIRC ("and the government will be on your shoulders").
THC and Melatonin?
DOES
...
NOT
HAPPEN
Anyone who'd read "Nation" knows the aforementioned lines actually mean the opposite to the common wisdom and are thus very supportive to Terry's choice, even though they actually convey the continuation of life on terms of one's will, not some deity's one.
Quite a book that was, typical Pratchett, but without the Discworld guise, pity it is not as famous as the rest of the bunch, read almost all of them.
Kudos for Terry, btw, in any way possible.
Now, Make Your WISE Move...
Terry Pratchett isn't asking for suicide to be legal, or in other words to be allowed to kill himself. That isn't what he wants. He wants it to be legal for someone to help him kill himself. Said another way he wants it to be legal for someone to kill him at his supposed request.
Ok so assisted suicide becomes legal. I go to court as a family member and get the courts to say your not legally competent to handle your own affairs. The judge eventually agrees, and I become your legal guardian, power of attorney legally and medically and all that stuff. I then announce that you told me if this ever happened that you wanted to die because clearly you would have lost your mind. There is no way to prove what you said. You might even say you don't want to die now but your not competent any more. So do I get to kill you being legally an assisted suicide? Don't think this will happen? We see similar type of things with families putting people in mental wards, shuffling them off to nursing homes where they don't have to deal with them, etc. You legalise assisted suicide and it will be abused. People will abuse anything they possibly can for a whole host of different reason.
More to the point. I want you dead so I kill you by knocking you out then injecting air into your bloodstream. When the police show up I wave a piece of paper that I forged your signature on or had you sign without you knowing what exactly you signed. I show this to the police and say hey he wanted to die so I just helped him. I say, he told me he had some really messed up disease and didn't want to die in pain and without dignity from it, so I helped him. Police say he was healthy I respond well I don't know what to tell you other than what he told me and this paper he signed saying he wanted to die and needed my help to do it. I could even come up with some other sob story about why you said you wanted to die.
The fact that people have already mentioned well if we allow you it you need to sign something...no that won't work....you need to see a judge....no that might not work either. They are clearly admitting once it is allowed it will be abused as much as people can get away with.
Do we allow assisted suicides for anyone who wants them or just specific cases? Who gets to decide the specific cases and why can't other people in different situations decide when they want to die? If we let anyone decide when they want to die without trying to stop them, then all the people with serious clinical depression will be free to kill themselves simply because they don't want to live any more. So where do you draw the line and who gets to decide where the line is drawn and why do they get to decide where the line is draw rather than each person themselves?
Guess what....welcome to euthanasia decided by the state for who gets to live and who gets to die. If you put any kind of limit on it at all then someone must decide what the limit is and the state will always say they have the last and final word on it. The state will then get to create guild-lines that cover when your not able to decide for yourself, all in the name of personal dignity. Soon the state will say you can die when your going to leave the family with a financial burden. The state will then say that such an important matter can't be handled by the family because they are too close to it and too emotional so the state must decide. The state will change the reasoning over and over until the state decides whatever it wants. It will all be done and promoted as doing what is best for the person and society. So the state ends up saying who lives and who dies. I sure don't want the state to decide who gets to live and die, that is worse than the position we are in now.
If someone wants to kill themselves then just do it. They don't need someone else to help them if it is a planned and rational decision. A couple of boxes of sleeping pills will do the trick and it won't hurt at all. Just go peacefully to sleep and die. You don't need someone to help you for that. If your ser
you need a life...
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot.
That was very sneaky. You claim that the phrase "There is no single and universal morality" is atheist code for there bring no morality at all, yourself claiming that morality must be absolute or not at all. You then closed by claiming that we all agree that morality exists ergo morality must be absolute.
There is no basis outside of dogma and scripture to claim that morality is inherent to our universe, let alone that it was put in to place by a divine arbiter of right and wrong. I have just as much evidence and justification in the claim that a dance can only be a dance if it's a tango.
Granted many morals are common, but it requires far fewer assumptions to cite culture and biological similarity than it does to postulate some improbably powerful architect. It should be painfully obvious that Christians appear unable to agree on this universal morality.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Just kill yourself, how hard is that? Pussy.
good job!thanks very much for sahring! http://www.edhardychothing.com/ ed hardy cheap ed hardy ed hardy clothes ed hardy sale
and don't try to connect the two without any proof beyond your say-so.
Why can't he? Haven't you just got through saying that right and wrong are merely people's opinions?
Pratchett is a successful author -- this has gotten him on God's good side, and it is why all of us supported him throughout his life and career. It is a shame to see Satan's work take hold late in the man's life, and with nothing to be done about it. The medical establishment cannot treat his affliction -- it is obvious to any good Catholic like myself that he has been possessed with demons.
If Pratchett is allowed to take his own life, he will be lost to us, and nothing but an eternity in hell will await him. We cannot, and must not condemn one of God's favored sons to this fate. I will roughly enumerate the path he must be forced to take in order to stand the best chance of safeguarding his soul:
He must be placed into a full-time exorcism program. Loosen the demons' seductive grip, and he will have the choice of retaking his own reins; this will be evidenced by him regaining complete faculty of his mind. The stages of this process are of an increasing yet necessary intensity.
1. He is to be kept in isolation for a fortnight, or however long the deacon sees fit. Only purified fluids are to be given to him -- they shall burn the unholy presence out just as it is starved of its sustenance.
2. He must proselytize to as many as his platform will allow him. This is a gambit forced upon the demon: either you release him, or Satan is sure to lose many future souls.
3. He will be scourged for long months by the greatest inventions of pain the deacon can think up, under God's guidance. No creature of Satan is beyond the temptation to sell short his master to avoid agony. This phase will escalate as necessary, and for the remainder of his life if he is still not free. The little remaining time he has is as nothing compared to the eternity that lies beyond, and while some would object to this kind of moral calculus, we must do it to be truly moral. "Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you." (James 4:7)
He's stated his being pro assisted suicide before. That doesn't meant it doesn't still break my heart when I think about it. Great man.
Recent studies have revealed that regenerative capabilities of the brain and spinal cord are actually not that bad. Given that things are improving on the regenerative front and possibly being able to stop alzheimer progressing, may mean that people like TP could be living a life worth living for a much longer period, or even have the disease go into remission. They may not get back to the level of their 18 year old self, but catching the disease early and being able to stop it could be feasible in the not so distant future.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
the best way to do yourself in is to buy a tank of nitrogen and seal yourself in a small airtight room with it and turn the knob. 'air' is mostly nitrogen, so unlike putting a plastic bag over your head, a mostly nitrogen atmosphere will make you black out without warning or breathing discomfort. I don't know why 'they' don't use this instead of lethal injection for executions...
Ask Me About... The 80's!
My mother has dementia (of course we can't tell if it is Alzheimer's or not) and I (at 45, the same age she began to show symptoms) was suffering the same problems until I went to a couple of naturopaths and began a treatment of:
1. high fat diet (brain is mostly fat) a la Weston Price
2. B-12, DHEA, Acetyl-L- Carnitine, Phosphatidyl Serine, Gingko
3. no alcohol
4. Coconut oil (I'm amused/sad to see my mom has been given a prescription food (can you believe such a thing exists) that is basically coconut oil)
My mental capabilities have gone back to normal, my cholesterol has shot up. I don't particularly care about the cholesterol -- I'd rather die of a heart attack than linger 20+ years with Alzheimer's.
We should allow for the reincarnation of authors. If the Dali Lama can pull it off why not arrange for a pregnant woman to stay in the same room he commits suicide in. To preserve some cognitive data, EEG scans before death and after birth can be compared. We might have to wait for the first trimester to complete in order to determine the baby's gender. You have 50/50 odds of reincarnating as the opposite sex your next time around. It is too soon to create a replicant body for him. :-(
And if that doesn't work, he can still try Voodoo.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So you're with the homeopathy guy on top?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I am in fact an atheist but it doesn't matter. You seem to forget christianism is not the only religion on Earth. To you having two wifes is immoral, to muslim it's perfectly OK. The best part is: there is no way to tell which morality is better. There are some people that think eating their enemies is morally acceptable and you have no right to force your morality upon them.
You seem to behave like religious fundamentalist. You think "there is no god but Allah". It's just your Allah is called slightly differently.
My life is my life, so I must be the one to choose to live and for how long. Not any church, government, expert body, nor anyone else. If we follow this rule as firmly as we follow the current rule of "no right to die", then we will not go down the path that the Catholic Exchange suggests.
That's my definition of "right to life": The right to decide about one's own life.
As it is...
People die in all sorts of ways, including suicide. We can't stop those tragedies.
People live though great suffering with no living way out. We can stop those tragedies... but we're not permitted to.
The law against the right to die by one's own choice is immoral.
Couldn't people who wanted to commit suicide just jump off Big Ben's tower / get lost in coyote country / circle Iceland in swimming trunks / swallow a handful of sleeping pills / commit a suitable crime in a jurisdiction that still has the death penalty / storm a government office with a bulky jacket, a headscarf and a plastic AK47 / claim Windows is the best OS ever on slashdot / etc. etc. .... what's with all this wimpy hand-holding stuff?
..you lose your Good Shepherd credentials.
.. about wanting to die, then just kill yourself! Don't wait for some government to authorize your decision.
There simply is no way stem research is magically going to arrive in time. Thinking it even remotely could is the purely delusional fantasy.
there's only one possible reason: religious proscriptions against suicide. And also because humans are seen as completely different from animals
Two reasons! Religious proscriptions and humans are different from animals!
Aaaannnd.....there's fears that once assisted suicide is made legal/decriminalised, it will open the flood gates to coercive assisted suicide. Maybe the kids want their inheritance early and subtly intimate that Mum is just in the way; her quality of life is poor so why is she hanging around?
That's three! Three reasons not to have a human put down!
I remember reading somewhere that Alzheimer's is caused by Herpes sores inside the brain.
Here it is: http://science.slashdot.org/story/08/12/07/1954229/Cold-Sore-Virus-May-Be-Alzheimers-Smoking-Gun
So, let's continue listening to religious idiots and keep placing bans on medical research, shall we?
(Watch The Fucking Programme)
Suicide is legal in the UK and has been since 1961. Assisted suicide - someone else helping you to to kill yourself - is not. The programme also noted that assisted suicide is only legal in two US states while it is legal in much of continental Europe, though Switzerland is the only country which allows foreigners to go there and do it.
I don't agree with the UK's current legal situation - nobody has been prosecuted for assisting a suicide but it is illegal - but you, like others, totally mischaracterise the UK government's position.
The BBC shows the programme, like all of its output in the UK, without advertisements. Even if it were later re-sold to a network which did show advertisements, that was not the purpose of the programme - and I have to wonder how many companies would want to advertise in the middle of it. Dignitas already gets plenty of free coverage in the programme itself.
Switzerland is not signed up to the EU charter on Human Rights as it is not a part of the EU.
It's not an EU charter on Human Rights, it's a *European* charter. It binds all states which are members of the Council of Europe, including Switzerland, which joined in 1963.
Under that standard it would be very difficult to have any informed discussion of this or any other issue because almost any investigation and discussion accessible to a large section of the public will incur costs which need to be covered. I can't help but wonder about your response if they volunteered; would your next argument be that it still wasn't a selfless act because their names are in the credits?
I'd be interested to know what you're getting at with your 'strange to hear myself say that' comment. Are you suggesting the British don't push the envelope? Tell me, are you accessing Slashdot via telnet or via the WWW?
Really. Not everything is about ratings. Or money. This kind of programming is why we have the BBC. From the BBC's Royal Charter:
3. The BBC’s public nature and its objects
(1) The BBC exists to serve the public interest.
And yet you think informing the public about an emotive issue, and one that poses legislative and moral challenges for the country constitutes 'evil intent'. Please - waves hand - you want to go home and rethink your life.
It's hard to evaluate exactly what your chances are to come out the far side intact, but a dip in liquid nitrogen (after being loaded with antifreeze) offers better than zero chance. I presume Terry knows about it, if not, perhaps someone who knows him could suggest he check it out. Cryonic suspension following assisted suicide would provide excellent preservation of structure (http://www.merkle.com/cryo/).
Disclosure: I have been signed up with Alcor since 1986, and have helped with the processing of 19 of their patients, including several of my friends, one last December.
End MGM. Get prospective parents of boys to Google: Men do complain
... If he thought that anyone would believe him.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
I see: It's "ok 4 falconhell's trolling others" ala -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2198230&cid=36418054 but, it's not "ok for others to troll him back", eh?
Guess what? I live by "do unto others as they have done unto you"... so, see subject-line above, & what I just wrote (where falconhell's showed trolling others, and ran from a simple question there in regard to it!)
You can stop using your alternate "registered LUSER" account to try to "defend your trolling" Professor FalconDUMMY... it's not fooling anyone (least of all, myself).
No he can't.
Homoeopathic remedies get more effective the lower the dose.
Therefore, once he starts to take a homoeopathic remedy, should he stop then the dose of the homoeopathic remedy, it's dose remaining in him will decrease. thus any subsequent course of (for example) Voodoo that he takes will simply claim a cure because of the lingering, strengthening effect of the homoeopathic remedy as it is flushed from his system.
QED, homoeopathy works.
For my next trick, I shall prove that homoeopathy kills all it's users once they stop buying their fix. Or do you want to take that one on? I'll get the cymbals ready.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
This.
The part of fascism that survives to this day is a desire for totalitarian control of society. The term comes from the Italian Fascist party and use of the term has become to embrace other parties (most notably the German National Socialist Party).
You'll note that I use the term "neo" in front of "fascist" to describe both the religious-whack-jobs-right that wants to control how you live your life and the progressive-left-wing-whack-jobs that, amazingly, also want to control how you live your life.
The Progressive Party in the U.S. was responsible for that disaster known as Prohibition. These days Progressives and religious conservatives are in the fore-front of telling people how to live their lives. Both are totalitarian control freaks -- hence "neo-fascist".
If you look at their positions, its almost comical.
You get the idea ... each position seems staked out based on the opposite of what the other group has staked out with the only consistent thread is that they know better than you how to live your life.
Therefore, once he starts to take a homoeopathic remedy, should he stop then the dose of the homoeopathic remedy, it's dose remaining in him will decrease.
Its, not it's.
Homoeopathic remedies get more effective the lower the dose.
So, essentially by extrapolation, the best dose is ... none?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I see where you're coming from, but wanting to permit some things and prohibit others is hardly unique to fascists, fundies or progressives. I'd argue that outside of a certain small set of things explicitly delimited in the Constitution as always allowed/always denied, it's the job of the legislature to permit unless explicitly denied, hence party platforms centered on denying certain things.
In any case, I think this comes down to a matter of definitions... You mean totalitarian, so why not just say totalitarian? Fascism and neo-Fascism both have specific characteristics other than totalitarianism - Romanticizing an imagined idyllic past, militancy and particularly (in Mussolini's words) "the merger of state and corporate power" - which are anathema to progressives.
Also it's worth noting the differences in how progressives and the religious right oppose things... Progressives want what amount to sin taxes on pot, soda and junk food, the fundies want to throw you in jail for doobies, booze or having an abortion.
This makes me think of Richard Egan, one of the founders of EMC. Beautiful quote from The Register:
Richard Egan, the colourful and vigorous co-founder of EMC, went into a linen cupboard of his home at the Four Seasons condominiums on Boylston Street, Boston, and shot himself in the head with a shotgun on Friday, ending his fight against terminal lung cancer.
Egan had an amazing life, encompassing involvement in the Apollo space programme, the US Marines, starting and building the most successful storage company on the planet, and becoming the US ambassador to Ireland. Finally, aged 73 and facing a lingering death, he ended the battle decisively and on his terms. He was never a shrinking violet.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
and don't try to connect the two without any proof beyond your say-so.
Why can't he? Haven't you just got through saying that right and wrong are merely people's opinions?
Right and wrong are a what a given society agrees to be right and wrong. This had nothing to do with the basic logical fallacies present in his argument; nor his statement as fact the opinion of hs Catholic subculture.
You mean totalitarian, so why not just say totalitarian? Fascism and neo-Fascism both have specific characteristics other than totalitarianism
Today's modern Progressive have more in common with the National Socialist party than they'd probably care to admit. They have similar views on nationalized health care, the environment, and controlling corporations via regulations.
Progressives want what amount to sin taxes
Not really. Prohibition was brought to you by the Progressives. Luckily it was enough of a disaster that everyone is running away from it now. If you look at Hillary-Care, it had very draconian things for doctors that didn't tow the line (it's been long enough I don't remember if she was advocating prison time or just bankruptcy). It's also the Progressives that are making streaming videos on the net a felony (welcome to prison).
You'll also note that the idiot George W was a piker when it came to domestic spying compared to the current [Progressive] administration. If you've been following along with /. I'm sure you've seen the articles on using airport scanner technology to spy into people's houses. It is the Progressives that are advocating putting GPS location devices on everyone's car so that big brother can know where you are at all times.
The previous time that the Progressives were in power [Clinton] they brought us Carnivore and massive domestic spying on e-mail.
Mussolini and Hitler would have salivated to have the domestic spying power that the Progressives have already brought us and are actively seeking. So, yes. The Progressives are totalitarian control-freaks that would make the Fascists proud.
Please note that you had been a fundie, I would have argued against their position.