Euthanasia and the Right to Die.

[worm]

because those conditions aren't the controlling factor. Automony is.

[eFestivals]

How can you say what is and what is not a controlling factor and what is and is not the choice of a truly autonomous self?

I'd suggest that you've overstepped the pursuit of 300 years of psychology and about 2500 years of philosophy here. If psychology can't identify the true self free of conditioning because it's not possible, then how can you?

I've already shown that psychology is worthless, because it pretends that relevant parts don't exists. And given that you've so nicely been insisting that psychology measures actions and doesn't try to look at any of the thoughts that lead to those actions - and preconceptions are thoughts without actions - then psychology has no place to comment on my opinion here.

That aside, your view or any psychological take relies on its preconceptions for its conclusion (as I demonstrated above). I'm doing nothing different to that, I'm merely using a different preconception.

Is it possible to have different preconceptions and for the world to have a different shape as a result? Yes it is, which is precisely why I find so much that you say so ridiculous.

You say that it's impossible for things to move because of them being rooted in your preconceptions. I'm saying that if you move the preconceptions then everything changes for what comes from that - because without any doubt, that's true (its something which psychology certainly agrees with).

So any argument is fuck all to do with what you challenge me with above. It's to do with whether it's possible to change people's thinking - which we know that it is.

[worm]

I've already shown that psychology is worthless, because it pretends that relevant parts don't exists. And given that you've so nicely been insisting that psychology measures actions and doesn't try to look at any of the thoughts that lead to those actions - and preconceptions are thoughts without actions - then psychology has no place to comment on my opinion here.

That aside, your view or any psychological take relies on its preconceptions for its conclusion (as I demonstrated above). I'm doing nothing different to that, I'm merely using a different preconception.

Is it possible to have different preconceptions and for the world to have a different shape as a result? Yes it is, which is precisely why I find so much that you say so ridiculous.

You say that it's impossible for things to move because of them being rooted in your preconceptions. I'm saying that if you move the preconceptions then everything changes for what comes from that - because without any doubt, that's true (its something which psychology certainly agrees with).

So any argument is fuck all to do with what you challenge me with above. It's to do with whether it's possible to change people's thinking - which we know that it is.

[eFestivals]

Stop avoiding the question. I asked ''How can you say what is and what is not a controlling factor and what is and is not the choice of a truly autonomous self''?

The self is a psychological concept, hence citing the failure of mainstream psychology to find a self concept free of conditioning. You seem to have found one. So what is it?

not working from tautologies, not buying into bollocks. It's pretty easy.

I've addressed that first question. If you cannot grasp that I have, that's your ability to think being limited by the dogma you've swallowed whole.

[worm]

not working from tautologies, not buying into bollocks. It's pretty easy.

[eFestivals]

You still haven't answered the question.

What is an autonomous self? Point to it. Define it. Explain it. And of course, it'll have to be free of conditioning.

Very simple question I've asked Neil.

A very simple question, but completely irrelevant to the actual discussion.

Nowhere have I used the words "autonomous self".

And where I used the words "autonomy of thought", they were in relation to your own thinking towards what I'd said and not about the actual discussion.

I was not claiming any "autonomous self", I was suggesting that you take your head out of the pool of shite that is the dogma you subscribe to, and try thinking for yourself.

No, you've deferred to rubbish about me and your prejudiced ignorance towards psychology.

I just repeated back to you what you'd said.

If I'm now wrong it's only because you've moved the goalposts.

[worm]

A very simple question, but completely irrelevant to the actual discussion.

Nowhere have I used the words "autonomous self".

And where I used the words "autonomy of thought", they were in relation to your own thinking towards what I'd said and not about the actual discussion.

I was not claiming any "autonomous self", I was suggesting that you take your head out of the pool of shite that is the dogma you subscribe to, and try thinking for yourself.

I just repeated back to you what you'd said.

If I'm now wrong it's only because you've moved the goalposts.

[worm]

They 'chose' to act as they did only because they did not have free choice of actions.

Edited September 4, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

It doesn't matter. Your entire argument is weighted on an autonomous self. How can you dismiss the actions of the prisoners of the concentration camp as not being their own? You need to explain why they had no autonomy and you can't.

Besides, you have. You've directly mentioned a 'sovereign self' and you've referred to it many, many times.

for someone who claims himself as a language expert, your diction is worse than any five year old.

Answer the question. If you don't, then I'm afraid you are not equipped to say what is and what is not a sovereign choice pertaining to the self, as you have stated. You cannot say that the prisoners were 'made' to behave as they did.

I'm not going to indulge your stupidity, sorry. You'll have to live with your stupidty all by yourself.

[worm]

Then stop saying anything about autonomy (freedom of choice) in matters of selfhood. You haven't even the basic of grasps.

[eFestivals]

They 'chose' to act as they did only because they did not have free choice of actions.

Meaning an autonomous self.

only if you're stupid beyond belief.

That aside, stop trying to make my words fit with your dogma. There is more to the word than that crass stupidity.

There is obviously no such thing as an autonomous self. Are you free to fly to Mars? Nope. So that idea ends there. There are clearly limits set by the real world.

None of those limits are on the thoughts we have, and the change in attitude that can come from that.

You only have any point here if it's impossible for any human to change their intellectual approach.

Because even you can't be that stupid, accept that you have no point and shut the fuck up with this.

Again, you're referring to an autonomous self when it suits you i.e. a self that is free of influence; and a self that is bereft of choice when it doesn't.

No you stupid twat.

I'm referring to a self where certain thoughts have greater influence than other thoughts. And where the thoughts with greater influence are different to the one version that your fixed mind is able to see.

If people are brought up with the idea that they're not fit minded enough to make certain choices about themselves then (as an average) their ability to make those fit minded choices is more limited than it otherwise would be.

Got it? It's exceedingly simple. It works on the exact same logical basis as you used for the result you said would come about from it - but it has a different starting point (which you've chosen to ignore: great science ) which causes the whole thing to work in a completely different way and with a different outcome.

You can disagree with what I say. Unless your brain cells have shrunk down to just one that remains working, you're surely not stupid enough to claim that you can prove me wrong.

[eFestivals]

Then stop saying anything about autonomy (freedom of choice) in matters of selfhood. You haven't even the basic of grasps.

no, stop trying to make my words fit your limited thinking, you small minded twat.

There's more to the world than you know. Open your mind and you might find it. You certainly won't with that closed mind.

[eFestivals]

PS: as you love the correct technobabble for your psycho babble, I'll chuck one of the words you raised here yourself back at you....

Reinforcement.

You say it won't work because of reinforcement. The fact that you don't practice the science you claim is proven by your own use of that word.

You really have overstepped your bluffing ability here you know. Terrible diction, loads of wrongly described psychological concepts, and a laughable belief in scientific application.

You'll be pleased to know that I'm no longer going to be arguing back at you from this point onwards. But I will post in response all the same.

[worm]

There is obviously no such thing as an autonomous self.

Edited September 4, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

Now we're getting somewhere. This is all you had to say Neil. Was it really that hard?

You're getting nowhere.

I didn't have to say it. I'd never suggested there was. That was all your invention, your attempt at controlling where the discussion goes for your own always-stupid purposes.

Why not try addressing what I have said, rather than what I haven't? Or is it the case that you're unable to address what I've said?

BTW, the answer to that final question is 'yes', just in case you were struggling.

So what we're discussing here is where the line is in relation to the state, not the individual.

No we're not. You might be tho, because you're stupid.

I'm talking about empowering individuals in the area where, in the view of anyone who wishes control of themselves but not control of any other, they should be empowered.

I think that this is the central issue here.

I'm sure you do.

But I'm wondering why you've not started a campaign against what has been law in this country for around 50 years if it's all that important to you.

I believe that it should be more involved in the choice to commit suicide, not withdraw from it. It needs to provide more of a choice than just law, which means counselling etc...

That's because you have a fixed mind, unable to consider any other scenario but that which your dogma has told you. You are unable to actually THINK!!!

That aside, counselling is already available to anyone that wants it.

What none of that addresses is that some do not want it. Some make a 100% rational decision to not continue living. That is a fact that you cannot accept, despite you having a 100% absence of evidence to support your view that a rational decision to not continue living is not possible.

So I guess you'll now have to tell me how you raised people from the dead to gather the evidence you don't have.

[worm]

I'm talking about empowering individuals in the area where, in the view of anyone who wishes control of themselves but not control of any other, they should be empowered.

[eFestivals]

And what is 'empowering' the individuals in the aforementioned area? The state perhaps?

Nope.

Try reading what I've written (pages back now I guess). No wonder you're as shit as you are when you read nothing properly.

Not good enough in matters of suicide.

says your prejudices, not the facts.

[eFestivals]

And please, can you stop with the "if they don't think like me there must be something wrong with them" shite?

It's as offensive as it's possible to get.

Just try changing the "think like me" bit to "have the same skin colour as me" to see see just how c**tish you're being.

[worm]

Nope.

[worm]

And please, can you stop with the "if they don't think like me there must be something wrong with them" shite?

It's as offensive as it's possible to get.

Just try changing the "think like me" bit to "have the same skin colour as me" to see see just how c**tish you're being.

[eFestivals]

I'm following your line of thought Neil. With reasoned questions. Nothing more. It's what people do when they wish to discuss a difference of opinion. Why are you scared?

any reasoned discussion does not require your prejudices, just a concentration of the facts and what is being discussed.

[worm]

any reasoned discussion does not require your prejudices, just a concentration of the facts and what is being discussed.

[eFestivals]

Then what is empowering them? If they want to take their life they can. They can do whatever they like. So what is it that is empowering them to do something they already can?

People are (as a generalisation) currently conditioned to be subserviant. That causes them to not challenge the idea that others say of them not being of sound mind.

If people are not conditioned to be subservient, then everything changes.

To throw that word back at you again: reinforcement.

No, says my opinion, which is neither fact nor prejudice. Much like yours.

I know mine is not fact, and I've not been trying to present it as such. You, however....!

And it is prejudice. You are unable to take in what I say without firstly running it thru those prejudices and discarding the parts I say which do not fit your prejudices - which is precisely why I say one thing and you come back with something completely different. Your thoughts on this subject are currently 100% framed within those prejudices.

[eFestivals]

Unlike yours against psychology, which is permitted. I see.

PMSL ... no, I point out the fatal flaws, which you never address, instead moving the discussion elsewhere.

[worm]

People are (as a generalisation) currently conditioned to be subserviant.