What is immoral about casual and friendly sex between adults?

[TagliatelliMonster]

So now you start talking about me already...

no.

no, that's not true (bolded part).

concerning your question - when your mind seems to be already set when you answer the question yourself without having heard my reply... I won't answer it.
I'm interested in an open debate. One of the sort where participants listen. But not in this one here when minds seem to be set beforehand.

Whenever there is a debate with 2 (or more) sides, don't you expect all sides to already have made up there minds? That's what they do when they enter that debate: defend their own conclusion / position.


The issue in the discussion here is that @Joe W is talking about the rights of the donor. And you keep avoiding that topic like the plague and instead rambling on about the patient's consent to receive treatment, as if that consent or lack thereof is relevant to the rights of the donor.

No matter what the patient thinks, believes, demands or (dis)agrees to... the patient will always be dependend on the donor's willingness to follow through. The donor can't be forced to donate his bodily resources under any circumstances. So the patient's opinions and concerns, whatever they may be, are irrelevant when it comes to the donor's rights.

You seem to do your outmost best to avoid acknowledging that.
It's painfully obvious why you do that.

 

[thomas t]

Because he wants to stay very clear of the donor. The donor's rights, in particular.

no. I wanted to point out that the doctor has to ensure the consent of the patient.

The mother isn't killing it, just like me refusing to give you a kidney isn't killing you - assuming not getting my kidney means certain death for you.

The mother + the father are responsible for its death, I think. She didn't perceive any consent of the unborn life yet she ensures its death.

In contrast, before I get myself into a situation in which your kidney means life... and the absence of it physical death... I would need to consent first.

And this is exactly the difference between your kidney scenario and unborn life getting killed.
The analogy is moot. Again here.

avoid acknowledging the rights that the potential donor has at any given time, no matter the opinions, demands or whatever else the patient might have.

I stay with my opinion, I'm not confused about consent here. I'm not avoiding ...

acknowledging the rights that the potential donor has at any given time, no matter the opinions, demands or whatever else the patient might have.

There is nothing that the patient can do which would strip the donor from his/her rights.

+

Which has no relevancy to a potential donor's willingness to donate his bodily resources.

I never claimed otherwise as I told you already in #492.
The important part: the patient has to agree. Before the treatments starts. The patient has to agree beforehand to the rights that the potential donor has at any given time, no matter the opinions, demands or whatever else the patient might have.

since the patient wants to die or take a gamble, apparantly.

see above.

It does not. Not to the potential donor's rights, anyway.

The patient's consent does play a decisive role... even if the patient can't change the donor's rights in the setting.

The patient has no choice in the matter. We are talking about the donor's rights. The patient agreeing or disagreeing is of no relevance to those rights. They can't be overrided.

the patient can't ocerride the donor's rights, I never claimed otherwise.
Yet the patient has a choice concerning the treatment, if they want to start it yes or no. That's the important point.

And if the patient does agree to the treatment, the doctor still needs to find a potential donor who is willing to donate.

you've written the same exact thing already. I answered this in # 492

ironically would mean abortion.

... "ironically"... please take intentional killing seriously. It's more than an "irony". As we all know unborn life dies in case of abortion.

 

[thomas t]

Whenever there is a debate with 2 (or more) sides, don't you expect all sides to already have made up there minds?

no. Not when he asked me a question. This one here:

Why are you telling me about the patient and the doctor?

but when his mind is already set as to what the answer purportedly is... I won't answer it.

The issue in the discussion here is that @Joe W is talking about the rights of the donor. And you keep avoiding that topic like the plague and instead rambling on about the patient's consent to receive treatment, as if that consent or lack thereof is relevant to the rights of the donor.

again, as I told you already so often: the patient's concent IS important. Even if it is not relevant to the rights of the donor.
But it's relevant for the treatment to get started.
Don't try to distract from this point. That's the important point. Don't try to ignore it.

The donor can't be forced to donate his bodily resources under any circumstances. So the patient's opinions and concerns, whatever they may be, are irrelevant when it comes to the donor's rights.

but you keep repeating yourself! I answered this already twice: in #492 and in #502.

You seem to do your outmost best to avoid acknowledging that.
It's painfully obvious why you do that.

no. I answered this at least twice, see #492 and #502.

 

[ppp]

So now you start talking about me already...

yes

no.

yes

no, that's not true (bolded part).

Yes, it is true.

concerning your question - when your mind seems to be already set when you answer the question yourself without having heard my reply... I won't answer it.
I'm interested in an open debate. One of the sort where participants listen. But not in this one here when minds seem to be set beforehand.

It's the same question you have been evading for days. Your feigned indignation is feigned.

 

[thomas t]

It's the same question you have been evading for days. Your feigned indignation is feigned.

no my indignation was real. Your mind was set with regard to your question, although you didn't hear my reply. That's why you came up with an answer yourself.
I just hate prejudice.

I stay with my opinion even if you don't agree. I wasn't floundering around saying random stuff, nor was I making up fictional motives that are not even salient.

 

[ppp]

no my indignation was real. Your mind was set with regard to your question, although you didn't hear my reply. That's why you came up with an answer yourself.
I just hate prejudice.

Interesting. What are my reasons for holding the opinion that you are floundering around saying random stuff, and making up fictional motives that are not even salient?

 

[Bird123]

Make up your mind.

Make up my mind??? Perhaps there is something you are missing. That's what I see. It's very clear!

 

[ppp]

Make up my mind??? Perhaps there is something you are missing. That's what I see. It's very clear!

Could be. But I doubt it. if your clarity were something other than a slogan, you would be able to articulate it.

 

[Bird123]

Could be. But I doubt it. if your clarity were something other than a slogan, you would be able to articulate it.

I can point, however some can choose not to see.

OK. Unconditional Love always chooses to do what is best for the other. That's pretty selfless wouldn't you say?

Are you telling me that the selfish choice is the Best choice? Are you telling me you would rather be around selfish people than have selfless people around?

Some selfish people fight all their lives trying to Get! Get! Get! They do not realize that the selfless ones end up getting more.

If I give a selfless kind act to you, it makes you want to return that kindness. If I give a selfish taking act to you, it makes you want to take back.

I hope it's getting clearer.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[ppp]

I can point, however some can choose not to see.

That is just one of those passive aggressive things that people say when they have a crap argument and want to protect themselves against being called on it. A little preemptive disparaging of anyone who points to the flaws in their BS.

Unconditional Love always chooses to do what is best for the other.

This is just a repetition of your previous posts, so I will just repeat my previous response.

At the *very* best acting on the feeling of unconditional love causes one to do what one thinks is best for the other. Unfortunately, what one feels is best can be horribly, terribly, tragically wrong.

Most often people acting on what they claim to be unconditional love, still place their goals for the person they claim to love unconditionally over that person's own goals and agency. Seven of the most self-serving words spoken are, "I did it for your own good."

Also, doing what is best for another does not require unconditional love. It does not even require unconditional like. Just moral principles that support such actions.

 

[Muffled]

They did not seem confused.

I believe that kind of appearance is part of the confusion.

 

[Muffled]

Sure it is.

I have foundations for what I believe but I believe you do not.

 

[Muffled]

My morality is based on universal humanist ideals and within that framework, what was described in the OP is perfectly moral and what is described in your holy book is malicious and sadistic.

I believe you might as well say you believe in doing whatever you want. It amounts to the same thing. I believe what you describe as malicious and sadistic is actually a loving God expressing His love for us and that your view perverts that.

 

[McBell]

I have foundations for what I believe but I believe you do not.

That is not actually true, now is it?
You merely believe your foundation is on better ground than his.
But you have nothing to support the claim outside more bold empty claims.

 

[ppp]

I believe that kind of appearance is part of the confusion.

Having beliefs is easy. People produce beliefs with the same superficial facility as they produce gas. They tell me they believe all sorts of things. It's only the beliefs that they can demonstrate that I find compelling.

I have foundations for what I believe but I believe you do not.

See above.

 

[epronovost]

I believe you might as well say you believe in doing whatever you want.

As do you. Afterall, nobody can force you to follow a divine command moral system.

 

[ChristineM]

I have foundations for what I believe but I believe you do not.

We all have foundations for what we believe, for some those foundations are based on reality, for others those foundations are based on bronze age mythology

 

[Bird123]

That is just one of those passive aggressive things that people say when they have a crap argument and want to protect themselves against being called on it. A little preemptive disparaging of anyone who points to the flaws in their BS.


This is just a repetition of your previous posts, so I will just repeat my previous response.

At the *very* best acting on the feeling of unconditional love causes one to do what one thinks is best for the other. Unfortunately, what one feels is best can be horribly, terribly, tragically wrong.

Most often people acting on what they claim to be unconditional love, still place their goals for the person they claim to love unconditionally over that person's own goals and agency. Seven of the most self-serving words spoken are, "I did it for your own good."

Also, doing what is best for another does not require unconditional love. It does not even require unconditional like. Just moral principles that support such actions.

Is acting on Unconditional Love really acting on a Feeling?? After my last reply, can you see no intelligence to it at all??

WE all have the power to Choose what we deem important. Can you not see the goodness in anyone acting toward the benefit of others? Is it all selfish that you see? There is the other half of the view you are missing.

Even if one's attempt to Love Unconditionally does not turn out as expected, it is still a step forward over any other choice.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[ppp]

See my immediately previ

Is acting on Unconditional Love really acting on a Feeling?? After my last reply, can you see no intelligence to it at all??

WE all have the power to Choose what we deem important. Can you not see the goodness in anyone acting toward the benefit of others? Is it all selfish that you see? There is the other half of the view you are missing.

Even if one's attempt to Love Unconditionally does not turn out as expected, it is still a step forward over any other choice.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

None of these questions that you're leveling at me have anything to do with the reasons that I gave you for my objections. So either you're not reading what I have to say, or you don't care. Or maybe you're following a script.

 

[Bird123]

See my immediately previ

None of these questions that you're leveling at me have anything to do with the reasons that I gave you for my objections. So either you're not reading what I have to say, or you don't care. Or maybe you're following a script.

I am merely pointing out the missing pieces which change the view with those questions. There is no script nor blind acceptance with any answer. On the other hand, asking the same question often gets the same answer.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!