|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 12, 2024 22:52:36 GMT
Again, you've got it exactly the wrong way around. Somebody who wishes to die because he doesn't want to be a burden to his wife is the very opposite of self-indulgent. It’s exactly the right way round . He is making a self indulgent statement without knowing how he might feel when the time comes and using an arbitrary criteria. It looks more like short term fuzzy feelings than recognising how he might feel at the point he can’t reverse a decision made years ago . I can’t make you understand the obvious darling . Okay, I'll repeat what I said before. Suppose somebody records his decision in 2020. He is compos mentis and has given the matter careful thought. It is a simple matter to revoke the decision. Yet, he does not do so. He maintains his position until 2030, when he becomes non-compos mentis. In what way, shape, or form is a decision that has been formed after careful consideration and maintained for a 10 year period arbitrary? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 12, 2024 22:55:38 GMT
I'm going to curb it. I don't want the discussion to be derailed. It has nothing to do with what you want. Yes it looks that way darling. LOL! It's Zany's thread. Why Pacifico thinks it would be appropriate to shut down Zany's thread because of an exchange between the two of us is a complete mystery. It would be understandable if he was to remove the offending posts but penalising somebody who isn't even involved is an extraordinary move. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 12, 2024 22:56:01 GMT
It’s exactly the right way round . He is making a self indulgent statement without knowing how he might feel when the time comes and using an arbitrary criteria. It looks more like short term fuzzy feelings than recognising how he might feel at the point he can’t reverse a decision made years ago . I can’t make you understand the obvious darling . Okay, I'll repeat what I said before. Suppose somebody records his decision in 2020. He is compos mentis and has given the matter careful thought. It is a simple matter to revoke the decision. Yet, he does not do it. He maintains his position until 2030, when he becomes non-compos mentis. In what way, shape, or form is a decision that has been formed after careful consideration and maintained for a 10 year period arbitrary? God almighty . How many times do I have repeat this ? He wants to be killed at the point where he can’t tell the killer not to kill him . I can’t understand that for you darling . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 12, 2024 22:57:46 GMT
Yes it looks that way darling. LOL! It's Zany's thread. Why Pacifico thinks it would be appropriate to shut down Zany's thread because of an exchange between the two of us is a complete mystery. It would be understandable if he was to remove the offending posts but penalising somebody who isn't even involved is an extraordinary move. It’s a mind zone thread and you seems to be the one breaking the mind zone rules . The obvious way to avoid that is to stop doing it . |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 12, 2024 22:59:13 GMT
Okay, I'll repeat what I said before. Suppose somebody records his decision in 2020. He is compos mentis and has given the matter careful thought. It is a simple matter to revoke the decision. Yet, he does not do it. He maintains his position until 2030, when he becomes non-compos mentis. In what way, shape, or form is a decision that has been formed after careful consideration and maintained for a 10 year period arbitrary? God almighty . How many times do I have repeat this ? He wants to be killed at the point where he can’t tell the killer not to kill him . I can’t understand that for you darling . And how many times do you need to be told that he wants to die precisely because he is no longer compos mentis. It is the fact that he he has arrived at a state where he is 'no longer able to tell the killer not to kill him' that prompted the decision that was made by his compos mentis self 10 years earlier. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 12, 2024 22:59:45 GMT
LOL! It's Zany's thread. Why Pacifico thinks it would be appropriate to shut down Zany's thread because of an exchange between the two of us is a complete mystery. It would be understandable if he was to remove the offending posts but penalising somebody who isn't even involved is an extraordinary move. It’s a mind zone thread and you seems to be the one breaking the mind zone rules . The obvious way to avoid that is to stop doing it . See my post directly above Pacifico's. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 12, 2024 23:01:47 GMT
It’s a mind zone thread and you seems to be the one breaking the mind zone rules . The obvious way to avoid that is to stop doing it . See my post directly above Pacifico's. I have. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 12, 2024 23:09:18 GMT
I think its gone as far as it will anyway.
I have no desire to read the same words from Bentley a third or fourth time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 12, 2024 23:09:52 GMT
See my post directly above Pacifico's. I have. Good man. Now explain how a fully informed and considered decision which is voluntarily kept in place for a prolonged period (10 years in the example given above) is whimsical. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 12, 2024 23:10:49 GMT
God almighty . How many times do I have repeat this ? He wants to be killed at the point where he can’t tell the killer not to kill him . I can’t understand that for you darling . And how many times do you need to be told that he wants to die precisely because he is no longer compos mentis. It is the fact that he he has arrived at a state where he is 'no longer able to tell the killer not to kill him' that prompted the decision that was made by his compos mentis self 10 years earlier. He wants someone to kill him when he reaches an arbitrary criteria . He doesn’t know if he will want to be killed or not at that point. Wanting to die at the point that you have lost a specific mental ability is fine . Being indulged in that whim is not . I can’t understand that for you darling . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 12, 2024 23:11:57 GMT
Good man. Now explain how a fully informed and considered decision which is voluntarily kept in place for a prolonged period (10 years in the example given above) is whimsical. It’s not. It’s whimsical. I’ve explained that several times . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 12, 2024 23:13:51 GMT
I think its gone as far as it will anyway. I have no desire to read the same words from Bentley a third or fourth time. I have no desire to read your denial of the obvious for a fifth or sixth time . So I’ll leave it there . |
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Jan 12, 2024 23:17:38 GMT
In 1994 I telephoned Bayer Pharmaceuticals and spoke to their European Region doctor. I told him that everyone on the ward my wife was in (most of them being elderly) was being given Ciprofloxacin (an antibiotic made by Bayer) three times a day: "To protect them from hospital bugs". He responded by saying: "We are very concerned about the use of our medications to engineer the deaths of inconvenient patients".
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 12, 2024 23:27:59 GMT
And how many times do you need to be told that he wants to die precisely because he is no longer compos mentis. It is the fact that he he has arrived at a state where he is 'no longer able to tell the killer not to kill him' that prompted the decision that was made by his compos mentis self 10 years earlier. He wants someone to kill him when he reaches an arbitrary criteria . He doesn’t know if he will want to be killed or not at that point. Wanting to die at the point that you have lost a specific mental ability is fine . Being indulged in that whim is not . I can’t understand that for you darling We don't appear to have made much progress, Bentley. If someone writes a list of random incidents that might occur later in his life, blindfolds himself, sticks a pin in the list and declares that he wants to die should the incident he stuck the pin into ever occur, then it can fairly be said that he wants to die 'when he reaches an arbitrary criteria' (sic). It is not possible to say that he is using an arbitrary criterion if that criterion was chosen after careful consideration. It's not possible to say that it is self-indulgent if it was motivated by a desire to spare somebody else the burden of his care. Once again, we appear to be separated by a common language. Your understanding of the words arbitrary and self-indulgent simply doesn't chime with the common understanding of those words. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 12, 2024 23:29:00 GMT
In 1994 I telephoned Bayer Pharmaceuticals and spoke to their European Region doctor. I told him that everyone on the ward my wife was in (most of them being elderly) was being given Ciprofloxacin (an antibiotic made by Bayer) three times a day: "To protect them from hospital bugs". He responded by saying: "We are very concerned about the use of our medications to engineer the deaths of inconvenient patients". My Aunt told me that her husband was given an injection ( early 60s iirc) to kill him because he was suffering so much from Cancer ( Penile cancer ffs). My daughter is a community nurse . She told me about an old gentleman with Alzheimer's with a large bruise in his lower torso . He told her the black carers kicked him . He died soon after . Its a hard life when you are geriatric. |
|
