Way to avoid the question.

I was going to get to that part in a bit aiakon, answer the questions someone who obviously has no quality of life etc etc blah blah they know it you know etc, how is it not compasinate to put them out of thier misery.

I didn't. I invalidated it.



Oh. Bah.

No come on, Razor obviously didnt understand so im doing what I said, ill explain it bit by bit so its easier for him to understand. Answer the question.

To be fair, given the way the vast majority of posters on this thread ignore all punctuation and spelling conventions, that's hardly surprising. Looking back, I re-read that post of Razorvine's which you, Narsrim and Anisu all attacked.. and I suddenly realised that I had understood it in a totally different manner. It had become ambiguous because of confusing grammar (and Razorvine is by no means the biggest offender). It's -really- difficult to debate questions like this one when you have to mentally repunctuate every post you read.

/rant over.

In your foul American vernacular (), I 'major' in English Lit. You can expect the occasional complaint along these lines.

Aikon, I don't know why you thought your 'invalidation' would hold any water.

The question that was originally asked was based on certain premise, and all you did was give an example where that premise isn't true, thus avoiding the question being asked, and asking a new question that nobody was asking.

@razorvine: Because compassion is defined by intent, you can't look at it 'objectively' because intent is never objective. Case X might be compassionate, and Case Y which from the outside looks exactly the same may not be compasionate. Also, sometimes you have to see if its the case of compassion, or a case of a person trying exhert their will on another person, and thus projecting what the person wants, as in Aikon's question (ooh I guess it did have a point)

Nah I just cant spell really ;P

Telll me how that is relevant to the arguement?

I am not taking a stand either way on euthanasia.
I'm not saying that it is impossible to blame any killing on compassion.

What I am saying, is that using compassion as an excuse for killing makes for a weak argument when viewed by anyone with a shred of objectivity.

Can you not see that?

No, it's your grammar too. Even Vix was complaining about it earlier.

<3 you and all but it makes your stuff really difficult to read sometimes!

EDIT: Although Aiakon, Ferlas isn't American

It is relevant to the arguement because you cant seem to actually understand my orginal argument. So as I said I was going to ask you a few questions to help you understand it.

Feel free to answer the question when you are ready and then ill ask another one and after ive asked a few you will hopefully understand what im trying to say.

Yarr im not american im just illiterate, thats what you get for trying to study computer for a year and not actually using a pen

Then by all means state your case in clear concise sentences, because you are not being very clear.

Edit: Meh, it would help if I could spell too...

Actually this ceased being a useful debate some time ago.
Seemed to me it should have been fairly self-evident. But just to repeat one last time:

> Compassion is relieving people from pain and suffering.
> Violence is causing people pain and suffering.
> Killing people is violent.

Threfore any argument justifying killing people as compassionate is starting from a weak position.

Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.


now how exactly is silently slipping a person poison in the night while they sleep, with thier expressed desire for it to be done, violent? Its not.. therefore Killing is not ALWAYS violent...

Compassion on the other hand is about Suffering, not pain. Going to the Gym can be very painfull, but it would NOT be compassionate to stop someone from going to the gym.

Lastly, Violence itself is not always a means to suffering. I can laugh violently, or be violent about my desire to play sports... Violence therefore does not ALWAYS lead to suffering.

When life = suffering, or when not being violent = suffering, then it can be compassionate to either end life or to be violent.

as an aside that may go over everyone's head... its arguments like this that sometimes lead to the conclusion that "Do not steal" must mean, and can only mean "Do not kidnap"

See this is your mistake. It is not sufficient to show there is an exception.

For compassion to be a strong argument in a specific case - you need to prove only that case.

For compassion to be a strong argument in general for killing you would need to refute "killing is violent" generally. - good luck with that.

I tried to, you didn't understand me. So as I said im trying to explain it bit by bit. If you answer the question ill continue.

Oh, Razorvine, you've made my day. I adore arguing just for the sake of it, and you've lured me out of my usual lurking state to do so.



Mistake? I beg to differ. Exceptions are sufficient enough to question the validity of your original statement 'killing is violent' (which I shall take to mean, by the way, 'killing is always violent' as this is the most obvious interpretation). You seem to be confusing very general statements with more specific ones, and picking and choosing between them to strengthen your points as you see fit.

The first and probably most relevant definition of 'kill' in the Merriam-Webster is 'to deprive of life'. We'll also take the first definition of 'violence', which is the 'exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse'. To assert that 'killing is violent' you must prove that the deprivation of life is always achieved through a physical act intended to cause injury or abuse. If you cannot prove that this is always the case, you must reduce the original assertion to 'killing can be violent' or be left with a flawed argument which resembles this:

1) The act of beheading somebody is a physical act that causes the victim injury.
2) Therefore the act of beheading is violent.
3) The act of beheading is used as a method of killing.
4) Therefore killing is violent.

'Killing is violent' is a ludicrous over-generalisation that can only be based upon an argument such as this, which moves from the specific to the general in one hasty step. I cannot see any other way you can attempt to argue it (forgive me if I'm just being blind though), and you yourself have already suggested that this kind of argument, a general point based on a specific case, is weak.

The very existence of exceptions, if accepted as valid, must prove 'killing is violent' to be a highly suspect statement at best. It is not quite false, as killing can be proved as being violent sometimes, but it cannot be true if a killing can be proved as non-violent. It is simply weak. So, we are left with the tamer yet stronger assertion that 'killing can be violent'. If you actually did mean this in the first place, then you should choose your words more carefully. It was not unreasonable of Daganev or any of the others to attack what looks like a clearly flawed statement, and then be indignant when you wave their arguments aside as a "mistake".



I have no issues with that.



Well, I've already detailed the problems I have with 'killing is violent'. I don't know if you consider it refuted, although I certainly do. I will agree with what you are implying: it is difficult to argue 'killing is compassionate' strongly. However, I suggest that this is primarily the case for the same reason that 'killing is violent' is also a weak argument due to generalisation, rather than the opposing strength of 'killing is violent'. Besides, I do not believe that Daganev intended to argue that 'killing is compassionate', but rather that 'killing can be compassionate' - more acceptable? As acceptable as 'killing can be violent'? If so, we are left with two statements -- 'killing can be compassionate' and 'killing can be violent' -- which are not mutually exclusive and can be used relatively safely on either side of the original argument regarding Celest and Raziela.

I suppose this is the bit where you rip me to shreds and say I'm deluded. I can't promise that you'll tempt a reply out of me though. I have a mysterious reputation of silence to maintain!

The way I look at it, you are automatically American unless you say otherwise on yer profile. *sage nod* Makes life much simpler that way.

Where is this lurking usually done, by the way? I haven't seen you in like a year.

I don't see why you people are even bothering to argue this. It doesn't actually MATTER if killing for compassion doesn't make sense. You don't have to apply logic to fanaticism.

Trust me. I've roleplayed a fanatic long enough to know.

True, but I believe that you can make the killing for compasion arguement make sence once razor answers my question ill try to explain it.

Just because you don't need to be logical doesn't mean that it can't be done. We don't have to make sense arguing the points either but the idea is that your argument is more convincing if you do make sense.

Since you've been waiting for two pages for him to do that, why don't you answer for him. And THEN explain.