As pointed out repeatedly this question is irrelevant.
But I'll humour you.

Of course, as it is irrelevant I can answer this anyway I like:
Therefore how about I suggest that it is indeed completely within the realms of compassion to end the life of one who would otherwise experience needless suffering.

Or perhaps you would prefer me to claim that the taking of life is to deny the right of recovery, and therefore cannot be justified under any circumstance.

Take your pick. I don't care. I refuse to be drawn into the euthanasia issue as it has no bearing on my claim.

So... what are you trying to claim?




Well I'm glad someone is happy



Not refuted in the slightest:
Not all killing is violent.
Not all killing is compassionate.

Which is more usually the case?

You do realise that you are actually trying to argue that that killing is mostly non-violent...
You sure you haven't been playing too many video games





Sure it can be done.
But if its not logical, then it is a weak argument.

Hmm...
Well how about that. Its what I've been saying all along.

No it is relevant. You do not understand my origninal point it seems and im trying to explain it to you a bit at a time so you can understand it, think of this as educational.

You are skirting around and trying to avoid the actual question. Explain to me how it isnt compasinate to kill or put down something that has no quality of life and no real life any more?

Of course if you dont wish to understand what I am trying to say to you feel free to continue avoiding the question.

I'll do it for him. It's not compassionate in terms of Lusternia *because they're going to come right back*. They still will have "no quality of life and no real life any more," but they'll have grace too. Of course, it's different if you drive them to suicide...

... which really isn't compassionate.

Because they/it may not want you to.

Because I said i would get to that point once he had answered my first question?

Just go with my answer, Ferlas. You're not getting one from him.

Eh? I was replying to yours.

Her response fits perfectly well with that... She'll get to it later.

I just wish it didn't have to be a dialogue. I want to see Ferlas's argument.. and she still hasn't produced it yet.

Depending on who your killer is, most killings are non violent.

I choose to see desease and/or god as killers.

Lazy, good for nothing hearts are the number one killers in America.

I choose to see disease as violent. It's waging a war INSIDE YOUR BODY! Quite the opposite of a peaceful end. Especially some of the really nasty diseases.

I don't think that's very relevant to the discussion, though, is it? I don't think anyone is trying to argue whether heart attacks are compassionate or not. We're talking about actual willful killing here.

So... I don't understand why this is being argued?

No one does, really. Not any more. The arguments are taking too long to happen.

Why not take this IC?

sorry, I was aruging to a specific point that razorvine said at the end of the post, about declaring definitvley that Killing is either compassionate or violent.

I remember that when I was an apostate and I first learned of the ideals of "evil", I thought to myself... how clever, every act an envil person does can be shown to be for the betterment of society as a whole, and ultimately altruisitic.

Take the basic premise, that fighting is the hardest and most complex aspect of lusternia life to master.

Now we have two arguments...

1. The only way to learn how to fight is from experience. (not xp)
2. Fighting in the arena is a different type of fighting to that outside of it.

Second Premise: Its "human" nature to not improve unless you know about something you need to improve on. Or more posstively, You only improve when you are aware of a failing.

Which brings these argumnents.

1. If you do not die in a fight, you can claim victory.
2. If you claim victory, you will be less likely to try to improve your abilities.

Now, you can get back to the original argument...

To fight and more importantly, Kill another person, even repeatedly is to help that person master the things that are the hardest to master. If they do not use the opportunity on thier own, eventually with enough killing, they will be forced to learn to master these skills or be paralyzed to accomplish any of thier other goals.

To Kill a person now, is to ease the suffering that they will experience when another attempts to kill them later... damn my battery is dieing, got to go.

Im still waiting for someone to answer my question. Apparently I didnt explain it well enough so this seems the only way I can try to, Im just trying to explain it a step at a time. If you or razor or anyone would like to answer it then ill carry on with the rest of my explaination.

ok, so where was I...

To Kill a person now, is to ease the suffering that they will experience when another attempts to kill them later, by helping them learn to master the art of combat, and even make it so that they will be more likely to achieve the satisfaction felt from killing another.

Now, an even more compassionate person, will realize that thier fellow citizens will most likely be engaging in violence on others purely because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time (like say, happen to be infront of a demon lord when your trying to kill it) Therefore, by engaging in battle and attempting to kill the other guy when there is no purpose or goal behind it, is to help your "enemy" and thus be compassionate to them.

IC ferlas dosnt really believe this she isnt a celestine she has a different belief.

Im just trying to aruge that compassion isnt as clear cut or as simple as razor is claiming it to be

Xenthos I think gave a good answer... Aikon's answer however seems to contradict the question so I understand you ignoring that one.


OH, and I have these discussions IC all the time, not my fault your not a wyrm.