The Glade 4.0

There are a lot of suicide prevention hot-lines out there, staffed by people who feel it is perfectly reasonable to try to talk someone out of suicide. I don't think Elmarnieh thinks those are wrong.

Its the people who tackle those perceived to be suicidal to keep them from jumping off a bridge that Elmarnieh seems to have problems with. None of their business, let them kill themselves as is their right.

I disagree. I may have told this story before.

Not too long ago, a police officer that I've known since he was 10 (OMG he's 38 now) was attacked by a crazy (literally) woman coming at him with two kitchen knives. He drew his baton and knocked the knives out of her hands, then restrained her while another officer handcuffed her and helped him put her in the back seat of a squad car. He was written up for not following procedure, effectively, for not shooting her.

The crazy woman (off her meds and having a prozac moment) wrote the Department a letter praising the officer for choosing to save her life instead of kill her, and stated she was trying to commit suicide by cop in her dementia. Now that she's back on her meds, she's very happy she failed at that. She considers him a hero.

The write up was downgraded to a slight reprimand reminding him to follow procedure in the future.

The officer grew up in the SCA, spent a tour in the marines, and is very proficient in the use of most bladed and blunt weapons. He doesn't play anymore because he would rather do something real with his life. The SCA is make believe.

So, should he have followed procedure and shot her, probably killing her? Was it any of his business that she was trying to harm herself?

I'm happy he chose to act as he did. Killing someone in the line of duty still scars your soul.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

And if he was not proficient, or lucky, in disarming this woman, was incapcitated/killed and this "crazy" woman went on to kill others in her dementia, would you be saying the same?

Most of those regulations are in place for response to current situations and disallowing worst case scenarios, not for second guessing in hindsight.

Not true. I can directly idenify that they have A) removed about 9% of their normal body mass via, say, and arm amputation B) and reduce their manipulative capability by roughly 50%.



Yes, it is harmful in and of itself. Trying to say it isn't is simply claiming it isn't for no reason other than sophistry and solipsistic desire to gat out of a corner one has painted onesself into.



Because a person who is seriously harming themself is displaying signs that they are not fully in control of their own actions. They may be under the influence of a wide variety of disorders or possibly some foriegn substance. We have entire fields of study surrounding the identification of mental problems. Trying to claim that they should be ignored simply because someone might twist that to prohibit perfectly legitimate adult activities is a slippery slope fallacy.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'll agree that the policies and procedures are in place for very good reasons. I'll agree that in most cases they should be followed. There should be some leeway for when the rules aren't fully appropriate.

However, I trust his judgment in a fight. He is one of the most grounded people I have ever met. It wasn't an ego move, he was actively trying to save her life. The odds of a little crazy lady about half his size having the skill set to counter him is incredibly small. He has amazing hand to hand skills as well as weapon set skills. In reality, I don't think she could have touched him unless he was shielding someone else. If it had been a more suitable opponent I don't think he would have gone the same route.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

That's not exactly quantitative. The body mass part is. But I lose about 5% of my mass every week just through fluctuating water weight and diet. However, what I mean is it's not quantitative in the sense that none of those things can be equating to "harm" without an arbitrary definition. Losing "manipulative capability" isn't necessarily harmful. I'm not saying I personally don't think it's harmful, but were we to try to create a standard by which we can keep people from "harming" themselves versus engaging in consensual activity that falls on the other side of "harm", we're just going to end up with an arbitrary point that, one which isn't any more relevant than one anyone else can argue.



Again, refer above. I'm not claiming it's harmful because I have an argument which demonstrates why it is so, I'm saying it's not harmful because you cannot demonstrate that it is. A man losing an arm reduces his capacity to manipulate objects with a pair of hands. That isn't equal to this catch-all concept of "harm".

If a champion swimmer were to lose his legs, he might perform even better in the pool. Here we have a case the idea that there is some universal concept of "harm" and that it can be measured and directly correlated in a objective way becomes very transparent and weak. Even if the only benefit derived from induced "harm" is pleasure or enjoyment, that is benefit enough. After all, we don't consider spending money on going to the movies or playing video games as "financial harm" where in there is a quantifiable and consensual loss taken in return for an insubstantial gain.



It seems to me you are self qualifying your argument by prefacing it with the adjective "seriously", an adjective which in the way you use it (since there is no substantial definition for "seriously") basically self asserts your point from induction: because you talking about "serious" harm, your argument is inductive in that it only applies in cases where it is correct.

Moreover, the rest of what you pointed out is just circular logic with use of your specially qualified and inductive adjective: "because only a mentally altered person would seriously harm himself, we can conclude that all persons causing serious self harm or consenting to serious self harm are mentally altered."

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Losing manipulative capability is necessarily harmfuk; it's a reduction in the body's ability to carry out life functions. Sure, there are ways to work around it but all of those require less effective means to accomplish the same thing or significant investment of resources to restore part or all of the capability that was there naturally.

Obviously there is some arbirariness in determining exactly where the line is but that isn't a problem. Avoiding arbitrariness at all costs is not a reasonable or useful goal.



Yes it is. You're just claiming that the word "harm" has no definition by saying "but I can say he wasn't harmed!" You can claim it all day long but that doesn't make the word or the concept suddenly disappear. Trying to claim that he hasn't is, as I said, both sophistry and solipsistic; it's appealing to your own authority.

Harm



As for it being equal to a "catch all" of course it isn't "equal"; it's an example.



I'd be very interested to see what empirical example of a swimmer that performs better after amputating his legs exist. I do know of a runner who has performed well with no legs.

However, this limits the "improvement" to athletic performance. Moreover, even champion athletes have lives that extend in both scope and duration far beyond their athletic performance. So no, the idea that it can be correllated and measured does not beome weak. Your position that "pleasure and enjoyment are sufficient" A) is nothing more than your own proclaimation B) presumes that the pleasure gained from performance increases in one particular activity, even one central to a particular person's life outweighs to loss thereof by the negative impact on everything else life entails C) ignores the impact of this decision on others who care about that person and worst of all D) ignores the insurmountable fact that almost no one, if anyone at all, chooses voluntary amputation, lobotomy, or other permenant damage, and when they do suffer a condition that forces it on them must not only go to immense effort to overcome it but frequently have serious psychological problems as a result not only of the event itself, but the loss as well. Trying to cite the possibility of increased performance in a few sports as some sort of evidence that such injuries result in a net gain in pleasure or enjoyment in general is absurd. Some of these people may claim to have "no regrets" but even assuming they are being truthful, not having regrets is not the same as seeing improvement. If serious damage to the body had any real ability to improve overall life quality it would not be avoided so carefully; in fact it would be sought out.

In fact, it's rather absurd of you to demand a highly precise quantification of degree of "harm" but then you simply arbitrarily proclaim that there will be a net gain in pleasure or enjoyment (and claim that to be "enough") without quantifying that or comparing it to losses in those areas. I think you will find it far harder to quantify pleasure or enjoyment than harm.

As for movies and video games, that's why, for the same reason, we do not consider he desire to engage in activities that are painful but without lasting consequence to be signs of a desire to harm onesself that indicates inability to make rational decisions. If a person were playing video games or attending movies to the point that they did not go to work, lost their job, and went bankrupt we would conclude they had an unhealthy obsession with those activities.





All right, I thought it was fairly obvious that by "serious" I meant "permenant, and altering some life function", but fair enough. That's what "serious" means in this context.



Except that's not the argument being presented. The argument being presented is that human beings are provided with certain mechanical necessities by nature. When those mechanics are artifically reduced, it has a negative impact on the ability to perform life functions, the possibility of gains in very rare, highly specialized instances notwithstanding. We also observe that when people are injured in this way involuntarily, it causes serious consequences for them in terms of life quality and mental condition unless major efforts are made to avoid these consequences.

Therefore, if a person wants to inflict something on themself that is essentially certain to negatively effect their physical ability to conduct life activities without massive efforts to correct it (if it can be corrected) we can be quite certain they are already suffering from negative mental effects. In fact, people considering hurting themselves frequently ask for medical/mental help because they feel they are considering this because of a mental problems.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Everything we do in life reduces our ability to carry out our life functions. That's living. It is my contention that drawing some sort of universal consensus as to what degree constitutes "serious harm" is in appropriate. This is where personal choice plays an important role.

If I get bruised rib from a snowboarding accident, it really limits my ability to perform things that require core stability and strength. So should snowboarding be made illegal because this risk exists and is present? The aim of snowboarding isn't to harm oneself through sustaining injuries, but that isn't a substantial statement and it doesn't matter anyway because the risk is always present and is one you accept when engaging in said activity.

Restoring the body to a "natural" state means what exactly? We age, our body loses manipulative capability and we die which is all part of life. What is a natural path of life? In order to differentiate where harm has caused a person to lose "natural function or capability" one must first establish the sequence of natural life. I'm not arguing that you can't do such a thing, but why not leave it to personal choice?



That was never my argument. My point is this is a perfectly reasonable thing to be left up to personal choice and judgment.



I'm not asserting that does or does not constitute harm. I'm challenging your assertion that harm has occurred. Likewise, you arbitrarily declaring thing such as amputation is harm is not substantial or concrete in any way.



Generally, the legs do not contribute anything to swimming except additional drag. I would use Michael Phelps as an example. His wingspan:height:leg ratio is such that his body is optimized for the freestyle stroke.



Quite right, they do.



I believe it does. You have not demonstrated how and where that compromises in other areas of life can be considered harmful in a way that can meanigfully be applied across the spectrum.



No it's not. It's no the central structure of my argument. It was a way to demonstrate what you might call a "reasonable" person exchanging tangible functionality (wealth or perhaps "biological functionality") for something intangible ("enjoyment") as something that isn't "unreasonable". It's not harmful to trade money for enjoyment, nor is it harmful to trade biological functionality for any number of reasons, enjoyment just being an example. It's not harmful because you haven't demonstrated how it is.



Not true. This entirely ignores the concept of marginal costs and benefits. I have about 13 white button down oxfords of different fabrics, cuts, styles etc. On average they probably cost me around $40-50. I would not spend buy one at a good deal price of $25 because I don't need anymore. While I could greatly increase my "wealth" since shirts are worth about $40-50 by getting one at the lower price of $25, the additional shirt is of negligible value to me because I already own so many. So, in my case $25 is not worth the shirt.

Let's say someone stole all your white shirts. Now you need them. They are $40-50 on average so the $25 shirt is of great value to you. Even at $40-50 it may be of great value to you because white shirts are so useful to wear and everyone typically needs one for any given reason (wear with a suit etc.)



It does not. Part of the "cost" considered is the emotional harm done to others around. I think that was implicit in the discussion. Personal choice means considered all the effects in consequences and to what degree they affect those we care about. I do care what choices the harm or risk of harm I put myself in affect my immediate family and close friends. Less so my distance relatives, people one "friend" removed from me or perhaps people on this very message board (no offense, I have varying degrees of relationship with everyone here). Even less for the guy down the street, etc.



So what? That is the point of personal choice - it comes with a cost and personal responsibility. The other choice is to choose for people. I don't think that's a good option. Either people get to choose for themselves or someone chooses for them. I understand that there are consequences when people do regrettable things. One of the most common? Tattoos, probably. Should we make tattoos illegal because some people make poor choices?



I'm not proclaiming there is a net gain in pleasure or enjoyment. It doesn't have to be a "gain" it doesn't have to be "pleasure or enjoyment" and I already demonstrated why the concept of the gain "netting" anything isn't important. I just used that an example of something we do every day - watching a movie, going to a musical, watching the game at the local wing/beer joint etc. We exchange tangible goods all the time for intangible benefit. They often don't result in "pleasure or enjoyment" (though we physiologically force our way around this oftentimes), they don't result in a "gain" or a "net gain".

Yet, no one is calling for a great curtailing of consumerism on principle alone. Sure, for the sake of the national economy, they are, but not principle.




Exactly. We call it unhealthy and unreasonable. But we do not try to force or stop people from doing those things. We also do not give them pity when they cannot afford the rent, their car, other lifestyle choices or food. Why is self mutilation and amputation so special and different? It is not.



What isn't permanent? The time I'm spending typing this exact message is forever lost to me. I need to put in laundry, go make a special trip to buy non-dairy yogurt and get to the gym, the earlier the better so I can get back home, eat and go to sleep and get a strong start tomorrow. Should I be razzed for sitting here typing this long message? Should I have something installed in my computer to prevent me from harming my productive envelope by writing on message boards from home?



Again, in order for this argument to have any sort of validity in terms of applicability, someone has to map out the path of life in terms of natural functionality at every point. Otherwise, we cannot say for certain, in quantitative terms, thing which constitute harm, or by the way you are defining it, activities which cause a negative deviation from this pre-determined scope of biological functionality.

I would argue that people have the right to choose for themselves. Those who do not have the ability - that is what family and friends are for.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

We already have, for the most part. Cutting yourself is self-mutilation, a recognized mental health problem, for instance. Asking someone to cut you seems to fall in the same category. It's not necessarily illegal, but it'll get you put in a hospital under watch for 72 hrs (so the web says) and I'd bet someone could be committed for continued behavior.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

This is not true. The passage of time reduces our ability to carry out our life functions but everything else we do does not necessarily do so. In some cases it increases it.



It should be obvious by now that I'm not talking about accidents, but deliberate harm to onesself. I should also point out that a bruised rib is of a very temporary nature. You really should know better than to make deliberately irrelevant examples.



You're playing word games. You know perfectly well that there is no point in a natural lifespan where body parts are suddenly removed or damaged. This can occur to individuals, but there is no point where it necessarily occurs in one's normal life. Detereoration is not the same as deliberate damage.



Your point is based entirely on playing word games with temrs like "natural". You also have not made a single argument as to why.



It meets the definition of the word "harm". You're the one making the arbitrary claim here. By this argument, if you amputate someone else's limb, it isn't harm either.



Yes I have. You're just trying to use word games to say I haven't. All you're doing is saying "But it's not harm!" when I point out soemthing causes damage or injury.



Which doesn't make it anything other than your own proclaimation.



Except that I have demonstrated how it is. You are inflicting damage or injury, both of which are synonyms for harm. What you are essentially saying is that it isn't harmful because the hypothetical person claims it isn't. This is just solipsistic begging of the question.



This doesn't even come close to being relevant.



It was not implicit in the discussion at all. You're just claiming that it is in order to avoid addressing the issue. If you see your close friend cutting off his legs so that he can swim better, you're going to, at the very least, be concerned about him. If he tells you, "Oh, I know you'd find it upsetting, and I know I'll have to live in a wheelchair forever, but I took all that into account" you're, at the very least, going to question his cost-benefit anaylisis. This is more circular argument. An action like this would seriously call into question the ability of this person to make his own choices, but you're saying that we can't exercise that concern because hey, it's his choice!



Mor begging the question. You cannot address the problem of whether a person's behavior calls their ability to make choices into question by pointing out that they're making a personal choice. All you're doing is saying "It should be a personal choice because it's a personal choice".

As for tattoos, tattoos do not cause any inherent damage to the ability to perform normal life functions. They can, if performed improperly, but it is not a necessary property of them.



So if not "pleasure or enjoyment" then what? This is just another way of saying that "It should be a personal choice in order to be a personal choice."



Irrelevant.



It is. You're being disingenuous
1) You can reverse financial problems through reform of behavior and effort. Reversing permenant damage to the body is generally limited or impossible.
2) We do in fact limit people's ability to do such things in the future by denying them loans, credit cards, etc.
3) The reason people do these things in the first place is lack of self-control in resource management. Self-mutilation is a completely different problem, and therefore cannot be assumed to be a similar condition.



Opportunity cost is not the same as inflicting intentional damage. You're being disingenuous.



No, they don't need to do any such thing. You need to demonstrate that the body would naturally lose parts or otherwise mutilate itself in the average person's lifespan.



You've spent this entire time arguing that its a matter of personal choice based on your attempt to pretend the concept of harm doesn't exist or is somehow a great mystery to you. So, when this hypothetical person's family and friends indicate that they think he can't what recourse have they? All he has to do is say "well, it's my choice and I don't think I'm harming myself because you haven't shown me how it's harm, which it isn't because I say it's not."

You can't try to claim that a person choosing to mutilate themselves isn't harming themselves because it's a personal choice and can't therefore be called harm and then turn around and say "well unless family and friends see that they can't exercise that ability". All you're really saying is that family and friends are mysteriously able to determine when a person isn't capable of exercising their own decision making powers, but when it's anyone else (i.e. the government) the same conclusion is inherently impossible because "personal choice!"

This is just typical "ZOMG KEEP TEH GUMMINT AWAY!" nonsense that has no reasoning behind it other than objecting to the government being involved.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Can we add "harmfuk" to our vocabulary? Defined as "causing or capable of causing harm...to a really **** bad degree."

Not to be confused with the ****

A great deal of what we do decreases our ability to continue to function. Even eating and drinking does - there are many dietary choices people make which are conducive toward this definition of harm.



Except it's not irrelevant, it's only irrelevant because you are making an intentional delineation.

If I take my short jib board out West and go down trails I have no business on, that certainly can cause "self-harm". It is much more close to deliberate rather than accidental because of the degree of difficulty compared to my ability to escape without injury. What you are arguing is that there is some bright, exact line whereby incidental injury suddenly becomes intentional self-inflicted harm. You might argue that "self harm" is no the goal in any case. But one could argue that it's a disingenuous argument to make in the cases deeper in the spectrum of activities which involve great risk of danger and degree of difficulty that self-harm isn't part of the goal since it's in unavoidable obstacle and one everyone is aware of.



I'm not playing any word games. Are you causing self harm anytime you choose to eat a cheeseburger? I just had a really good one last night, jalapenos included. Jalapenos include a chemical irritant known as capsaicin which causes the spicy sensation. I doubt you'd argue eating this is self-harm, yet in great enough quantity, the chemical can cause problems for the digestives system long term. And I eat them just for the "harm" or the "pain" .. i.e. the spice. I'm sure lots of people do the same thing. So at what degree does this activity become conflated with your definition of harm?



Many things meet the definition of harm. No, that's not harmful to you to amputate other limb. That seems simple enough to me. Other than maybe the risk of transmitting an infection to yourself, it's not harmful or accidentally cutting oneself. It certainly could be considered harmful to the amputee in the sense you speak of, but that's disingenuous and a strawman to call that my argument.

My point was you have not established why a particular point becomes harm rather than just ordinary injury. Or that the point even exists: if you want to be technical, every process the body undergoes never completely restores the body to a previous state. So at what degree does the restoration become "effectively the same"? You are just placing that point arbitrarily to make your definition of harm coincide with what you like and what you want to be considered healthy.



Lots of things cause damage or injury.



Since this statement only tries to refute the introductory clause of my next point, I don't see a reason to address it by itself.



Here's the problem: you certainly consider some things to be harm and others to not. You see that there is a clear delineation, a bride border which seperates the two. There is, certainly for you. There is that border for everyone. Why should this be universal? When I say "establish what is meant by harm", you know exactly what I mean.



How is that not relevant? You argued harm is considered trading a tangible asset for a non tangible good in the case where this is some alleged, quantitative net gain. I pointed out why the gain being net is irrelevant. Rich people pay lots of money for mundane things. This isn't harmful, yet by the preceding definition you suggest, it would certainly be considered so.



Certainly, if I just walked in and he was doing so. We can exercise our choice to give our opinion. Why wouldn't I? What about my views makes you think otherwise. The point is when it comes down to brass tacks, it's ultimately his choice since it's his body. If you argue otherwise, then that leads down the slippery slope where we can do all sorts of things such as ban soft drinks, fast food, etc. Just because your arbitrary delineation of where you consider the boundary of harm/non-harm to be does not encompass fast food as harmful, doesn't make your argument for any different than those who argue to ban fast food. It's the same argument.



Not true, tattoos can be seen as a stigma, and so they carry with them certain social limitations. That manifestation of the limitation is a product of man and not the physical world is no different. Also, it does inhibit certain physical functions - you cannot grow hair there as well, and your skin may be more susceptible to being damaged by the sun, thus you are removing the protective function against the sun your skin has.

As for you claiming I'm begging the question, the problem with the construction of your argument is that it assumes that is a problem that "needs to be addressed". Certainly it needs to be addressed by society, but not by law.



Any number of things. Ultimately "pleasure and enjoyment" aren't meant to be exhaustive list, but of the most common non-tangible gain made in exchange for corporeal assets.



It is most relevant. Here is a clear cut case in which people trade a substantial about of tangible assets for intangible gains. I could certainly modify your person definition of where harm-non-harm begins and make the same argument you are with the same strength that spending money on trinkets is harmful and should not be allowed.



No you can't. Once wealth is destroyed, it's gone. It takes further resources to restore it. This is the equivalent to functioning within (as opposed to on the boundary) of ones personal productivity possibility frontier.

We deny them loans and credit which are assets granted and owned by mostly private enterprises. That is entirely different and highly disingenuous to even mention in the context we are discussing. A person who is denied credit is not denied it by some law that has some definition of "fiscal irresponsibility" which states it is illegal from them to obtain borrow-ed credit - the credit is denied by the originator. But we do not make it illegal for people with a poor finance history to take out loans. The subprime market is clear evidence of that.



Except it is. Financially speaking, it's the analog.



It won't. That still doesn't assert your point. You need to prove why the boundary between harm and non-harm is allegedly set somewhere north of self mutilation. Reduced biological capability is not synonymous with harm. It is one metric. There are lots of times we reduce biological capacity intentionally and severely. Amputations were a common way to stop infections from spreading in old medicine.



Yea pretty much. Except the "I" in this case is the person making the choice. On the contrary, you've argued this entire time as though everyone should agree with your definition of harm versus non-harm (I probably agree with it personally as do many other people, or at least most of it) or that you somehow know something everyone else doesn't. They have the recourse to try and convince him otherwise. Since they are kin, they probably have more ability to make him see reason. My friend is getting married soon, and he absolutely should not be. The woman he has already cheated on, he doesn't like the kid, he doesn't like her or how she's raising the kid, they fight all the time in front of the kid, he has barely a job (held probably 30 jobs since between now and when we graduated), had his car repo'd 2 times etc etc etc. I don't have any ability to coerce him not to marry her. But if he marries her, I will no longer talk to him or associate with him. It's all I can do.

That's as it should be, it's ultimately everyone's choice. If they care at all about their family, they will take that into consideration.



They have no real "power" to exercise, so no, that's no the argument I'm making at all. Except of course, in the case of legal custodianship.

It's not about keeping the government uninvolved, it's about preservation of personal liberty which results in the governmnt not being involved.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

If someone consents to be harmed, under obvious conscience and no pressure or duress than I don't care if they want to dance the ballet in a tutu made out of knives while wearing spiked spice girl heels.

Of course I also support euthanasia so that should give you my position.

No, there really aren't. You can certainly see the cumulative effect over time of many such choices, but no one dietary choice results in this sort of impact. You know this. You're simply trying to stretch the definition of the word "harm" to include this to bolster your argument.



In other words, it is irrelevant.



Except that it's not a disingenuous argument to make because it requires that intent to harm yourself, as opposed to mere foolhardiness, be the reason for your action. It's far more vague. The disingenuousness relies in your attempts to stretch the position to encompass something it doesn't to make it seem weaker.



Now you're just ignoring my arguments and strawmanning them. The irritation from capsaicin (which I am quite familiar with) is not permenant, nor more than a mild irritation. It is not "harm". I've posted a definition of the word "harm". Your continued use of examples where different (and mysteriously unexplained) definitions are used indicates that yes, you are playing word games. You're trying to switch definitions to make an example.



You're definitely playing word games, or you're an imbicile. My sentence clearly refers to whether or not it's harm to the other person to cut off their limb. Calling that strawman is basically admitting thet you're too unintelligent to understand that without me explaining it in so many words, or you're being intentionally dishonest? Which is it?



You're just ignoring the fact that I've repeatedly cited impairment of normal physicological capability. Severity and length are together considered to determine if its enough.



Don't make bare asserions in your introduction then.



Yes, I know exactly what you mean. You are trying to claim that it somehow matters "where it is" for any given person. The border isn't there "for me", it's there for everyone. Pretending it isn't is simply circular argument; it's saying "The point where harm begins is different for each person, making it subjective. We know it's subjective because it's different for each person." Whether it should be universal is a nonsensical question; it is universal. The concept and definition of harm are not subjective.



I didn't argue anything in relation to goods of any kind or description. You continue to pretend that the exchange of goods is in some way similar to bodily injury that cannot be reveresed. You don't get that as a free assumption. Show that the two concepts are identical.



Begging the question. You are trying to show that it's his choice since its his body. You cannot use the assertion that its his choice since its his body to support that.

It does not lead down a slippery slope because A) the slippery slope starts ignoring the qualifiers that limit it to demonstrable harm, not the harm that results from complex cause fallacy with things like dietary choice and B) because the slippery slope is fallacious in the first place. You have to show that it necessarily leads to those things, not jsut that they might be logically justified using similar arguments.



Tattoos can be seen as a stigma; they may also be seen favorably. As for growing hair, that is not a life function; many people are bald and their ability to perform life activities is not altered in any way mro significant than normal body type differences. The same thing in regards to sun protection.

You're again trying to equate things that might cause undefined problems to things that definitely do cause readily identifiable problems.



You're trying to show that it should not be addressed by law. You just agreed that it is a problem that needs to be addressed. It isn't an assumption at all; it's a fact. You readily recognize this. Therefore you need to address why it shouldn't be dealt with by law. You're making a positive assertion that law should be excluded from dealing with it. You can't show that by just assuming it's the default.



In other words, "it should be a personal choice in order to be a personal choice".



Except that you can't because the two concepts do not physically behave the same way. You would be able to do that only by making certain assumptions which are contradicted by observation.



Ee aren't talking about wealth being destroyed, we're talking about it being spent. Moreover, while you can earn more money and spend resources to acquire wealth, you cannot regrow a severed limb or restore many types of bodily damage by any means.



So you admit that the only problem is the involvement of government. Good. Then we can dispense with this silly idea that harm isn't harm except when it is harm (you know, when the government is involved, we need to pretend the definition of harm is totally up to the inidividual and has no clear definition that anyone who's not an imbicile can apply... oh wait, it does have such a definition)

Moreover, as you admit these assets are mostly private, not always, and in any case, fincancial problems can be remedied. Mutilation of the body frequently can be. You know this quite well; you're just drawing false equivalency.



No, it isn't. This is preposterous, unless you just assume away significant differences.



I've already explained why. It does show my point. You're just pretending I didn't.

Your example is a tacit acknowledgement of this. Yes people sometimes did (and still do) end up amputees for medical reasons. That is because amputation was less harmful than the alternative, which was death. You are intellgient, enough, are you not, to grasp that less harmful is not "non-harmful"? You are that intelligent? Good, I'm glad to know you're just being disingenuous, not an idiot.

I certainly hope you weren't arguing that Civil War amputees didn't regard themselves as unharmed when they got an amputation. That would have made you appear really stupid and we can't have that.



My concept is what the word means. I know because I got it from the dictionary and can read English. Claiming you don't agree with it is essentially saying the concept only exists when you want it to. It's just redefining the concept in order to reach a conclusion you want.



I haven't seen any reason why it should be anyone's personal choice to mutilate themselves. You cannot generalize from one set of circumstances to another.



And how exactly would they get legal custodianship if the government cannot use any concept of harm other than whatever the person to be placed in custody wants it to be?

You're using a stolen concept fallacy. You recognize that sometimes people's desire can meant hey cannot make decisions for themselves and that family may need to. You also recognize that legal custodianship exists for a reason. Yet you want to disavow the concept as soon as the government gets involved which makes one wonder how legal custodianship occurs.



In other words, it's just keeping the government uninvolved for the sake of keeping it uninvolved, and you're just trying to obfuscate the concept of harm in order to preserve personal liberty for people demonstrating they are not fit to exercise personal liberty.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Of course people who have legal custodianship should be able to exercise their judgment to prevent harm to those under their care. What would be the point?

I'm speaking strictly about those who don't have any legal guardians being forced into situations against their will simply because their personal life choices are viewed as "self harmful".

Moreover, even if you establish what harm is or is not, you have not demonstrate why anyone should have any choice over another self-inflicting harm other than "I don't like it and it doesn't serve any purpose".

And wealth is destroyed when it's spent toward consumerist ends. Were that not true, we could spend all our time developing video games and sex robots and by that principle, nothing would be wrong with our society.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

It's worse for society if people are harming themselves. What's bad for society eventually trickles down to hurt my quality of life.

So? People don't also give you free ****. That hurts the quality of your life, too.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Obviously, but we're not discussing that. If you made a thread about whether people should give Lex free ****, then I would say yes, I advocate this.

I always favor policies or laws that help my quality of life. This is why I think people shouldn't be allowed to harm themselves.

I don't care about people's right to hurt themselves, because:

A) I don't plan on hurting myself
B) The exercise of this right creates a needless burden on the healthcare system
C) The exercise of this right, by anyone, can only decrease my happiness and quality of life
D) It can prevent people from working
E) Voluntarily hurting yourself without a reasonable justification (as in a situation where normal people wouldn't hurt themselves) is a form of mental illness

unless it's someone who is making your life miserable.. or dating a really hot chick you'd have a chance with.. in which case there could be an upside.

None of those things establish why people should not have the right. You can make similar arguments against everything listed in the Bill of Rights. All you've done is describe characteristics associated with the action of discussion. So what? You didn't even make a tenuous, weak link between what you've said and why what you think should be true. That would be like me stating:

A) Red blood cells carry oxygen
B) Non vacuum media scatter electromagnetic radiation as described by the Photon Transport Equation
C) The Saints won XLIV
D) Dark mahogany is a deeper color than cherry red
E) Combustion of hydrocarbon fuels results in carbon dioxide and water if the reaction is complete.

Wow, so what?

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Yes they do. When rights go against my well-being then in my opinion they should not exist. I value quality of life over philosophy.

Exactly. What would be the point? How would anyone ever end up in legal custodianship if we could never indicate that their personal choices were harmful enough to warrant that in the first place?

Who makes the determination that legal custodianship is needed? The government does; we don't allow people's relatives to just establish their own custodianship because they don't like their relatives' personal choices. In fact, your concern about government involvement in personal choice is rather laughable in light of this; relatives are far more likely to meddle in someone's life given the chance than is the government because relatives actually give a ****, and feel they are doing it for their loved one's own good.

But if the government can't determine that someone is a danger to themself, how does anyone ever get legal custodianship?

All you're really saying is that you're afraid that if the government can determine that someone is a danger to themself it will somehow lead to things like bans on pop. Possibly, but this is a slippery slope fallacy and a complex cause fallacy. Even in the case of such idiocy as the New York Salt Ban no one has come out and said "We can ban salt because its harmful, just like cutting off your arm is".



No, those are not the situations we're discussing. We're discussing situations where their choice is harmful. Views have nothing to do with it.

The fact that something is a personal choice does not magically mean it is not a harmful choice. If someone else were to do the same thing to the person without their consent, you would not even be trying to argue that it isn't harmful. Harm isn't determined by consent, but instead of simply admitting this and saying "I think voluntary harm is OK" you're trying to say that voluntary harm isn't harm at all, which is nonsensical.



I already did establish what harm is. Harm is a well-understood concept. You're demanding an unnecessary level of precision.

I certainly have demonstrated why as well; the decision to harm themselves is an indication that they cannot make good personal choices for themselves. You clearly recognize this concept because you have brought legal custodianship and the reasons for it into the discussion, but then you try to pretend that the reasons people get such custodianship in the first place don't exist.



No, that isn't true. The wealth isn't destroyed at all; it's merely not being used to create more wealth. You're confusing failure to create more with destruction of what's already created.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

[/quote]

That one certainly does. Rights, regardless of what you believe their source is, are predicated upon competance to exercise them. That's why children are not allowed to exercise rights unless they are delegated those rights by their parents. That's why convicted criminals are forbidden from exercising certain rights; they have demonstrated incompetance to do so.

What you're saying essentially is that "An action that indicates mental problems that would render a person incompetant to exercise their rights can't be used to determine that they are incompetant because it's their right to perform the action." All you're doing is trying to pretend that the science of psychology doesn't exist in order to create a catch-22 to precent anyone ever being determined incompetant.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

“I’m not crazy. I’m not. Of course what else would a crazy person claim? That’s the Kaaesque genius of it all. If you’re not crazy but people have told the world you are, then all your protests to the contrary just underscore their point. Do you see what I’m saying?”

I think you have mistaken my belief that the government should be able to place people under custodianship (I guess custody is the wrong word, doesn't that only apply to minors in a legal guardian situation?).

People may voluntarily have someone be their legal caretaker, but I don't see any particular reason why The Government should decide. Note that I am referring to The Government, not State governments, although I would object to that too since I believe they can establish that law. I would still oppose it, on the same premise.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones