Posts by Arthur Barnes

What exactly is a fibroma? 😢

It’s only on one leg. The right one. (The one I use for running)

steelsailor17 said:It's called a thorn callus, or something like that.

Thanks. That actually explains a lot...

🤣

Nicole James said:Do you have any issues with your Achilles tendons, maybe?

No 😢

What kind of problems would I even have, and what would that even suggest?

A few days ago I noticed something weird when I put on my sneaker—there’s this damn bone growing out of the top side of my heel 😲

I'm not even kidding, at first I thought maybe my shoelaces 🙂 got tangled back there and irritated my skin, but after looking closer today, I actually see a bump on my foot. I can walk and everything, but it hurts if you touch it. Is there any chance my osteoclasts will just spontaneously break down this useless, extra bit of bone... or am I gonna need surgery? Maybe from some roadside healer or Chuck Norris?

I mean, I'm a young guy, finished puberty, bones aren't supposed to grow at this age, so what the hell happened? 😕

Totally wrong, just completely wrong 🙂

We need to carve out some territory on this planet to start a new nation... one built on actual, decent morals instead of this twisted, broken mess we have now 🥳

Good question, I've been wondering about this too.

If the intent is identical and there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances—just a different method of execution—what actually determines if someone gets 1 year versus 8? Is a person going to get the same sentence if they stab a victim 370 times versus just "handing" them a bit of cyanide? Also, I'm curious... what defines a "simple" murder? Using a pitchfork?

Kate Harris2 said:I have to admit, you make a really strong case for that law.

Thanks. I’m just trying to keep this discussion civil... 😉

Kate Harris2 said:I don't think things would be as perfect as you're making them out to be. People would find ways to abuse the right to die. And even if it were legal, who in their right mind would actually kill someone requesting it? Unless we're talking about euthanasia, I don't see anyone stepping up to that. We can't ever truly know if someone really wants to die or if they're just having a momentary lapse. Nobody wants that kind of responsibility on their conscience. Plus, asking someone to end your life feels selfish because even if it's legal, there's still morality, guilt, and a million other questions...

Based on how I laid it out, I honestly can't see an exploit. That’s why I started this thread—to see if anyone could find a loophole. So far, nothing. 😕

As for the morality and the guilt, that's strictly on the individual who carries out the request.

Check back tomorrow, dammit! 😠 😁

Look, I don't think that would work, if you know what I mean 😉

The thing is, I'm not aiming for total anarchy where everyone just follows their own gut instead of the law. I'm looking for some kind of symbiosis that would get rid of—in my opinion, and I think it makes sense—these absolutely ridiculous laws. Legalizing drugs? Sure, why not? That’s a massive debate on its own and totally outside the scope of this conversation, so I won't get bogged down in the 😉 broader context of this whole discussion right now. I want to focus strictly on assisted suicide.

I'm going to take a quick break and mull over my counterarguments until tomorrow... I can feel my perspective shifting a bit. Though, I still stand by the idea that a person should have the right to end their life if they ask for it. I'm just waiting for Musician to help me fully articulate my position. 👋

hollowgull14 said:look, part of what the government does is just maintain order among people. why is drugs illegal??? why can't everything just be based on "do what you want" principles? drugs only hurt the person using them, so you're still gonna get screwed if you get caught with a couple grams of powder anyway. basically, one of the state's jobs is setting the rules on what's allowed and what isn't. if we all just acted based on our own vibes, gut feelings, and personal morals, the world wouldn't even look anything like it does now.

You really think things would be more chaotic if there were legal dispensaries? 😉

hollowgull14 said:Look, let's set the trauma aside for a second and just admit this is about a contract where everyone loses. It’s totally normal for the government to step in as an arbitrator in situations like this. If a cop sees two guys brawling on a street corner, he’s going to break them up... even if they both want to fight and aren't trying to hurt anyone else.

See, I hadn't really looked at it from that angle before.

Honestly, why would they bother breaking them up? Is it just so the state doesn't have to foot the medical bills? That’s the only thing that makes sense to me... 😕

Good discussion 🙏

hollowgull14 said:So, you're saying there's no issue if Person B kills Person A just because it doesn't benefit Person B? I'd argue it does hurt them, since murder carries massive trauma in most cases. There are even actual illnesses caused by that kind of trauma. And even if Person B stays physically fine, they gain absolutely nothing from killing someone. If there’s no benefit, we don't do it. (We already established self-interest drives everything.) But if Person B actually HAS a reason to kill Person A, then it isn't assisted suicide anymore—it's just premeditated murder or whatever legal term applies.

That trauma is Person B's problem... the one doing the killing. The government shouldn't be able to step in and decide whether Person B wants to deal with that trauma or not. If Person B sees that Person A is suffering mentally—and Person A is literally begging for it (this isn't euthanasia!)—and Person B decides to sacrifice their own peace of mind just to ease Person A's pain... why should the state care? It looks like a contract between two people where both parties agree to suffer...😉

Regarding the idea that everything is done for self-interest -> sure, that's true, but this kind of "altruistic" behavior is really just masked selfishness (like that Dawkinsian Selfish Gene theory). Still, Person B gets zero tangible benefit from killing Person A (maybe psychological benefits, maybe they're a sadist, who knows?) — does that still count as intentional murder?

hollowgull14 said:Self-interest drives everything people do... but when we start talking about the interest of the state, that’s something else entirely. We're talking about the common good then. You can't just lump that together with what most people mean when they say "interest"...

It’s not exactly in the government's best interest if I go out and take out the guy hunting me down right now. But look at it this way...

Look, you've got Person A. They're depressed, spiraling, totally checked out... they're going to take their own life. It’s a certainty. A total fact. So what's the actual difference to the government if that person commits suicide or if I just end it myself with permission? Either way, the person is dead. The damage to the state is already done regardless, because they were going to do it anyway... 😉

hollowgull14 said:If you're Catholic, that act is basically suicide because you're choosing to end it yourself. It doesn't even matter who pulls the trigger or swings the knife... What matters is that you wanted to end the life God gave you and you went out of your way to make it happen. That’s a sin against divine law.

Look, I only used Catholicism as an example to show why someone might actually want to be killed rather than taking their own life. There are a million different reasons for that. My whole point in that part of the reply was just about how you can't equate murder with selling a rag...

Walter Myers4 said:Arthur Barnes, why aren't you studying?

😍 🤣 🤣

Karen Garcia5 said:Wait, so you're actually saying you'd rather let me kill your whole family than sacrifice yourself?...

Canada... because if I stepped up, I’d be giving your whole twisted plan some kind of legitimacy. But you? You're terrified of getting caught. So you'd have to go out and commit five murders just to cover your tracks, and then the FBI catches you and you're looking at life in prison. That's way too much risk for someone like you... a total coward who just wants to kill me legally. So yeah, in that scenario, I'm not sacrificing myself... not for those reasons...

hollowgull14 said:Look, if I kill you, it’s not just about you. It hits your family, too. And the government—think about all the tax dollars they poured into your education over twelve years, maybe more if you had a scholarship. Nobody wants that kind of chaos... it's just bad business for everyone involved.

So, it really comes down to self-interest rather than morality. Interest drives what we call "right" or "wrong." Suddenly, everything makes sense 😉

hollowgull14 said:Besides, if you want to be the one in control of your own fate, then take charge of it yourself. Kill yourself. Don't drag anyone else into it.

I'm not going to force anyone to kill me. If I politely ask someone if they'd be willing to do it—say, because I don't want to commit suicide myself since I'm Catholic and don't want to end up in hell—and they say yes, I don't see the issue. By killing me, they aren't hurting themselves any more than if they just went to Walmart and bought, I don't know, a rag. 😉 😕 🙂

hollowgull14 said:Laws are just a bunch of rules that decide what's okay and what isn't. What you can do, what you can't... That massive pile of legislation interferes with people's free will, but that's exactly why it exists. To stop total anarchy. I mean, imagine if everyone just did whatever they felt like at any given moment?

It would be great, honestly... provided the stuff a person does doesn't directly screw over anyone else (even if they're hurting themselves). Like, telling someone to kill me, and they actually do it -> I'm not hurting anyone else with that choice, just myself. And I should have the right to decide my own fate...

Karen Garcia5 said:I’m telling you right now... if you don't get in front of that camera and say you want to be killed, I’m coming for your whole family. What are you gonna do then...?

I'm reporting you for making threats...

Even if you're holding me in some dark basement and you say it anyway, I’m still choosing not to say it on camera. If I did... then killing me would actually be legal. And once you pull off a five-way homicide—not that you specified if I'm on that list—you'll be rotting in prison for the rest of your life. Or at least you should be...

I mean, does this criminal really think he can just "persuade" me into letting him kill me? Like he’s trying to make some twisted version of this legal... like he's actually scared of the consequences. It's ridiculous. Does he seriously think it's worth the risk? To murder my entire family just to end up behind bars for life... no way...

Man, come on... how can anyone even threaten you if you refuse to be filmed while telling them you want to die? Like, they're basically helping you legally end it all. Or death itself—which is just straight-up murder, and the result is exactly the same for you anyway. 😕

Well, not in the scenario I laid out. I’m talking about having actual, explicit proof—audio, video, whatever you want—that the "victim" gave me the green light to end them. If someone kills another person without proof that it was actually wanted, they get tried for "standard" murder. I don't see the issue there... 😕

Can you explain, please?

Morgan Murphy7 said:I don't know what part of this isn't clicking
the law bans assisted suicide, period. That's it.

Yeah, okay, the law is what it is—but I’m asking why it exists like this. My gut tells me the whole thing is illogical and just plain stupid... I don't know, I'm just asking to see what people actually think.

I didn't come here for legal advice, I came for a debate. Laws aren't perfect; they change. So I want to know if you think this should be changed, and give me the arguments for and against it. Honestly, it feels stupid to me because it limits free will. It's like the government is trying to play God by stopping a citizen from making their own choices when nobody else is getting hurt. That's why I think it's dumb... and why it should be repealed.

Is he really not justified?

I mean, yeah, murder is murder, but this isn't your typical case. The difference here is the victim actually wanted it... they made it crystal clear. Who is the government to step in and override someone's free will when they’ve explicitly asked for this? Who else is getting hurt besides the person who chose this for themselves? It's their life...