LogFAQs > #978895398

Bandit_Keith posted...

This is condescending. I can indeed see it. You again missed the point entirely.

Ignoring my points is also a thing I guess.

Bandit_Keith posted...

Ignoring your condescending tone, that wasn't my point. It wasn't that you had to respond to them. It was that it was already pointed out in post #26 that people aren't just getting euthanized without any real reasoning. So every post of your after this one that essentially sidestepped that post was pointless. If you'd like me to quote each one I'm talking about, I'll do so.

My point was the slippery slope euthanasia could run on. I agree with that post. The discourse was around where the gray area should be, and what kind of pain someone goes through. So basically it was all on personal opinion.

You've missed the point. It wasn't just about "the law" but where each of us placed the line in the gray area. Should it be expanded, or restricted? Thus, slippery slope.

Bandit_Keith posted...

But you are not an immutable force. You can control what you do. To imply that they should have responded one way, but that you don't have to is just not right.

Okay, then by that logic I can reply a certain way too, correct? It was a reaction, and it wouldn't have happened if they not been condescending.

Bandit_Keith posted...

Every bit of what you said here is false.

Where they condescending or not?

Bandit_Keith posted...

You did come in here without the facts. That is not disputable. If you are claiming "nope" to being offended, then I guess you can dispute that. But...I have far too many posts of yours I could quote that would suggest otherwise.

There were no facts in the article in the first place, which the discussion was based upon. Only after did more facts come into the topic. And again, the discussion was the slippery slope and gray area of suicide, which some users were disagreeing with my opinions on it.