Current Events > Former Dutch Prime Minister and his wife get euthanized together

(+) Yeah! (+)

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


You can also leave the topic btw. Just a suggestion.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


*meltdown* lol.

I had a discussion here with a few users, and its okay being passionate. Like I said, the argument we had was fine. You didn't like me for my opinions which is up to you.

Then you start throwing all these accusations and from there it became a bit over the top on your end.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


If I'm really having a meltdown then just leave me to it. Let me revel in my own discord lol.

SpiritSephiroth posted...

Coming from you? You're pretty much one of the most emotional users I've encountered on this site.

SpiritSephiroth posted...

And your inability to keep your emotions in check clouds your way of thinking, since everything I say in this topic is somehow twisted into another statement I have never said before. It gets tiring with you honestly, you were like this in several other topics too.

SpiritSephiroth posted...

Oh be quiet. Everyone has a right to think what they want, and voice that opinion.

SpiritSephiroth posted...

Of course it doesn't matter. Still discussing a topic at hand, which obviously half of CE can't do without having a conniption lol.

What makes you believe you are the only rational one and everyone else must be on tilt and emotional, despite the fact that you started off your explanation stating that you are against this for personal experience reasons. Which are emotional reasons, by the way.

Bandit_Keith posted...

What makes you believe you are the only rational one and everyone else must be on tilt and emotional, despite the fact that you started off your explanation stating that you are against this for personal experience reasons. Which are emotional reasons, by the way.

Being emotionally charged regarding an opinion and outright lashing out at other users is different.

I already said me and that other user had a difference of opinion, and they ended up disliking me based on my opinion. That's fine by me.

But then it started rolling downhill from there, accusing me of being a misogynist, then gaslighting me into pretending I said things I didn't and then finally accusing me of having a meltdown.

Edit: also didn't you see what I had replied to initially? They said "So my feelings can be spared", so in actual fact they too was playing the whole emotional route themselves. It wasn't just me. But everyone seems to ignore that.

SpiritSephiroth posted...

Being emotionally charged regarding an opinion and outright lashing out at other users is different.

I already said me and that other user had a difference of opinion, and they ended up disliking me based on my opinion. That's fine by me.

But then it started rolling downhill from there, accusing me of being a misogynist, then gaslighting me into pretending I said things I didn't and then finally accusing me of having a meltdown.

You accused her of being emotional fairly early on. You were accused BY SOMEONE ELSE of looking misogynist for calling a woman emotional(something you had to that point seemed to lob at her and no one else) just for having a discussion. You also seem to not understand that you attacked her(I'll just say that poster, because it doesn't matter for this portion of the argument) and claimed you weren't deflecting by attacking and calling the poster emotional.

Do you see how your opinions on another poster being emotional would be a personal attack during a discussion?

SpiritSephiroth posted...

Edit: also didn't you see what I had replied to initially? They said "So my feelings can be spared", so in actual fact they too was playing the whole emotional route themselves. It wasn't just me. But everyone seems to ignore that.

Because you stated it was your emotional reaction to this. Again, you started off explaining how you are emotional about this, then when someone responds to you, you call them emotional. You also seemed to feel as if your description of others is "Just saying it like it is." but anyone else describing the situation differently than you see it is inaccurate.

Bandit_Keith posted...

You accused her of being emotional fairly early on.

Yes, which they were. I also stated they were like that in other topics previously. And not regarding their own opinions, but bashing me for mine. If their were passionate about their own views, I wouldn't say shit to that. But don't bash me for mine like that and expect me not to call you out on it.

Bandit_Keith posted...

You were accused BY SOMEONE ELSE of looking misogynist for calling a woman emotional(something you had to that point seemed to lob at her and no one else) just for having a discussion.

And if you had read through the topic, you'd know I have no idea who this individual is. I only know them as a user. I don't care if they're a woman or not?

Bandit_Keith posted...

You also seem to not understand that you attacked her(I'll just say that poster, because it doesn't matter for this portion of the argument) and claimed you weren't deflecting by attacking and calling the poster emotional.

I only replied back like that when I was being attacked. They disagreed with my opinion and that was fine. But when you start personal insults like "so your feelings can be spared, got it" then of course I will defend myself lol.

You don't throw rocks at someone and not expect them to throw something back.

"Everyone else is being emotional!" cries most emotional user in the topic.

Bandit_Keith posted...

Because you stated it was your emotional reaction to this. Again, you started off explaining how you are emotional about this, then when someone responds to you, you call them emotional. You also seemed to feel as if your description of others is "Just saying it like it is." but anyone else describing the situation differently than you see it is inaccurate.

Again, being emotional based on personal opinions and views is fine. That's a human reaction. But you start lashing out at other users personally, then of course I'm gonna say they can't control their emotions.

If you can control yourself in a discussion and begin to attack people personally, you have no business having a discussion.

TheOtherMike posted...

"Everyone else is being emotional!" cries most emotional user in the topic.

I really am crying, gonna need some more tissues soon.

SpiritSephiroth posted...

Yes, which they were.

I don't know if you are being serious here, or if you truly are this lacking in self awareness. So let me explain it clearly. If you yourself claim you are making an emotional argument and someone responds back to you that your argument on the subject is just to make you feel better, how is that being bashed?

SpiritSephiroth posted...

And if you had read through the topic, you'd know I have no idea who this individual is. I don't care if they're a woman or not?

I read through the topic. You completely missed the point of this line. Which is that you accused her of doing something that someone else did. She and others just happen to agree with it. In addition to the fact that you don't seem to understand that self serving statements carry very little weight.

SpiritSephiroth posted...

I only replied back like that when I was being attacked.

Again, someone repeating your argument back to you is not an attack.

Bandit_Keith posted...

I don't know if you are being serious here, or if you truly are this lacking in self awareness. So let me explain it clearly. If you yourself claim you are making an emotional argument and someone responds back to you that your argument on the subject is just to make you feel better, how is that being bashed?

If you don't see the condescending tone in their posts, then I don't know what to tell you. Imagine if you had a personal experience and had an opinion on it, just for someone to demean your opinion instead of the mature option and just say they disagreed, what would you do?

Bandit_Keith posted...

I read through the topic. You completely missed the point of this line. Which is that you accused her of doing something that someone else did. She and others just happen to agree with it. In addition to the fact that you don't seem to understand that self serving statements carry very little weight.

They agreed with it and tried to lob on even more statements, trying to make me look bad. So basically did the same thing. Except, making me look worse.

Bandit_Keith posted...

Again, someone repeating your argument back to you is not an attack.

Right. "Just so you they can spare your feelings", "So your feeling can be spared, got it", isn't condescending at all and is extremely mature to say in a discussion.

Thats literally what sparked the argument in the first place. And all I said back to them was, they were being emotional instead.

So I basically got called out for being emotional because of my opinion, only for me to tell them they're being emotional for lashing out at me being condescending like that. And I'm the only one in the bad? Not to mention I didn't even know their gender, but that shouldn't even matter. Its you guys that made that into a big deal lol.

Well I'm on CE here so of course you guys would think that'll be okay to say in a normal setting.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I was calling her a dude before, but started to say "they" since they haven't specifically told me their gender. That's all. Nothing weird about it.

What's weird is that you keep trying to "catch" me out on things that aren't there, when I'm actually trying to be respectful now.

The only reason I haven't asked them specifically is because they snapped at me before for simply tagging them in another topic. So yeah unless they specifically tell me what they want me to refer to them as, I'll play it safe.

SpiritSephiroth posted...

Again, being emotional based on personal opinions and views is fine. That's a human reaction. But you start lashing out at other users personally, then of course I'm gonna say they can't control their emotions.

If you can control yourself in a discussion and begin to attack people personally, you have no business having a discussion.

If stating your opinion back to you is a personal attack in your mind, then you may need some help.

It might be because, as you stated, you are emotional about this. From your very first post until now, you've not made any insightful or well thought out posts. You even ignored someone pointing out in post #26 very early on that you can't just get euthanized for no reason. It almost should have been the end of it right then. If you had done a quick Google search, you seem as though you probably wouldn't be "against this 100%" would you?

SpiritSephiroth posted...

If you don't see the condescending tone in their posts, then I don't know what to tell you.

But your argument was not "that was condescending". You accused them of being emotional. Why do you believe that they should have reacted one way, but you can react a different way?

I think the problem you have here is that you came in without the facts and then got offended when someone called you out on it.

SpiritSephiroth posted...

Edit: My sig is also filled with women. But apparently I'm a misogynist.

Is this real life? Is that an actual argument you tried to make? What the hell, man?! This is worse than "binders of women."

shockthemonkey posted...

Gotta say, its weird that you know Asherlee is a woman and you still insist on using the wrong pronouns for her.

Don't do this. They and them is perfectly fine, and you know it. Especially when you are being general about a poster, regardless of their gender, and not purposely misgendering someone.

Bandit_Keith posted...

If stating your opinion back to you is a personal attack in your mind, then you may need some help.

It might be because, as you stated, you are emotional about this. From your very first post until now, you've not made any insightful or well thought out posts.

If you can't see condescending statements within the English language, I simply don't know what to tell you.

Bandit_Keith posted...

you even ignored someone pointing out in post #26 very early on that you can't just get euthanized for no reason

I'm so sorry for not replying to every single post in this topic, whilst also replying to five people at once on inane accusations. But do go on.

Bandit_Keith posted...

It almost should have been the end of it right then. If you had done a quick Google search, you seem as though you probably wouldn't be "against this 100%" would you?

That 100% part is probably an overreach on my part I agree. I started to go more in-depth and most of my disagreements was on the slippery slope part. I also mentioned the guy who came here with actual facts on the case.

Bandit_Keith posted...

But your argument was not "that was condescending". You accused them of being emotional. Why do you believe that they should have reacted one way, but you can react a different way?

Because for every action, there is a reaction. The whole thing was fine until they started to be condescending to me. I'm not blind lol, I knew exactly what they were doing. And I think its extremely disingenious of you to come out and say there was no condescending tone or nature in their posts, only just to pile on me like the other users. As if they can do no wrong.

Bandit_Keith posted...

I think the problem you have here is that you came in without the facts and then got offended when someone called you out on it.

Nope, actually agreed with some users here. Just been replying to the other more "irrational" people here accusing me of 5 different things lol

Ryangrad posted...

Is this real life? Is that an actual argument you tried to make? What the hell, man?! This is worse than "binders of women."

Okay? >_>

I love hot women what else can I say lol

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


You're trying too hard

SpiritSephiroth posted...

Okay? >_>

I love hot women what else can I say lol

That...a reaction to someone implying you are misogynist in saying that you like hot women is not the defense that you seem to think it is?

"Here are pics of hot chicks!" is not a thing that in any way disqualifies misogyny.

This isn't me calling you a misogynist. I'm just saying, that's not how that works.

SpiritSephiroth posted...

If you can't see condescending statements within the English language, I simply don't know what to tell you.

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

SpiritSephiroth posted...

I'm so sorry for not replying to every single post in this topic, whilst also replying to five people at once on inane accusations. But do go on.

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.

SpiritSephiroth posted...

Because for every action, there is a reaction.

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.

SpiritSephiroth posted...

And I think its extremely disingenious of you to come out and say there was no condescending tone or nature in their posts, only just to pile on me like the other users. As if they can do not wrong.

Every bit of what you said here is false.

SpiritSephiroth posted...

Nope, actually agreed with some users here. Just been replying to the other more "irrational" people here accusing me of 5 different things lol

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.

I have no earthly idea why this guy hasn't been suspended yet

UnholyMudcrab posted...

I have no earthly idea why this guy hasn't been suspended yet

I don't see anything I would suspend someone over in here except for that mask off poster that already got hit.

Ryangrad posted...

That...a reaction to someone implying you are misogynist in saying that you like hot women is not the defense that you seem to think it is?

"Here are pics of hot chicks!" is not a thing that in any way disqualifies misogyny.

This isn't me calling you a misogynist. I'm just saying, that's not how that works.

Well I mean, they're hot, and they're in my sig, and I love them >_>

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.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

I have no earthly idea why this guy hasn't been suspended yet

What should I be suspended for?

SpiritSephiroth posted...

Well I mean, they're hot, and they're in my sig, and I love them >_>

I really don't know if you are being serious. Or have difficulty comprehending things. I truly hope, coupled with all of your other posts in the topic, that it is the former. But, again, coupled with all of your other posts in the topic, I fear it's the latter.

Ryangrad posted...

I really don't know if you are being serious. Or have difficulty comprehending things. I truly hope, coupled with all of your other posts in the topic, that it is the former. But, again, coupled with all of your other posts in the topic, I fear it's the latter.

I'm not really going to react that seriously to being called misogynistic. I did argue with a few users already in this topic about it, they seem hell bent on just throwing whatever that sticks at me.

SpiritSephiroth posted...

Ignoring my points is also a thing I guess.

I didn't ignore a single point.

SpiritSephiroth posted...

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.

Your argument had never once come close to suggesting that this isn't about the law that I read. But I could have missed something. Even still, your line and the law are at the same place, so my point stands on face value.

SpiritSephiroth posted...

Okay, then by that logic I can reply a certain way too, correct?

Yes. My point is the hypocrisy of your view. Like I stated, you seem to believe "they could have responded like this, but since they didn't I will attack them instead of their argument."

SpiritSephiroth posted...

Where they condescending or not?

I would have called it dismissive at worst, personally. But that is ultimately semantics. It still doesn't amount to a personal attack. If you fel part of a response had a condescending tone, that's fair. That still doesn't excuse going into a personal attack.

SpiritSephiroth posted...

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.

Regardless of what was in the base article, you still came in without the facts to claim you were 100% against it. Again, this isn't disputable. Most everyone came in without the facts. You've already acknowledged that "100%" line was an exaggeration, so we don't need to rehash that. I accept that response, and understand it. You wanted to steer the discussion into a slippery slope argument, and again, that's fine. If you'd like to continue talking about slippery slopes, that's fine too.

And I say all this not as some grand arbiter. Just another person voicing their opinions. Which is all good.

SpiritSephiroth posted...

I think death should be natural. People killing themselves makes me physically sick. Not because I'm demeaning them, but suicide is really fucked up as a concept.

Yes part of it is because of personal experiences, people should also live their lives out to their natural end. Once that line is crossed, who knows when that line will be pushed further and further towards situations where its just convenient? Such as debt issues or relationship problems. Maybe one day a person is suicidal and instead of calling a hotline, they just decide to euthanize?

Companies also drive people to depression. "Oh you can't pay your rent? Barely any salary? Your wife/husband left you and have no way to pay off your mortgage? Have you considered killing yourself? We'll take that house off you when you're done". It could lead to all these different lines being crossed.

Again, half of this is an emotional argument (because of personal reasons) and half of this is my rational mind thinking about how the line could be crossed more easily as we move on as a society.

This is obviously not counting situations where a person is physically unable to live. Like if they're on life support or their body is in such a state that living is a burden on them. Those situations are exceptions >_>

I want to write you a civil reply to this. First, if you havent seen it yet watch the documentary How To Die In Oregon. It was on YouTube at one point but not anymore. Get a hold of it however you need to if you havent seen it yet. Please watch it with a totally open mind, every person profiled in it chose death with dignity. They did a phenomenal job of telling their stories and articulating why they were choosing that option. Its real, raw, and yes it shows the actual process. I was once against it like you-because I thought the actual process was messy and painful. Its absolutely not, its fast, painless and you can basically customize it for each person and situation. When I finished watchhg it everything in it made total sense and I did a complete 360. I now fully support it and hope it becomes legal nationwide. Major headway has been achieved but weve got a long way to go still. The option is available to varying degrees in 11 out of 50 states right now. If you qualify for it you can now go to Oregon to do it even if youre not an Oregon resident. Its one of the most powerful documentaries youll ever see I guarantee that.

The end of some diseases like cancer isnt pretty at all, no one should want to naturally go through that. I support those with a terminal diagnosis that choose this, doing it before the disease completely incapacitates you or leaves you unconscious/in a coma hooked up to machines is the right choice. It lets the person end their lives on their terms, when they choose, at home with those who are important to them and avoids the nasty ends of horrible diseases.

Bandit_Keith posted...

I didn't ignore a single point.

Bandit_Keith posted...

Yes. My point is the hypocrisy of your view. Like I stated, you seem to believe "they could have responded like this, but since they didn't I will attack them instead of their argument."

For every action is a reaction. It started from them attacking me, and it went downhill from there. I was totally fine before that. You don't see it as condescending? Fine, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Bandit_Keith posted...

Your argument had never once come close to suggesting that this isn't about the law that I read. But I could have missed something. Even still, your line and the law are at the same place, so my point stands on face value.

It didn't need to, the whole topic from then on was about a grey line. And yes, my views ultimately do reflect that part of the law. However some users still disagreed with me because I had the view of disliking euthanasia and self-suicide in general. I guess that was more of the point to the topic?

Bandit_Keith posted...

I would have called it dismissive at worst, personally. But that is ultimately semantics. It still doesn't amount to a personal attack. If you fel part of a response had a condescending tone, that's fair. That still doesn't excuse going into a personal attack.

I was being attacked in the first place by that condescending tone. If you spoke to someone in real life like that, I sincerely doubt they would take it well. But again, agree to disagree.

Bandit_Keith posted...

Regardless of what was in the base article, you still came in without the facts to claim you were 100% against it. Again, this isn't disputable. Most everyone came in without the facts. You've already acknowledged that "100%" line was an exaggeration, so we don't need to rehash that. I accept that response, and understand it. You wanted to steer the discussion into a slippery slope argument, and again, that's fine. If you'd like to continue talking about slippery slopes, that's fine too.

And I say all this not as some grand arbiter. Just another person voicing their opinions. Which is all good.

Fair enough, if you think I overreacted then I would take on board. I actually prefer talking to you since I can see level-headedness in your answers.

YoshiNESFamicom posted...

I want to write you a civil reply to this. First, if you havent seen it yet watch the documentary How To Die In Oregon. It was on YouTube at one point but not anymore. Get a hold of it however you need to if you havent seen it yet. Please watch it with a totally open mind, every person profiled in it chose death with dignity. They did a phenomenal job of telling their stories and articulating why they were choosing that option. Its real, raw, and yes it shows the actual process. I was once against it like you-because I thought the actual process was messy and painful. Its absolutely not, its fast, painless and you can basically customize it for each person and situation. When I finished watchhg it everything in it made total sense and I did a complete 360. I now fully support it and hope it becomes legal nationwide. Major headway has been achieved but weve got a long way to go still. The option is available to varying degrees in 11 out of 50 states right now. If you qualify for it you can now go to Oregon to do it even if youre not an Oregon resident. Its one of the most powerful documentaries youll ever see I guarantee that.

The end of some diseases like cancer isnt pretty at all, no one should want to naturally go through that. I support those with a terminal diagnosis that choose this, doing it before the disease completely incapacitates you or leaves you unconscious/in a coma hooked up to machines is the right choice. It lets the person end their lives on their terms, when they choose, at home with those who are important to them and avoids the nasty ends of horrible diseases.

Thanks, I'll add that to my playlists. Something to watch when I travel.

SpiritSephiroth posted...

I was being attacked in the first place by that condescending tone. If you spoke to someone in real life like that, I sincerely doubt they would take it well. But again, agree to disagree.

It happens all the time. Both in regular conversation, and in debate shows for news, politics, sports, etc. I see it every day. I can't say I've ever seen anyone take it as a personal attack until today with you. Truly. Condescension, sardonic, sarcastic, flippant, etc. A single point or line delivered in such a way is not a typical derailer. Because it's not as if you responded with condescension from condescension. That likely would not have resulted in anything else happening.

For you, it was a personal attack that required you to personally attack someone else. For everyone else, you seemingly personally attacked someone else first.

It seems we just ultimately see things quite differently.

SpiritSephiroth posted...

Thanks, I'll add that to my playlists. Something to watch when I travel.

No problem! No one can make you change your mind of course but I think its important to watch the documentary and hear the stories/perspectives of those who were profiled. That documentary was so powerful its stuck with me, its already been several years since I saw it.