Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Thanks for the clarification. I'm curious how you can reconcile your beliefs with those definitions, which I feel apply equally well to your own arguments:

immature: "I know what life means and that is not the meaning of life." or "Suffering cannot be unbearable, can always be improved by sharing it, and everyone has a robust support network ready and willing to share their pain."

arrogant: "15 thousand suffering people, their families, and their doctors and support staff all need to redefine life as I see it."

selfish: "I know what's best for everyone. Differing opinions are mental disorders and psychological conditions and should be discarded out of hand."

What makes your opinion the only privileged one here? Honest question, I just feel like we're operating under different frameworks and there must be something else I'm missing. Can I ask your opinion on the soul and afterlife?



In order to play a reverse uno card, you would have to at least use established reasons. Instead you chose libertarianisms: “dont tell me what to do; I will decide what is best for me”

I don’t operate under libertarian principles.


I understand, but many do. Society as a whole is no longer entirely aligned with you, as is evidenced by Canada, Spain, Switzerland, Belgium, parts of the US, parts of Australia, and a number of others.

So, what principles do you operate under? That's been my question the whole time. If this is your personal beliefs vs that of the states above, I think that seems rather arrogant, hence my thought that maybe religion is involved? I'd love to know how you came to feel so strongly.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: