I thought so.

Why do you think anti semitism is ok?

you aren't looking to be convinced. All you've done is dodge points, try to muddy the waters, and try to hide behind vauge allusions that suffering or harm are 'more nuaced' I.e. trying to expand the definition of those words to include whatever is needed to maintain your framework.

Have you ever read Bentham? This is not exactly a new topic/idea.

Nah, Hillary is more hawkish than I am. Just because I think we're better off being the top super power doesn't mean every war is worth it. There have been plenty of blunders we could've avoided with little consequence.

No, I actually haven't. I've completely explained everything and you just reject it in an attempt to over simplify things because nuance is something you can't seem to grasp.

You did the same exact **** with the IQ test debate.

Let me clarify. I would not kill a homeless person if I knew it'd cause less suffering than it prevented if they had the ability to do it because robbing him of a choice is a cause of human suffering that isn't necessary. Me not killing him doesn't make me responsible what so ever for his continued suffering because I didn't cause it and he is not dependent on my choice to end his own suffering. In the event where he would be dependent on me, such as assisted suicide or euthanasia, I would because at that point I'd be directly responsible for his prolonged suffering.

I've already said this but for ****s sake you're stubborn in wanting to hear it.

Also, as I've already explained but you don't want to listen, it's different than the kill a child to save 100 scenario because in that instance I know that they are dependent on my choice.

Nothing muddied, clear as day.

-_-

Do you see a problem here?

There is none, you just have a hard time understanding as usual.

This is where we're having a fundamental disconnect

the premise is that killing him will definitely lead to less suffering. So saying you will cause unnecessary suffering as the reason not to do it is going back on the premise once again.

1) Cool. Me neither.
2) Can you quantify 'prevented'? Prevented what? More suffering? How much more? What kind? Bullet to the brain or death by 1,000 cuts?
3) Ability to kill themselves?
4) I robbed my kid of the choice of running into the street. Did they suffer?

It's not going back on the premise because you're ignoring the part where I said I would if they were dependent on my choice.

2) Read the scenario JWB cooked up and you'll get it.

3) Yes.

4) But that's different because your child's lack of awareness makes them dependent on you. Euthanasia would also be robbing somebody of choice but that person lacks the ability to decide there for they are dependent on me to decide for them and I already support that.