Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Time for Another Alignment Thread!

Last response: in Video Games
Share
March 21, 2005 3:27:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Unless you've been living in a hole somewhere, you know about Terri Schindler
Schiavo, her husband, and his quest to have her be put to death by starvation
and dehydration, because (according to him) she once said that "she wouldn't
want to live this way" (to be in a vegetative state). Had she left a living
will, there would be no question; however the judge is acting only on witness
testimony that she once remarked while watching a movie that she would not want
to be kept alive if her life was being artificially extended by life support
equipment.

The judge adjudicating the case has ordered that her feeding tube be removed. As
well, Congress has gotten involved by attempting to have her "execution" in one
to two weeks stayed until the case is reviewed by a higher court.

This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the other. Which
alignment should prevail, and why? How would you differentiate a Lawful Good
character who would choose to adhere to the rule of law, from a Lawful Good
character who would choose to do "the right thing" in the face of an (in this
case) injust law being applied?

There are times when being neutral has its advantages ...

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen

More about : time alignment thread

Anonymous
March 21, 2005 3:27:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matthias wrote:
>
> This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the other.

No, it's a case of Law vs. Chaos: do you respect the
(alleged) right of the individual to die with dignity
or do you believe that the state/government properly
has the authority to legislate such things for you?

Good and Evil don't come into it unless Schiavo's
husband is lying, and nobody (except him) knows whether
he is or not.

-Bluto
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 3:55:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:27:44 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>The judge adjudicating the case has ordered that her feeding tube be removed. As
>well, Congress has gotten involved by attempting to have her "execution" in one
>to two weeks stayed until the case is reviewed by a higher court.
>
>This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the other.

Frankly I don't think either Law or Good is clearly on one side or the
other. Therefore I believe your question is based on an invalid
premise.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 3:55:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, David Johnston hastily scrawled:
>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:27:44 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The judge adjudicating the case has ordered that her feeding tube be removed. As
>>well, Congress has gotten involved by attempting to have her "execution" in one
>>to two weeks stayed until the case is reviewed by a higher court.
>>
>>This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the other.
>
>Frankly I don't think either Law or Good is clearly on one side or the
>other. Therefore I believe your question is based on an invalid
>premise.

Hey! Those words were stolen directly from my thoughts! Return them
at once!



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 3:56:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>> Hey! Those words were stolen directly from my thoughts! Return
them
>> at once!
>
> You wouldn't know that if they were truely stolen, so clearly only a
> copy was made. Therefore it's a matter of civil (copyright) law, and
> not a criminal case.

Apparently, these thoughts are community property and shared by many.
I'm one of this community, as well.
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 4:30:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Senator Blutarsky wrote:

> Good and Evil don't come into it unless Schiavo's
> husband is lying, and nobody (except him) knows whether
> he is or not.

The fact that in the last two months he's been offered:

1) One million dollars to annul the marriage and leave it in the hands
of her parents.
2) Ten million dollars to do the same.

and he's turned down both suggest that he's not lying. There is the
matter of her life insurance policy (and the fact that he only gets that
when she's dead, and if he were to annul the marriage he'd forfeit his
right to it) to call his motives into question, but the fact that he's
turned down so much money convinces me that it's not about that.

Mind you, CAT scans have revealed that her cerebral cortex has
completely degenerated, and her skull is now filled entirely with spinal
fluid except for her brain stem, so it's really no longer an issue of
whether she's suffering or not -- Terri isn't there anymore. (There
have been a few doctors who said that she's got something like 35% of
her brain left and a recovery is possible, but the doctors saying that
have, coincidentally I'm sure, all been in the employ of her parents.)
--
Stephenls
Geek
"You do your arguments no favor by insulting those you ought persuade."
-Greg Stolze, Rites of the Dragon
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 4:42:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matthias" wrote
> Unless you've been living in a hole somewhere, you know about Terri
Schindler
> Schiavo, her husband, and his quest to have her be put to death by
starvation
> and dehydration, because (according to him) she once said that "she
wouldn't
> want to live this way" (to be in a vegetative state). Had she left a
living
> will, there would be no question; however the judge is acting only on
witness
> testimony that she once remarked while watching a movie that she would not
want
> to be kept alive if her life was being artificially extended by life
support
> equipment.
>
> The judge adjudicating the case has ordered that her feeding tube be
removed. As
> well, Congress has gotten involved by attempting to have her "execution"
in one
> to two weeks stayed until the case is reviewed by a higher court.
>
> This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the other.
Which
> alignment should prevail, and why? How would you differentiate a Lawful
Good
> character who would choose to adhere to the rule of law, from a Lawful
Good
> character who would choose to do "the right thing" in the face of an (in
this
> case) injust law being applied?

What makes you think Lawful people would have to adhere to the rule of law?
In this case both the husband and parents could be argued as Good or
Neutral. One wants to end her suffering (per her wishes) and the other wants
to try and save their daughter.
All in all an awful situation for both.
As for Congress, one could put up an argument for any Alignment.

> There are times when being neutral has its advantages ...


John
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 8:14:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matthias wrote:

> This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the
other.

Here's a thought. Don't start an open ended thread with your own bias.


there are a couple of options. a) she did say that and does feel that
way in which case letting her die is not only the right thing to do but
hte legal thing to do. b) she didn't say that and her husband is just
making it up in which case it's evil on hisd part, but nobody else can
know for sure. Still lawful, and for the vast majority still good
because they are acting on his information. c) leave the poor woman
alone. You're an inch away from trolling. And keep your shitty
pro-life sentiment to yourself.
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 8:16:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rexx Magnus wrote:

> Urr. The fact that they're lawful indicates that they should adhere
to the
> law. If they don't - they shift towards neutral/chaotic.

Do you even play the same game as everyone else?

The fact that thay're lawful means that they believe in order and
should behave in a structured way. It doesn't mean they should follow
the law. This is alignment 101.
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 10:30:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Anivair wrote:
> Matthias wrote:
>
> > This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the
> other.
>
> You're an inch away from trolling.

Looked like a first down to me.

--
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 12:06:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:42:16 GMT, John Phillips scrawled:

> What makes you think Lawful people would have to adhere to the rule of
> law? In this case both the husband and parents could be argued as Good
> or Neutral. One wants to end her suffering (per her wishes) and the
> other wants to try and save their daughter.
> All in all an awful situation for both.
> As for Congress, one could put up an argument for any Alignment.

Urr. The fact that they're lawful indicates that they should adhere to the
law. If they don't - they shift towards neutral/chaotic.

--
http://www.rexx.co.uk

To email me, visit the site.
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 12:54:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In message <423E43D9.CB424ED4@comcast.net>, Senator Blutarsky
<monarchy@comcast.net> writes
>Matthias wrote:
>>
>> This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the other.
>
>No, it's a case of Law vs. Chaos: do you respect the
>(alleged) right of the individual to die with dignity
>or do you believe that the state/government properly
>has the authority to legislate such things for you?
>
>Good and Evil don't come into it unless Schiavo's
>husband is lying, and nobody (except him) knows whether
>he is or not.

You can oppose the government and still be lawful. You can accept the
right of a government's legislative authority, but also recognise that
such legislation isn't automatically lawful just because it was
originated by the government.

--
Ian R Malcomson
"Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box"
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 1:49:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

madafro@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Anivair wrote:
> > Matthias wrote:
> >
> > > This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the
> > other.
> >
> > You're an inch away from trolling.
>
> Looked like a first down to me.

I think he was genuine but misguided. But I'll defer to you since you
seem to have the flag and whistle.
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 4:25:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:16:01 GMT, Anivair scrawled:


> The fact that thay're lawful means that they believe in order and
> should behave in a structured way. It doesn't mean they should follow
> the law. This is alignment 101.
>
>

Ah, ok. I learn something new every day.

--
http://www.rexx.co.uk

To email me, visit the site.
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 5:47:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Because a dog cannot tell its husband it would rather be dead than in a
persistant, vegitative state?
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 10:56:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111434848.587087.110370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> If you starved a dog to death, you would be arrested. Explain why you
> should legally be able to treat a human being worse than a dog.

If a dog starved to death on it's own, and happened to fall in your yard,
you would not be arrested. If a person has been brain dead for years, I
have to say that the "life" of that person has already ended. A christian
would say that their soul had already departed.

Modern medical advances allow the appearance of life to breathe hope into
the families of people who otherwise would have croaked a long time ago.

I honestly don't know why this is such a big deal. If the guy doesn't want
to deal with it any longer, just tell the hospital he will never pay a
single red cent past what he already has, and say, now, you deal with it.
It won't be but two weeks until the hospital says they won't foot the bill
for this extraordinary treatment. If this guy *REALLY* wanted to get done
what he wanted, he would simply refuse to pay any bills. It's quite simple.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 11:04:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<chris.spol@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111445273.185474.209920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Because a dog cannot tell its husband it would rather be dead than in a
> persistant, vegitative state?

Dogs have husbands? I guess that depends how ugly she is... ;) 

"On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog..."

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 12:38:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ian R Malcomson wrote:
>
> In message <423E43D9.CB424ED4@comcast.net>, Senator Blutarsky
> <monarchy@comcast.net> writes
> >
> >No, it's a case of Law vs. Chaos: do you respect the
> >(alleged) right of the individual to die with dignity
> >or do you believe that the state/government properly
> >has the authority to legislate such things for you?
>
> You can oppose the government and still be lawful.

Yes, you can. Nevertheless, the belief that such a
decision is *properly* vested in the state/government
rather than the individual is most definitely Lawful in
flavor.

> You can accept the
> right of a government's legislative authority, but also recognise that
> such legislation isn't automatically lawful just because it was
> originated by the government.

Correct. For example, the Bill of Rights was
"originated by the government," yet is undeniably
Chaotic in flavor.

-Bluto
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 12:43:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>
> Mere moments before death, John Phillips hastily scrawled:
> >
> >One can legally give a lethal dose of drugs to a dog to humanly end its
> >pain/suffering.
>
> What pain? What suffering? Without a brain, neither is possible.

The dog need not be brainless for one to legally give
it a lethal dose of drugs, Ed.

-Bluto
March 22, 2005 2:16:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Alien mind control rays made copeab@yahoo.com <copeab@yahoo.com> write:
> If you starved a dog to death, you would be arrested. Explain why you
> should legally be able to treat a human being worse than a dog.

dogs are worth more XP.

--
\^\ // drow@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/&gt;
\ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// \ X-Windows: Putting new limits on productivity.
// \_\ -- Dude from DPAK
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 2:16:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"drow" <drow@bin.sh> wrote in message
news:423f55bc$0$24336$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net...
> Alien mind control rays made copeab@yahoo.com <copeab@yahoo.com> write:
> > If you starved a dog to death, you would be arrested. Explain why you
> > should legally be able to treat a human being worse than a dog.
>
> dogs are worth more XP.

LOL!! Now *THAT* was funny...

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 4:44:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:56:13 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

>I honestly don't know why this is such a big deal. If the guy doesn't want
>to deal with it any longer, just tell the hospital he will never pay a
>single red cent past what he already has, and say, now, you deal with it.
>It won't be but two weeks until the hospital says they won't foot the bill
>for this extraordinary treatment. If this guy *REALLY* wanted to get done
>what he wanted, he would simply refuse to pay any bills. It's quite simple.

Also quite incorrect. Years of hospital care mean that guy ran out of
money even after the settlement a long time ago.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 4:44:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:423f1d80.373731870@news.telusplanet.net...
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:56:13 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
> <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >I honestly don't know why this is such a big deal. If the guy doesn't
want
> >to deal with it any longer, just tell the hospital he will never pay a
> >single red cent past what he already has, and say, now, you deal with it.
> >It won't be but two weeks until the hospital says they won't foot the
bill
> >for this extraordinary treatment. If this guy *REALLY* wanted to get
done
> >what he wanted, he would simply refuse to pay any bills. It's quite
simple.
>
> Also quite incorrect. Years of hospital care mean that guy ran out of
> money even after the settlement a long time ago.

*SOMEONE* is paying for it. Government grants, the family, raised money,
SOMEONE is paying for it. Stop the payments, and the hospital will have
PLENTY to say about what happens. I think he's going about this all wrong.
If he really wants to get it done, just stop the flow of money.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 5:49:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rexx Magnus wrote:
> Urr. The fact that they're lawful indicates that they should adhere to the
> law. If they don't - they shift towards neutral/chaotic.

Dear idiot newbie; please to be RTFMing, TYVM.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 9:27:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:06:12 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

>"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>news:423f1d80.373731870@news.telusplanet.net...
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:56:13 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
>> <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I honestly don't know why this is such a big deal. If the guy doesn't
>want
>> >to deal with it any longer, just tell the hospital he will never pay a
>> >single red cent past what he already has, and say, now, you deal with it.
>> >It won't be but two weeks until the hospital says they won't foot the
>bill
>> >for this extraordinary treatment. If this guy *REALLY* wanted to get
>done
>> >what he wanted, he would simply refuse to pay any bills. It's quite
>simple.
>>
>> Also quite incorrect. Years of hospital care mean that guy ran out of
>> money even after the settlement a long time ago.
>
>*SOMEONE* is paying for it. Government grants, the family, raised money,
>SOMEONE is paying for it. Stop the payments, and the hospital will have
>PLENTY to say about what happens. I think he's going about this all wrong.
>If he really wants to get it done, just stop the flow of money.

He can't because it isn't his money.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 10:46:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rexx Magnus wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:42:16 GMT, John Phillips scrawled:
>
> > What makes you think Lawful people would have to adhere to the rule
of
> > law? In this case both the husband and parents could be argued as
Good
> > or Neutral. One wants to end her suffering (per her wishes) and the
> > other wants to try and save their daughter.
> > All in all an awful situation for both.
> > As for Congress, one could put up an argument for any Alignment.
>
> Urr. The fact that they're lawful indicates that they should adhere
to the
> law. If they don't - they shift towards neutral/chaotic.

Silly person, why should anyone think that Lawful people would tend to
follow the law? That's like saying Good people should do good things.

<sarcasm mode off>

Brandon
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 3:31:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Senator Blutarsky hastily scrawled:
>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>>
>> Mere moments before death, John Phillips hastily scrawled:
>> >
>> >One can legally give a lethal dose of drugs to a dog to humanly end its
>> >pain/suffering.
>>
>> What pain? What suffering? Without a brain, neither is possible.
>
>The dog need not be brainless for one to legally give
>it a lethal dose of drugs, Ed.

Terri Schiavo is not a dog.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 3:31:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Jeff Goslin hastily scrawled:
>
>I honestly don't know why this is such a big deal. If the guy doesn't want
>to deal with it any longer, just tell the hospital he will never pay a
>single red cent past what he already has, and say, now, you deal with it.
>It won't be but two weeks until the hospital says they won't foot the bill
>for this extraordinary treatment. If this guy *REALLY* wanted to get done
>what he wanted, he would simply refuse to pay any bills. It's quite simple.

Once again, you expose your cluelessness to the public.

There is nothing "extraordinary" about Terri's treatment. It's just a
feeding tube. Doctors and hospitals don't get to make all their
decisions based on whether they're getting paid or not.


Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 6:26:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <5tSdnQ13Gb7Q8qLfRVn-gw@comcast.com>,
Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
><chris.spol@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1111445273.185474.209920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Because a dog cannot tell its husband it would rather be dead than in a
>> persistant, vegitative state?
>
>Dogs have husbands? I guess that depends how ugly she is... ;) 
>
>"On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog..."

Unless you post a photo on your website.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 6:29:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:423f613e.391076399@news.telusplanet.net...
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:06:12 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
> >*SOMEONE* is paying for it. Government grants, the family, raised money,
> >SOMEONE is paying for it. Stop the payments, and the hospital will have
> >PLENTY to say about what happens. I think he's going about this all
wrong.
> >If he really wants to get it done, just stop the flow of money.
>
> He can't because it isn't his money.

Honestly I don't see what the problem is, then. PERSONALLY, if I knew my
wife to be brain dead, I would accept that she was gone, despite the fact
that her body was still there. "You guys have fun, I'll be over here,
putting my life back together." Honestly, let her family do whatever they
want, and simply stop taking part. If they can afford to treat a zucchini
like a human being, more power to em.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 6:31:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <423fb5ea@clear.net.nz>, tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> Morphine looks the least stressful option, AFAICT; whatever's left
>of the body, brain, and mind will have a nice gentle death. It is how
>they kill off the old folk and final-stage cancer patients.

Who is this "they" of whom you speak? I was under the impression that the
Netherlands was one of the few countries in the world to allow euthanasia.
Someone in Ottawa recently committed suicide, after notifying all the papers,
in protest against Canada's lack of assisted suicide (for later, when he'd be
unable to do it himself).
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 8:23:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111506375.911567.211790@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Silly person, why should anyone think that Lawful people would tend to
> follow the law? That's like saying Good people should do good things.
> <sarcasm mode off>

It never ceases to amaze, how consistently Cope misunderstands the terms
of art.

-Michael
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 9:05:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Ed Chauvin IV" wrote
> Mere moments before death, Senator Blutarsky hastily scrawled:
> >Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> >>
> >> Mere moments before death, John Phillips hastily scrawled:
> >> >
> >> >One can legally give a lethal dose of drugs to a dog to humanly end
its
> >> >pain/suffering.
> >>
> >> What pain? What suffering? Without a brain, neither is possible.
> >
> >The dog need not be brainless for one to legally give
> >it a lethal dose of drugs, Ed.
>
> Terri Schiavo is not a dog.

There would be no question about this if it was a brain dead dog being kept
alive via a feeding tube.



John
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 9:18:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 22 Mar 2005 07:46:15 -0800, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>Rexx Magnus wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:42:16 GMT, John Phillips scrawled:
>>
>> > What makes you think Lawful people would have to adhere to the rule
>of
>> > law? In this case both the husband and parents could be argued as
>Good
>> > or Neutral. One wants to end her suffering (per her wishes) and the
>> > other wants to try and save their daughter.
>> > All in all an awful situation for both.
>> > As for Congress, one could put up an argument for any Alignment.
>>
>> Urr. The fact that they're lawful indicates that they should adhere
>to the
>> law. If they don't - they shift towards neutral/chaotic.
>
>Silly person, why should anyone think that Lawful people would tend to
>follow the law?

No, Lawful people should follow _a_ law. But it can be Church law
just as easily as local civil law. For that matter it can be a rigid
set of restrictions on your behaviour that you made up for yourself
that conflicts with the laws of both god and man. A ritualistic
serial killer or a tyrannical spousal abuser could be Lawful.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 10:27:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>
> Mere moments before death, Senator Blutarsky hastily scrawled:
> >Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> >>
> >> Mere moments before death, John Phillips hastily scrawled:
> >> >
> >> >One can legally give a lethal dose of drugs to a dog to humanly end its
> >> >pain/suffering.
> >>
> >> What pain? What suffering? Without a brain, neither is possible.
> >
> >The dog need not be brainless for one to legally give
> >it a lethal dose of drugs, Ed.
>
> Terri Schiavo is not a dog.

Right. So why are people comparing her to one?

-Bluto
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 12:57:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:29:37 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

>"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>news:423f613e.391076399@news.telusplanet.net...
>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:06:12 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
>> >*SOMEONE* is paying for it. Government grants, the family, raised money,
>> >SOMEONE is paying for it. Stop the payments, and the hospital will have
>> >PLENTY to say about what happens. I think he's going about this all
>wrong.
>> >If he really wants to get it done, just stop the flow of money.
>>
>> He can't because it isn't his money.
>
>Honestly I don't see what the problem is, then.

I'm sure you don't.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 6:47:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
> news:423f613e.391076399@news.telusplanet.net...
>
>>He can't because it isn't his money.
>
> Honestly I don't see what the problem is, then. PERSONALLY, if I knew my
> wife to be brain dead, I would accept that she was gone, despite the fact
> that her body was still there.

Uh...you guys do realize that she isn't actually brain dead, right?

-Will
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 6:48:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Will Green <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXo.com> wrote in
news:GF50e.16783$YG3.6846@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com:

> Jeff Goslin wrote:
>> "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>> news:423f613e.391076399@news.telusplanet.net...
>>
>>>He can't because it isn't his money.
>>
>> Honestly I don't see what the problem is, then. PERSONALLY, if I
>> knew my wife to be brain dead, I would accept that she was gone,
>> despite the fact that her body was still there.
>
> Uh...you guys do realize that she isn't actually brain dead, right?

Her cerebral cortex has liquified. There's just cerebral spinal fluid
there. That's basically everything that makes her a person, gone.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 7:59:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Will Green" <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXo.com> wrote in message
news:GF50e.16783$YG3.6846@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
> > Honestly I don't see what the problem is, then. PERSONALLY, if I knew
my
> > wife to be brain dead, I would accept that she was gone, despite the
fact
> > that her body was still there.
>
> Uh...you guys do realize that she isn't actually brain dead, right?

She most certainly is, in all the ways that matter. The hardware that
remains to her is not capable of containing human consciousness.

-Michael
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 1:02:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> <copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1111592928.965522.147930@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > So, how does "Law" implying an obedience to authority (SRD) not
imply
> > an obedience to laws laid down by that authority?
>
> Which authority, Cope?

The SRD doesn't specify.

Regardless, if a Lawful person is obedient to some specific authority,
then they would logically obey laws passed down by that authority.

> What about the other alignment axis, Cope?

Irrelevant. This is a Law/Chaos discussion. Good and Evil have nothing
to do with it.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 1:29:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Symbol wrote:

> Would a Lawful Good Paladin obey the
> law of an Chaotic invading despot or would he discard those laws as
> illegitimate and obey the edics and traditions of his order instead
(which
> may or may not have *any* influence over civilian law)?

Let me answer this more directly:

The paladin should be living by the laws of his order, regardless of
who the secular authority is and what their decrees are. He obeys
secular laws only when they do not conflict with the laws of his order.

This is really very simply; why are you unable to understand it?

Brandon
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 1:38:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Senator Blutarsky hastily scrawled:
>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>> Mere moments before death, Senator Blutarsky hastily scrawled:
>> >Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>> >> Mere moments before death, John Phillips hastily scrawled:
>> >> >
>> >> >One can legally give a lethal dose of drugs to a dog to humanly end its
>> >> >pain/suffering.
>> >>
>> >> What pain? What suffering? Without a brain, neither is possible.
>> >
>> >The dog need not be brainless for one to legally give
>> >it a lethal dose of drugs, Ed.
>>
>> Terri Schiavo is not a dog.
>
>Right. So why are people comparing her to one?

That's what I'm trying to figure out.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 1:38:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Symbol hastily scrawled:
>
>As usual you are completely out of your depth. The woman is brain dead.
>She doesn't feel pain, discomfort, embarrasment or anything else. No
>method is any more humane than the other. The criteria for method of death
>should therefore not depend on your assine criteria but on more practical
>ones like *respect* for the patient and consideration for the relatives
>(splattering their mushy brains all over the wall is out).

I agree totally. It would be incomprehensibly inappropriate to shoot
Terri Schiavo's parents.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 1:38:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Jeff Goslin hastily scrawled:
>
>Honestly I don't see what the problem is, then. PERSONALLY, if I knew my
>wife to be brain dead, I would accept that she was gone, despite the fact
>that her body was still there. "You guys have fun, I'll be over here,
>putting my life back together." Honestly, let her family do whatever they
>want, and simply stop taking part. If they can afford to treat a zucchini
>like a human being, more power to em.

I honestly hope no woman ever fools herself into believing that you're
an actual thinking, feeling human being.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 1:38:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Will Green hastily scrawled:
>
>Uh...you guys do realize that she isn't actually brain dead, right?

Prove it.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 1:38:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Jeff Goslin hastily scrawled:
>
>Honestly, I'm a prick like that. Once my wife is brain dead, it's not like
>she's going to know if she's suffering or anything. I'll honor her final
>wishes, but if she's continuing in a vegetative state, and nobody will pull
>the plug despite her wishes, I'll step aside until it's time to carry out
>her final wishes(she does NOT want to be cremated, as I understand it).
>Once she's DEAD dead, I'll carry out my obligations.
>
>Brain dead = Dead as far as I am concerned.

These statements contradict each other. If she's dead, it's time to
carry out her final wishes. If those wishes were for her body to not
be kept alive through extraordinary means, it's time to pull the plug.
Walking away means you're either uncaring, afraid or stupid.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 2:27:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matthias wrote:
> Unless you've been living in a hole somewhere, you know about Terri
Schindler
> Schiavo, her husband, and his quest to have her be put to death by
starvation
> and dehydration,

That's a strawman. The man doesn't want to have his wife starve and
dehydrate so much as put her out of that miserable condition. She'll
starve and dehydrate because the *State* would rather have a woman in
that condition dehydrate than put a lethal injection in her to kill her
quickly and with little pain. It's pretty amazing when the government,
in all it's "wisdom", would kill convicted criminals relatively
painlessly while allowing a woman who's done nothing wrong suffer for
six or seven days as she dehydrates.

>because (according to him) she once said that "she wouldn't
> want to live this way" (to be in a vegetative state).

He'd know better than any of us. I know *I* personally would rather
die than "live" in that condition (and it's only artificial life
because without serious medical attention, she'd have died 15 years
ago).

> Had she left a living
> will, there would be no question; however the judge is acting only on
witness
> testimony that she once remarked while watching a movie that she
would not want
> to be kept alive if her life was being artificially extended by life
support
> equipment.
>

It's not hard to believe she would say something like that. Nearly
everyone I know would rather be dead than in her condition. Just
because medical science can keep a person alive doesn't mean they
should. That's why terminal cancer patients (like my father and
grandmother years ago) sign DNR orders and refuse to be put on such
equipment. They even decided that they wouldn't spend the last few
months of their lives in a hospital, but rather at home under hospice
care. Both died at home on their own terms.

> The judge adjudicating the case has ordered that her feeding tube be
removed. As
> well, Congress has gotten involved by attempting to have her
"execution" in one
> to two weeks stayed until the case is reviewed by a higher court.
>

Well, removing her tube is a form of execution. It's far harsher than
convicts on death row get (many are innocent, yes, but that's another
topic entirely). If the State determines to pull her tube out, I can't
see why they wouldn't make her passing easier for her by giving her a
lethal injection. The blood is already on their hands.

> This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the
other.

Like most cases. Heck, Law is often evil in it's heart.

>Which
> alignment should prevail, and why?

Good obviously, because law is evil and has only as much legitimacy as
the thugs who "enforce" it say it does.

> How would you differentiate a Lawful Good
> character who would choose to adhere to the rule of law, from a
Lawful Good
> character who would choose to do "the right thing" in the face of an
(in this
> case) injust law being applied?
>
> There are times when being neutral has its advantages ...
>

Considering how D&D alignments have little to do with real life (it's
just a game), of course neutrality (based on the D&D model) has its
advantages. In the D&D universe, Good/Evil and Law/Chaos are absolutes
which exist. There are purely evil creatures as well as purely good
ones. I've never seen a case like that in the real world.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 2:27:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111506375.911567.211790@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Silly person, why should anyone think that Lawful people would tend to
> follow the law? That's like saying Good people should do good things.
>
> <sarcasm mode off>

That is no more silly than someone with the Honesty Disadvantage in GURPS
freely telling lies. It is a term of art.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 2:36:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Senator Blutarsky wrote:
> Matthias wrote:
> >
> > This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the
other.
>
> No, it's a case of Law vs. Chaos: do you respect the
> (alleged) right of the individual to die with dignity
> or do you believe that the state/government properly
> has the authority to legislate such things for you?
>

Call me Chaos because the government has no proper authority to tell
people how to live or how to die. It's "authority" comes less from
rule of Law than rule of force. You see, people follow bullshit laws
like this because the state has cops with guns who force them to.

> Good and Evil don't come into it unless Schiavo's
> husband is lying, and nobody (except him) knows whether
> he is or not.
>

I'd say Evil comes into it when one considers how the woman is going to
die. Removing her tube is a form of execution. Period. The fact that
the State would rather have her dehydrate over the course of a week and
face that type of prolonged suffering than giving her a lethal dose of
chemicals to give her a quick and painless death is a form of evil on
the part of the State. I can empathize with her parents when they
talk about how their daughter is going to suffer by dehydrating over
the course of several days. If the State would actually allow
euthanasia in this case it might be a little easier for her parents to
accept.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 2:48:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Stephenls wrote:
> Senator Blutarsky wrote:
>
> > Good and Evil don't come into it unless Schiavo's
> > husband is lying, and nobody (except him) knows whether
> > he is or not.
>
> The fact that in the last two months he's been offered:
>
> 1) One million dollars to annul the marriage and leave it in the
hands
> of her parents.
> 2) Ten million dollars to do the same.
>
> and he's turned down both suggest that he's not lying. There is the
> matter of her life insurance policy (and the fact that he only gets
that
> when she's dead, and if he were to annul the marriage he'd forfeit
his
> right to it) to call his motives into question, but the fact that
he's
> turned down so much money convinces me that it's not about that.
>
> Mind you, CAT scans have revealed that her cerebral cortex has
> completely degenerated, and her skull is now filled entirely with
spinal
> fluid except for her brain stem, so it's really no longer an issue of

> whether she's suffering or not -- Terri isn't there anymore.

For the most part, yes. But I'm sure she feels pain and watching
Nightline a couple days ago and hearing the tape of her moaning in
response to her parents, she does respond to stimuli. Putting her
through dehydration over the course of a week is a particularly brutal
way to kill somebody, which is essentially what the State will be doing
should they pull the tube out once and for all. It makes no sense
either because the State puts convicted criminals (many are innocent
but some aren't) to death in a pretty painless way.

>(There
> have been a few doctors who said that she's got something like 35% of

> her brain left and a recovery is possible, but the doctors saying
that
> have, coincidentally I'm sure, all been in the employ of her
parents.)
>

Maybe, maybe not. There are doctors out there who will say anything.
Heck, psychiatry, which bills itself as a "branch" of medical science
is mostly nonsense. Real doctors look down on psychiatrists because
unlike most of medicine, they "diagnose disorders" based on subjective
value judgements rather than empirical evidence and objective reasoning
developed from that.
    • 1 / 20
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!