Belgium passes euthanasia bill for all children

[999tigger 10]

I really do not think I could bare to live myself if I did.

 

So what would you do Mr Clowning? there you are you have a choice to make. Are you saying you would let the child suffer in agonising pain?

 

Alternatively are you saying you'd give permission and then top yourself?

 

Do you approve or dissaprove of what they have passed?

[Mr Clowning 10]

I really do not think I could bare to live myself if I did.

 

So what would you do Mr Clowning? there you are you have a choice to make. Are you saying you would let the child suffer in agonising pain?

 

Alternatively are you saying you'd give permission and then top yourself?

 

Do you approve or dissaprove of what they have passed?

 

I think I would have to leave it up to medical opinion and go with that, but I would most certainly feel like topping myself I imagine.

[999tigger 10]

Not really getting why you are so taken aback by the belgium law then as the parents consent is needed as well as a psychologist, the medics and ofc the child. Seems a lot more humane and sensible than letting someone suffer. Not a nice decision to make but I can see where it would be the more compassionate and sensible one.

[aliceBB 10]

Firstly what is that supposed to mean ?

[ref. to the aptly named Mr Clowning] Unlike your thread title, it means exactly what it says. Your first title was jokey, was it not?

 

Secondly I don't care if people have responded or not to the topic you idiot

So why bother posting the thread in the first place if you don't care whether people respond? You may as well just let them watch or read the news for themselves and discuss it with their nearest and dearest. And there is no need to resort to personal abuse, even if you are cross.

 

What does Frustrate me as you say is when people come on and spend 3 pages of discussing a title when they obviously don't have a view on the content of discussion. Had you made any other contribution then I could understand it but just like topics you start yourself you don't actually seem to have an opinion.

 

It seems to have escaped your notice that back in #33 I posted my views on the issue in some depth:

 

Originally Posted by aliceBB The problem hinges I suppose, not on whether the child is in intolerable pain which is incapable of palliation (rare, these days), but at what age a human being has the understanding to demand an end to his or her own life. Obviously (in the eyes of the Belgian government), it is at some point between birth and 18 years old, but when? This is, I think, why the caveat has been built in that the parents and the doctor must also agree.

 

In practice I cannot imagine that any parent would consent to this for any child under 16 or 17 - or even for any teenager who was not exceptionally mature for his or her age. If anyone you love is in unbearable pain at the end of life, morphine both palliates and in the quantity needed, it speeds the end. But who could bear to stand by and see a fatal dose of barbituates given to their child to end their life?

 

With conditions which are life-threatening and painful but not at end stage, I wonder whether any parent would agree to their child's request?

 

Very difficult one though.

 

Please explain why that fails to qualify as having an opinion?!

 

With regard to the topics I have started myself, you're talking nonsense. Most of them have been about education/child-rearing and if you read them you will notice that I have pretty clear opinions about the topics in question. The thread I started about uniform was the only one where I began by saying that I appreciate both sides of the argument and don't have strong views. I am no longer a teacher and my kids are at Uni, not school, so I can afford the luxury of sitting on the fence on that one. Hope that's OK with you?

 

In fact...does the thread starter even need to have an opinion at all? Sometimes if you dazzle the readers with the 'full Monty' of your own views to begin with, it can put a lot of people off contributing...

 

The title was changed to this because someone put that this would be a better title, I had it changed and still someone is moaning. I would have kept the original title myself, but I tried to satisfy posters only to dissatisfy others. Well I don't care anymore about the title, there's a link there for you to know what its about.

You still seem to be missing the point. If your title confuses people it's highly unlikely that they'll even get as far as the link - they'll just skip it to a thread with a title which is easy to understand at first reading. That's what people do on forums. They don't want to have to puzzle out the meaning in something unless they are doing a cryptic crossword, or reading James Joyce (when all that mental effort will hopefully be rewarded). The average Sheffield Forum thread starter is not James Joyce (sadly). Unless forum readers are highly motivated about a particular topic (in which case they will put up with a bit of confusion), they want their headlines to make sense straight away. Like it or lump it, that's how it works.

 

Are you a want to be editor or something ?

I'm sorry if the story isn't posted to your standard

Please don't apologise - it's only worth it if it's genuine.

but as I'm not in your employment I don't really care,

Well, unless your decorating skills and your attitude to learning are better than your powers of expression as demonstrated in this thread, I too am relieved you are not in my employment.

 

if its not bringing people in then WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE ???

Silly argument. First, I did not say nobody had/would respond substantively to the topic. In fact, I have responded. See #33 (again).

 

I also contributed to it in the (apparently optimistic) hope that you would see sense about the title putting people off from contributing. Had you changed it when I first suggested an alternative which made sense, I expect you would have had a lively debate by now. It's an important issue and well worthy of it. A few more minutes spent crafting your invitation to debate would have resulted in a much greater response.

Edited February 18, 2014 by aliceBB

[Mr Clowning 10]

Ok what title will you be happy with, you put it up and Ill request the change (as I have done so once). Or you request the change and if mods are reading this they will know I am happy with it

 

And my decorating skills are excellent as it happens, I have a city and guilds cert and everything.

[aliceBB 10]

Ok what title will you be happy with, you put it up and Ill request the change (as I have done so once). Or you request the change and if mods are reading this they will know I am happy with it

 

Thank you. See #24 for the alternative title I suggested. Feel free to request the change.

 

(But you may have missed the boat in terms of reader interest, by now).

Edited February 18, 2014 by aliceBB

[Mr Clowning 10]

I better leave it then.

[skinz 10]

If you didn't MEAN 'all children', why did you SAY 'all children'? It makes a big difference to the meaning of your title.

 

I'm not sure AliceBB, I'll leave it to you to suggest a motive You are currently posting on the "Danish" thread. It could be suggested that that title could mislead..of course it hasn't because it's attracted posters, including yourself. The title doesn't even mention "animals" but that hasn't stopped you from posting your opinions.

[aliceBB 10]

I'm not sure AliceBB, I'll leave it to you to suggest a motive

OK, I am not a mind reader, but I have quite a lot of experience in decoding nonsense. Two reasons/motives for the price of one:

 

(i) You started off by writing 'Belgium passes euthanasia bill for all' (but presumably didn't want to leave it at that, as you sensibly realised euthanasia is already legal there for adults?).

 

(ii) You tried to modify it to 'all, including children' but forgot to put in the word 'including'?

 

I have no clear idea why you wrote it, or why you chose the words you did, but meaningful language use is never random or unconscious. Either you meant it to mean something, - in which case you failed - or you didn't (which begs the question of why you wrote it in the first place).

 

You are currently posting on the "Danish" thread. It could be suggested that that title could mislead..of course it hasn't because it's attracted posters, including yourself. The title doesn't even mention "animals" but that hasn't stopped you from posting your opinions

 

Reasonable question. However, in that thread, the key lexical item 'religious slaughter' is much less likely to be misinterpreted than 'euthanasia for all children' in this one. This is because the term 'slaughter', particularly 'religious slaughter', in the context of European countries (Denmark, also mentioned in the thread title) which are not war zones, almost invariably relates to animals, not humans, and even to animals being killed for food, rather than for sacrificial rites or any other religious reason (if any exist). In other words, there is enough context in the key lexical items to make meaning clear.

 

In linguistic terms, the semantic meaning coincides with the pragmatic meaning and both are supported by the grammar of the phrase. That was not the case with your suggested heading.

 

HTH

Edited February 18, 2014 by aliceBB

[999tigger 10]

Alice you are letting him and epic fail wind you up. You are getting far too involved. It's quite clear he wasnt capable of actually discussing the issue in an intelligent way so just leave it and dont waste any more energy.

[Epic Fail 10]

Eh. What have I done?

[aliceBB 10]

Alice you are letting him and epic fail wind you up. You are getting far too involved. It's quite clear he wasnt capable of actually discussing the issue in an intelligent way so just leave it and dont waste any more energy.

Thank you for your concern, but I can churn out linguistic analysis in my sleep (just about), so don't worry. It usually shuts them up in the end! I am too long in the tooth to be wound up by the inarticulate.

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2014 at 16:52 ----------

 

Eh. What have I done?

 

To be fair, nowt much!