Snuff

[fetishdj]

Snuff.. what's not to understand about it? Its small pieces of tobacco and other herbs blended together that is sniffed up the nose...

Oh, hang on... you mean the *other* type of snuff...

Not heard much about this in the BDSM scene, and then only as stories rather than real life. Mostly only heard about it in horror videos. Of course one reason you may not have heard about it is the fact that it is horribly and totally illegal. IMO it also breaks all three elements of safe, sane and consensual (even if the person consents to being killed I am not sure should be possible to consent to your own death, it certainly isn't legally and morally it is a nasty area of personal freedom to explore).

Having said that, of course, I am in favour of euthanasia because I think someone with a terminal illness who wants to die due to extreme pain should be allowed to do so with dignity rather than being forced to stay alive. Legally, even this would get the killer a life sentence for pre-meditated murder (though most judges seem to defer it to manslaughter due to the mitigating circumstances) However, consensual killing for pleasure of an individual or videoed for the pleasure of others? Not a chance...

[thir]

Not heard much about this in the BDSM scene, and then only as stories rather than real life. Mostly only heard about it in horror videos.

An interesting and demanding topic..
I too have the impression that it is not a very big thing in real life more a sort of myth -?

Murder is one thing, as in non-consensual killing, but I do assume that it is the other thing we are talking about here?

Of course one reason you may not have heard about it is the fact that it is horribly and totally illegal. IMO it also breaks all three elements of safe, sane and consensual (even if the person consents to being killed I am not sure should be possible to consent to your own death, it certainly isn't legally and morally it is a nasty area of personal freedom to explore).

This I see is the core of the matter. I see the view here (with you and other people) that if you consent to your own death you are out of your mind and should not be allowed.

I have another view: Any person owns themselves. If you cannot own yourself, then there is not real freedom and that, to me, is the single most important thing in life.

The consequence of that is that you also can - for whatever reason - decide what to do with yourself, including dying as in suicide or agreeing to or asking someone to kill you.

Why anyone would want to is beyond me, but that is another matter. I see it only from the point of view of the person who decides on death him/herself.

[lucy]

This I see is the core of the matter. I see the view here (with you and other people) that if you consent to your own death you are out of your mind and should not be allowed.

I have another view: Any person owns themselves. If you cannot own yourself, then there is not real freedom and that, to me, is the single most important thing in life.

The consequence of that is that you also can - for whatever reason - decide what to do with yourself, including dying as in suicide or agreeing to or asking someone to kill you.

I second all that. However, suiciding or asking someone to kill you might very likely collide with other's peoples interests and freedom. Be it only because someone has to clean the mess and/or live with what you left. And that can be taken literally: When i was 11, a neighbour (20 years old and a mate of my brother) shot himself in the basement. It was messy; brains and blood everywhere. My brother found him, and to this day he has problems going to a basement. I never went to that basement anymore until we finally moved. Not because i was scared of what happened, but because i was afraid i might find another dead person.
I know it's probably the last thing a suicidal person thinks about, but it would only be fair to think of the persons who will find you.

The same with asking someone to kill you, even when you're about to die anyway. That can put immense pressure on the person who's asked to "do the job". I don't think a lot of persons could either comply or not comply with that wish without having a huge problem with it.

[thir]

I second all that. However, suiciding or asking someone to kill you might very likely collide with other's peoples interests and freedom. Be it only because someone has to clean the mess and/or live with what you left.

Point. It would be good to do it in a way as to not upset people who will find you. That may be difficult, though!

The same with asking someone to kill you, even when you're about to die anyway. That can put immense pressure on the person who's asked to "do the job". I don't think a lot of persons could either comply or not comply with that wish without having a huge problem with it.

These persons would likewise have their freedom to say 'no' to that.

[leah06]

This I see is the core of the matter. I see the view here (with you and other people) that if you consent to your own death you are out of your mind and should not be allowed.

I have another view: Any person owns themselves. If you cannot own yourself, then there is not real freedom and that, to me, is the single most important thing in life.

Thir, I always enjoy reading your posts because sometimes your intuitions are very different from mine and they are thought-provoking. I happen to agree with you that, in general, people own themselves and that they should be able to treat their property as they wish. However, I think that our intuitions place some bounds on that, as does our legal system. People who are insane are not able to, for example, enter contracts, dispose of their property, or make decisions regarding their care. Other people who are under a legal disability are treated similarly. Children, for example, generally can't engage in the activities I listed.

It seems to me that either you think it is a good idea to protect some people from themselves, or you don't. If you really don't believe that, then I would like you to justify prohibiting pedophilia. After all, lots of that special touching can feel really good, so why not let a child consent to it? But once you agree that SOME people are simply "disabled" - by age, or some kind of illness, or a psychological condition - from being able to make certain decisions for themselves, including the right to make decisions regarding their physical property, their bodies, then the questions is, who falls into that category?

I'm very comfortable saying, kids do. I don't need to interview each one to see where they fall on some decision-making spectrum; they just don't get to consent to sex. Or to lots of other things involving their bodies or their property. And insane people. Once you know that someone is insane, then they just can't make those decisions. So who's insane? Again, I'm confortable making the blanket judgment that physically-healthy people who want to "consent" to stuff are just nuts and can't consent to anything. You might disagree, and want to make a case-by-case determination; but unless you really believe that ANYONE, no matter what their condition, owns and can dispose of themselves in any way they like, I think you will need to agree that at least some people just aren't in a position to agreed to be snuffed.

[leo9]

Thir, I always enjoy reading your posts because sometimes your intuitions are very different from mine and they are thought-provoking. I happen to agree with you that, in general, people own themselves and that they should be able to treat their property as they wish. However, I think that our intuitions place some bounds on that, as does our legal system. People who are insane are not able to, for example, enter contracts, dispose of their property, or make decisions regarding their care. Other people who are under a legal disability are treated similarly. Children, for example, generally can't engage in the activities I listed.

It seems to me that either you think it is a good idea to protect some people from themselves, or you don't. If you really don't believe that, then I would like you to justify prohibiting pedophilia. After all, lots of that special touching can feel really good, so why not let a child consent to it? But once you agree that SOME people are simply "disabled" - by age, or some kind of illness, or a psychological condition - from being able to make certain decisions for themselves, including the right to make decisions regarding their physical property, their bodies, then the questions is, who falls into that category?

I'm very comfortable saying, kids do. I don't need to interview each one to see where they fall on some decision-making spectrum; they just don't get to consent to sex. Or to lots of other things involving their bodies or their property. And insane people. Once you know that someone is insane, then they just can't make those decisions. So who's insane? Again, I'm confortable making the blanket judgment that physically-healthy people who want to "consent" to stuff are just nuts and can't consent to anything. You might disagree, and want to make a case-by-case determination; but unless you really believe that ANYONE, no matter what their condition, owns and can dispose of themselves in any way they like, I think you will need to agree that at least some people just aren't in a position to agreed to be snuffed.

I really hope this wasn't meant to be as grossly insulting as it sounds. Your lengthy defence of the age of consent appears to imply that thir needs to be convinced that children should be protected - and it's probably just as well that she's away from the list for a few days, because she will be both horrified and spitting fire when she sees it. Did you really mean to imply that?

I'm used to guilt-by-association from the worst end of the Religious Right: if you support gay marriage you must be in favour of underage marriage, if you support abortion you must approve of infanticide. But this is the first time I was ever told that if I support the right to suicide I must approve of child abuse.

I ask again, did you really mean to say that? Because I hate to find I've torn into someone for something they didn't mean, so I want to be quite sure first.

[thir]

I really hope this wasn't meant to be as grossly insulting as it sounds. Your lengthy defence of the age of consent appears to imply that thir needs to be convinced that children should be protected - and it's probably just as well that she's away from the list for a few days, because she will be both horrified and spitting fire when she sees it. Did you really mean to imply that?

I am not spitting fire dear Lord, because I am fairly sure that that was not the implication.
I

I'm used to guilt-by-association from the worst end of the Religious Right: if you support gay marriage you must be in favour of underage marriage, if you support abortion you must approve of infanticide. But this is the first time I was ever told that if I support the right to suicide I must approve of child abuse.

It can be read like that, and I too abhor that way of arguing. I do not think it was meant that way, but I do agree with you that one should probably be aware of taking a discussion in totally different areas from what was under debate, or at least be very clear about it.

But again, I do not think that that mail was meant that way at all.

[thir]

It seems to me that either you think it is a good idea to protect some people from themselves, or you don't.
snip
But once you agree that SOME people are simply "disabled" - by age, or some kind of illness, or a psychological condition - from being able to make certain decisions for themselves, including the right to make decisions regarding their physical property, their bodies, then the questions is, who falls into that category?

Who indeed?

OK, we were discussing adults and the option of doing with your body what you want - or, a clarification, I was.

I have another question: who are qualified to determine if other people should be put under guardianship?

And insane people. Once you know that someone is insane, then they just can't make those decisions. So who's insane? Again, I'm confortable making the blanket judgment that physically-healthy people who want to "consent" to stuff are just nuts and can't consent to anything.

I guess the long and short of it is that I am not. Not at all. I tend to regard the powerposition of the whole set of mind doctors with scepsis, since morality, religion and other people's ideas have more to say than actual research, often enough. Consider how many of this profession are willing to call us crazy because of what we are and want.

You might disagree, and want to make a case-by-case determination; but unless you really believe that ANYONE, no matter what their condition, owns and can dispose of themselves in any way they like, I think you will need to agree that at least some people just aren't in a position to agreed to be snuffed.

THere will always be some, but the question is who is to determine who they are?
IMO taking people's choices away from them, which is what we are discussing here, put on its edge, is a darn serious thing. And to me it takes a good deal of justificantion, rather than arguing why people should be able to think and act for themselves.