Monday, February 01, 2010

MR Hall might be the biggest cunt in the world

M R Hall: an utter, utter cunt.

Thanks to the commenter who pointed me to this article—which was actually the one that I was looking for in respect of the last post that I made.

I was going to add this as an addendum, but I thought that M R Hall—a former criminal barrister. What a fucking surprise—was such a colossally disgusting human being that he deserved a little piece of excoriation all to himself.

I mean, seriously, what insult can possibly describe the kind of bastard who can happily write something like this...?
But suffering has a positive purpose. Of course it's tough for the sufferer, but it's only through witnessing the pain and agony of others that we properly develop empathy and compassion.

What more can I possibly say?

34 comments:

Ian E said...

I am pretty much speechless after reading that quote. I said in my response to your previous article that I thought the problem with the anti-suicide brigade was that some had a compassion bypass. This quote looks like a complete humanity bypass.

Perhaps when M.R.Hall is dying from some form of terminal invasive cancer, he will have the process live on the web so that we can all properly develop empathy and compassion thanks to his great suffering!

sconzey said...

What a colossal shit.

The problem with assisted suicide is at the margins: At what point does "assistance" become "encouragement" ? At what point does "encouragement" become murder? How about the mentally ill? How about children?

I don't pretend to know the answer to any of these questions, but I resent your implication that this is a simple issue with an obvious answer.

Shaun Pilkington said...

While not wanting to leave an 'asa' post ("As a jew/As a football fan/As a whatever...") this particular sociopathic cunt merits one anyway.

I have MS and may, at some distant, undetermined point in the future, find myself wanting an assisted suicide. This arsehole want me and others to carry on suffering just to help them grow a sense of empathy. Sorry but that makes the dude a sociopath - someone WITHOUT ANY CONCEPT of how other people feel - and I'll be really, really fucked if I need to suffer long enough to make monsters like that what it is to suffer.

sconzey said...

With that said, those issues I outlined above aren't limited to assisted suicide, but any activity which requires one adult to give consent to another.

It's one thing to state a moral principle: Yes, an adult ought to be able to consent to their own death. It's quite another to write a law about it.

Some more marginal cases for you to think about: If an adult can consent to their own death -- as you say, the ultimate freedom -- under what circumstances may they consent to die? May they consent to be consumed as food? May they consent to participate in snuff porn?

Anonymous said...

If you are outraged by Hall's views on suffering, I can only imagine that you have had very little contact with members of the Society of Jesus.

The importance of suffering is central to Catholic theological thought. One of the many complaints levelled against "Mother" Teresa was that her efforts in Calcutta were less about helping people than about allowing herself and the other members of her order to expose themselves to the suffering of others as a means of better understanding their "Faith".

Anonymous said...

I reckon he flagellates his bollocks with stinging nettles.
What an arsehole.

Roger Thornhill said...

And they say Libertarians are all about "me me me"...

J H on a coin-operated life support machine, this creep truly is a sociopath.

Barman said...

We must all live in hope that M R Hall suffers a long, slow and extremely painful death himself.

Cunt.

Westerlyman said...

M R Hall starts with a premise that I wholly disagree with: that we do not 'own' our own lives. He is also a religionist and accepts the doctrine of his faith that life is God's to give and to end.

With absurd beliefs like this there is no debating with him. I believe that his attitude leads to cruel and unusual punishment for many people. So yes the man is an utter shit.

I agree with Sconzey that the issue should be about the cases at the margins and these should all be judged individually. It is impossible to design a blanket law only a set of guidelines that start with the principle that we own our own lives.

Devil's Kitchen said...

sconzey,

I admit that the issue is not as cut and dried as my somewhat flippant posts make it.

However, it should be noted that were my One Law—"you shall not initiate force or fraud against someone's life, liberty or property"—be enacted, this would not be an issue.

Killing someone against their will is an initiation of force; killing someone by their will is not.

Oh, and...

"May they consent to be consumed as food? May they consent to participate in snuff porn?"

Of course: it is their life and they may indeed consent to such things (assuming that they are in a fit state of mind to make such a decision—which opens a whole new can of worms).

DK

Andy said...

Let's be clear, this fuckface is not writing an article about how writing an assisted suicide law would be difficult (it would), or how he finds the idea of suicide morally repugnant, he is arguing that fundamentally people should be forced to suffer against their will. Call me an ill-educated troglodyte if you wish, but I'm pretty sure that is called "torture".

I kind of think that the whole socialist ethos is contained in microcosm in that article -- it's okay to stamp on the individual, as long as wider society benefits, he has merely taken to enumerating the societal benefits.

Vicola said...

Well fuck me if that isn't the most appalling piece of tripe I've ever had the misfortune to set eyes upon. And also untrue, we can't properly empathise with someone unless we've actually been through what they're going through because unless we have then we don't know the full horror of what it is to live that life. So he's stupid as well. I think it's the 'of course it's tough for the sufferer', like that's a trivial matter, that really marks him out as a Grade A wanker.

Budgie said...

From the Biased BBC blog: John Horne Tooke said: ""An opinion poll conducted in 1920 revealed that 73% of the parents and guardians of severely disabled children surveyed would approve of allowing physicians to end the lives of disabled children such as their own. Newspapers, journal articles, and movies joined in shaping the opinion of the German public. The Ministry of Justice described the proposal as one that would make it "possible for physicians to end the tortures of incurable patients, upon request, in the interests of true humanity" (reported in the N.Y. Times, 10/8/33, p. 1, col. 2). And the savings would redound to the German people if money was no longer thrown away on the disabled, the incurable, and "those on the threshold of old age.""
http://www.pregnantpause.org/euth/nazieuth.htm"

Jiks said...

I read that disgusting article earlier and I'm still beyond fury ...

How anyone can even privately hold the view that others must suffer months of agony because it makes the observer feel nice and fluffy is bad enough. That they feel this is such an acceptable view they boast about it in public defies belief. Best not carry on before I say something I'll regret ...

Vladimir said...

With my conspiracy theory hat firmly on: Hall is not opposed to euthanasia.

Rather he realises there is propaganda value in misrepresenting the case against it, and that's why you get all this bollocks about suffering being good.

Why else is this in the Guardian, do you suppose? It's just like the time they asked Sarah Palin to comment on AGW: the point was not to convince anyone that she was right, but rather to solidify opinion against her and the other "denialists".

The same thing is happening here. You are being manipulated.

Martin said...

Shaun,

Without wishing to seem unempathetic, there is such a thing as fear - my own fear as the sufferer of a limiting brain illness is some extremely materialistic doughnut-brain who views anyone beneath their own class as human vermin to be wiped off the face of the Earth will one dy say, 'Ah, there's wee Kelly, he's used up far too much resources over the course of his unproductive life! It's the needle for you, you screaming illiberal fucknut! You fucking god-botherer!'

Or words to that effect.

We now have such a thing in this country as social and contraceptive abortion. Abortion rights are usually advocated from the extreme right by those from the upper layers of society who really do regard anyone unke them as vermin to be eradicated from the face of the Earth. In their eyes, the law is for not for the protection of all, but for them to enable them to get what they want and to validate all their choices; 'there's no such thing as society', unless, of course, you lived under the jurisdiction of the RUC, or were a striking miner at Orgreave, or tried to publish 'Spycatcher' - you get the point.

In the case of the abortion laws, that was to get rid of dirty old men in dirty raincoats wielding wire coathangers with extreme prejudice - now, we might as well have a machine called a 'Womb-E-Vac', given the enthusiasm with which social abortion is undertaken in some parts of the country. One's only observation on this is that the English public school system must really have screwed up a lot of people about the ideas of sex and sexuality.

Because that's the only reason why the 'there's no such thing as society' mob wanted abortion - to be able to have a guilt-free shag, to end the battle in their souls caused by having to acknowledge the existence of something in their lives greater than themselves - they looked into themselves, and, like Kurtz, went mad as a result.

Martin said...

Now that this mob are getting on a bit, they are crapping themselves at the thought of having to die naturally; and yet they continue to behave as this country's upper classes always have, by not just wanting to have their cake and eat it, but by seeking to pass a law to get it. Of her father's death, Svetlana Stalin wrote 'God grants an easy death only to the just'. Now, I don't know the mind of God, but I am sure that the suddenness of this attack on life and the living by advocates of 'assisted suicide' (I prefer the term 'medical murder') is motivated by many people being shit scared of having to reflect upon their lives before they end up wherever they might be going. What gets me is the almost split-second timing which is going to be required - you'll have to do it at a point when you're still capable of making the decision to bite the big one, that point being at your discretion; so if Grampa's compos mentis at breakfast and likely to have become a drooler by lunchtime, are we going to have teams of doctors and nurses landing on rooftops and abseiling down the exterior walls like the SAS to get to him in time? Will we have private ambulances marked 'Assisted Suicide' doing 24-hour patrols on the streets? Man, I can't wait to see what the adverts for assisted suicide services that they'll put on the TV in the middle of the afternoon are going to be like! They'll certainly make a change from over-50's life cover and 'no win, no fee' comepnsation services - although the 'before' and 'after' bits might be a bit of a problem.

Anyone who wishes to commit suicide is perfectly free to do so. I refuse to believe that the British Establishment fails to possess the wit required to operate a gas oven, nor get creative with strings and plastic bags in their desire to turn their necks into trapezes - by the time I'm old they'll probably be demonstratingh such skills on 'Blue Peter'. But no, they've got to take the easy way out - and wanting to top yourself because you've got ME is the easy way out. All of the current crap about dying with dignity is going to get mixed with all the other current crap about population control, and sooner or later the old, the sick and the weak are going to get it because some arsehole, accustomed to having everything their own way all their life, wants to have their own way in the manner of that most profound and vital part of living called dying.

This is not a liberty issue - this is a humanity issue; and if the British Establishment could stop behaving like the spoiled children they are for a moment, they might realise that there are a lot of people who aren't going to take assisted suicide lying down.

Anonymous said...

Martin is absolutely right, and this is another example of someone perverting religion to his own ends. Christians are supposed to believe in free will and the fact that God is the ultimate judge. So there we already have no basis for using Christian teaching as a legal code, which instead should be as minimal as possible (DK's "one law"). If people wish to hold themselves to a higher moral code (whether it is an organised religion, being "green", or just something they made up), they should have every right to do so and to persuade and convince, but definitely not force, everyone else to follow them (of course using their own funds and not taxpayers').

When we look at assisted suicide, it is clearly a sin in the eyes of Christian teaching. However, if we have free will then we are entitled to sin as much as we want, the only thing stopping us being either our own conscience or fear of some divine punishment. If a Christian believes that God will punish someone for killing themselves, or being homosexual or whatever, then it follows that God alone should do the punishing, and the state should have no role to play except in cases where DK's one law is contravened.

Jiks said...

There appears to be two arguements that deployed against assisted suicide. First one seems to be the extension arguement - if a terminally ill person, in agony, mentally but not physically functional is spared by a quick end then, well, the next thing you know is everyone will be killing each other at the slightest whim. This arguement is invalid IMO as it fundamentally failed to accept that mercy is not motivated the same way as murder.

The second arguement invokes God in one way or another, he wants you to suffer, only natural deaths are allowed as they are his business alone or some variation thereof. Faith cannot be argued with as its irrational, you want to believe the world is 6000 years old, all the animals fitted on a hand built boat feel free, just don't inflict your disorders on the rest of us please.

Regardless of how arkward this subject is it does need to be addressed by law as the currently its a complete mess and not good for anyone.

I'd like to think people like Hall & Martin are not the sadists they appear to be but simply have little life experience and therefore empathy. Watching a relative die very slowly and painfully over a course of months, finally of dehydration, would perhaps make their ilk revise their position.

Anonymous said...

All those posting a Christian theme:

I really don't know what the fuck Christianity or christianity has to do with this. You may believe in God but I don't so why should you try to impose your silly religion on me.

We need a law that covers normal circumstances that allows assisted suicide and a law to cover the margins.

As far as I am concerned I am prepared to respect your right to have a religion but please do keep it to yourself. I do not respect your religion nor do I respect you for having one and if you wish to use it to prolong suffering, please make sure that it is only your own suffering you prolong

sconzey said...

DK: well quite. The Devil, as they say, is in the details. If we are to pass a law legitimising assisted suicide then we must at least consider what ought happen in those cases where the "Will" is in question, as with children and the mentally impaired. Even if we leave it to courts to draw the lines, it's important to be aware that there will be cases; terrible headlines, and Daily Mail readers in the streets.

The snuff/cannibal jibe was aimed not at you, DK, for Libertarians and their NAP have the least hypocritical stance on assisted suicide, but at certain lefties, who would deign that the government permit you to end your life only in certain permittable and socially acceptable circumstances.

Vladimir said...

I'd say the Guardian has succeeded in clouding the waters here by getting Hall to write his "pro suffering" propaganda. Hall's silly arguments have replaced sensible ones and nobody in the assisted suicide camp seems to understand exactly why anyone would object to it. Anyone who speaks out against assisted suicide is derided as a "Christian" or a "sadist".

The principles of anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism - no stealing, no aggression - seem to be entirely irrelevant here, in the discussion of the circumstances under which the State shall permit one person to steal another's life by force. Because this is all so easy when a compos mentis patient declares openly and repeatedly that they wish to die, but oh so very difficult in most of the cases that will come up.

Come on, guys. You don't need the State to back you up on killing if you already believe with absolute certainty that it is morally right to kill! And if you don't believe it that strongly, then you shouldn't fucking do it.

Roger Thornhill said...

Vladimir ", in the discussion of the circumstances under which the State shall permit one person to steal another's life by force"

But that is not quite what is being discussed here.

If you want to discuss it, the LAST entity I want "permitting" someone to end my life is the State and at no time "steal" it. A Doctor in agreement with my loved ones and friends (not knowing my organ donation status, mind!) seems the least worst way.

Further, I have above implied that in the messy cases yes we do need a proper trial. The dead need their day in court, for the courts and our legal system are there to defend the innocent and most certainly and without doubt the sure fire innocent in such cases is the deceased and the courts are there to confirm the innocence or otherwise of the other actors.

John R said...

So this tosspot thinks "it's only through witnessing the pain and agony of others that we properly develop empathy and compassion" does he?

What is he on? So how much empathy and compassion do you think he'd have if some passing terrorist infected his kids with something incurable, or blew his wife up? Does he really think that watching them die in front of him would make him a nobler person?

God help us.

BTW I think you're wrong calling him "a colossally disgusting human being" - I'm not sure he makes the grade to be considered as part of the same species as the rest of us.

Vladimir said...

Roger - that all seems entirely sensible. My response is directed more at the people who are swayed by The Guardian's propaganda (deliberately choosing a total freak to speak against assisted suicide) and those who have come here to post about how much they hate Christians.

Bill Sticker said...

We could always try an experimental proof of his assertion; publicly strap the bugger on a rack while he's rogered up the wahzoo with red hot wossnames. The idea being to provide 'a public spectacle of suffering' so the rest of us get an 'empathy and compassion' upgrade.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Martin said...

Anonymous,

"...if we have free will then we are entitled to sin as much as we want"

Er, no. This statement seems to indicate that the author fails to appreciate the difference between right and wrong.

"the only thing stopping us being either our own conscience"

How a conscience can be formed in the absence of knowledge concerning right and wrong escapes me.

"or fear of some divine punishment."

Or indeed one's own conscience. To take an extreme example, I have never killed anyone; I am primarily restrained from doing so by the knowledge that murder is wrong and not because it might incur some 'divine punishment' (sic if*I*did*not*later*repent*of*it (that's the bit about Christianity which every single circus troupe of moral anarchists from the Nazis to the Communists to the libertarians tend not to mention, if only because they don't know about it).

"If a Christian believes that God will punish someone for killing themselves, or being homosexual or whatever, then it follows that God alone should do the punishing, and the state should have no role to play except in cases where DK's one law is contravened"

My fear about DK's one law is that people like DK will be the ones making it.

Martin said...

Jiks,

"if a terminally ill person, in agony, mentally but not physically functional is spared by a quick end then, well, the next thing you know is everyone will be killing each other at the slightest whim"

This is absurd. My fear is going into a hospital and being declared an unsustainable net drain on resources by a doctor with an ill-formed conscience and addled by the concept of DK's one law.

"The second arguement invokes God in one way or another, he wants you to suffer, only natural deaths are allowed as they are his business alone or some variation thereof. Faith cannot be argued with as its irrational, you want to believe the world is 6000 years old, all the animals fitted on a hand built boat feel free, just don't inflict your disorders on the rest of us please."

What on God's Earth does Noah's Ark have to do with this? This most tediously arrogant, and, it must be said, most tediously English, reductionism is just tedious - it's unfortunate that it's also dangerous, because you seem to wish inflict your own disorder, Moral Chaos Caused By English Reductionism, on the rest of us. I bet that you are impossible to work either with or for, that you are the type of whinging bastard that never lets a penny slip through your fingers and that your friendships don't last. The basis of this deduction is that your refusal to believe in anything bigger than yourself seems to have made you believe that there's nothing bigger around than you. Which is not the case. Get over it.

"Regardless of how arkward (note - this is a classic Freudian slip) this subject is it does need to be addressed by law as the currently its a complete mess and not good for anyone."

No, it doesn't need to be addressed, because the law works fine at the moment for a number of disabled people quite happy to see it stay just the way it is - like me.

"I'd like to think people like Hall & Martin are not the sadists they appear to be but simply have little life experience and therefore empathy."

Ah yes, in case of doubt, patronise in a thoroughly inappropriate manner. Perhaps un-Christian of me to say this, but get it right up you.

"Watching a relative die very slowly and painfully over a course of months, finally of dehydration, would perhaps make their ilk revise their position."

Having excluded the possibility of the miraculous, you seem to think the best thing for them is to put them down like a dog with a broken leg; a gross insult to the relative status of dogs and humans.

Now, John R seems to have good line in dehumanising those who disagree with him - a real fascist. To Roger and Vladimir, thanks for attempting to keep a civilised tone, but I'm afraid that if you keep it up you'll end up in a 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' kind of downward spiral of philosophising.

Vicola said...

"Having excluded the possibility of the miraculous, you seem to think the best thing for them is to put them down like a dog with a broken leg; a gross insult to the relative status of dogs and humans.
"

But isn't the issue at the moment that those who WANT to be put down like a dog because they don't have the physical capacity to end their life themselves can't be, because it's illegal for anyone to help them? I appreciate that you don't want to be deemed a drain on resources, I wouldn't either but the argument isn't about whether you should be able to kill people just because they're physically or mentally disabled, it's about whether those who want to die but lack the capability to achieve this end unaided should be allowed help. And in my opinion, if they are proven to be of sound mind and not under duress they should be allowed to make this choice. If I were to be diagnosed with terminal cancer, Parkinsons, Huntingdons or something of that ilk, I'd be setting out arrangements to end it before it ended me, if the law allowed it. If it didn't I'd just have to end it myself while I still had the physical capability.

Jiks said...

Vicola:

Couldn't have put it better myself. Sums up what the arguement is about perfectly IMO.

(DK - I posted slightly longer version a short while ago which appears to have vanished, I assume due to gremlins, if reappears please forgive double post)

Martin said...

"if they are proven to be of sound mind and not under duress they should be allowed to make this choice"

Yeah, and that would be absolutely watertight - and I don't think. Let us hope that such expressions of intent are invalidated by a subsequent grant of power of attorney; because if that didn't happen, you'd have Grandmas living in big houses set in four acres with lovely, crunchy gravel driveways, living on the dividends of really juicy portfolios full of life's good things, who, like all good materialists, had previously expressed intent to ice themself when the going gets tough and who are living quite happily in gagaland. With the wrong kind of attorney, I'm quite sure that the the treatment some of them would receive for the common cold would be drastic - terminate with extreme prejudice.

"If it didn't I'd just have to end it myself while I still had the physical capability"

There is another option - die naturally. It's not all about you.

Vicola said...

"There is another option - die naturally. It's not all about you."

Speaking as someone whose family has owned a specialist nursing home for over 20 years I can tell you that dying naturally can be horribly unpleasant and drawn out and can be infinitely worse for the family and friends than ending it quickly and painlessly before your family is required to clean you up after you've soiled yourself several times a day, put up with you screaming obscenities at them because you don't know who they are, spoon feed you, nurse you through the inevitable chest infections that follow long periods of inactivity and dress your bedsores. Ending your own life can be the altruistic way to go, depending on the condition you have. No one is suggesting that you euthanise old ladies because they are old, a bit dotty and the owner of a 4 bed detached in Hampshire, this is about people with recognised medical conditions who have stated in a living will, while of sound mind that they want to be able to end their own life with assistance when they reach a certain point. You're confusing the issue with involuntary euthanasia, which isn't the same thing.

Martin said...

And it works a treat on the bedblockers - or so the cynical might say.

davidncl said...

Can I just say Martin, as someone who has crossed swords with you in the past, that your bang on the money here. I agree pretty much with every word you've said in this thread.

I've had several runs at writing a comment and find myself reduced to "what he said". Thanks Martin.