but now you've been provided with the full lead-up to the sentence, which gives more than adequate context to know how Gorsuch intended the line in question.

Indeed the full lead-up does give more than adequate context to know how Gorsuch intendeded the line in question. People certainly have enough information to make up their own minds.

and it's clear from this that the line was not limited to euthanasia, but was rather a much more general statement of principle he was announcing to the reader.

I agree that it was a much more general statement of principle but it was limited to euthanasia.

Here is where your logic fails /u/ggwag

It is an argument premised on the idea that all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong." --Neil Gorsuch

By your logic, that means that public officials are never wrong to kill people. That's the argument someone like you could and would make from that very same sentence. It's easy to twist the meaning of a single sentence. You know that. That's why your initial premise only included that single sentence, not the general context. It's only when a single sentence has been interpreted within the context of the statement that meaning emerges.

at this point is seems clear to me that you are not interested in discussing this issue in any sort of objective way.

How so? I've countered your arguments oftentimes with your own words. I understand that you are upset that your attempts to obfuscate and cloud the issue with your mental gymnatics gets called out for what it is. Yet again, you try to twist and deflect the issue to make it appear that you are the rational objective side of the debate but you are not. You have a stated agenda and you are egregiously intellectually dishonest in your pursuit of it. Why, I have no idea, other than for your own self-gratification.

it's equally unsurprising to me then that you're willing to enter the mode you're in now, which is basically a thrash about and play for a draw type of behavior.

I'm not playing for a draw, I am kicking your ass. I'm destroying you.

How am I thrashing around when all I am doing is pointing out the flaws in your arguments? You say, "don't judge a book by it's title" but you want us to believe that the same principle that Gorsuch obviously believes in somehow doesn't also apply to the self-defense of that same human life. You make the weak argument that he would oppose stand your ground laws based on a single sentence written in a book about suicide. Well, my life is valuable too and I agree, it's wrong for any person, public or private to intentionally take it but there are humans who do wrong and as regretable as it is, there's no way anyone can ask another human being not to defend their own life to the best of their ability.

I've seen the look on judge's faces when they realized that the easy assault charge they were prepared to adjucate turns into a valid self-defense case. There's no way stand your ground laws are going to be attacked. I don't have a duty to retreat. If you want to attack me, attack. I don't have to back up a single inch and I can and have successfully defended myself in court for doing so as have countless others. As a matter of case law, there is no way SCOTUS, esp now and in the foreseeable future, is going to weaken SYG laws, esp given the legal definitions and other high court cases.

while most of my routine sparring partners in rGP are less shitty and meanspirited than you are (which isn't saying much), i'd say that about 2/3 of the extended back-and-forths i have in there end up in more or less the same territory.

Shitty and meanspirited, am I? I am, I am, esp to you. Do you know why? Because you don't use your obvious intellect to try to bring light, you use it to confuse and twist. People like lukewarm, they are just young and dumb, you actually have intellect but you employ it in an extremely dishonest manner. Presenting a single sentence out of context as the crux of your non-argument? Sure, I could do the same but I would feel dirty doing so. It's unworthy of me and it should be unworthy of you. If you want to take the anti side and argue against rights, have at it but do it in an open and honest way. You perform mental gymnastics worthy of the Pei-King circus but I see through you. That's why you consider me meanspirited and shitty because I'm smarter than you and your tricks don't work on me.

which is always my cue to tap out and move on because i'm just not interested in leaving the grown-up's table and following you outside to the monkey bars.

Typical MO, claim the high road and bow out because you can't weave a fog any more while at the same time implying that the very reasonable and obvious counters to your attempted argument are childish in nature.

You can imply that I am a child. I really don't mind. Whatever you have to tell yourself to make it though the day.

you can have the monkey bars all to yourself, declare yourself king-of-the-castle, try to get the big kids to come back by calling them cowards, etc.

Hehe, awesome. I loved the monkey bars, even as a grownup I would much rather play.

i'll just shut the window and go back to my coffee and productive adult conversation thank you very much.

Go ahead man. Everybody is this subreddit knows you are afraid to engage me. Everyone can read our conversations and easily see why.

(which i guess is only doing as your own freaking username is requesting of me anyway, right? so...yourwelcome! :)

I did choose it for a reason. See you around.