Lets talk about euthanasia, suiside and 7 billion people.

reply to post by Mr Tranny


No they aren't, your delusional, he's not saying to kill people really, he's saying let those that want to die do as the wish. It's not like he's rounding up people for slaughter or anything and it's not like resources are unlimited. Your encouraging those that support the free will to end ones own life to end their lives even if they don't feel as though they want to so who's really the monster here?

reply to post by WhoKnows100


And I think you're a delusional brain washed looney that sees what he wants to see because in your view there is no gray but only the black and white of good and evil according to the religion you follow. He's not encouraging people, technically, he's supporting their free will.

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
reply to post by Mr Tranny

 

No they aren't, your delusional, he's not saying to kill people really, he's saying let those that want to die do as the wish. It's not like he's rounding up people for slaughter or anything and it's not like resources are unlimited. Your encouraging those that support the free will to end ones own life to end their lives even if they don't feel as though they want to so who's really the monster here?

Why waste the time rounding up the cattle for slaughter when the cattle will come to the slaughter house of their own free will?

You really don’t get it do you? Your ideas are just a more nuanced politically correct version of mass extermination.

Convince the “unwanted” people that it is really in their best interest and the interest of society as a whole if they just end their lives now. That way, you don’t have to do it for them.

That statement sounds familiar doesn’t it?
The exact statement you decried me for being a monster for stating, is in a round about way, exactly what you are promoting. You just state it in a more politically correct way.

I think it best that you stop arguing with your own reflection.

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
He's not encouraging people, technically, he's supporting their free will.

And I am supporting your free will to live by what you preach.

reply to post by Biigs


It is an interesting proposition you put forward OP... If I understand you correctly, your premise is that the world might be able to kill 2 birds with one stone, so to speak, by allowing suicide to take care or at least alleviate some of the pressures surrounding both population control and efficient allocation of scarce resources.

While you cast your argument or proposition in such a way as to make it the least offensive as possible, I contend you inadvertently trivialize the larger realities with which we find ourselves faced. Especially when you start bringing in concepts like "for the good of the many" and "to make for a stronger race". When one starts bandying about those kinds of sentiments it behooves one to ask - for whose good? Who gets to decide?

Also, one must take into account different cultural birth rates... It has always been a truism that the less developed nations have a much higher population growth rate than developed nations. Typically the poorest and least educated have the most children. Their lives tend to be brutish and short. Not without value, but hard nonetheless.

Then one must also take into account religious and moral differences. I can't think of any major world religion that condones suicide regardless of the reason. However, I admit I might be being intellectually lazy, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

All of this sums up to a prickly proposition.

reply to post by Biigs


I'm really very unclear on what you have suggested in your post.

Mercy for a very much terminally ill and in agony individual? Advanced stages of cancer say? Where hospice and medicating them to the level they need, where they become very groggy and incoherent, but very little pain, isn't enough? It is for many by the way. Is this ALONE, what you are referring to?

Or are you bringing up, killing/murdering a down syndrome baby, or someone who isn't healthy or has a mental condition.

Because quite frankly the answer is NO! Its not maybe, and its not they can do it, but NO. Will NEVER BE ALLOWED.

Now, the problem on earth is not 7 billion people. Every single problem that the human race has faced is solvable, and has already been solved, but the solutions have not been implicated. WHY? Because of the greedy crapola of TPB slavers running the planet.

1. Religions that are lies, with birth control being out of the question. Instead of adequate and safe (I think they're hidden tech and medical cures could also be brought out because I'm pretty sure that birth control that gives migraine headaches and pre stroke symptoms is NOT all there is).

So, that problem has to do with their LIES and CONTROl.

That would deal quite nicely with the human growth factor. Most developed countries are zero or close to zero in growth anyway.

Canada has had negative growth numerous years as was reported for statistics Canada on our news.

2. Energy? Gee, why are we using fossil fuels. Even without bringing out the FREE energy and the way their exotic TR3B crafts actually fly (such as hydrogen or fusion) we sure know they didn't fuel up at the gas station, what on earth could ever be wrong with very high advanced electric, with batteries where the pattents aren't buried for high speed or load bearing, as they are. AND Hydrogen fuel. AND methane and Hemp Fuel. We should have a huge choice. Why are our sewage systems going into the lakes and rivers and oceans treated or untreated instead of into methane and our cars?

3. Ever heard of an earth ship home?

They are made from cob and recycled goods, like tires for insulation. Create their own energy OFFGRID. Recycle their own water, and GROW THEIR OWN FOOD.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
No Matter What Your Politics, Why Is Anyone Living In Poverty?

(I have a thread about this, and how there is enough land for everyone in the world to have a little farm in Canada, since they all fit shoulder to shoulder in LA. Of course you can see how it all works since we're spread out!)

We've had nothing but solutions all this time but think, our greed, our politicans greed, our bankers and realtors greed has murdered, made homeless, posioned off the world.

We can look after and love every single person on this planet and treat with absolute dignity and respect and ensure everyone lives with Joy, Abundance, and Happiness.

Go figure there was never ever any reason for this hellzone, except for people's bad opinions.

There is food and land for all.

Earthship homes even work on rocky terrain!!!!!


Fishing in the Phoenix Earthship


1 MILLION pounds of Food on 3 acres. 10,000 fish 500 yards compost

Nothing BUT SOLUTIONS EXIST.

That they're not implemented ARE MASSIVE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

So the solution has nothing whatsoever to do with harming ANYONE, it never did.

It has to do with every single person who buys into this world and supports the inequality, to look in the mirror and smack themselves really really really hard, because they are looking at the problem, in all its thick skulled glory, and they need to snap out of the insantiy.

Problem Solved. CASE CLOSED.

reply to post by Biigs


You must be out of your mind when you think about population. Its much further, then you ever thought. We are more like antz, You can't see this ride now, but you will in your next life. Get over it. This is completely bogus.
You have 0 idea in the world that we leave in.

reply to post by Mr Tranny


That would imply I want to commit suicide based on your previous post, which I don't at least not at this time. However, if I ever want to kill myself, yes, please let me.

A couple of things worry me in the responses by folks here
ATS is a mind cracked wide open type site-you’re here because you are different and more inquisitive than the average brain.
There’s plenty of food now… the problem is the waste? Not really think of a problem…think of something you hate every day and wonder why-it’ll be constructed by a human.
From congestion to a hospital waiting list, from developing world (yours is next) resource scarcity to energy price rises, to overburdened infrastructure and food security concerns, it’s us, people! And changing the human condition is impossible unless any of those factors directly influence the change (eg because we have to, by drastic changes in behaviour which guarantee life, or to not change=death.
Life is finely balanced on earth and if we become too many, then disease, war and famine will reduce numbers; but currently that is not the case for most citizens who blindly carry on unaware that we are the singular root of every problem, and even if they did know that… the likely hood of them amending their behaviours in line with stewardship of this planet would be nil.
It should now be obvious that we should not save every dying man, that if you want to smoke you should (but do not make recourse to public health for smoking related illness).
You want to die, really really? Come this way…
You want to drive fast? Go ahead.
You want a child please do but only have one.
Euthanasia should be obvious.
The problem with all of this is that we generally hold life in some sacred regard, its sacrosanct, it’s a religious precept and its now our concept-to even think of harming life or giving anyone a choice that may even come close (but often doesn’t) is seen as tantamount to murder, those are the words used by the catholic church for abortions.
Speeding must therefore be tantamount to murder, along with suicide, but please breed like rabbits and wage war on heathen enemies when your lands are not enough, which really is tantamount to murder but anyway..
I really don’t want to bash religion, its teachings were fine for the time, when no one knew how vast earth was, but now in this world we have now we are in need of more advice, we know it’s a small planet and we're developing faster than we ever have, if we delay for longer then the rebalancing solutions presented to us will not be ones of our choice. I really don’t think the high end UN figure of a trillion people is sustainable; I’m a bit edgy over 6bn to be frank.
Letting depressed people kill themselves and letting the sick take an easy ride down the dark stream is not enough,you’re hitting a tiny fraction of the billions of humans that are healthy and want to #, for each of the terminal cases you’d have to slot at least 10 healthy folks somehow and make it seem “nice” or like “free will” eg Government Whisky for our Alcoholic Friends and a 100mph minimum speed limit through suburbs. The safest cars would be the ones where if you even shave another vehicle/bush/kerb a spike in the seat thrusts upwardly through your torso, it’s the opposite of an airbag.
You need to be selective about who you take out of the gene pool so careless drivers in “100% fatal if crashed only slightly cars” is my contribution to solving the population issue.

Give the least able the most dangerous jobs is another favourite of mine and should have the population plummeting in no time-it would also be loved by leftist equality hippies until folks start dying because you need arms to fly a passenger jet.
But
When all is said and done…Human rights will have the last word and ethics will have us at each other’s throats in the long run, unless we learn some self control.
The Earth is finite, we are not, thats it. its phyics and maths and if projections are correct its a certainty that resources will run out.

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
reply to post by Mr Tranny

 

No they aren't, your delusional, he's not saying to kill people really, he's saying let those that want to die do as the wish. It's not like he's rounding up people for slaughter or anything and it's not like resources are unlimited. Your encouraging those that support the free will to end ones own life to end their lives even if they don't feel as though they want to so who's really the monster here?

Why waste the time rounding up the cattle for slaughter when the cattle will come to the slaughter house of their own free will?

You really don’t get it do you? Your ideas are just a more nuanced politically correct version of mass extermination.

Convince the “unwanted” people that it is really in their best interest and the interest of society as a whole if they just end their lives now. That way, you don’t have to do it for them.

That statement sounds familiar doesn’t it?
The exact statement you decried me for being a monster for stating, is in a round about way, exactly what you are promoting. You just state it in a more politically correct way.

I think it best that you stop arguing with your own reflection.

and I think you need to learn reading comprehension....I never called you a monster, I said you were delusional, and you still are. You like it up there on your high horse don't you? The op never encouraged people to kill themselves, it's not like he's running around promoting suicide, putting up flyers, making people feel bad for living. Promoting someones free will is not the same as encouraging suicide.

Originally posted by Druscilla

Perhaps a more pertinent question might be how to go about a more equitable distribution of wealth considering that the main concern regarding over population is the effect it has on quality of life where larger populations are impoverished and go to starving.

I'm sorry, but how is sacrificing my lakehouse going to feed and clothe those impoverished populations? Would you want me to sell it and send the money....to whom? It's not going to happen.

If YOU want to sell your extra goodies, have at it. I earned everything I have...yes I built it and I'm not going to give it some poor slob who had the unfortunate luck to be born into poverty. We donate to our local charities where we know the money goes 100% to the cause. It's unreasonable to think that " a more equitable distribution of wealth" is going to permanently give those billions of unfortunates a better life?

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
Your encouraging those that support the free will to end ones own life to end their lives even if they don't feel as though they want to so who's really the monster here?

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
and I think you need to learn reading comprehension....I never called you a monster, I said you were delusional, and you still are.

O….K……..

Any individual has the 'right' to self terminate at any time, (not suggesting it , just sayin) does anyone seriously believe that this could ever be a right anyone else could give you.

If a person is really intent on terminating their existance, really who is going to stop you.

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
Your encouraging those that support the free will to end ones own life to end their lives even if they don't feel as though they want to so who's really the monster here?

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
and I think you need to learn reading comprehension....I never called you a monster, I said you were delusional, and you still are.

O….K……..

Ok you got me at my own game, lol. Although, technically I still didn't call you a monster, I implied it but whatever. Either way my point is still valid and that doesn't change just because I forgot about that one little tidbit.

Taking away people's free will is still an awful thing to do, and either way the op still isn't encouraging people to kill themselves, he's supporting free will.

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
Taking away people's free will is still an awful thing to do, and either way the op still isn't encouraging people to kill themselves, he's supporting free will.

What you are still refusing to acknowledge is when you attach something to an external need, or condition, then you step across that line to the point that you ARE encouraging it.

Example 1: “People should have the right to ride the subway.”

That argument is supporting the free will of the people to ride the subway when ever they want. You are not encouraging them to ride the subway in any way, shape, or form.

Example 2: “People should have the right to ride the subway, because the traffic, and pollution, in downtown NY is getting to the point that something will have to be done.”

That is stepping across the line to encouraging them to ride the subway. That statement helps convince people to do something they would otherwise not do. Because if they don’t, they feel as though they are helping contribute to the “traffic, and pollution”

The same as with your monster statement. In the suicide/overpopulation argument, the encouraging condition is implied. You don’t just come out and state it. You just heavily imply it right up to the very point of actually coming out and saying it.

You know that if you come out and say it, then you will be rejected. If you just hold the needle right to the peg for several years, then cultural norms will shift, to the point that allowing suicide to fight overpopulation is the norm. Then you will ratchet down the next step and start talking about how it shouldn’t be a choice any more. That is how creeping cultural change works. It moves so slowly that people don’t realize they are moving.

You support something up until the point it becomes inconvenient. You support free will and the overpopulation idea to get people use to the idea of people dieing for the good of all. Then when people get use to that, then you will stop supporting free will, and strictly push the overpopulation argument, for the good of all.

I am sorry but I am an immovable object. I do not move with the tides, no mater how slow they may be.

reply to post by Mr Tranny


I agree with your use of context in implying that certain conditions are valuable to a given set of circumstances but I do not agree that the op implied such. Mostly because he used the word "tolerate" specifically.

Tolerate - Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
Accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance

If he had used any other word I might agree with you but he is suggesting tolerating a condition we don't normally tolerate because of population at no point do I see it as implied that people should commit suicide due to overpopulation. If you see something in the op that you feel clearly encourages suicide because of overpopulation please respond accordingly and quote the op so I can see why you feel the way you do.

reply to post by GrimReaper86


If you don’t want to come to grips with the idea that that context does “encourage” someone to think about it, then so be it. That is your prerogative.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink.

reply to post by Mr Tranny


I don't have an issue coming to grips with it. I simply don't agree. What in the OP specifically makes you feel as though he's encouraging other then he mentions both in the same topic? One benefits the other and that's all he said as far as I can tell and he's right. If overpopulation is an issue then suicide benefits overpopulation. Saying such is not encouragement by itself. He's not suggesting it as a solution. Merely pointing out the benefit of stepping aside and letting those that want to do so already, do as they wish. He's not really suggesting that people commit suicide as a solution to overpopulation. He's suggesting that we let suicidal people do as they will (something they already want to do anyway and it not have anything to do with overpopulation) because it helps overpopulation....To me that isn't the same. If you see something different from the context then by all means, quote the op and point out why. Or is trying to find a silver lining in suicide encouragement alone for you? If so then I guess I'll never convince you of otherwise.