TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,612
I might getting ahead of myself here, but I just had something in mind so I decided to put it out here. Before someone thinks that I may be contradicting myself by claiming: that having a (reliable) method would give someone the freedom to check out whenever would allow them to be 'free' versus the other thread when I claimed that you aren't really 'free' until you are able to CTB without interference, intervention, resistance, opposition from others; I will explain.
First off, those are two separate things and while they may have some similarities, they are still different respectively. When one has a method (a means of exiting/CTB'ing), especially a reliable one, it does bring them a lot of relief. At least for me it does. This is due to knowing that I am able to check out and exit on my own terms for the most part. So being 'free' in this context means the ability to do so by having a means (method) to make it happen.
Now for the other concept about being 'free' it is in a different context. This time, I am referring to actual freedom at large, meaning the larger part of the picture, the freedom to exercise the act of self-deliverance, CTB, and ending one's own suffering on one's own terms, without restriction, without interference, without intervention. In that thread, when I say that one isn't "free" I am talking about societal freedom. Sure, one could secretly go, but they aren't really 'free' because they have to go through underhanded tactics and channels, maneuver carefully, take big risks, and hope that everything falls into place with almost no support from the people they are with. Plus, the risk and consequences of failure and/or being caught, prevented. Thus in that thread, even if they have a reliable means (method) to escape, they aren't free because they have to do it behind the backs of others, secretly, and with great risk.
Therefore, those are two different threads talking about two different things. Just because one has a means of escape and exit, they may feel relief and 'free' in the sense of having the ability to check out on their own terms (for the most part, barring rare exceptions, circumstances), they aren't 'free' in the sense of being able to do so without challenge or opposition (intervention, interference, obstruction, etc.)
I hope this clears up any potential misunderstandings or misconceptions of what I mean.
First off, those are two separate things and while they may have some similarities, they are still different respectively. When one has a method (a means of exiting/CTB'ing), especially a reliable one, it does bring them a lot of relief. At least for me it does. This is due to knowing that I am able to check out and exit on my own terms for the most part. So being 'free' in this context means the ability to do so by having a means (method) to make it happen.
Now for the other concept about being 'free' it is in a different context. This time, I am referring to actual freedom at large, meaning the larger part of the picture, the freedom to exercise the act of self-deliverance, CTB, and ending one's own suffering on one's own terms, without restriction, without interference, without intervention. In that thread, when I say that one isn't "free" I am talking about societal freedom. Sure, one could secretly go, but they aren't really 'free' because they have to go through underhanded tactics and channels, maneuver carefully, take big risks, and hope that everything falls into place with almost no support from the people they are with. Plus, the risk and consequences of failure and/or being caught, prevented. Thus in that thread, even if they have a reliable means (method) to escape, they aren't free because they have to do it behind the backs of others, secretly, and with great risk.
Therefore, those are two different threads talking about two different things. Just because one has a means of escape and exit, they may feel relief and 'free' in the sense of having the ability to check out on their own terms (for the most part, barring rare exceptions, circumstances), they aren't 'free' in the sense of being able to do so without challenge or opposition (intervention, interference, obstruction, etc.)
I hope this clears up any potential misunderstandings or misconceptions of what I mean.