So
I'm a member of Liberty and they sent me this about torture
liberty.e-activist.com
so i am writing to my MP based on this. Like so many she believes "we haven't hurt you too much already" or "we can never hurt you enough to satiate the evil at our cores" or whatever is in the minds of monsters who want to make my life even more worth dying to escape from.
Comments on this response would be useful. I want to finish this ASAP because they want to make me even more hopeless that they will ever care about me. Please hope i die today because of what they want to do to me instead of killing me.
You may have response from Liberty members about protecting against torture. These are from those who believe torture is never ever an acceptable consequence in war.
You do believe in the methods of war. You do believe that the consequences of war are acceptable consequences. You also believe in the value of nuclear weapons. A submarine with nuclear weapons is capable of killing hundreds of thousands if not millions.
War can have a few definitions but I want to use one: sanctioned mass murder without consent.
There is so much suffering caused in wars as well as deaths without consent. It is pitiful little to fight against torture. Imagine if a ballistic nuclear submarine launches its full payload – easily ten times more power than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. You have in the past voted for these things as acceptable consequences of both mass murder without consent and immense amounts of suffering.
I assume you justify this in the name of national security. It's the same with torture. It's justified as acceptable consequences in the name of national security. Because the human race is so evil you believe in the consequences of war and of nuclear war and of torture as acceptable consequences. If the monsters who call themselves the human race were not so evil then you would never fear the methods of war being used ever again so you would not need a military force or nuclear weapons or to give torturers jobs.
Throughout history there's never been such a prejudice against war makers and those who use the methods of war like there's prejudice against the suicidal mind and prejudice against those who serve death by consent. Whereas as the methods of war are sanctioned mass murder (and other methods) you can find no reason good enough to sanction assisted suicide and death by consent.
I have no doubt that the members of Liberty are as wholly against the methods of war as they are against torture. Whereas some believe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few so torture and the methods of war are acceptable consequences to them there are others who believe there is no good in believing such consequences are ever acceptable consequences to force on someone else against one's consent.
I doubt they and you recognise the substantial prejudice against the suicidal mind and the act of suicide. I am not just witness to the prevail of such prejudice. I am victim too.
Throughout the history of the monsters who call themselves the human race and throughout the history of the human rights movement they have done nothing to protect suicidal individuals by achieving any that resembles a humane protection such as the protection against torture for enemy combatants is.
I have written to you before about how this suicidal individual considers torture to be. It's the will to make someone want to die to keep on making them want to die. Tortures use unlimited suffering to force their victims to do what they are not willing to do. I assume this involves creating a suicidal mind as part of the process of torture. It's to force the victim to suffer and endure against their will until they want to die but then death is denied to keep on making the victim want to die until they give their torturers what they want. It's to use unlimited suffering to make the victim so desperate to do anything to stop the unlimited suffering from happening – so I assume creating a suicidal mind then depriving death to force a suicidal individual to live to keep on making them want to die that's a common part of how torturers succeed in their jobs.
Those who see the unlimited suffering inflicted by the intentional act of torture see a level of suffering that is wholly unacceptable and never justifiable. This is the sort of empathy and compassion that changes laws and creates new legal protections such as what's led to the creation of legislation against the use of torture in wars.
You obviously understand the way the law works better than I do. I see the law as simply an explicit moral code influenced by the chaotic forces of what little good there is in human nature versus the masses of cruelty and evil in human nature. The law is like the rules in science but without the concept of absolutes such as exist in scientific rules.
At the same time I see across millennia of progress there's a trend towards protections against suffering and suffering against consent. Inch by inch there's this influence of growing empathy that leads to something so pitiful as the protection against the use of torture in wars. I say pitiful because of what are the consequences of war that are known consequences and there's so much acceptable unlimited suffering that are the acceptable consequences of war so a little compassion to prevent against torture than seek to end the methods of war is pitiful little.
But these pitiful attempts against unlimited suffering are orders of magnitude greater than the attempts to protect suicidal individuals. Suicidal individuals are deprived of liberty and rights by psychiatrists and the medico-legal framework instead of given humane protections such as the protection against torture is.
I assert this is because of the prejudices against the suicidal mind and the act of suicide. It's the prejudices furthered by the medical profession but the epistemology shifted to brain defects and mental illness instead of the truth of the gods.
Without the prevail of such prejudices I truly believe it would be the laws that protect suicidal individuals that protect against torture – because it's unlimited suffering and unlimited cruelty that's so common in the things you should recognise are worse than death.
Unfortunately the monsters who call themselves the human race are always unaffected by how suicidal individuals feel. So there is the compassion and empathy for the unlimited suffering of enemy combatants but no such empathy or understanding for the suicidal mind so there exist no humane protections – even the human rights movement won't protect me – such as the protection against torture is.
While the laws in civilian life and the purpose of these laws somehow disappears when it comes to wars there is the bit of civilian good to legalise against the methods of torture used in wars. Why do you think there's no such good to protect suicidal individuals against unlimited suffering and unlimited cruelties and in fact the laws and the human rights movement seem to be happy with suicidal individuals facing unlimited cruelties and unlimited suffering?
The laws in civilian life are higher laws than the laws of war. The obvious example is how mass murder without consent is wholly unacceptable in the minds of the law makers but wholly acceptable in wars. Yet the will of civilians tries to make war more humane by the protection against torture. But no such will exists to protect suicidal individuals.
Instead it's acceptable for suicidal individuals to face unlimited suffering and unlimited cruelty. Surely the protection against torture in war should be based on a higher protection against unlimited suffering in civilian life – but it's not because of the dehumanisation of suicidal individuals.
I'm trying to lead to a point: there's so much more than assisted suicide that's meant to be there to protect suicidal individuals but there's no protections without assisted suicide.
I've used the term "unlimited suffering" to describe the methods of torturers. It does boil down to this concept if I have to reduce masses of thought into a free words. Torture is the use of unlimited suffering and the objective to make suffering unlimited to break the victim's will. Irrespective of the reasons to cause unlimited suffering it is by recognising what unlimited suffering is and why it's never ever an acceptable consequence that's what drives those who want to protect enemy combatants against torture.
I believe this sense of duty to protect against such unlimited suffering as torturers want to use it should have come from the civilian laws that protect suicidal individuals. It would exist had doctors not succeeded so much in dehumanising suicidal individuals by the lie of mental illness and the specious paradigm of mental illness – they have always asserted that suicidal thoughts and feelings are the product of a brain defect thus caused by a defective mind. This is fundamentally dehumanising and that's completely obvious when you look at how much the human rights movement want to protect enemy combatants but never cared about protecting suicidal individuals. Simply put: we're not human so the human rights movement won't protect us from unlimited suffering and unlimited cruelty. You can also recognise this from the jurisprudence of the criminal justice system that has to protect innocents from punishment whereas when the methods of punishment are used on suicidal individuals there's no such jurisprudence or objective to protect the innocent from punishment in the medico-legal framework. Because we have a defective brain thus a defective mind this we're sub human. And because the monsters who call themselves the human race believe when it's done out of a sense of care the cruelty is irrelevant.
So there are no humane legal protections for suicidal individuals. Not even assisted suicide. I am so much victim to this will to achieve the unlimited suffering of suicidal individuals and the unlimited cruelties the monsters who call themselves the human race care about doing to suicidal individuals.
What else can you do when you're utterly unaffected by how suicidal individuals feel and the medical profession simply perpetuates the prejudices against the suicidal mind and the act of suicide?
It is this truth I see so clearly because it's what I am victim of: you are utterly unaffected by how suicidal individuals feel.
I can't make you understand that unlimited suffering is what becoming suicidal is about. It about being forced beyond one's limit to what can be suffered and endured that makes being alive worse than death. I can't make you recognise that that's meant to be what you recognise as unlimited suffering when it's what's worse than death – with this sort of empathy the suicide laws would protect against torture in wars.
It's this that's the empathy to recognise a level of pain – and the wide diversity of the pain of living that makes life worth dying to escape from – that's the evolving definition of unlimited suffering. It's what should drive you to create a wide range of humane protections other than assisted suicide but there's nothing without assisted suicide. Just like torture in war is unlimited suffering it is a higher duty of protection in civilian life there to protect suicidal individuals. And the protection against unlimited cruelty of course.
Instead of this empathy there's just what exists when the monsters who call themselves the human race are still as always unaffected by how suicidal individuals feel. The freedom to make a suicidal individual want to die exists and so does this freedom by made unlimited by the criminalisation of assisted suicide. You can't call this care when you are affected by how suicidal individuals feel. But the combination of the criminalisation of assisted suicide and the freedom to make a suicidal individual want to die leads to unlimited suffering being made more unlimited. What exists is the will to force a suicidal individual to suffer and endure against one's will indefinitely – that's the purpose of assisted suicide that serves you who really want to hurt someone.
To make all this orders of magnitude greater more cruel and evil your medical suicide experts have no hesitation and no qualms when risking making a suicidal individual want to die even more. That's what psychiatrists have done throughout their existences. They have the will to achieve unlimited suffering as well as unlimited cruelty and all based on what's an acceptable consequence to the law makers and that's that it's okay for the monsters who call themselves the human race to force a suicidal individual to live to keep on making them want to die.
You might have the competency to recognise that being tortured is worse than death. But the criminalisation of assisted suicide plus the freedom to make a suicidal individual want to die plus how the medical suicide experts so easily risk making a suicidal individual want to die without hesitation or qualms. How the medical suicide experts support the unlimited suffering of suicidal individuals and do so well when they're protecting the unlimited cruelties that can be done to a suicidal individual. You think this is all acceptable to you and these are acceptable consequences to you – how much more worse than death is my existence?
I am forced to live for the monsters who call themselves the human race to make certain my suffering and suicidality is as unlimited as the evils and cruelties the monsters who call themselves the human race have always cared so much about doing to suicidal individuals.
To recognise you would protect enemy combatants against torture and against the will to achieve unlimited suffering. But you are still and always unaffected by how suicidal individuals feel.
But it's simply down to you and your concept of what's unlimited suffering and what's worse than death to recognise why assisted suicide is never a crime.
You justify mass murder without consent as an acceptable consequence to protect national security. What security do you give suicidal individuals from unlimited suffering and unlimited cruelty – when you don't recognise the real purpose of denying the hope of the mercy and protection of assisted suicide is exactly as evil as torture is.
What sort of crushing blow that would make you want to die do you think it is to recognise the government and the human rights movement won't give suicidal individuals any humane protections such as the protection against torture is but they do want to protect enemy combatants against unlimited suffering and unlimited cruelty?
The combination of the criminalisation of assisted suicide and the protection of the freedom to make a suicidal individual want to die by the criminalisation of assisted suicide and so much else. Who do you think you care about?
When you care so much about forcing me to suffer and endure against my will that I don't have the right to use my death to stop you the monsters who call themselves the human race. When you believe in sanctioned mass murder without consent to such an extent that you have nuclear weapons – why do you think you cannot bear the legalisation of assisted suicide? You justify the methods of war by the needs of national security but when it comes to the safety of a suicidal individual you want nothing to give us safety.
There should be so many more humane protections than assisted suicide but there's nothing without assisted suicide.
It's meant to be the humane protections you want to exist to protect suicidal individuals and against unlimited suffering and unlimited cruelty that are the duty in civilian life and civilian laws that leads to the protection against torture in war. But still and always you're unaffected by how suicidal individuals feel.
And when it's death by consent you have find it an unacceptable consequence. Why do you think this is? You want to take the cruelty in forcing someone to suffer and endure against one's will and when you want to make this cruelty unlimited – this is the purpose of denying the hope of the mercy and protection of assisted suicide. That's not torture that's care?
It's sadistic cruelty – but you don't recognise it's sadistic cruelty when the medical suicide experts have taught you to believe there's nothing too cruel to do to a suicidal individual.
You can't legalise assisted suicide when you are always unaffected by how suicidal individuals feel and you clearly cannot want to protect suicidal individuals when you're still so utterly unaffected by how suicidal individuals feel. If for the safety of a suicidal individual if for no other reason you should want to legalise assisted suicide – can't you recognise so little empathy exists for suicidal individuals to protect us?
I'm a member of Liberty and they sent me this about torture
Don't decriminalise Torture – email your MP today
The Overseas Operations Bill will effectively decriminalise offences committed by the Armed Forces abroad after five years – including torture and war crimes.
liberty.e-activist.com
so i am writing to my MP based on this. Like so many she believes "we haven't hurt you too much already" or "we can never hurt you enough to satiate the evil at our cores" or whatever is in the minds of monsters who want to make my life even more worth dying to escape from.
Comments on this response would be useful. I want to finish this ASAP because they want to make me even more hopeless that they will ever care about me. Please hope i die today because of what they want to do to me instead of killing me.
You may have response from Liberty members about protecting against torture. These are from those who believe torture is never ever an acceptable consequence in war.
You do believe in the methods of war. You do believe that the consequences of war are acceptable consequences. You also believe in the value of nuclear weapons. A submarine with nuclear weapons is capable of killing hundreds of thousands if not millions.
War can have a few definitions but I want to use one: sanctioned mass murder without consent.
There is so much suffering caused in wars as well as deaths without consent. It is pitiful little to fight against torture. Imagine if a ballistic nuclear submarine launches its full payload – easily ten times more power than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. You have in the past voted for these things as acceptable consequences of both mass murder without consent and immense amounts of suffering.
I assume you justify this in the name of national security. It's the same with torture. It's justified as acceptable consequences in the name of national security. Because the human race is so evil you believe in the consequences of war and of nuclear war and of torture as acceptable consequences. If the monsters who call themselves the human race were not so evil then you would never fear the methods of war being used ever again so you would not need a military force or nuclear weapons or to give torturers jobs.
Throughout history there's never been such a prejudice against war makers and those who use the methods of war like there's prejudice against the suicidal mind and prejudice against those who serve death by consent. Whereas as the methods of war are sanctioned mass murder (and other methods) you can find no reason good enough to sanction assisted suicide and death by consent.
I have no doubt that the members of Liberty are as wholly against the methods of war as they are against torture. Whereas some believe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few so torture and the methods of war are acceptable consequences to them there are others who believe there is no good in believing such consequences are ever acceptable consequences to force on someone else against one's consent.
I doubt they and you recognise the substantial prejudice against the suicidal mind and the act of suicide. I am not just witness to the prevail of such prejudice. I am victim too.
Throughout the history of the monsters who call themselves the human race and throughout the history of the human rights movement they have done nothing to protect suicidal individuals by achieving any that resembles a humane protection such as the protection against torture for enemy combatants is.
I have written to you before about how this suicidal individual considers torture to be. It's the will to make someone want to die to keep on making them want to die. Tortures use unlimited suffering to force their victims to do what they are not willing to do. I assume this involves creating a suicidal mind as part of the process of torture. It's to force the victim to suffer and endure against their will until they want to die but then death is denied to keep on making the victim want to die until they give their torturers what they want. It's to use unlimited suffering to make the victim so desperate to do anything to stop the unlimited suffering from happening – so I assume creating a suicidal mind then depriving death to force a suicidal individual to live to keep on making them want to die that's a common part of how torturers succeed in their jobs.
Those who see the unlimited suffering inflicted by the intentional act of torture see a level of suffering that is wholly unacceptable and never justifiable. This is the sort of empathy and compassion that changes laws and creates new legal protections such as what's led to the creation of legislation against the use of torture in wars.
You obviously understand the way the law works better than I do. I see the law as simply an explicit moral code influenced by the chaotic forces of what little good there is in human nature versus the masses of cruelty and evil in human nature. The law is like the rules in science but without the concept of absolutes such as exist in scientific rules.
At the same time I see across millennia of progress there's a trend towards protections against suffering and suffering against consent. Inch by inch there's this influence of growing empathy that leads to something so pitiful as the protection against the use of torture in wars. I say pitiful because of what are the consequences of war that are known consequences and there's so much acceptable unlimited suffering that are the acceptable consequences of war so a little compassion to prevent against torture than seek to end the methods of war is pitiful little.
But these pitiful attempts against unlimited suffering are orders of magnitude greater than the attempts to protect suicidal individuals. Suicidal individuals are deprived of liberty and rights by psychiatrists and the medico-legal framework instead of given humane protections such as the protection against torture is.
I assert this is because of the prejudices against the suicidal mind and the act of suicide. It's the prejudices furthered by the medical profession but the epistemology shifted to brain defects and mental illness instead of the truth of the gods.
Without the prevail of such prejudices I truly believe it would be the laws that protect suicidal individuals that protect against torture – because it's unlimited suffering and unlimited cruelty that's so common in the things you should recognise are worse than death.
Unfortunately the monsters who call themselves the human race are always unaffected by how suicidal individuals feel. So there is the compassion and empathy for the unlimited suffering of enemy combatants but no such empathy or understanding for the suicidal mind so there exist no humane protections – even the human rights movement won't protect me – such as the protection against torture is.
While the laws in civilian life and the purpose of these laws somehow disappears when it comes to wars there is the bit of civilian good to legalise against the methods of torture used in wars. Why do you think there's no such good to protect suicidal individuals against unlimited suffering and unlimited cruelties and in fact the laws and the human rights movement seem to be happy with suicidal individuals facing unlimited cruelties and unlimited suffering?
The laws in civilian life are higher laws than the laws of war. The obvious example is how mass murder without consent is wholly unacceptable in the minds of the law makers but wholly acceptable in wars. Yet the will of civilians tries to make war more humane by the protection against torture. But no such will exists to protect suicidal individuals.
Instead it's acceptable for suicidal individuals to face unlimited suffering and unlimited cruelty. Surely the protection against torture in war should be based on a higher protection against unlimited suffering in civilian life – but it's not because of the dehumanisation of suicidal individuals.
I'm trying to lead to a point: there's so much more than assisted suicide that's meant to be there to protect suicidal individuals but there's no protections without assisted suicide.
I've used the term "unlimited suffering" to describe the methods of torturers. It does boil down to this concept if I have to reduce masses of thought into a free words. Torture is the use of unlimited suffering and the objective to make suffering unlimited to break the victim's will. Irrespective of the reasons to cause unlimited suffering it is by recognising what unlimited suffering is and why it's never ever an acceptable consequence that's what drives those who want to protect enemy combatants against torture.
I believe this sense of duty to protect against such unlimited suffering as torturers want to use it should have come from the civilian laws that protect suicidal individuals. It would exist had doctors not succeeded so much in dehumanising suicidal individuals by the lie of mental illness and the specious paradigm of mental illness – they have always asserted that suicidal thoughts and feelings are the product of a brain defect thus caused by a defective mind. This is fundamentally dehumanising and that's completely obvious when you look at how much the human rights movement want to protect enemy combatants but never cared about protecting suicidal individuals. Simply put: we're not human so the human rights movement won't protect us from unlimited suffering and unlimited cruelty. You can also recognise this from the jurisprudence of the criminal justice system that has to protect innocents from punishment whereas when the methods of punishment are used on suicidal individuals there's no such jurisprudence or objective to protect the innocent from punishment in the medico-legal framework. Because we have a defective brain thus a defective mind this we're sub human. And because the monsters who call themselves the human race believe when it's done out of a sense of care the cruelty is irrelevant.
So there are no humane legal protections for suicidal individuals. Not even assisted suicide. I am so much victim to this will to achieve the unlimited suffering of suicidal individuals and the unlimited cruelties the monsters who call themselves the human race care about doing to suicidal individuals.
What else can you do when you're utterly unaffected by how suicidal individuals feel and the medical profession simply perpetuates the prejudices against the suicidal mind and the act of suicide?
It is this truth I see so clearly because it's what I am victim of: you are utterly unaffected by how suicidal individuals feel.
I can't make you understand that unlimited suffering is what becoming suicidal is about. It about being forced beyond one's limit to what can be suffered and endured that makes being alive worse than death. I can't make you recognise that that's meant to be what you recognise as unlimited suffering when it's what's worse than death – with this sort of empathy the suicide laws would protect against torture in wars.
It's this that's the empathy to recognise a level of pain – and the wide diversity of the pain of living that makes life worth dying to escape from – that's the evolving definition of unlimited suffering. It's what should drive you to create a wide range of humane protections other than assisted suicide but there's nothing without assisted suicide. Just like torture in war is unlimited suffering it is a higher duty of protection in civilian life there to protect suicidal individuals. And the protection against unlimited cruelty of course.
Instead of this empathy there's just what exists when the monsters who call themselves the human race are still as always unaffected by how suicidal individuals feel. The freedom to make a suicidal individual want to die exists and so does this freedom by made unlimited by the criminalisation of assisted suicide. You can't call this care when you are affected by how suicidal individuals feel. But the combination of the criminalisation of assisted suicide and the freedom to make a suicidal individual want to die leads to unlimited suffering being made more unlimited. What exists is the will to force a suicidal individual to suffer and endure against one's will indefinitely – that's the purpose of assisted suicide that serves you who really want to hurt someone.
To make all this orders of magnitude greater more cruel and evil your medical suicide experts have no hesitation and no qualms when risking making a suicidal individual want to die even more. That's what psychiatrists have done throughout their existences. They have the will to achieve unlimited suffering as well as unlimited cruelty and all based on what's an acceptable consequence to the law makers and that's that it's okay for the monsters who call themselves the human race to force a suicidal individual to live to keep on making them want to die.
You might have the competency to recognise that being tortured is worse than death. But the criminalisation of assisted suicide plus the freedom to make a suicidal individual want to die plus how the medical suicide experts so easily risk making a suicidal individual want to die without hesitation or qualms. How the medical suicide experts support the unlimited suffering of suicidal individuals and do so well when they're protecting the unlimited cruelties that can be done to a suicidal individual. You think this is all acceptable to you and these are acceptable consequences to you – how much more worse than death is my existence?
I am forced to live for the monsters who call themselves the human race to make certain my suffering and suicidality is as unlimited as the evils and cruelties the monsters who call themselves the human race have always cared so much about doing to suicidal individuals.
To recognise you would protect enemy combatants against torture and against the will to achieve unlimited suffering. But you are still and always unaffected by how suicidal individuals feel.
But it's simply down to you and your concept of what's unlimited suffering and what's worse than death to recognise why assisted suicide is never a crime.
You justify mass murder without consent as an acceptable consequence to protect national security. What security do you give suicidal individuals from unlimited suffering and unlimited cruelty – when you don't recognise the real purpose of denying the hope of the mercy and protection of assisted suicide is exactly as evil as torture is.
What sort of crushing blow that would make you want to die do you think it is to recognise the government and the human rights movement won't give suicidal individuals any humane protections such as the protection against torture is but they do want to protect enemy combatants against unlimited suffering and unlimited cruelty?
The combination of the criminalisation of assisted suicide and the protection of the freedom to make a suicidal individual want to die by the criminalisation of assisted suicide and so much else. Who do you think you care about?
When you care so much about forcing me to suffer and endure against my will that I don't have the right to use my death to stop you the monsters who call themselves the human race. When you believe in sanctioned mass murder without consent to such an extent that you have nuclear weapons – why do you think you cannot bear the legalisation of assisted suicide? You justify the methods of war by the needs of national security but when it comes to the safety of a suicidal individual you want nothing to give us safety.
There should be so many more humane protections than assisted suicide but there's nothing without assisted suicide.
It's meant to be the humane protections you want to exist to protect suicidal individuals and against unlimited suffering and unlimited cruelty that are the duty in civilian life and civilian laws that leads to the protection against torture in war. But still and always you're unaffected by how suicidal individuals feel.
And when it's death by consent you have find it an unacceptable consequence. Why do you think this is? You want to take the cruelty in forcing someone to suffer and endure against one's will and when you want to make this cruelty unlimited – this is the purpose of denying the hope of the mercy and protection of assisted suicide. That's not torture that's care?
It's sadistic cruelty – but you don't recognise it's sadistic cruelty when the medical suicide experts have taught you to believe there's nothing too cruel to do to a suicidal individual.
You can't legalise assisted suicide when you are always unaffected by how suicidal individuals feel and you clearly cannot want to protect suicidal individuals when you're still so utterly unaffected by how suicidal individuals feel. If for the safety of a suicidal individual if for no other reason you should want to legalise assisted suicide – can't you recognise so little empathy exists for suicidal individuals to protect us?
