MAKE SOCIETY LISTEN TO US !

[ksp]

How do you address something like that?

2 very important and complex issues you addressed here - psychological / sociological conflicts
how would YOU address this? (i trust you more than conventional psychologists)

You should seriously consider changing your username to "Smart No Less", or better yet just "Smart".

!!!

 

[Smart No More]

I honestly don't know. You can only shine a light on it and hope enough of the right kind of pressure results from it to cause the relevant people to change their instincts of ignorance. Compel a desire for honest self analysis. Either through induced peer pressure or shame in the shape of displaying stark contrast which makes it screamingly obvious. That can have the opposite than desired effect though and induce people to double down on the self delusion. They can be quite dangerous.

FWIW I think conventional psychologists have their place. It can be a bit one size fits all but I have a lot of respect for their pursuits and insights. Far above my observational ability. But thanks for the compliment. : )

Thinking about ways to shine a light on things, I think art has a lot of scope there. Open to interpretation but able to reach a wide audience in one hit. Gets people talking and debating of their own accord.

I guess making people come to a desired conclusion by themselves, at their own credit makes them more likely to adopt it than if you just keep teurh bombing them. It's a highly measured and possibly devisive approach that's needed to lead someone to work things out for themselves and its a bit of a minefield as you could slip over into manipulation which is obviously not okay. Someone that can weave a story would probably be good at this stuff. Psychologists would probably be good at it too.

 

[ksp]

I think conventional psychologists have their place. It can be a bit one size fits all but I have a lot of respect for their pursuits and insights

i'm not saying they're stupid or incompetent (most of them are very intelligent), i'm saying that they have their hands tied behind their backs by society and its rules, specifically 'suicide is not an option'; you have a more objective view (much more open-minded)

I honestly don't know.

i understand what you're getting at, and it was my fault to put you in a tight spot: you cannot make society to do 'honest self analysis' right now - it'll take many more years to realize true honesty (but we're doing it now, in this forum)
this is why society should take our example, and move faster

however, the main point remains the same: accept voluntary euthanasia, NOW

ps. i feel extremely frustrated because i can't discuss in-depth subjects with you (and others here) because of my stroke and my communication issues (apologies for any miss-spellings and grammatical errors)

 

[Maudlin]

Everyone's goal has to be to reach the truth

Therein lies the problem.

We must figure on how to entice people to truth, no matter how uncomfortable, while still adhering to truth ourselves.

People, in general tend to latch on to both emotional arguments and aggrieved status. BLM taught me that, though I was already aware... BLM took it to such heights over the last decade I was forced to reconsider my perspective on it. I had to read "Rules for Radicals" all over again. lol

It's a highly measured and possibly devisive approach that's needed to lead someone to work things out for themselves and its a bit of a minefield as you could slip over into manipulation which is obviously not okay.

Is manipulation evil when we adhere to objective truth? I don't think it necessarily is. The masses must be swayed, somehow.

Those disabled by the vaxx are aggrieved, as are their families. Further, their grievance is systemic... tax funded labs, gain of function, extremely low casualty rate yet requiring vaccination, all pressed by the organs of governance in league with big pharma every step of the way. Everything BLM ever dreamed it cold be, only much better because you don't have to uphold criminals and addicts as icons. You have sweet grandmothers and innocent children, workers supporting their families, well-meaning people of all races, all ideologies doing their part for the common good... and so very many are disabled for each that has died.

the main point remains the same: accept voluntary euthanasia, NOW

No. Demand voluntary euthanasia, NOW

A free people has the right to demand redress for their grievances from their government, especially when their government is responsible for the grievance. That's why "The Atlantic"'s article went over like a lead balloon. lol

The difference between a "citizen" and a "subject" is a matter of framing, but makes all the difference in my opinion. Same to be said for "accept" and "demand".

i feel extremely frustrated

You're doing fine. Excellent ideas you have here... truly.

 

[ksp]

Therein lies the problem.

i knew i was asking for help from extremely sharp minds :)
if normal people would be as honest as people on this forum, we'd have a much better society

 

[Maudlin]

Well I believe it actually will reduce the rates because people would know that they have an option to go anytime that they want and I feel like that in itself would keep a lot of people around even longer.

Could be. This we have yet to see. I certainly hope that's the case for you, my friend. You have a style about you.

i knew i was asking for help from extremely sharp minds :)

lol. I'm having an "aw, shucks" moment between giggles.

Now if we can get that in America!

Exactly.

 

[Smart No More]

i'm not saying they're stupid or incompetent (most of them are very intelligent), i'm saying that they have their hands tied behind their backs by society and its rules, specifically 'suicide is not an option'; you have a more objection view (much more open-minded)


i understand what you're getting at, and it was my fault to put you in a tight spot: you cannot make society to do 'honest self analysis' right now - it'll take many more years to realize true honesty (but we're doing it now, in this forum)
this is why society should take our example, and move faster

however, the main point remains the same: accept voluntary euthanasia, NOW

ps. i feel extremely frustrated because i can't discuss in-depth subjects with you (and others here) because of my stroke and my communication issues (apologies for any miss-spellings and grammatical errors)

It'a cool, I took it exactly as you meant it. No need to explain yourself. I too have my concerns about the application of psychology and psychiatry (more the latter really) in our society. I was only saying what I said to make it clear I don't consider myself in particularly high regard but appreciated your compliment. It can be easy for a circle jerk echo chamber to come out of such conversations lol. I was just making sure to put my winky away. More for the sake of future readers not yet involved in the conversation.

And you didn't put me on the spot. It was a legitimate question. I assumed it was/is addressed to everyone and I'm interested to see what people suggest.

Interestingly you and I have a similar problem. I too am suffering cognitive issues. I think encephalitis of some kind in my case. Following a nasty period of illness. It's why I chose this username and it's why I'm here. It's absolutely killed my quality of life and stolen my personality. I wouldn't have guessed you're dealing with what you are from your posts and you will no doubt say the same of me. It's frustrating isn't it!? Soul destroying. Especially if you were someone who invested in your mind all your life. My lifes work was my mind. I think what you see in me is really just a remnant of that but it's really taxing for me to have these conversations and I overlook loads of things that would have been really obvious to me before. Abstraction and concepts as a whole are really hard for me to hold in my mind. Like I can only think about whats right in front of me and the stuff I would hold in my peripheral mind just falls away. I've explained it better in the past but I'm waining now. I'll probably be offline very shortly

Have you heard of cerebrolycin? There's a thread on it here if you want to look it up. I can give you a link if you can't find it. It hold potential from what I read.



Getting back on topic...

@Maudlin I would quote the elements of your post I wanted to reply to but I'm losing momentum fast so I hope you don't mind if I respond more vaguely.

Regarding manipulation, (and some of it might be down to interpretation of the word manipulate) I think ultimately (no matter how just the cause) things have to be consensual. In the same way that rape wouldn't be okay even if it was the only way to further the human race. (I know you obviously weren't suggesting that would be okay though). We all have to reach the right conclusion together or not at all IMHO. So we can go upto the line but not cross it. Because as we move forward we all have to be working from the same blueprint otherwise the cracks will form again and we will have only put a plaster on a bullet wound.

You said it yourself ;
"We must figure on how to entice people to truth, no matter how uncomfortable, while still adhering to truth ourselves".

And that's what I was getting at really.

Right, I think I'm burned out for the day. : )

 

[ksp]

off topic

Abstraction and concepts as a whole are really hard for me to hold in my mind. Like I can only think about whats right in front of me and the stuff I would hold in my peripheral mind just falls away

i feel EXACTLY as you! (except you said it much better than i would have)
and now i'm exhausted

 

[Maudlin]

things have to be consensual

I agree with what you're saying here, but at the same time you and I both know that informed consent is impossible, when dealing with mass movements. For one thing, people have different cognitive capacities. Further, people have different circumstances by which they can pay more or less attention to the issue the movement represents. There is no way to inform them all to the same understanding, though you could provoke the emotions of each to roughly the same fervor... and provoke, you must.

I suppose that's kind of a shortcut to consent, and it is certainly manipulation. Staying true to objective truth as you incite that emotion is the only thing that can keep it within the bounds of ethics, in my opinion.

We all have to reach the right conclusion together or not at all IMHO

Agreed, but we must allow ample room for people to reach that conclusion by whatever wandering path they take, and yet keep them moving along. So, "together" can't mean all at the same time, but still unified eventually.

(I know you obviously weren't suggesting that would be okay though)

I got a giggle out of this.

as we move forward we all have to be working from the same blueprint otherwise the cracks will form again and we will have only put a plaster on a bullet wound.

Until the time is right, I think shoring up some of those cracks that have been in the movement since before Kevorkian would be a good start. Figuring out the minor suicide issue, and making this platform less of a target until the current "lifer" legislation falls apart is our best bet.

My brain is spent.

I love talking with you geniuses.

 

[ksp]

i think the best reasons to legalize voluntary euthanasia, in all countries, are:

1. terminal physical illnesses
2. non-terminal, incurable disease
3. non-terminal, incurable, severe, and persistent mental illnesses
4. age: 70 years old, or more

 

[Smart No More]

I feel a bit like you're listing the factors that attribute to the desire/need for euthanasia rather than the convincing arguments for it. If you get my meaning? Don't get me wrong, I agree with you and its noble of you to compile something of this nature. I'm all for that. Most of us are just trying to get through it but you're doing something (however big or small) to improve things for a future we'll probably never see ourselves. I respect that. I'm just suggesting that maybe the focus should maybe be on the factors of those points you noted, that make it reasonable and a compelling argument for people who don't currently see it our way. I mean they know those point you listed and they know they're shit but they don't naturally reach the conclusion we do. So for example, the fact that terminal illness results in despair, pain and suffering, with no possibility of improvement might be a good argument for removing their suffering. I guess you have to pre-empt the questions and arguments you'd face and come up with suggestions from that. Kind of spell it out as they obviously need that.

Maybe a way of approaching this whole thing would be to attempt to identify the key areas/barriers that have stopped us (as a society) from reaching the point where we see unequivocally that the option of euthanasia is the humane way you and I know it to be.

Once you identify those you could try to compile a kind of road map/itinerary of the varied ways to address them.

 

[ksp]

i appreciate your input

Maybe a way of approaching this whole thing would be to attempt to identify the key areas/barriers that have stopped us (as a society) from reaching the point where we see unequivocally that the option of euthanasia is the humane way you and I know it to be.

i don't really see a way to convince older people that their fears and beliefs can be irrational. to us, it seems so straight forward and logical: how can you not help someone to end their suffering, because of outdated religious beliefs?!?

i really understand your dilemma you mentioned earlier:

You can only shine a light on it and hope enough of the right kind of pressure results from it to cause the relevant people to change their instincts of ignorance

(you made a lot more excellent points, and you are much more articulate about all of them. plus, your points are much more intricate, and nuanced)

i'm at a loss, and i don't think i can express myself clearly, or at least not right now. just trying to 'shine the light on it' and hope that it will, somehow, make a difference (maybe their relatives will be a contributing factor)

ps. maybe one convincing argument to them would be that 'a person suffering from terminal cancer, don't need to pay for sins they haven't committed'

 

[Smart No More]

Elderly people that are nearing death probably don't need convincing. And at the end of the day there's no real need to anyway. In fact you don't need to convince everyone. Only enough to make the difference.

Sometimes it seems clear as day to me and other times it seems so complex that I question my original thoughts.

 

[Euthanza]

Ok, they (NPC suicide-preventors) should not and can not deny ORGAN DONORS.

Euthanasia + organ donors will be great combination for life improvement. Save one Help two

 

[hopeless302]

The best argument in my view: some people are going to kill themselves regardless of how much therapy or drugs we throw at them. People not having access to painless, legal methods of euthanasia will make them resort to painful methods which could result in them having permanent disabilities and lead to more suffering down the line. It's sort of like abortion: making it illegal doesn't stop it from happening, it just drives the practice underground and makes it more painful.

 

[Barteljaap]

If euthanasia was legalised then people would be able to tell others in advance about their decision so that others can say goodbye and will have time to come to terms with the person's choice to leave as they can have discussions about it. Having the option of euthanasia would make it easier for the suicidal person and for those left behind.

That's a bit over-optimistic. There is a difference between legalisation and acceptance. Drugs are legal in some countries, doesn't mean you can tell people you know about your drug habits without risking a negative reaction.

Legality would be massively help though. If there was a clinic that I could go to, be given a reliable, painless poison and be treated with dignity, I would probably already be dead. Would be such a relief....

Right now the only option is to wait until the suffering gets bad enough to overcome the fear of trying a mediocre method.

 

[ksp]

Euthanasia + organ donors will be great combination for life improvement. Save one Help two

excellent reasoning; i don't really see why 100% people on this planet would be against this…

now, i'm trying to come up with reasons some people might be reluctant (playing the devil's advocate)

i'm imagining this debate between politicians at the highest levels of government, including religious leaders

• what is the root cause to accept a voluntary euthanasia:
• 'we appreciate that you want help others, but people of this country need to be sure that your euthanasia is the only way out - have you tried all solutions available?, and prove it'
• 'most people in our country believe that "life is a precious gift" - why are you wasting it?'
• 'why should we waste our resource - you (we need to consume all resources available to us!)'
• 'how will our country benefit from approving your request?' (i may be exaggerating this)
• - 'i can see one benefit from approving people in your circumstances
• — 'our health care system will spend too much, without any clear benefit, and return on our investment'
• (on the softer side of reasoning) 'how will our society "sleep easy tonight", after approving your request?'

The best argument in my view: some people are going to kill themselves

• 'how will you convince us (the government) that we cannot stop this person from committing suicide, if we provide "excellent mental care"' ? (in one sentence)

That's a bit over-optimistic. There is a difference between legalisation and acceptance.

thank you !

very difficult to convince all people of a nation
all countries will need EXTREMELY SOLID REASONS to accept voluntary euthanasia

—-

this is why i only have 4 solid reasons for all countries, so far:

1. terminal physical illnesses
2. non-terminal, incurable physical disease
3. non-terminal, incurable, severe, and persistent mental illnesses
4. age: 70 years old, or more

 

[LifeIsAChore11]

It's crazy to me that more left-leaning states like California have never had it on the ballot as a proposition. Only Oregon has it and they're really picky. I can't believe it's ignored like this when so many people die of the worst cancer imaginable, last moments awful pain and choking. You'd think there'd be more advocates, but noooo. So many other things are apparently more important to them.