TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,948
This is something that I've always had in the back of mind, partly due to how I interact with others. Basically this thread is showing one of the ways to find out the stance of a particular person, whether they are pro-choice, anti-choice, or even pro-life/pro-suffering. This thread will explain how I manage to find an indirect way to deduce and perhaps, even some 'reverse psychology' to test the waters or to find whether a person is actually pro-choice or pro-suffering.
The first way is the most straightforward one, which involves simply listening to and finding out what their stance is with respect to various social issues. This can either be done by just being in a conversation, overhearing a conversation (not necessarily eavesdropping) by being present. Some (not all) people tend to talk a lot very casually, especially those who just socialize and one can pick up various parts of a conversation even without participating in them.
The other way, which is a bit more involved, is by using some reverse psychology or (dependent on the topic of course), stating an outlandish stance and see if the person seems to push back. This means that while it may go against one's own stances and values, it is a tactic that they also use against us pro-choicers. By doing this, one is able to gauge and deduce what kind of stance that particular person has, and if they claim to be pro-choice for one (or just in principle – that is another thread altogether and not the focus of this thread), but yet their actions prove otherwise, then one could expose them for their hypocrisy.
For example, suppose one is a pro-choicer and believes in the right to die on one's own terms and encounters someone they may suspect to be a pro-lifer or anti-choicer. The pro-choicer could state an outlandish stance (yes, even though it goes against their own stance) and see how the suspected 'pro-lifer, anti-choicer' will respond. So when someone is suffering a lot, even though it is known that a pro-lifer would want to preserve life at almost all costs, regardless of circumstance, one way to expose their (the pro-lifer's) hypocrisy is to state that "I hope X person makes a miraculous recovery from terminal illness!" which of course is antithetical to the pro-choice stance, but if the pro-lifer admits to miracles, then the easiest slam dunk case would be that said person is indeed a pro-lifer (more-so even religious) and to be careful and wary of said person. The other case is suppose they push back, then it means perhaps they may be a pro-choice, or just a 'lukewarm' pro-choice, one who agrees in principle, but otherwise will push back or even go against what they said (e.g. pro-lifers said "I don't think it's right for them to suffering until natural causes finish (or something along those lines), they deserve a merciful exit with the last days/weeks/months of their lives", but then when reality hits, they renege on their principles or show their true stance).
On the contrary, yes it may seem dishonorable and perhaps even going against one's own stance, and on the surface, that is true, but through the grand scheme of things, it is still a way to deduce and find out which kinds of people are without directly exposing oneself to infantilization, authoritarianism, and such. Furthermore, while others may claim that it is 'stooping down to the level of the pro-lifers and anti-choicers', again while that may be true, sometimes, leveling the playing field is a necessity not borne out of vengeance, but out of protecting oneself in a choice-prohibitive and hostile, pro-suffering world.
There are so many other examples, but these are just the most common ones that I've given and there are many different ways of responding and reacting, but I figured I'd share some knowledge of various interactions I had with people over the course of my sentience. Perhaps some people may even be able to avoid potential traps or pitfalls that would cause more suffering. Finally, I don't believe that it is necessarily stooping down to their level or being dishonorable in the grand scheme of things as one's true stance is still intact, but I digress.
The first way is the most straightforward one, which involves simply listening to and finding out what their stance is with respect to various social issues. This can either be done by just being in a conversation, overhearing a conversation (not necessarily eavesdropping) by being present. Some (not all) people tend to talk a lot very casually, especially those who just socialize and one can pick up various parts of a conversation even without participating in them.
The other way, which is a bit more involved, is by using some reverse psychology or (dependent on the topic of course), stating an outlandish stance and see if the person seems to push back. This means that while it may go against one's own stances and values, it is a tactic that they also use against us pro-choicers. By doing this, one is able to gauge and deduce what kind of stance that particular person has, and if they claim to be pro-choice for one (or just in principle – that is another thread altogether and not the focus of this thread), but yet their actions prove otherwise, then one could expose them for their hypocrisy.
For example, suppose one is a pro-choicer and believes in the right to die on one's own terms and encounters someone they may suspect to be a pro-lifer or anti-choicer. The pro-choicer could state an outlandish stance (yes, even though it goes against their own stance) and see how the suspected 'pro-lifer, anti-choicer' will respond. So when someone is suffering a lot, even though it is known that a pro-lifer would want to preserve life at almost all costs, regardless of circumstance, one way to expose their (the pro-lifer's) hypocrisy is to state that "I hope X person makes a miraculous recovery from terminal illness!" which of course is antithetical to the pro-choice stance, but if the pro-lifer admits to miracles, then the easiest slam dunk case would be that said person is indeed a pro-lifer (more-so even religious) and to be careful and wary of said person. The other case is suppose they push back, then it means perhaps they may be a pro-choice, or just a 'lukewarm' pro-choice, one who agrees in principle, but otherwise will push back or even go against what they said (e.g. pro-lifers said "I don't think it's right for them to suffering until natural causes finish (or something along those lines), they deserve a merciful exit with the last days/weeks/months of their lives", but then when reality hits, they renege on their principles or show their true stance).
On the contrary, yes it may seem dishonorable and perhaps even going against one's own stance, and on the surface, that is true, but through the grand scheme of things, it is still a way to deduce and find out which kinds of people are without directly exposing oneself to infantilization, authoritarianism, and such. Furthermore, while others may claim that it is 'stooping down to the level of the pro-lifers and anti-choicers', again while that may be true, sometimes, leveling the playing field is a necessity not borne out of vengeance, but out of protecting oneself in a choice-prohibitive and hostile, pro-suffering world.
There are so many other examples, but these are just the most common ones that I've given and there are many different ways of responding and reacting, but I figured I'd share some knowledge of various interactions I had with people over the course of my sentience. Perhaps some people may even be able to avoid potential traps or pitfalls that would cause more suffering. Finally, I don't believe that it is necessarily stooping down to their level or being dishonorable in the grand scheme of things as one's true stance is still intact, but I digress.
