TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,034
This is a statement that I've seen on the Internet or at least heard at some point in my life by some people who are being more than candid, or not really wearing their (social/politically correct) mask, and while it isn't new, it is only partially true. Basically the statement is "They don't care that you die, just not by CTB." In other words, it is the manner in which one dies rather than the fact that said person dies. It is rather infuriating to hear people spew off such statements. The reason that it is partially true is that technically people could have a chronic illness that kills them over the years or so, die of natural causes, violence from others, accidents, or other causes, but it's just that they (usually the preventionists and pro-lifers) just don't want them to die via CTB. This just proves that (pro-lifers, anti-choicers, and CTB-preventionists) only care about one thing, which is to "prevent self-deletion, self-inflicted death" moreso than the result of behavior that (indirectly or in some cases, directly) causes death. For example, if someone dies due to the elements and/or illness from being homeless or otherwise in bad living situations, they would write it off (though if they are polite, they may virtue signal - basically feigning sorrow and melancholy or care) and not think much. Yet, if the same homeless, destitute person were to CTB (either by others, or jump off the bridge, or even OD on drugs, etc.) people would quickly come out of the woodwork and look down on said person for going out on his/her own terms.
Here is an example (I may have already stated this before in another thread years ago, but here it is) from years ago, especially during the pandemic, when I was in an online group of gamers, a person named 'X' was in a voice chat along with me, and somehow the conversation turned to be about personal choice and autonomy. Keep in mind he's likely a normie, definitely doesn't agree with pro-choice values just for reference. So during the conversation, it came down to the question of "Well if a homeless person who is unlikely to get back on their feet, but decides to CTB (yes, technically he/she could win the lottery and be rich, but very realistically, that just isn't going to happen) instead of leading a life that is most likely (99.9%) not going to improve and will suffer for potentially months or years before he/she dies of the elements, disease, or other causes, would you be against it?" Given that question, X said he'd still be against CTB, but not if the homeless person dies in other ways. After that I don't really touch such subjects again, since that's all I ever need to know. Nevertheless, that just proves my point pretty accurately, they don't care about people dying (for the most part), just that they don't die on their own terms.
So in conclusion, I think those who said this statement is only at best, partially correct, because they ignore the real reason, which is that people are against CTB (even though it results in death, just self-inflicted instead of other causes, alas the result is the same - death. But just the means of reaching 'death', 'non-sentience' is controversial or untoward their atavistic morals). As a result, by extension, it CTB (self inflicted death) is treated like a blasphemous act (I wrote a thread on it). If these people (pro-lifers, anti-choicers, and preventionists) really cared about preventing death at all costs, then they would likely tackle the causes of death more aggressively rather than allowing other forms of (non self-inflicted) death happen, but ultimately, it's about blasphemy towards their atavistic morals and such.
Here is an example (I may have already stated this before in another thread years ago, but here it is) from years ago, especially during the pandemic, when I was in an online group of gamers, a person named 'X' was in a voice chat along with me, and somehow the conversation turned to be about personal choice and autonomy. Keep in mind he's likely a normie, definitely doesn't agree with pro-choice values just for reference. So during the conversation, it came down to the question of "Well if a homeless person who is unlikely to get back on their feet, but decides to CTB (yes, technically he/she could win the lottery and be rich, but very realistically, that just isn't going to happen) instead of leading a life that is most likely (99.9%) not going to improve and will suffer for potentially months or years before he/she dies of the elements, disease, or other causes, would you be against it?" Given that question, X said he'd still be against CTB, but not if the homeless person dies in other ways. After that I don't really touch such subjects again, since that's all I ever need to know. Nevertheless, that just proves my point pretty accurately, they don't care about people dying (for the most part), just that they don't die on their own terms.
So in conclusion, I think those who said this statement is only at best, partially correct, because they ignore the real reason, which is that people are against CTB (even though it results in death, just self-inflicted instead of other causes, alas the result is the same - death. But just the means of reaching 'death', 'non-sentience' is controversial or untoward their atavistic morals). As a result, by extension, it CTB (self inflicted death) is treated like a blasphemous act (I wrote a thread on it). If these people (pro-lifers, anti-choicers, and preventionists) really cared about preventing death at all costs, then they would likely tackle the causes of death more aggressively rather than allowing other forms of (non self-inflicted) death happen, but ultimately, it's about blasphemy towards their atavistic morals and such.
