Search Results: choosing death

I'm considering laws here and want to know how you want to die.

Slow... you have to die by your own failure and bodily failing... which is days or years of fading. You can get pain meds during it all (assuming looters don't steal it all and cut off your supplies), but no-ones allowed to kill you.

Quickly - if you decide you want it over with, you are allowed to ask for help to die faster.

Maybe this is offensive with the current state of the world and George Floyd being in effect, suffocated to death before the world. He didn't ask to die, choose to die, nor did he deserve to be killed.

But this is also reality for me right now. I'm forced to watch someone who wants to die, for life is over, die slowly with no other option. I'd end it faster if I could, it is their wish... and their wish is denied by law.

We always want what we don't have.

And maybe we'd all be better today if we can find something to be appreciative of... instead of focusing on what we don't have. Or maybe we have more than we think we do.

There is no question that women earn less, on average, than men do. Government statistics prove that to be true. Note that this does NOT mean women earn less for the same work. It is merely a measure of the average earnings of all men compared to the average earnings of all women overall.

But the question is, why? Whenever I see any debate about why feminism still exists in the western world, the only legitimate gripe feminists seem to have is the gender wage gap, and their argument is that it exists because of sexism and the so called patriarchy. But is that really true?

There are plenty of studies that have shown the wage gap disappears when we control for factors like women choosing less demanding or lucrative careers, working fewer hours than men, prioritizing other things like work environment and schedule higher than pay, taking more time off for family, etc. In other words, it is women's own choices that lead them to earn less money, on average, than men. They could choose to earn as much as men, but they typically don't because their priorities are different than men's.

It is also a fact that the vast majority of dirty, unpleasant, risky and dangerous jobs in society are filled by men, and those jobs obviously pay more because they have to in order to fill those jobs when others are more pleasant and less dangerous. That also explains why about 95% of workplace deaths are men, not women.

So, why do you think the wage gap still exist?

Group A- roughly 30-50M people, 60% of whom are male, with an average age over 80, more than 90% of whom have pre-existing medical conditions and illnesses, and who'd otherwise be only expected to keep on living for an average of less than 5 years, regardless of whether you intervene to "save them" through the deliberate human sacrifice of everyone in Group B; but who also own more than 40% of the world's wealth, and include more than half of the world's millionaires, along with a large number of celebrities and politicians...

Group B- at least 1 billion, possibly 2Bn+ people, with an equal gender ratio, and an average age of 7, more than 90% of whom would otherwise have been perfectly fit and healthy, and been expected to keep on living for an average of 70+ years; but who are also overwhelmingly non-white, majority black, mostly living in 2nd and 3rd world countries, and consist of the poorest and most destitute people in the world, possessing less than 0.01% of the world's wealth between them, and with absolutely no celebrities, politicians or media figures included among their number.

If you could only "save" Group A by willfully taking the deliberate decision to kill off Group B- or rather, even with the most extreme measures you can possibly implement, wherein you kill off every single person in Group B, only manage to reduce Group A's already elevated risk of death per annum, over the next 1-2 years, by no more than 5%- what would you choose to do? Try to "Save liveS" by intervening to ever-so-slightly reduce the risk of death for Group A, thereby deliberately condemning everyone in Group B to die from poverty as "Necessary Sacrifices for the Greater Good, solving over-population, over-pollution and helping to Save The Planet"? Or do nothing to try and save Group A, and thereby allow everyone in Group B to survive, thrive, and benefit from the increased distribution of the world's wealth in the aftermath of Group A's slightly speedier demise?

say any thing about the subject you want or choose from the list to comment on

say anything you want on the subject or choose from the list to comment on once you choose one