Of course this is a conflict, that’s my entire point.
Humans, and especially societies, are always full of internal inconsistencies. If everything would be logical and consistent, we wouldn’t need politicians.
You don’t get to hide behind this and stay cordial. You don’t get to excuse indifference and tolerance of forcefully overruling the deathwish of the suffering.
Your opinion means nothing. It’s fleeting, performative and inconsequential. You’re still accepting the restraints put upon the people who wish to die.
You personally are fine with people who restrain people who suffer and want to die to end it. You are fine with the enforcers of natural death being unyielding to the will of the restrained.
You don’t really give a shit.
You’re only temporarily acting like you’re on the right side because we’re currently having a conversation about it and the right and wrong of it is kind of obvious for the most part.
Public opinion overrules law if the public really cares. If it doesn’t, it’s not a democracy.
The public doesn’t care to right this wrong. You don’t care.
Of course this is a conflict, that’s my entire point.
Humans, and especially societies, are always full of internal inconsistencies. If everything would be logical and consistent, we wouldn’t need politicians.
We. Do. Not. Reapect. Their. Wishes.
Period.
I used the word conflict and you latched onto it. The one you should have paid intention to was the word “supercede”.
You can throw semantic hissy fits as much as you want, that doesn’t change the reality.
We also respect other’s freedom of speech, unless it’s libel. We respect your right to roam wherever, unless it’s a restricted area.
And finally, the populations of many countries support e.g. abortions, but some countries restrict it anyway.
You seem not to understand the difference between public opinion and legislation.
Fuck you.
You don’t get to hide behind this and stay cordial. You don’t get to excuse indifference and tolerance of forcefully overruling the deathwish of the suffering.
Your opinion means nothing. It’s fleeting, performative and inconsequential. You’re still accepting the restraints put upon the people who wish to die.
You personally are fine with people who restrain people who suffer and want to die to end it. You are fine with the enforcers of natural death being unyielding to the will of the restrained.
You don’t really give a shit.
You’re only temporarily acting like you’re on the right side because we’re currently having a conversation about it and the right and wrong of it is kind of obvious for the most part.
Public opinion overrules law if the public really cares. If it doesn’t, it’s not a democracy.
The public doesn’t care to right this wrong. You don’t care.
Puberty was hard for all of us, you’ll pull through, I’m sure.
Afterwards you might understand that explaining a concept and advocating for it are not the same thing.
Condescending little shit.
I hope you choke on vomit when your time comes.
That’s interesting. What makes you feel that way?
Seriously, though. Who exactly are you trying to convince like that?
Did that approach work anywhere before?