|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 31, 2018 17:38:05 GMT
tpfkar Nope, the religious beez you in core belief, freaky manner, and ludicrous post content, over and over and over and over. Get it while you can before you're dirt (or locked up), my psychopathic brother. Enjoy your ErJy delusions of grandeur to stand out with your received knowledge and grand Objective, however deranged & gruesome.  Pray for the AI Christ that will save you.  And good to know you ultimately decided against the "cannibalizing and gut clinics". I had no idea you were considering such, I only knew you were good with your fellow psychopaths having their go if they could get the poor mentally ill to assent. But,  And I know you're up for whatever fellow predators can get the mentally ill to agree to.  And dream of sterilizing all women. And mass murdering everybody. And among many many lunacies, that you're not harming someone if they don't ever see what destroyed them. The very definition of both predatory and pure pathological wackdoodle. 
Moreover, it may be possible to spray a chemical in the world's air, or add something to the water supply that would prevent women from becoming pregnant. It wouldn't be necessary to ban sex. Alternatively, we could develop an AI that would peacefully and swiftly wipe out all sentient organisms on Earth, perhaps by releasing some kind of toxin into the air.I never objected to "get it while you can before you're dirt", and to keep raising that is a strawman. The only issues at stake are whether it's ethical to rope someone else into existence without their consent, or any reason to think that they needed that existence; and also whether or not everyone who is born ought to have the undisputed and fully legally supported right to terminate their existence in the easiest, most painless, most reliable and most convenient fashion that medical technology can provide. Your repeated mantra references neither of those ethical questions, and then you go on to assert a right to a) gamble with someone else's welfare by creating needs where previously there were none; and b) prevent people from accessing whatever means of assisting in dying would be of greatest convenience to them and would put their mind at rest. There is no coherent argument to be made for saying that it's in the best interests of someone who wants to die to be prevented from doing so in a swift and painless way. The person who dies by that means will never have any future interests which will supercede the ones that they were invested in at the time of requesting assistance to die. Of course you do when you project your innate cultism/religiosity for me or anybody or your precious "nonexistent" having the option of having a blast now and/or in the future until they're dirt or moan themselves to death. Jabber crazy with the "strawman sterilize the women kill everybody to save them" to your deranged sickly chestpump's content. And of course nothing of your own and everything else must be sacred in not throwing the highly vulnerable to the wolves, both of the metaphorical kind and of the literal that should be monitored in penal or medical facilities. Because wackdoodle. And of course more of the lunatic "benefit by terminating them without their consent" vs. "imposition" by letting them make the call when they have the ability, and protecting them when they don't. And I'm not concerned with "coherent" as emitted by youtube/message board playtime murderous psychopaths.
If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern. |
|
