Venting Prolifers are never satisfied with either outcomes (CTB or homicide)

[TAW122]

Disclaimer: This is not condoning nor glorifying the actions of the perpetrator. Also, this is not in any way encouraging any illegal acts or violence. This is merely an thread to point out the illogical, ironic views that prolifers have when it comes to CTB and homicide.

In the recent news regarding the mass shooting at a grocery store, the perpetrator took out a few people before turning the gun on himself. He was already suicidal to begin with as well as homicidal. Had the perpetrator CTB'd instead of taking others with them, pro-lifers will virtue signal and push for CTB prevention, fake platitudes, fake concern, and more. Since the perpetrator took two other innocent victims with him while injuring another person, (some) pro-lifers would even advocate that the perpetrator take himself out only (which is ironic for a pro-lifer, because pro-lifers always want to push life, but I suppose when it is a choice between themselves or another person, they will almost always take the lesser of evils), or start with himself.

I am unable to find the comment showing (perhaps some of the news articles either disabled the comments or even turned off, and other news articles probably deleted/removed the posters' comments) one of the commenters/users saying that the perpetrator should have killed himself/started with himself. I don't want to reply on those sites nor do I have an account there, but if I wanted to respond to some of the commenters/users on those articles, I would say:

TAW122's hypothetical reply:

"Well, if the government and society (most of the masses) legalized voluntary euthanasia, then perhaps people like him would not likely have carried out such an heinous act! He would have had access to a peaceful, dignified exit and not have taken others with him. It's mind boggling how people like you don't wish to legalize voluntary euthanasia, prevent suicide and homicide AT ALL COSTS regardless of circumstances, predicaments, and reasons, therefore, these kinds of events happen. To be fair, while voluntary euthanasia will NOT prevent ALL kinds of tragedies, it will definitely reduce the frequency of these events. I'm sure you and most people would prefer to see less tragedies and these events. Do not pretend that you wouldn't have wished for the perpetrator to live when you have clearly advocated for him to take his own life prior to taking others with him."

This is, once more proof and reason why I heavily support voluntary euthanasia for all people, not just those who are suffering gravely psychologically, physically, or terminally ill. Even without events like these, I would still have always supported voluntary euthanasia since I knew that not only is death a part of life, but also in the name of minimizing suffering and maximizing personal freedom, the ability to decide one's own fate is the greatest freedom that one can have.

Anyways, the point of this thread is to point out the irony and (somewhat) hypocritical nature of most people who want to have their cake and eat it at the same time. Basically, they don't want these tragedies to happen especially when it involves innocent victims including people they are connected to or people similar to them (other prolifers), yet they don't want to legalize voluntary euthanasia so that there are less tragic events. Moreover, if a would be perpetrator or even just people who are tired of life and want to exit suffering goes, it may even be beneficial for society such that less harm is done versus more harm done. What is baffling is how prolifers want ALL people to stay alive and even views those who CTB as some loss rather than seeing it as they are no longer suffering, and while the dead person can no longer contribute to society or be of benefit for them, the dead can also do no further (potential) harm in the future.

 

[ithappens]

The only reason most people are even against voluntary euthanasia is because then they can't profit off of the dead person/suckle them dry like a bunch of leeches would. It's one less person to work at the Burger King or the Walmart for them to scream at and degrade so they can feel superior. If we had functioning robots that could do all the work for humanity we would have suicide booths on every corner like in Futurama. People are largely pig-headed and selfish, and will deprive others of their natural right to decide whether they want to live or not. Because if they let people who got tortured by our current system die, they'd actually have to acknowledge that that person had some value that they just lost out on. And then they might actually have to change and become better people and not treat others like dog-shit until they either kill themselves or take others down and THEN kill themselves. Heaven FORBID suggesting the idea that we could just maybe - MAYBE - be kinder to one another or even just leave each other alone and live and let live. If anybody wants proof of this, take a look at suicide statistics posted on any given site (especially gov. sites) and notice how they almost always talk about loss of revenue when the person dies. "We just lost 1 million+ in potential taxes because they killed themselves! How SELFISH!!" Then they will turn around and talk about how that person was ungrateful and lazy or some shit. All while they sit in a management position that allows them to make money off of other people's labor while sitting on their fat ass all day, and showing zero gratitude to the people below them who allow them such a luxurious lifestyle through their wage slavery lowly peon position that determines whether they are treated like a human being or not. It always makes me laugh when in a shooting situation (like the one mentioned above or Columbine, etc.) people always wonder "Why didn't they just XYZ instead?" Because they didn't want to. Not everyone sees value in our crap society and living 80+ years in it while being treated the way we treat and take advantage of one another. They looked at the way things are, determined that it's not worth living in those conditions, and that they would literally rather die and take some of the people who make up that system down with them. Is it right of them to do that? Hell fucking no. Is shit like this going to keep happening, both because our society is fucked and because some people just have a screw loose and always have since the beginning of time? YEP.

 

[TAW122]

The only reason most people are even against voluntary euthanasia is because then they can't profit off of the dead person/suckle them dry like a bunch of leeches would. It's one less person to work at the Burger King or the Walmart for them to scream at and degrade so they can feel superior. If we had functioning robots that could do all the work for humanity we would have suicide booths on every corner like in Futurama. People are largely pig-headed and selfish, and will deprive others of their natural right to decide whether they want to live or not. Because if they let people who got tortured by our current system die, they'd actually have to acknowledge that that person had some value that they just lost out on. And then they might actually have to change and become better people and not treat others like dog-shit until they either kill themselves or take others down and THEN kill themselves. Heaven FORBID suggesting the idea that we could just maybe - MAYBE - be kinder to one another or even just leave each other alone and live and let live. If anybody wants proof of this, take a look at suicide statistics posted on any given site (especially gov. sites) and notice how they almost always talk about loss of revenue when the person dies. "We just lost 1 million+ in potential taxes because they killed themselves! How SELFISH!!" Then they will turn around and talk about how that person was ungrateful and lazy or some shit. All while they sit in a management position that allows them to make money off of other people's labor while sitting on their fat ass all day, and showing zero gratitude to the people below them who allow them such a luxurious lifestyle through their wage slavery lowly peon position that determines whether they are treated like a human being or not. It always makes me laugh when in a shooting situation (like the one mentioned above or Columbine, etc.) people always wonder "Why didn't they just XYZ instead?" Because they didn't want to. Not everyone sees value in our crap society and living 80+ years in it while being treated the way we treat and take advantage of one another. They looked at the way things are, determined that it's not worth living in those conditions, and that they would literally rather die and take some of the people who make up that system down with them. Is it right of them to do that? Hell fucking no. Is shit like this going to keep happening, both because our society is fucked and because some people just have a screw loose and always have since the beginning of time? YEP.

That actually makes a lot of sense, especially about how people can no longer exploit (take advantage and/or benefit) the ones who don't wish to partake in society or play the game of life. I also do agree that we should treat others better, but of course due to human nature itself, selfishness almost always prevail and thus the sad and unfortunate consequence of subjugating their peers in the name of personal gain (or greed).

Perhaps the rise of AI and dominance of AI may be better for humanity as a whole, solving the labor shortage and the fact that it can continue the economy while allowing the humans who don't wish to be around to opt out. As for humans wanting to be superior, perhaps they can do that with AI instead of other fellow humans, thus sparing another sentient life (especially a human/animal) from suffering. Additionally, AI could solve the our paradox problem regarding us the pro-choicers (I will have another thread for that topic as that is another topic altogether from this one).

 

[7b48hl]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260089594_Criminality_and_suicide_A_longitudinal_Swedish_cohort_study

 

[ithappens]

Perhaps the rise of AI and dominance of AI may be better for humanity as a whole, solving the labor shortage and the fact that it can continue the economy while allowing the humans who don't wish to be around to opt out. As for humans wanting to be superior, perhaps they can do that with AI instead of other fellow humans, thus sparing another sentient life (especially a human/animal) from suffering. Additionally, AI could solve the our paradox problem regarding us the pro-choicers (I will have another thread for that topic as that is another topic altogether from this one).

If we want AI to be able to do all of humanity's labor for it, that would mean needing very advanced AI. If we ever got to the level of having AI as advanced as say, Bender from Futurama or Connor from Detroit: Become Human, is it any more moral of us to force our burdens onto them? And if we don't make AI as advanced as them, like the level of technology we have now, there will still be jobs that humans have to fill out that will be undervalued by the people at the top so they can get that labor as cheaply as possible.

Also, there is no labor shortage. There are 7 billion+ people (and growing) on this planet. There is a shortage of people who want to be slaves for the billionaires/trillionaires, and work for less than what they need to survive. That's all. If jobs offered a wage that was livable and didn't leave the majority of people stressed 100% of the time about whether they'll be able to eat or not after paying their hyper-inflated rent (even historical slaves had the security of knowing that food and shelter would be provided to them because they are necessary) I guarantee that there would be no "labor shortage". Also, let's not forget every business out there intentionally understaffing themselves and working their handful of workers ragged and into the ground to save money, denying people opportunities to jobs that SHOULD exist just because they wish to make even MORE profit despite having enough money to be able to hire a private militia and wage war on several countries. In nature there is no labor shortage, everyone has to work to survive and there is always something to be done to achieve survival. "Labor shortage" is a problem of our own making.

 

[TAW122]

If we want AI to be able to do all of humanity's labor for it, that would mean needing very advanced AI. If we ever got to the level of having AI as advanced as say, Bender from Futurama or Connor from Detroit: Become Human, is it any more moral of us to force our burdens onto them?

This is a great question! I don't really have a good answer or concrete stance regarding advanced AI partly because of my level of understanding of AI in general as well as what we also don't (scientifically and objectively) know everything about AI, there has even been many debates and interpretations on how advanced AI will play out.

The simple answer would be that it would be a gray area.

The long answer is that if AI was as advanced as Bender from Futurama for instance, then the only logical sense would be for efilism to run it's course and for humanity to no longer be around (ending of all suffering) and presuming that AI is advanced enough to logically conclude that sentience itself is bad, aka a net negative, be able to undo itself and it too follow suit with efilism on itself. For a indefinite amount of time, yes advanced AI may be around up until the last human is no longer in existence (through efilism and dying peacefully or through natural causes thus ending the human species altogether), and after making 100% sure that humanity is no longer around, thus no more suffering for humanity itself as efilism has gotten rid of the last existing humans, then finally advanced AI can uninstall itself and being more 'logical' (presumably!) than humans itself, maybe dismantle itself at the end. Of course this scenario does presume the advanced AI having very specific built-in functions and self-destruct programs built-in to it to activate under specific circumstances.

This all of course would take centuries or longer and it isn't likely to occur within our lifetime (or even the next few generations).