Euthanasia

[emilynghiem]

The people who lived in the towns next to the concentration camps were fine with it.This is why they were forced to march through when the camps were liberated. The consensus of the German people was that the concentration camps were okay.

What about the people inside the camps?

Am I from another planet?
I mean that consensus includes ALL the people involved as in
"consent of the governed"

has that become a foreign concept now?

I think our legal system and politics has REALLY screwed up public
perception if there is no understanding of what consensus means anymore... gee whiz....

 

[PredFan]

Don't need a god to have morals and ethics. Secular humanism does just fine absent God while remaining very moral and ethical.

What is morality without God?

Answer: It is whatever YOU think it is.

Ha! Probably the best post of the year.

 

[emilynghiem]

As far as euthanasia goes, you're all living in the past.

At least we're living?

And Taz if you don't understand the impact that
knowledge of spiritual healing would have on medicine in general,
you are not living in the future yet with others who know this.

 

[PredFan]

I love Euthanasia.

it has been very succesfull in the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland.

And should I ever get a glioblastrom I would insist on having the option of ending my life.

Meh, I wouldn't ask for permission. I'd just do it.

 

[rightwinger]

Don't need a god to have morals and ethics. Secular humanism does just fine absent God while remaining very moral and ethical.

Without a point of reference who's to say what is "moral" or "ethical?" Under a system of humanism anything goes. What's right for you isn't necessarily right for me so why should YOU determine (or a group of "you"s) get to determine what I should consider moral or ethical? What do you do when one group of Secular Humanist totally disagree with another group of Humanists? Who's way is the right way?

Hi DriftingSand and Delta4Embassy

How about Consensus as the qualifier?

Regardless of people's systems of values or principles,
as long as we AGREE on a course of action or policy as fitting our standards, does it matter if we explain or justify
them differently?

Why not take each point, policy or issue one by one,
and just work it out until we AGREE what is most effective, accurate, sustainable and workable.

We don't have to agree why it is, because that's personal and different for each of us.
We'd never get anywhere if we had to agree on all the background.

But what about specific steps or solutions. Wouldn't consensus make sure all standards are met?

Consent of the Governed? Educated choice?
can we agree on that and agree to resolve all objections until a consensual solutions is formed?

Ever hear of the Nazis?

They had consensus.

Wise up.

 

[koshergrl]

The Jews acquiesced. They did not object, they didn't take action when they had opportunity to.
Then they may have reconsidered their lack of action...but by then, it was too late.

 

[PredFan]

Ever hear of the Nazis?

They had consensus.

Wise up.

WTFFFF???
Do you think the Jews in the camps CONSENTED to that treatment?

let me repeat
WTFFFFFFFFFF???

That's why the forces had to use FORCE
because what they were doing was COERCION not CONSENSUS

You argue that Obama's idea of consensus is coercion too!

That is NOT consensus! You know this! WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.....

The people who lived in the towns next to the concentration camps were fine with it.This is why they were forced to march through when the camps were liberated. The consensus of the German people was that the concentration camps were okay.

As far as euthanasia goes, you're all living in the past.

At least we're living?

Ever hear of the Nazis?

They had consensus.

Wise up.

WTFFFF???
Do you think the Jews in the camps CONSENTED to that treatment?

let me repeat
WTFFFFFFFFFF???

That's why the forces had to use FORCE
because what they were doing was COERCION not CONSENSUS

You argue that Obama's idea of consensus is coercion too!

That is NOT consensus! You know this! WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.....

The people who lived in the towns next to the concentration camps were fine with it.This is why they were forced to march through when the camps were liberated. The consensus of the German people was that the concentration camps were okay.

As far as euthanasia goes, you're all living in the past.

At least we're living?

Whether it be genocide, gulags, abortions, death panels, inseparable from Leftist doctrine...communism, Liberalism, whatever....all represent how insignificant human life is to Leftist worldviews.


They laughed when the Right pointed out that ObamaCare included rationing and Death Panels...but last week the architect of ObamaCare, Dr.Zeke Emanuel came out an said that at 75, time to die.

" If Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel doesn’t die by age 75, should he get the Death Panel?"
Ezekiel Emanuel Obamacare people should die at age 75




And the facilitation for that view is that none of Leftist iterations view religion as important, or even necessary.


1. Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there.
Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’


2. "There is no God: This concept is an essential element of Marxism.
As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism."
If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.

When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor."
The Schwarz Report Essays

a. As one of his friends later recalled, "Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov (Lenin) had the courage to come out and say openly that famine would have numerous positive results...Famine, he explained....would bring about the next stage more rapidly, and usher in socialism, the stage that necessarily followed capitalism. Famine would also destroy faith, not only in the tsar, but in God, too."
"The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression," by Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek and Jean-Louis Margolin , p.123-124.





3. And just one more example of that view is the murder endorsed by Liberal governments, Euthanasia.
Philosopher Helga Kuhse: "'Euthanasia' is a compound of two Greek words - eu and thanatos meaning, literally, 'a good death'. Today, 'euthanasia' is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death - 'mercy killing,' where one person, A, ends the life of another person, B, for the sake of B."
Euthanasia Fact Sheet The World Federation of Right to Die Societies

What if they don't ask B's permission? Wouldn't that make it murder?





4. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients. Would they do so based on their whim?

a. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

b. Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland?"
David Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."

Growing old in Amsterdam amoung the Dutch would be worth the risk.

How about if I get to make the decision for you?

Just pretend I'm 'Liberal big government'.....then it'd be fine, huh?

You would never be in charge, so there is no worry.

 

[koshergrl]

I love Euthanasia.

it has been very succesfull in the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland.

And should I ever get a glioblastrom I would insist on having the option of ending my life.

Meh, I wouldn't ask for permission. I'd just do it.

Killing yourself isn't euthanasia.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Jews acquiesced. They did not object, they didn't take action when they had opportunity to.
Then they may have reconsidered their lack of action...but by then, it was too late.

Are you saying rape victims consent to sex when they acquiesce?
And murder victims consent to being killed when they give up fighting for their lives?

?????

I ran out of F's but WTFFF.. etc. to this also I don't get what you are saying??

Can someone tell me where "consent and consensus"
means to force someone into compliance by coercion????

What the _____________???

 

[PredFan]

I love Euthanasia.

it has been very succesfull in the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland.

And should I ever get a glioblastrom I would insist on having the option of ending my life.

Meh, I wouldn't ask for permission. I'd just do it.

Killing yourself isn't euthanasia.

It isn't? Well it appears I'm not too old to learn something.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The people who lived in the towns next to the concentration camps were fine with it.This is why they were forced to march through when the camps were liberated. The consensus of the German people was that the concentration camps were okay.

What about the people inside the camps?

Am I from another planet?
I mean that consensus includes ALL the people involved as in
"consent of the governed"

has that become a foreign concept now?

I think our legal system and politics has REALLY screwed up public
perception if there is no understanding of what consensus means anymore... gee whiz....

You are a fool.

Really.

 

[DriftingSand]

Don't need a god to have morals and ethics. Secular humanism does just fine absent God while remaining very moral and ethical.

Without a point of reference who's to say what is "moral" or "ethical?" Under a system of humanism anything goes. What's right for you isn't necessarily right for me so why should YOU determine (or a group of "you"s) get to determine what I should consider moral or ethical? What do you do when one group of Secular Humanist totally disagree with another group of Humanists? Who's way is the right way?

Hi DriftingSand and Delta4Embassy

How about Consensus as the qualifier?

Regardless of people's systems of values or principles,
as long as we AGREE on a course of action or policy as fitting our standards, does it matter if we explain or justify
them differently?

Why not take each point, policy or issue one by one,
and just work it out until we AGREE what is most effective, accurate, sustainable and workable.

We don't have to agree why it is, because that's personal and different for each of us.
We'd never get anywhere if we had to agree on all the background.

But what about specific steps or solutions. Wouldn't consensus make sure all standards are met?

Consent of the Governed? Educated choice?
can we agree on that and agree to resolve all objections until a consensual solutions is formed?

Perhaps we can start at a fixed starting point. Let's start with the New Testament and the moral tenets of Christ. Then, Secularists can pick apart why those tenets they believe are wrong and explain why their personal feelings are more correct than the tenets of Jesus Christ. Why is there way more correct than Christ's way?

 

[emilynghiem]

The people who lived in the towns next to the concentration camps were fine with it.This is why they were forced to march through when the camps were liberated. The consensus of the German people was that the concentration camps were okay.

What about the people inside the camps?

Am I from another planet?
I mean that consensus includes ALL the people involved as in
"consent of the governed"

has that become a foreign concept now?

I think our legal system and politics has REALLY screwed up public
perception if there is no understanding of what consensus means anymore... gee whiz....

You are a fool.

Really.

Why PC??

READ what consensus means:

con·sen·sus(k

n-s

n

s

s)
n.
1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: "Among political women . . . there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced" (Wendy Kaminer). See Usage Note at redundancy.
2. General agreement or accord: government by consensus.

^ ACCORD ^

con•sen•sus(kənˈsɛn səs)

n., pl. -sus•es.
1. collective judgment or belief; solidarity of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

^ HARMONY ^

Note this is based on ACCORD and HARMONY

NOT COERCION

^^^ PoliticalChic: where does COERCION appear anywhere in the above definitions of consensus? ^^^

Can you explain why you are calling me a fool?

Do I need to call you into the Bullring over the
"definition of Consensus" to find me an honest person
who WILL show me where 'coercion' is anywhere in the definition or process?

if people are ABUSING others by coercion and CALLING it consensus,
that's like abusing others by forcing sex and CALLING it consensual:
Just because people abuse sex to rape people
doesn't "REDEFINE sex to include rape as consensual," just because they think or said it was.

WTF is going on here?

Maybe koshergrl knows better than to try to make words mean something they do not,
and then blame liberals for doing this.

If you and she are talking about "manufactured consent"
that is NOT what I mean.

That doesn't solve problems but suppresses them where they escalate and blow up worse.

I'm talking about REALLY resolving things to form an AGREED understanding,
a meeting of the minds where people freely and openly form a consensus by
resolving all the other objections and conflicts that blocked them previously.

If you can't agree, then separate, but stop letting politicians abuse
law and power to override the dissenting objections instead of resolving them in full.

The Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed Unanimously by Congress
so it IS possible to write good laws and pass them by Consensus:
ethics-commission.net
We all agree to keep the Bill of Rights in the Constitution which is
also well-written and even allows different interpretations to co-exist.
Why can't we write laws by consensus, especially if these are SUPPOSED to represent the public.

Isn't everyone equally the public?
So shouldn't ALL our input and issues be resolved if a policy is going to represent us?

Nobody seems to be happy when a law is passed
that we DIDN'T consent to. So why do we put up with this?
why not demand that all conflicts either be resolved or kept out of gov and kept private?

PoliticalChic: do you believe in limited govt?
Wouldn't we HAVE to stick to just the Constitutional limits on govt
in order to get everyone to agree? wouldn't consensus achieve that goal
of SCREENING OUT any personal or political agenda that the public doesn't consent to?

If consensus were the standard on law, Wouldn't we only be left with laws that make common sense
and everyone agrees without any politics or beliefs involved?
And delegate more to the states and to the people to work out locally where they have closer representation,
instead of trying to make one blanket policy to micromanage each and every thing
to impose on the rest of the nation that cannot always agree? Why set ourselves up to fail this way?

Why not localize democracy with respect to "consent of the governed" so there is
a greater chance of equal representation, inclusion and protection of interests in the democratic process?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The people who lived in the towns next to the concentration camps were fine with it.This is why they were forced to march through when the camps were liberated. The consensus of the German people was that the concentration camps were okay.

What about the people inside the camps?

Am I from another planet?
I mean that consensus includes ALL the people involved as in
"consent of the governed"

has that become a foreign concept now?

I think our legal system and politics has REALLY screwed up public
perception if there is no understanding of what consensus means anymore... gee whiz....

You are a fool.

Really.

Why PC??

READ what consensus means:

con·sen·sus(k

n-s

n

s

s)
n.
1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: "Among political women . . . there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced" (Wendy Kaminer). See Usage Note at redundancy.
2. General agreement or accord: government by consensus.

^ ACCORD ^

con•sen•sus(kənˈsɛn səs)

n., pl. -sus•es.
1. collective judgment or belief; solidarity of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

^ HARMONY ^

Note this is based on ACCORD and HARMONY

NOT COERCION

^^^ PoliticalChic: where does COERCION appear anywhere in the above definitions of consensus? ^^^

Can you explain why you are calling me a fool?

Do I need to call you into the Bullring over the
"definition of Consensus" to find me an honest person
who WILL show me where 'coercion' is anywhere in the definition or process?

if people are ABUSING others by coercion and CALLING it consensus,
that's like abusing others by forcing sex and CALLING it consensual:
Just because people abuse sex to rape people
doesn't "REDEFINE sex to include rape as consensual," just because they think or said it was.

WTF is going on here?

Maybe koshergrl knows better than to try to make words mean something they do not,
and then blame liberals for doing this.

If you and she are talking about "manufactured consent"
that is NOT what I mean.

That doesn't solve problems but suppresses them where they escalate and blow up worse.

I'm talking about REALLY resolving things to form an AGREED understanding,
a meeting of the minds where people freely and openly form a consensus by
resolving all the other objections and conflicts that blocked them previously.

If you can't agree, then separate, but stop letting politicians abuse
law and power to override the dissenting objections instead of resolving them in full.

The Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed Unanimously by Congress
so it IS possible to write good laws and pass them by Consensus:
ethics-commission.net
We all agree to keep the Bill of Rights in the Constitution which is
also well-written and even allows different interpretations to co-exist.
Why can't we write laws by consensus, especially if these are SUPPOSED to represent the public.

Isn't everyone equally the public?
So shouldn't ALL our input and issues be resolved if a policy is going to represent us?

Nobody seems to be happy when a law is passed
that we DIDN'T consent to. So why do we put up with this?
why not demand that all conflicts either be resolved or kept out of gov and kept private?

PoliticalChic: do you believe in limited govt?
Wouldn't we HAVE to stick to just the Constitutional limits on govt
in order to get everyone to agree? wouldn't consensus achieve that goal
of SCREENING OUT any personal or political agenda that the public doesn't consent to?

If consensus were the standard on law, Wouldn't we only be left with laws that make common sense
and everyone agrees without any politics or beliefs involved?
And delegate more to the states and to the people to work out locally where they have closer representation,
instead of trying to make one blanket policy to micromanage each and every thing
to impose on the rest of the nation that cannot always agree? Why set ourselves up to fail this way?

Why not localize democracy with respect to "consent of the governed" so there is
a greater chance of equal representation, inclusion and protection of interests in the democratic process?

Here is why you are a fool.

1. In the thread there are several examples of bureaucrats entrusted with the power to carry out what they call 'euthanasia,' but simply didn't bother to obtain the consent of the 'served.'

You've ignored these, and blather on about consensus.

2. I provided this:
'Everyday language, even if informed by terms borrowed from the social sciences and psychology, tends to fall short when describing horrors perpetrated by people in positions of responsibility who are entrusted with caring for others, not harming them.'
Dr. Heinrich Gross A perfectly psychopathic doctor -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net

3. And, a fool doesn't understand human nature, and the addiction of entrusted power.

QED....you are a fool.

 

[emilynghiem]

Perhaps we can start at a fixed starting point. Let's start with the New Testament and the moral tenets of Christ. Then, Secularists can pick apart why those tenets they believe are wrong and explain why their personal feelings are more correct than the tenets of Jesus Christ. Why is there way more correct than Christ's way?

May I also add that some people may start with
Equal Protection of the Laws or Equal Justice
under Constitutional laws or natural laws (who may not relate to Biblical or Mosaic Law)

I don't think the issue is which law someone sees as the default,
but the problems come from
1. excluding one group or another instead of including each other equally
2. taking a retributive approach toward rejecting judging or punishing others (to justify cutting off people, groups or relations)
instead of trying to correct problems mutually to restore the relationship
3. forgiving and resolving conflicts as mutual responsibility and benefit
vs. allowing unresolved or unforgiveness issues to repeat or project in a pattern or cycle

If we can agree to be
inclusive, and mutually forgive and correct faults as they come up
equally between people, for the purpose of resolving conflicts to reach an agreed solution or understanding,
that is the most important part.

Some benefits of adding the choice of natural laws
is some secular thinkers can relate to those better when dealing with others
and also the idea of "due process, right to petition and free speech/equal freedom of religion and creed"
strikes a common chord with people on why we want to enforce this for others equally as ourselves.

If we set up the whole premise based on equal respect for people's beliefs and right of expression
that can eliminate half the obstruction caused when people subvert this process by
trying to knock the other person off the bridge, so to speak, when the point is to keep all players in the game.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Perhaps we can start at a fixed starting point. Let's start with the New Testament and the moral tenets of Christ. Then, Secularists can pick apart why those tenets they believe are wrong and explain why their personal feelings are more correct than the tenets of Jesus Christ. Why is there way more correct than Christ's way?

May I also add that some people may start with
Equal Protection of the Laws or Equal Justice
under Constitutional laws or natural laws (who may not relate to Biblical or Mosaic Law)

I don't think the issue is which law someone sees as the default,
but the problems come from
1. excluding one group or another instead of including each other equally
2. taking a retributive approach toward rejecting judging or punishing others (to justify cutting off people, groups or relations)
instead of trying to correct problems mutually to restore the relationship
3. forgiving and resolving conflicts as mutual responsibility and benefit
vs. allowing unresolved or unforgiveness issues to repeat or project in a pattern or cycle

If we can agree to be
inclusive, and mutually forgive and correct faults as they come up
equally between people, for the purpose of resolving conflicts to reach an agreed solution or understanding,
that is the most important part.

Some benefits of adding the choice of natural laws
is some secular thinkers can relate to those better when dealing with others
and also the idea of "due process, right to petition and free speech/equal freedom of religion and creed"
strikes a common chord with people on why we want to enforce this for others equally as ourselves.

If we set up the whole premise based on equal respect for people's beliefs and right of expression
that can eliminate half the obstruction caused when people subvert this process by
trying to knock the other person off the bridge, so to speak, when the point is to keep all players in the game.

"....equal respect for people's beliefs and right of expression."



"A Reutersnews article that was written by Anthony Boadle and published on March 28 has reported that Dr. Virginia Soares de Souza has been charged with 7 counts of murder and may have killed 300 patients in order to, reportedly, “free-up” beds. (Doesn’t that sound familier) It has been suggested that de Souza could be one of the world’s worst serial killers.

Several years ago I heard a talk by a Dutch physician who did euthanasia. He referred to the patients who were nearing death, but not dying quickly, as “bed blockers.”I was shocked that he suggested, so plainly, how euthanasia was solving the problem of the “bed blocker”."
Doctor Killed 300 Patients in Euthanasia to Free Up Hospital Beds LifeNews.com


"....equal respect for people's beliefs and right of expression."

Can you really be that stupid?

 

[emilynghiem]

1. In the thread there are several examples of bureaucrats entrusted with the power to carry out what they call 'euthanasia,' but simply didn't bother to obtain the consent of the 'served.'

You've ignored these, and blather on about consensus.

2. I provided this:
'Everyday language, even if informed by terms borrowed from the social sciences and psychology, tends to fall short when describing horrors perpetrated by people in positions of responsibility who are entrusted with caring for others, not harming them.'
Dr. Heinrich Gross A perfectly psychopathic doctor -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net

3. And, a fool doesn't understand human nature, and the addiction of entrusted power.

Hi PoliticalChic thank you for explaining.
Your context and quotes are not about consensus.

I brought up spiritual healing so people are fully INFORMED
so there is NOT a compromise of what they would truly consent to had they had FULL INFORMATION of their options.

Spiritual Healing is done completely by free choice and cannot be forced or faked in any way or it doesn't work.

Nothing that you were responding to was
what I was talking about with consensus and spiritual healing.

Likewise nothing you said about the Holocaust has anything to do do
with consensus; you are talking about coercion and forced compliance
which is the OPPOSITE of voluntary compliance by informed consent and free choice.

I AGREE with you that
1. WITHHOLDING lifesaving information (including knowledge of spiritual healing)
is skewing the decision so this is NOT by fully informed consent, and
thus people can be pressured by fear into decisions that aren't their free will

2. "political abuses of power" do skew the process of decisions and policy and are WRONG
but that's WHY I hold that the standard of CONSENSUS
WOULD prevent political abuses because objectors like you, me the family of Terri Schiavo, etc.
could not be simply overruled politically.
Our objections would have to be RESOLVED to INCLUDE us in the CONSENSUS
so this would stop abuses

I hope this help clears up what I mean,
as I had no idea you were talking about this other context at all.

I was offering the solution of researching and proving
Spiritual Healing to make this an equal and accessible option for people to use.

This would lead to a consensus
and has nothing to do with the abuses you are talking about,
in fact, It would cure the causes of the abuse you fear.

That's why I propose it as a solution
because it addresses the coercion and abuses on all levels.

PC you attack me as if I am your enemy
when actually I'm one of the few people you will find
arguing on your side and explaining it to liberals and others who won't listen or get what you are saying.

If you understood my points you would see
I am probably one of your better allies
if you are going to fight this fight and win it.

Take care and please let me know if this is clear enough!
Sorry for whatever misunderstanding happened because our msgs crossed
and we weren't talking about the same things or posts as each other.

Yours truly,
Emily

 

[emilynghiem]

"....equal respect for people's beliefs and right of expression."

"A Reutersnews article that was written by Anthony Boadle and published on March 28 has reported that Dr. Virginia Soares de Souza has been charged with 7 counts of murder and may have killed 300 patients in order to, reportedly, “free-up” beds. (Doesn’t that sound familier) It has been suggested that de Souza could be one of the world’s worst serial killers.

Several years ago I heard a talk by a Dutch physician who did euthanasia. He referred to the patients who were nearing death, but not dying quickly, as “bed blockers.”I was shocked that he suggested, so plainly, how euthanasia was solving the problem of the “bed blocker”."
Doctor Killed 300 Patients in Euthanasia to Free Up Hospital Beds LifeNews.com


"....equal respect for people's beliefs and right of expression."

Can you really be that stupid?

Hi PoliticalChic: You are pointing out the problem I am trying to PREVENT
by enforcing "equal respect for people's beliefs and right of expression"

Consensus would mean INCLUDING your viewpoints that are currently dismissed as not relevant.
Consensus would mean PREVENTING those who otherwise abuse power to censor objections.

I think DriftingSand and I are ahead of you, PC.

You keep pointing out the problems that occur when conflicting views censor each other,
while we are pointing out how to prevent that by addressing and resolving them!

Did you read my post about Spiritual Healing?
That is also censored from any of these medical decisions.
What do you think of researching and proving that works for all people,
so more people can have access to this knowledge and help?
Don't you think more people would choose that first when it is free and natural?

Or do you only focus on fighting and not on solutions that would end the fight?

 

[koshergrl]

The Jews acquiesced. They did not object, they didn't take action when they had opportunity to.
Then they may have reconsidered their lack of action...but by then, it was too late.

Are you saying rape victims consent to sex when they acquiesce?
And murder victims consent to being killed when they give up fighting for their lives?

?????

I ran out of F's but WTFFF.. etc. to this also I don't get what you are saying??

Can someone tell me where "consent and consensus"
means to force someone into compliance by coercion????

What the _____________???

Lol..no that's not what I'm saying.

But I think the point being made (I think...) is not that the Jews were okay with being gassed and starved. I think the point that's being made is that they didn't object early enough, and in their failure to object, there was implied consent.

 

[koshergrl]

Ever hear of the Nazis?

They had consensus.

Wise up.

WTFFFF???
Do you think the Jews in the camps CONSENTED to that treatment?

let me repeat
WTFFFFFFFFFF???

That's why the forces had to use FORCE
because what they were doing was COERCION not CONSENSUS

You argue that Obama's idea of consensus is coercion too!

That is NOT consensus! You know this! WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.....

The people who lived in the towns next to the concentration camps were fine with it.This is why they were forced to march through when the camps were liberated. The consensus of the German people was that the concentration camps were okay.

As far as euthanasia goes, you're all living in the past.

Oh, yeah, because you and yours will be the first people EVER to do it right!

You betcha.

BTW, euthanasia of mentally ill subjects, mentally retarded people, physically defective or ill people has already been applied..and it is ALWAYS a revolting mess. And every one of the people that try to pass it off as the *civilized* and *kind* thing to do...were either lying about their intent, or unable to keep it from being anything except a morass of human rights violations, abuse, torture and murder...that ultimately the people who were complicit in were tried and found guilty for.

In the progressive Utopia of the Netherlands, they admittedly killed off a bunch of people without actually having their consent, and they admittedly have all sorts of violations of every ethical code known to man in the application of their wonderful "legal kill off" laws.

Keep in mind, the Netherlands is home to some of the best racist pukes ever born!