Do you think that you know better than someone else how they feel about euthanizing themselves? How does it affect your life if someone chooses euthanasia for themselves?
What are you going on about "the media" for? It's a news article about a Dutch study. And the study is about people with autism, so.... This has nothing at all to do with mass shootings or hearing voices. I don't know why you're dragging all that up in this conversation. Do you thinking autism involves hearing voices? Is that why you're bringing that up? Do you think autism is indistinguishable from schizophrenia or something?
Autism covers an entire range of people from those who are severely handicapped and noncommunicative to something so mild that you can completely miss being diagnosed. Some have critical thinking skills and some don't. But it doesn't involve hearing voices or mass shootings, in any case. I don't know where you've gotten the impression that autism has anything to do with hearing voices.
Did you even read the article involved? I would be surprised if you even bothered to read the stuff linked in the OP, but I'd bet my left nut that you didn't even bother to read the AP article that is being discussed.
Where are we seeing that happen? Which country is participating in eradicating crippled veterans or the mentally ill as a way to get rid of "net drains"?
The people in this story are asking for euthanasia for themselves because they find their lives too excruciating to continue. Why do you believe that they aren't capable of making that decision for themselves or that other people's opinions are more important than their own?
I feel like the OP here is misrepresenting the article.
The people involved have chosen euthanasia for themselves. The OP is making it seem as if the doctors are just going around looking for autistic people to kill.
Unless you have lived in a person's body, you have no idea what their life is like. And it's no one else's business what they do with their life. If it's legal, then it shouldn't be anyone else's concern. If you don't agree with it on a religious basis, then leave it up to God, who surely knows best.
I don't see this as anything more than people sticking their nose in everyone else's business. And misrepresenting the issue in an effort to get everyone angry over something that doesn't concern them.
It's not just Biden. People have been struggling a while. The Great Recession wiped out a lot of people, my most productive working years (age wise) were wasted because of no jobs. Underemployment is definitely a thing.
But things really went south HARD during the pandemic. For millions and millions of people. That doesn't just correct itself as soon as the pandemic is over. Lots of jobs just vanished, with businesses closing everywhere.
And while it's fun and satisfying to blame everything on Biden and the Dems, you should know just as well as I do that the entire economy isn't under their control. Not to say their policies haven't shat the bed. They have.
But if what people here are saying about an economic collapse coming soon, then that is supposedly being done by the White Hats in order to get us back on the gold standard. And it's supposed to be done before Trump gets back in office, so he won't be blamed for it. So we might be seeing the start of that.
So in the sense of fairness, no matter what Biden does, the economy is going to be shit. Until it completely collapses and a new economy is born from the rubble.
Tons of foreclosures happened during the Great Depression. Plenty of them happened in the Great Recession as well. And yeah, people just stood around watching as sheriffs evicted people.
But it's all going to be different this time around?
I'm getting mixed signals here.
On one hand, we're being told that we need to go through some really serious suffering so that people will "find the will to change". Like, unheard of, never been seen before, global levels of suffering.
But on the other hand, we have people like you saying that people won't even lose their houses, because banks/landlords/tax collectors/sheriffs will be too busy with other things to bother evicting people.
Hell, it looks like a lot of people are going to be better off after the economic collapse than they are now. No more homeless people or families living in their cars or in sleazy motels. Just find an empty house you like and go squat. No one will bother you, it seems.
And without having to pay rent, mortgages, or taxes that frees up whatever you're using as money to buy food. Or just grow your own, since you'll still have a house.
So, it's going to be bad, and people are going to have to suffer a lot, but not too much?
So this means that even if the collapse starts tomorrow, it's going to last well into Trump's next term in office?
I thought that was what was trying to be avoided. Trump's next term in office can't be fooling around with a major economic collapse. Even if it started today, if it's still going on during his Presidency, he'll be blamed for it. He has much more important things to do and shouldn't have to shoulder an economic collapse.
I agree with you that Trump really needs to address this issue before the election.
One of the biggest issues I have is reconciling Trump supposedly still being the CIC, and the military having mandates for the Covid vaccine.
I'm getting tired of the waffling back and forth over what authority Trump is supposed to have as CIC, if he really is still the CIC. We can't have it both ways. We can't claim he's CIC when it suits us, and then pretend he's completely powerless as CIC when issues like Covid mandates for the military come up.
And it's worrisome that he constantly brings up Project Warp Speed as a good thing and brags about it. At this point, it's not even wanting him to criticize the vaccine. Just stop talking about it! Stop saying how great it is/was.
I still support him. I don't have to agree with everything he does to know he's still the best choice.
Uh-huh. Because it's just too hard to evaluate things on a case-by-case basis, so just dismiss everything without even half a thought.
Unless of course, it's an article that you find useful, then you post it and make a huge deal about how this big paper is printing it. I see that happen here frequently.
It's crazy how an "elite research board" has so many people who can't be bothered to look at like 99% of publications in the country, because they're biased.
Just writing off everything from a source as fake is just as ignorant as believing everything from a source is 100% accurate.
But go ahead, you just keep ignoring everything that doesn't agree with you. I'm sure that will work out well for you. Just be clueless about what the other side is doing/saying. But please don't try to talk to anyone that holds an opposing opinion, because you'll just come out of those conversations looking completely ignorant about what's going on.
Here are some examples of when MSM articles are most welcome here:
https://greatawakening.win/p/17rSsef09G/a-surprising-number-of-celebriti/c/
https://greatawakening.win/p/17r9RmYLpw/cnn-has-finally-decided-to-start/c/
https://greatawakening.win/p/16bPnvBXK2/ignorance-kills-accornig-to-a-20/c/
https://greatawakening.win/p/16aTVNPyc4/ukrainian-official-says-kyiv-d/c/
That's just from doing a search here on "Washington Post" and taking two minutes to go through some of the posts. If I wanted to, I could find hundreds of examples of people posting links to "propaganda" without anyone saying boo to them.
Why aren't you running around jumping up their asses about linking MSM here?
Yeah, they're all lying, and no one in Trump's administration ever said a word calling them out as liars. Ever. Over 4 years in office. And the people in Trump's administration that were called out by name saying Trump was doing that just kept quiet when they were being lied about in national publications. I (This is all sarcasm, if you can't tell)
Why is it that whenever any of those sources print something that anyone here thinks is good, they suddenly turn very reliable? I'm curious, what publications WOULD you believe? What if some random person writing under an alias on some little known news blog wrote it? Would you believe it then?
What exactly do you think the word "shill" means? Because the way it's used here, it seems to just mean "someone who says something I don't like".
And it's hysterical that four different publications saying the same thing isn't evidence enough of something, but I've seen dozens of people here believe the most ridiculous shit just because someone posted a screenshot of some random person on Twitter saying they heard some other random person say some ridiculous thing happened.
But whatever, go ahead and argue to others that Pelosi should go to prison for tearing up papers and then act surprised when Trump's actions are used as a counterpoint to that. I really don't care if you look stupid in front of others.
Probably the same reason President Trump was never prosecuted for all the times he tore up documents.
They probably just taped it back together, like they did all his. Look at the post I responded to above, where I linked all the stories about Trump tearing up official documents.
Yeah, I've been through this username silliness before. I'm going to guess you think my username is callmeai. It's not. It's CALLMEAL.
Like from the Paul Simon song, "You Can Call Me Al".
It doesn't make any sense to say "You can call me artificial intelligence." And it would defeat the entire purpose of using ai to trick people into conversations if you tell the people you're ai. 🤦
So, since you can't dismiss my comments as being ai now 🙄, or use my name to deflect from the conversation, perhaps you can address the content of my comments.
We should probably start with the most important question I asked in the above comment:
Did you even bother to read the AP article that the OP here referenced? If not, why do you think you know what it's saying?