DT Politics Thread

[Bukta Bertie]

34 minutes ago, Jupiter said:

One odd thing about the Lucy Letby case is that the babies names are being kept secret. That is very unusual.

 

Parents likely requested it. 

[TheDonbytheDee]

Reform have reported their concerns about family voting patterns at yesterday's by election, to the police.

Truly a cabal of c*nts.

[TheDonbytheDee]

MSPs vote against the Assisted Dying Bill

I personally believe things like this should be decided by a referendum and not by at shower of shyte in Parliament.

The result may have been the same or worse, but shouldn't be decided by politicians.

I know it's an emotive subject, but I do believe you shouldn't be allowed a vote on the matter if you believe death by suffering is Gods* will. 

I remember someone said that to me whilst I watched my mother dying. I am not a violent person, but I really wanted to kill that woman that day. 

*For the benefit of doubt, the god in question is the fake one who supposedly bides in the heavens above us and not the real one, who wore a number 6 AFC jersey with such aplomb.

 

[Mason89]

The religious have no place in parliament, as they answer to a higher authority than their constituents. 
This topic is a minefield. I think you should be able to choose your exit but you just now that some members of the Great British Public will kick the hole right out it. 

What I do know is that it’s a decision well beyond the capabilities of people like Paul Sweeney & Annie Wells etc 

[CurlsLikeTattie]

4 hours ago, Mason89 said:

The religious have no place in parliament, as they answer to a higher authority than their constituents. 
This topic is a minefield. I think you should be able to choose your exit but you just now that some members of the Great British Public will kick the hole right out it. 

What I do know is that it’s a decision well beyond the capabilities of people like Paul Sweeney & Annie Wells etc 

Just one of the many things that shits me about the anti assisted dying religious argument - when they say ending someone's life peacefully and with dignity is playing god, all whilst the patient is hooked up to machines, being artificially kept alive; all because someone decided we need to preserve life at all costs. It's the most valuable thing and not for us to decide when to end it!

My folks were (mum) and are (dad) of the mind that they would rather be allowed to pass peacefully with assistance at the point they become unaware and there is no realistic hope. I share that view - but I do understand the emotive nature of this and how people disagree. I see this from three key points:

• If I am going to have no quality of life, and going to be a burden who needs constant care, I don't want that. As soon as I lose my faculties I don't want to be a burden to others.
• There is a great cost to prolonged life when there is no hope (mostly emotional but to an great extent financial too). I don't want my family to have to suffer while I suffer. They still have lives to lead without worrying about my constant needs (my mum hung around for 2 weeks before she slipped away and we all agreed it was best for everyone as she had no hope of recovery. My dad could never have coped if she had gone home, and she wouldn't have wanted to be cared for 24/7. She was 'lucky' to go so quickly and peacefully)
• It puts a massive burden on our care services to keep people hanging on. 

I don't think we should be able to choose willy nilly when we go - but if we have made our wishes clear whilst compos mentis we should be allowed to go when we are in a position where we will have no quality of life and need support to be kept alive.

Even the god fearing USA has assisted suicide in certain states. 

I want that choice. My choice. Not some god fearing politician. And not only within 6 months of dying - I don't want to be shitting my pants in a home for 10 years. Let me decide what's best for me.

[RicoS321]

48 minutes ago, CurlsLikeTattie said:

Just one of the many things that shits me about the anti assisted dying religious argument - when they say ending someone's life peacefully and with dignity is playing god, all whilst the patient is hooked up to machines, being artificially kept alive; all because someone decided we need to preserve life at all costs. It's the most valuable thing and not for us to decide when to end it!

My folks were (mum) and are (dad) of the mind that they would rather be allowed to pass peacefully with assistance at the point they become unaware and there is no realistic hope. I share that view - but I do understand the emotive nature of this and how people disagree. I see this from three key points:

• If I am going to have no quality of life, and going to be a burden who needs constant care, I don't want that. As soon as I lose my faculties I don't want to be a burden to others.
• There is a great cost to prolonged life when there is no hope (mostly emotional but to an great extent financial too). I don't want my family to have to suffer while I suffer. They still have lives to lead without worrying about my constant needs (my mum hung around for 2 weeks before she slipped away and we all agreed it was best for everyone as she had no hope of recovery. My dad could never have coped if she had gone home, and she wouldn't have wanted to be cared for 24/7. She was 'lucky' to go so quickly and peacefully)
• It puts a massive burden on our care services to keep people hanging on. 

I don't think we should be able to choose willy nilly when we go - but if we have made our wishes clear whilst compos mentis we should be allowed to go when we are in a position where we will have no quality of life and need support to be kept alive.

Even the god fearing USA has assisted suicide in certain states. 

I want that choice. My choice. Not some god fearing politician. And not only within 6 months of dying - I don't want to be shitting my pants in a home for 10 years. Let me decide what's best for me.

One of the largest problems lies in your last bullet point though. It does indeed cost a lot for care services. The Scottish total fertility rate is 1.25. Without serious levels of immigration in the coming decades, the balance of age demographic is going to be unmanageable. Cost, or ability to pay, will be the difference between keeping the machines on or not. Almost certainly. 

[CurlsLikeTattie]

44 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

One of the largest problems lies in your last bullet point though. It does indeed cost a lot for care services. The Scottish total fertility rate is 1.25. Without serious levels of immigration in the coming decades, the balance of age demographic is going to be unmanageable. Cost, or ability to pay, will be the difference between keeping the machines on or not. Almost certainly. 

Absolutely. I try to think of this at a human level first of all, but the financial implications of 'man's' obsession with constantly prolonging life (for the benefit of the receiver or not) are huge and simply cannot be supported. Especially given, as you point out, the dropping fertility rate that will further contribute to a shift in age demographics with more pensioners to support. And as people live longer (either naturally through medical advances, or artificially through machines) there simply won't be enough in the pot to support social services - so we get to that survival based on wealth (which you could easily argue we already have - but that gap will just widen).

What's the answer when, through medical advances, we all live to 150 (compos mentis or not). Make us work to 120 to keep the pot topped up. Fuck that. I would rather be dead at 80 than work for 100 years.

Now, I am not suggesting we take a Logan's Run approach and vapourise people at a set age. But bodies have a natural shelf life. When that is reached, let it be, and let us slip away in comfort when there is no more quality of life. Keep the population balance at a more sustainable level, and allow people to fully enjoy the finite time we have on this planet whilst accepting it is not forever.

And when we are proper fucked got absolutely no life to look forward to, why is it that can we decide a dog or a cat will have no quality of life, therefore it is better for them if they are 'put out of their misery', but we can't do this for a person - instead we need to keep them going for our own selfish wants. It's just wrong. There is no humanity in that. "I'll make you suffer in pain or in a vegetative state because it would be really sad if you weren't around any more and I' not ready to say goodbye" (slightly over simplifying things, but you get the gist).

Our bodies, our choice. 

And I am genuinely sorry if I offend anyone with my belief that we should be allowed to die our own way. I have seen a lot of unnecessary suffering and can see no good in blocking assisted dying.

[tom_widdows]

The cynic in me wonders if those with financial interests had the lobbiests out in force.

Much like making buildings more energy efficient, or 'the 15 minute city' idea goes against the interests of some very large industries/ companies, would the potential for someone to choose to depart this world when still reasonably happy rather than spending years or even decades in potential pain, and misery with the extra kick of watching their posessions vanish and debts rack up ring alarm bells for those who make a profit from it?

The potential costs of long term social care is frightening (seen quotes of up to £90k a year for people with certain conditions) and yet so many of those who are employed to carry out such a noble yet often thankless task are paid peanuts and given very little support. The real money is going somewhere 

Early episodes of Futurama introduced the idea of suicide booths on street corners (which the main character initially mistakens for phone boxes). Do wonder if Musk, Zuckerburg, Branson, Bezos etc have their eye on them as a future cash cow.

 

 

 

Edited 23 hours ago by tom_widdows

[Mason89]

Richard Branson has a tick in every nonce box going 

[RicoS321]

12 hours ago, tom_widdows said:

The cynic in me wonders if those with financial interests had the lobbiests out in force.

Much like making buildings more energy efficient, or 'the 15 minute city' idea goes against the interests of some very large industries/ companies, would the potential for someone to choose to depart this world when still reasonably happy rather than spending years or even decades in potential pain, and misery with the extra kick of watching their posessions vanish and debts rack up ring alarm bells for those who make a profit from it?

The potential costs of long term social care is frightening (seen quotes of up to £90k a year for people with certain conditions) and yet so many of those who are employed to carry out such a noble yet often thankless task are paid peanuts and given very little support. The real money is going somewhere 

Early episodes of Futurama introduced the idea of suicide booths on street corners (which the main character initially mistakens for phone boxes). Do wonder if Musk, Zuckerburg, Branson, Bezos etc have their eye on them as a future cash cow.

I'm not convinced. Those cunts get old too, and will want options. There is a neverending stream of infirm ready to take the place of anybody that pops it, regardless of when and how they go. It's actually more likely to be the other way round, that they get subsidised for every patient they take on, and so they'd prefer to get through them as quickly as possible. If they were interested in keeping their victims alive longer, then surely they'd invest in better conditions in their care homes, so that they weren't required to spend significant time in hospital?

[Mason89]

Am I the only one who finds the idea of a 15 minute city amazing? 

[wee toon red]

5 minutes ago, Mason89 said:

Am I the only one who finds the idea of a 15 minute city amazing? 

Haven’t read much on the idea since I live in a 5 minute town but instinctively it sounds like a good idea to me as well.

[swaddon]

26 minutes ago, Mason89 said:

Am I the only one who finds the idea of a 15 minute city amazing? 

I do like the idea, but I can't fathom why the conspiracy theorists are getting so worked up about it.

[Mason89]

46 minutes ago, swaddon said:

I do like the idea, but I can't fathom why the conspiracy theorists are getting so worked up about it.

They’re fearful of the implications of wanting to travel for 16 minutes. 
 

[TheDonbytheDee]

1 hour ago, Mason89 said:

Am I the only one who finds the idea of a 15 minute city amazing? 

Hell yes.

 

[CurlsLikeTattie]

1 hour ago, Mason89 said:

Am I the only one who finds the idea of a 15 minute city amazing? 

Adelaide is a 15 minute city. Stay for 15 minutes and you've seen the lot!

[CurlsLikeTattie]

1 hour ago, swaddon said:

I do like the idea, but I can't fathom why the conspiracy theorists are getting so worked up about it.

I find their claim that it is a way to control the masses and limit freedom of movement hilarious. There aren't gates and electric fences. You can leave you know!

[RicoS321]

1 hour ago, CurlsLikeTattie said:

I find their claim that it is a way to control the masses and limit freedom of movement hilarious. There aren't gates and electric fences. You can leave you know!

During lockdown, we weren't allowed to leave our localities. There are gated communities all over the place, and it doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to see how they could become social engineering projects, or used to control people. Just as CCTV could, or those weirdo doorbells. 

The environmental movement has been hijacked at every single point in its growth, there is absolutely no reason to think that fifteen minute cities wouldn't either. The concept is reasonable, but the important part is who is implementing it and for what purpose. If it exists within the existing economic model, then you can be absolutely certain that Nestlé or some other cunt will effectively own your fifteen minutes of freedom, and you'll be tied to them for all your needs (you won't literally be tied, of course, it'll be just inconvenient enough that you'll make do with Nestlé because Unilever next door is 30 minutes of walking). 

I guess it's just another form of domestication. But if you can't see the walls of your prison, then it'll probably feel quite nice.

[Mason89]

You’re a kinda cup half empty kinda guy 

[RicoS321]

59 minutes ago, Mason89 said:

You’re a kinda cup half empty kinda guy 

Possibly. What beautiful image did the fifteen minute city conjure in your mind? 

[Mason89]

14 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

Possibly. What beautiful image did the fifteen minute city conjure in your mind? 

An affordable public transport system, leafy car free streets, cafes, newspapers, Gitanes, stronger community, never stepping foot in Clydebank again 

[RicoS321]

41 minutes ago, Mason89 said:

An affordable public transport system, leafy car free streets, cafes, newspapers, Gitanes, stronger community, never stepping foot in Clydebank again 

The cigarette brand?

A lovely vision. Especially the Clydebank part. The problem is that for every one of those things that you want, there will be somebody involved in its provision who can't have those things because they're busy making sure you can have them. It's an exploitative model. Even with (especially with) your favoured socialism. I guess you wouldn't have to think about that though so it'll be nice.

[Mason89]

I don’t go around not enjoying things because of exploitation. I get the pish ripped out of me by my employers too. The boy rolling the Gitanes should join a union 

 

[OrlandoDon]

It’s an interesting concept that I’ve heard discussed here, specifically when I was living in LA. The cynics obviously say it’s going to be more govt control, social monitoring, you can only go to certain places, use certain services, work in certain places, and it becomes a type of socioeconomic segregation. You stay in Beverly Hills, stay in Compton etc. and it becomes divisive. Also makes me think of Total Recall!

Been talked about more of late with Mamdani in NYC, although his recent tax proposals and the push back may limit his progress.

[RicoS321]

31 minutes ago, Mason89 said:

I don’t go around not enjoying things because of exploitation. I get the pish ripped out of me by my employers too. The boy rolling the Gitanes should join a union 

 

And nor should you. But in the context of why some people might look at the concept with a degree of cynicism it's quite relevant