To not be able to believe what I'm reading

[Butwasitherdriveway]

Had a leaflet through my door......

I'm lost for words.

And what I sincerely want is for me to help you see reason, see the facts, and I know you can change your mind, if only you put aside ideology
Telling me I am pro slavery, anti women’s rights, evil and inhumane is not a great way of doing that tbh.

I come from a country where euthanasia is legal. My grandmother had euthanasia. It was entirely of her own choosing. She was 100% compos mentis. The process was rigorous, the execution wonderful and compassionate. There is no evidence that permitting euthanasia leads to widespread abuse and 'bumping off granny' - that's just the narrative of those who are opposed to it.

"Compared to women, men tend to work longer hours, are more willing to sacrifice job security for career advancement, do more dangerous jobs, and take fewer career breaks. Women often want to devote themselves more to family life. The “Gender Pay Gap” is by and large a reflection of the natural differences between men and women, and no government action is required to address it."

Jumping late to the thread. But I don't totally disagree with this.
Men do work more dangerous jobs.
They are more likely to work longer hours.
They are more likely to prioritise work commitments and go for promotions/jobs they are not qualified for.
They do take fewer Career breaks.

They aren't lying!

Men often get further in their careers because they take more risks. It's not because they are more intelligent. It's because they aren't as afraid to take a big risk. Because they generally have less to lose.

Women have a lot more to take care of. And a lot more to risk. You don't find women in building sites or working on the side of the motorway because they don't want to take the risk.

It makes sense even if you don't agree with it.

JungleIsMassive I would argue that the reason women tend to not work longer 'work' hours is because they are still expected to carry the bulk of the domestic workload on top of any work out of the home that they do. In fact, you could realistically argue that women work longer hours - paid work, plus the bulk of cooking, cleaning, caring and planning. But of course these bozos do not consider that to be 'work'. My late husband once made the fatal mistake of telling me that doing the weekly food shop didn't count as part of my domestic work because it was 'an outing' for me.

If you think you don't find women on building sites or on the side of the motorway, you're living in the past. Numbers are small, but not zero.

Not going into the MRA thing, or abortion topic at the moment, as there's obviously differing views.

@DiddlyWiddly

Do you oppose euthanasia in animals?

That's mental 😂😂

Do you oppose euthanasia in animals?
I’m really not sure, I’m conflicted.

Animals can’t consent, the fact that animals can be euthanised for what I think are trivial reasons like lack of shelter space or the owner just wants it to be don’t sit right with me.

I suppose i agree with it for animals in pain but then who knows if it that is what they actually want?
They have no way of providing consent.

I haven’t been put in a position where an animal of mine is suffering, if I was, Im really not sure what I would do.
I suppose I’d probably euthanised because I wouldn’t want them to suffer.

Ultimately I do not believe that others have the right to take the lives of others unless the circumstances are life threatening.
Hence my view on things like war and abortion.
But then I wouldn’t want the animal to suffer.
I’m really not sure.

When it comes to people, my main objection is the risk of abuse.
I know there isn’t current evidence for it, but legal euthanasia is a recent thing and only allowed in a small number of countries, maybe it’s too early for the data?
And if the person was very sick and the relatives stood to inherit a lot, I imagine it could be done easily without arousing much suspicion.
I worry aswell about the concept of consent, in that it can be fluid.
A sick person may consent for a period of time then their health may deteriorate to a point they can no longer consent.
Does the euthanasia still go ahead?
Even though the person may not consent anymore?
And what about those with poor mental health?
How do you ensure this really is what they want and not a result of depression?

Legal euthanasia isn't really that recent. The Netherlands implemented it in 2002 - so even allowing for data lag, there's almost 18 years of data to go on. In fact, as a law, it's pretty much old enough to vote.

The laws in the Netherlands are strict and address your questions quite comprehensively.

My father was offered the option and declined. He had Parkinsons and associated dementia. By the time he realised what he was facing and changed his mind, he was deemed no longer able to make an informed choice and so had no choice at all. His suffering in his lucid moments was appalling and had a massive impact on my mother.

That's how rigorous the process is in the Netherlands - nobody was going to slip him something. Is the process 100% foolproof? No, because no law can be 100% foolproof. Is it better than leaving significant numbers of people to suffer? Absolutely. It doesn't take a lot of searching to find out that there is also no such thing as 100% foolproof palliative care either - the pain relief is often inadequate (for fear of it being lethal), and the pain relief utterly robs a person of their dignity in many cases. Some people can live with that, others can't and should not have to.

@CokeDrinker are you really, truly suggesting that all feminists are perfect?? Im not a woman hater, I juSf don't live in la la land?

@DiddlyWiddly

Do you oppose euthanasia in animals? I’m really not sure, I’m conflicted.

Animals can’t consent, the fact that animals can be euthanised for what I think are trivial reasons like lack of shelter space or the owner just wants it to be don’t sit right with me.

I suppose i agree with it for animals in pain but then who knows if it that is what they actually want?
They have no way of providing consent.

I haven’t been put in a position where an animal of mine is suffering, if I was, Im really not sure what I would do.
I suppose I’d probably euthanised because I wouldn’t want them to suffer.

Ultimately I do not believe that others have the right to take the lives of others unless the circumstances are life threatening.
Hence my view on things like war and abortion.
But then I wouldn’t want the animal to suffer.
I’m really not sure.

When it comes to people, my main objection is the risk of abuse.
I know there isn’t current evidence for it, but legal euthanasia is a recent thing and only allowed in a small number of countries, maybe it’s too early for the data?
And if the person was very sick and the relatives stood to inherit a lot, I imagine it could be done easily without arousing much suspicion.
I worry aswell about the concept of consent, in that it can be fluid.
A sick person may consent for a period of time then their health may deteriorate to a point they can no longer consent.
Does the euthanasia still go ahead?
Even though the person may not consent anymore?
And what about those with poor mental health?
How do you ensure this really is what they want and not a result of depression?

Diddly, your heart is in the right place. But you seem to value the existence of life over the quality of life. I don't think it's for you to decide whether another human being should be able to die. So what's worse, that they die even though you don't think they should or they live but don't want to because you think they should?

@CokeDrinker

Ridiculous, disgusting comment. I think your anti-women comments are far more ridiculous and disgusting than Crystal's, OP. At least with Crystal et al, what you see is what you get. They don't put on a pretence of being for women's rights, then turn around pages later and say they don't believe in women's rights after all.

Bla bla bla

@pointythings

JungleIsMassive I would argue that the reason women tend to not work longer 'work' hours is because they are still expected to carry the bulk of the domestic workload on top of any work out of the home that they do. In fact, you could realistically argue that women work longer hours - paid work, plus the bulk of cooking, cleaning, caring and planning. But of course these bozos do not consider that to be 'work'. My late husband once made the fatal mistake of telling me that doing the weekly food shop didn't count as part of my domestic work because it was 'an outing' for me.

If you think you don't find women on building sites or on the side of the motorway, you're living in the past. Numbers are small, but not zero.

It's not expected, it's what women do. We are great martyrs! No one forces marriage upon women in Britain. You chose your own partner. If women chose a partner who doesn't do any house work then that's up to them. Everyone has to do some sort of life drudgery, whether your single and living alone or in a marriage. I think men power themselves more at work then women do. Women have more to lose then men do. We have to be far more careful then men in life. We don't get as many chances to bare children for instance. So we have to be more careful in life not to sacrifice our chances. While men can father unlimited amounts. So can risk more.

I can't quite believe that someone with these ridiculous views wants to be taken seriously I'm politics , no.

@Butwasitherdriveway They are just trying to raise awareness of/push for what they feel is important, as anyone who forms a political faction does.

I'm sure they're not expecting to win anything.

JungleIsMassive point taken, but this political party wants to set that in stone as 'the right way and the natural order of things' when it is in fact sexist bollocks which needs to change more and faster than it has done to date.

@pointythings

JungleIsMassive point taken, but this political party wants to set that in stone as 'the right way and the natural order of things' when it is in fact sexist bollocks which needs to change more and faster than it has done to date.

Well they can shove it up their bums! And that comes from a SAHM! I agree with the statement they have made. I don't agree that anyone should be legally told to clean up after a man and kids!

I'm sure they're not expecting to win anything.*

Some people clearly agree with them though, whether that be their views on "traditional family set ups", or abortion, or euthanasia, and the rest.
So what if they did get in?
The people who hold some of those views would have put them in power, even if they don't agree with all of the points at the same time.
Just because you yourself (general you) wouldn't take rights away yourself, you'd be presumably happy to sit back and silently let LGBT rights be stripped, women's bodily autonomy taken away etc.
Which would make you just the same.
Just a silent bystander who holds the same views.

Some people clearly agree with them though, whether that be their views on "traditional family set ups", or abortion, or euthanasia, and the rest. So what if they did get in?

There's not enough people who are sufficiently into it/they don't have that high a profile for that to happen. People tend to vote for the main parties, it's very hard for a small 'party' to win votes. If you really think they might win- take a look at the number of votes or seats they get in the end.

I don't need a crystal ball to tell you it's not going to be a massive amount of votes, and no seats (how many are they standing for anyway- if it works that way in Scotland?) Probably only a few. Had wine or I'd look.

@DiddlyWiddly

Do you oppose euthanasia in animals?
I’m really not sure, I’m conflicted.

Do you eat meat?

Do you eat meat?
No I don’t.

I'm finding this Twitter post far too amusing and gutted they didn't give me a free art supply pack

twitter.com/katieailes/status/1387502707972481025?s=21

www.metroweekly.com/2021/04/former-gay-adult-film-star-logan-mccree-philipp-tanzer-anti-lgbtq-far-right-scotland/

Apparently one of their candidates used to be a gay porn star.

@bgxqt

www.metroweekly.com/2021/04/former-gay-adult-film-star-logan-mccree-philipp-tanzer-anti-lgbtq-far-right-scotland/

Apparently one of their candidates used to be a gay porn star.

Cum in my face 2 😂

Cum in my face 2

Electric Boogaloo - This time it's personal!

@bgxqt

www.metroweekly.com/2021/04/former-gay-adult-film-star-logan-mccree-philipp-tanzer-anti-lgbtq-far-right-scotland/

Apparently one of their candidates used to be a gay porn star.

😱😱😱

Ex gays are very interesting, they have usually been groomed by religious groups, often evangelical christians. Until fairly recently the NHS was funding conversion therapy provided by ‘therapists’ who think being gay or SSA (same sex attraction) as they call it is a symptom of being anti-religion or not having a belief in god. Patients are first groomed into the religion, then the standard grooming of leaving their old friends etc behind so they are socially isolated, the final step is often grooming them to change jobs. Before you know it all support networks are removed and these people are trapped.