Comment by Forgeties79
9 hours ago
Yes but also we need to deal with the reality of the world, which is 1) not everyone is going to and 2) they don’t deserve to die because of it.
9 hours ago
Yes but also we need to deal with the reality of the world, which is 1) not everyone is going to and 2) they don’t deserve to die because of it.
> Many to many are born. For the superfluous ones the state was devised... The state, I call it, where all are poison-drinkers, the good and the bad: the state, where all lose themselves, the good and the bad: the state, where the slow suicide of all—is called “life.”
But why would we poison our society by trying to protect these superfluous ones? They may not deserve death, but the more we eliminate the consequences of irresponsible actions, the more irresponsibly people can be and survive, thrive, and even rise to the throne.
This is an unhinged, eugenics-adjacent take that only reflects on your lack of imagination/undeserved faith in your own intellect.
Everyone thinks they are the exception. You are not. You have eaten things you did not vet. You haven’t been poisoned by bathroom products (yet). You are alive because of protections like this.
I think to unabashedly declare that you know what someone does or does not deserve requires just as much if not more faith.
I agree they don’t “deserve” to die, but someone comfortable with that level of risk management is quite hard to fully protect from themselves.
Most OD’s and such with drugs happens when someone trusts someone. They don’t just pick them up off the ground and go town. It’s basically the whole idea behind food safety. We don’t just expect everyone to know every detail of everything they consume.
Not only they don't deserve to die - they deserve to not die from this, no matter their level of risk taking.