TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,607
As I was browsing through the good old stanch pro-choicer champion, (EG) existentialgoof's posts, one of his posts has just downvoted to oblivion (no surprise as usual). However, this time, the situation is a bit different. In his post (in the quotes below), he talks about the gross invasion of privacy as well as aggressive paternalistic interventions against certain 'at-risk' individuals, and he was rebuffed by some forced-lifer (anti-choice, pro-lifer) sycophant about at risk people and how said people(s) needed to be protected against themselves, even at the cost of their civil liberties, dignity, and basic human rights.
EG made a really strong argument yet was downvoted significantly and yet one of defenders of such policies and implementations state that it was an "improvement" from actual, in-person intervention, but just indirect observation (monitoring) of said patients or so. Perhaps maybe EG may have connected a farther assumption – such that such technologies can be expanded to infringe on suspected individual(s) labelled as 'suicidal' or 'at-risk' person(s) and have said intervention levied against them without their consent.
Nevertheless, even though supporters claim the benevolence of having indirect monitoring through cameras and/or similar monitoring devices, it still is an invasion of one's privacy, for the mere fact that said person is deemed 'at-risk' without the person being or having the ability to demonstrate their case before such a label is applied (the lack of due process).. Also, society's prejudiced presumption of one being 'mentally ill' for the fact that one is divergent or even deviating from 'societal norms' and then using that as a pretext to take away said individual(s) or group's (that is labelled as such) right to decide for themselves, which is why we continue to have the contention and issues between these groups and also why said individuals (who are truly 'at risk' as per society and the masses prejudiced assumptions) would NOT want to be open about their true intentions, leading to the undesired surprises!
In the end, it also goes to show that these forced-lifers are also hypocrites because if we were to replace the label 'at-risk' with any other group or 'protected' characteristic, and should one impose (or even attempt to) their will and make decisions for said targetted group, they would face serious legal and social consequences! Yet these 'at-risk' people don't have the same protections of their civil rights (as their "rights" gets ignored if they are deemed or even labelled (based on a disgusting prejudiced assumption) as such) when they are lumped into said category! Therefore once again these forced-lifers are also hypocrites as they would not do the same imposition and violation of civil rights to other said groups or individuals, but I digress...
| Existentialgoof said: They shouldn't be watching people all the time. Whether through technology or a flap in the door. I can't understand how anyone ever comes out of this scenario without serious trauma, having all of their autonomy and agency stripped of them like that. |
EG made a really strong argument yet was downvoted significantly and yet one of defenders of such policies and implementations state that it was an "improvement" from actual, in-person intervention, but just indirect observation (monitoring) of said patients or so. Perhaps maybe EG may have connected a farther assumption – such that such technologies can be expanded to infringe on suspected individual(s) labelled as 'suicidal' or 'at-risk' person(s) and have said intervention levied against them without their consent.
Nevertheless, even though supporters claim the benevolence of having indirect monitoring through cameras and/or similar monitoring devices, it still is an invasion of one's privacy, for the mere fact that said person is deemed 'at-risk' without the person being or having the ability to demonstrate their case before such a label is applied (the lack of due process).. Also, society's prejudiced presumption of one being 'mentally ill' for the fact that one is divergent or even deviating from 'societal norms' and then using that as a pretext to take away said individual(s) or group's (that is labelled as such) right to decide for themselves, which is why we continue to have the contention and issues between these groups and also why said individuals (who are truly 'at risk' as per society and the masses prejudiced assumptions) would NOT want to be open about their true intentions, leading to the undesired surprises!
In the end, it also goes to show that these forced-lifers are also hypocrites because if we were to replace the label 'at-risk' with any other group or 'protected' characteristic, and should one impose (or even attempt to) their will and make decisions for said targetted group, they would face serious legal and social consequences! Yet these 'at-risk' people don't have the same protections of their civil rights (as their "rights" gets ignored if they are deemed or even labelled (based on a disgusting prejudiced assumption) as such) when they are lumped into said category! Therefore once again these forced-lifers are also hypocrites as they would not do the same imposition and violation of civil rights to other said groups or individuals, but I digress...
