On May 5, 9:03 am, "Brimstone"
yahoo.co.uk> wrote:> Doug wrote:
>> On 3 May, 10:28, "Brimstone"
yahoo.co.uk> wrote:>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> On 1 May, 10:01, Conor
hotmail.com> wrote:>
>>>>>> You and others here might be happy to know that I too would have
>>>>>> been long dead, fortunately before I was old enough to obtain a
>>>>>> driving licence, but on the other hand so too might have been the
>>>>>> driver who ran over me, which poses another paradox.
>
>>>>> Hardly.
>
>>>> Well if he died first from medical neglect I wouldn't have been run
>>>> over and not needed to be saved from death myself.
>
>>> By your own admission, if you had run into the path of an approaching
>>> vehicle you wouldn't have been hit. Thus you could have saved
>>> yourself.
>
>> Yes but if he was dead already I wouldn't have been in his path would
>> I?
>
>>>> I must admit that
>>>> population reduction does seem to be a cure all and would certainly
>>>> reduce the number of cars on the roads but I still cannot support
>>>> the drastic measures that Brim suggests.
>
>>> What drastic measure do you think I'm suggesting? Spell them out in
>>> detail please.
>
>> Removal of medical care obviously, since medical care keeps people
>> alive.
>
>> You wrote:
>
>> "Why does depopulation have to involve mass involuntary euthanasia
>> Doug? Why
>> can't we simply stop interfering with nature?"
>
>> Explain if you can how this does not involve removal of medical care
>> or better still why didn't you explain yourself properly to begin with
>> as you will have to do now?
>
> I have already explained. You failed to understand. I said that the medical
> profession should devote its efforts to keeping the injured and terminally
> ill comfortable until nature takes its course.
One step up on what Doug has suggested for the worlds cattle...
Fod
