Re: [RANT] Giving Mind Control Drugs to Children

>I bet you go up to people in near suicidal states and tell them "hey,
>get a life", don't you.
>
	Sorry, Perry, but that's a cultural matter. Here we consider one
has right over his/her own life up to decide to suicide. And so it is not
ilegal here.

	What that reflects is that I respect their right to dispose of their
lifes. I do care though, and if I can help I'll do my best. That's why I
studied Medicine in the first place. 

	Just as I try to convince people to learn, increase their political
awareness, overcome their limitations and get better. That's why I defend
defensive use of crypto against technological mind-control. I still won't
force anyone into using this or that algorithm or taking this or that
drug.

	As long as they have a free will. Then comes disease, when one is
not able to decide by him/herself. If I were to make a blood transfusion
to someone refusing it on religious grounds I wouldn't be much different
from the gov't imposing some crypto scheme on the basis of its own moral
grounds. Is it that what you are proposing?

	It would be quiet another thing if I saved the life of someone
who can't tell me at all his/her religious beliefs. Not to say I wouldn't
'cos I'd. But I don't think goverments can say we are not able to express
our preferences, do they?

	In short, I may think otherwise and try to convince people not to
suicide, even do my best. But in the end it's their choice. Just the same
I believe the gov't can try to convince us, but it should be in the end
our choice to chose how we live (or what crypto we use).

	So, are you saying that to avoide the society collapsing by
terrorism and go to its suicide we should give the government total
control?

				jr

JR@ns.cnb.uam.es writes:
> >I bet you go up to people in near suicidal states and tell them "hey,
> >get a life", don't you.

> Sorry, Perry, but that's a cultural matter.

Ah, so presumably that IS what you do with people who feel
depressed. Comforting them would be too humane, I suppose. The right
thing to do is to kick them in the balls and teach them a lesson,
right?

> 	As long as they have a free will. Then comes disease, when one is
> not able to decide by him/herself. If I were to make a blood transfusion
> to someone refusing it on religious grounds I wouldn't be much different
> from the gov't imposing some crypto scheme on the basis of its own moral
> grounds. Is it that what you are proposing?

No. I am proposing that people who wish to voluntarily take a medicine
that they feel improves their condition be left the hell alone by
busybodies like you, Tim May, et al.


Perry