A fun one for the SJWs

< class="list-of-entities__item-body-headline">Gay man in Belgium asking to be euthanised because he cannot cope with his sexuality

Which bit wins? The right to euthanasia? But being gay isn’t a reason to top yourself. And thinking that it might be shows that you’re not of sound mind so how can you be allowed to top yourself?

20 thoughts on “A fun one for the SJWs”

  1. A previous report suggested that it was his (socially unacceptable) hebephilia that was the key cause of shame rather than the homosexuality.

    I note that this report says “young men and adolescent boys”. I wonder which, if either, is accurate.

  2. Hebephilia would be a love of “emotionless, incongruous, or silly behavior, intellectual deterioration, and hallucinations, frequently beginning insidiously during adolescence. ”

    Sounds like he should be right at home in world of today rather than desiring to leave it.

  3. If he moves to Livingtone’s Iran, they’ll do it for free, no questions asked. He might even be on TV.

  4. Bloke in Austria for a Bit

    Suicide is of course a sin, which is why he wants someone else to do it for him.

    Mind you, considering how weird some of Belgium’s regulations are, I bet it’s not long before one can get a bottle of whisky and a revolver with a single bullet at the chemists.

  5. So Much For Subtlety

    Bloke in Austria for a Bit – “Suicide is of course a sin, which is why he wants someone else to do it for him.”

    I am pretty sure that getting someone else to do it for you is a sin as well. Which is the answer to TW’s question – which one wins? Blame the Catholic Church. He would have been a happy little paedophile – defended by Harriet Harman and Geoffrey Robertson – if only Rome hadn’t screwed him up.

    “Mind you, considering how weird some of Belgium’s regulations are, I bet it’s not long before one can get a bottle of whisky and a revolver with a single bullet at the chemists.”

    That isn’t the fear. The fear is that if the government’s IT system works out that you buy too many bottles of whiskey they will send the lads around to do you for free.

  6. “Which bit wins? The right to euthanasia? But being gay isn’t a reason to top yourself.”

    This is an easy one. Being gay isn’t the problem, it’s the imposition of society’s values that make being gay a matter of shame.

    It’s like wanting to commit suicide because you’re being bullied at school, or wanting to commit suicide because you’re a black living under apartheid and are shamed at being so inferior, or wanting to commit suicide because you’re a vile atheist living in a Muslim country.

    A lot of kids commit suicide due to bullying. The liberal response is that it’s better to stop the bullying, and to explain to the victim that whatever characteristic the bullies are picking on is not a matter for shame. (Does it harm anyone else? No? Then society has no right to impose.)

    However, if the bullying truly can’t be stopped, and the victim’s suffering is unbearable, then suicide may genuinely be the better option for him. And the only person who can say whether it is is the victim himself.

    There’s no indication here that the applicant is being irrational, except in the fact that they consider homosexuality to be wrong and shameful. And if we started taking away people’s right to self-determination on the grounds that they thought that, that would logically require shipping all the Catholics off to the funny farm.

    (Dr Freud: “So. You believe an invisible man with a beard and x-ray vision is sitting up in the sky watching your every move, noting down all the sins you commit in private in a big book, and plotting to torture you for eternity if you ever do anything you’ve been told not to do? Hmm. Interesting. Now tell me about your mother.”)

    I doubt the SJWs would have any conflict with this case either. Except they wouldn’t have any qualms about shipping the homophobe haters off to the funny farm.

    “Suicide is of course a sin, which is why he wants someone else to do it for him.”

    No. Assisted suicide is when you commit suicide, but with doctors there to ensure that you don’t botch it, and the right drugs and medical equipment to do it with as little suffering as possible.

    The suicider himself is always the one who finally pulls the switch.

  7. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “Being gay isn’t the problem, it’s the imposition of society’s values that make being gay a matter of shame.”

    That is a theological statement, not one based on anything like evidence or facts. There is no particular reason to think that unhappy people do not become Gay rather than Gay people are made unhappy.

    “It’s like wanting to commit suicide because you’re being bullied at school, or wanting to commit suicide because you’re a black living under apartheid and are shamed at being so inferior, or wanting to commit suicide because you’re a vile atheist living in a Muslim country.”

    This is classic victim card playing. Children who are bullied may want to kill themselves. There is no reason to think that Blacks did under Apartheid. Or atheists in Muslim countries. But you need to cynically exploit everything you can I guess.

    “A lot of kids commit suicide due to bullying.”

    No they don’t. It is a non-problem in the West.

    “The liberal response is that it’s better to stop the bullying, and to explain to the victim that whatever characteristic the bullies are picking on is not a matter for shame. (Does it harm anyone else? No? Then society has no right to impose.)”

    That is the Leftist response, not a Liberal one. Homosexuality does a pretty good job of harming others. The dishonesty of this can be shown by a comparison with racism. Which harms no one. But is never left alone.

  8. “That is a theological statement, not one based on anything like evidence or facts.”

    Only on planet looney tunes.

    “There is no particular reason to think that unhappy people do not become Gay rather than Gay people are made unhappy.”

    ???!!

    Did Alan Turing commit suicide because he was:
    a) Unhappy anyway:
    b) Gay and sad about it;
    c) Given a choice by the State/Society between going to prison or forced chemical castration?

    SMFS: “Oh there’s no reason or evidence to think that forcibly injecting someone with female hormones to try to suppress their socially disapproved sexual urges would make them unhappy. Nor would ten years of unsuccessful aversion therapy to cure their gayness. Perhaps it was the weather?”

    “That is the Leftist response, not a Liberal one.”

    There’s nothing left-wing about it. (I rather think Karl Marx was against gays, and Hitler *definitely* was.)

    Unless you define ‘left-wing’ to mean “disagrees with me”, of course.

  9. “Did Alan Turing commit suicide because he was:
    a) Unhappy anyway:
    b) Gay and sad about it;
    c) Given a choice by the State/Society between going to prison or forced chemical castration?”

    Turing’s main problem was functional stupidity–ie an act far below his level of intelligence. To whit whining to the copper’s that a rent boy had stolen cash from him. He knew sodomy was illegal–but he had been doing it quietly since his youth without getting arrested. Quietly being the operative word. What he did was so stupid that it suggests he was on some kind of suicide or drama kick. If he had endured the loss of the cash–a smallish amount in the overall scheme of things, £16 if memory serves, worth more then but still– he could have gone on with his life as usual and would likely have lived to see his tastes made legal.

  10. “Turing’s main problem was functional stupidity”

    A remarkable judgement. It says a lot about you.

    Turing knew very well what the consequences were. He had likely been targeted for the burglary because the thieves knew he’d be unlikely to report it, and when he challenged his boyfriend on it was threatened with him telling the police everything if Turing did. Turing reportedly replied: “Do your worst.”

    So not stupidity or ignorance so much as the moral courage to stand up for what he saw as right. Theft is wrong. Homosexuality isn’t.

    If that baker in America had just taken the moral hit and baked the gay cake, he’d not have been fined. Was he ‘functionally stupid’?

    “If he had endured the loss of the cash […] he could have gone on with his life as usual”

    Knowing that henceforth he had no protection under the law against any other crime from anyone who knew his secret. Rob him. Assault him. Kill his dog. There’s nothing he can do, because the state that enforces that law is evil.

    It may be true. But was it right?

  11. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “Only on planet looney tunes.”

    And we see the inevitable result of someone’s theology being challenged. No facts or attempt at a rational rebuttal. Just cognitive dissonance.

    “Did Alan Turing commit suicide because he was:”

    That misses the point. And assumes he committed suicide which is problematic in itself. The question is was he very unhappy well before he was arrested? Yes he was. Since his teens at least Was he also homosexual? Yes he was. We do not know how those two interacted or what caused the other.

    “SMFS: “Oh there’s no reason or evidence to think that forcibly injecting someone with female hormones to try to suppress their socially disapproved sexual urges would make them unhappy. Nor would ten years of unsuccessful aversion therapy to cure their gayness. Perhaps it was the weather?””

    That is not something I said. Don’t lie by pretending it was.

    “There’s nothing left-wing about it. (I rather think Karl Marx was against gays, and Hitler *definitely* was.)”

    Yes there is. The Left is determined to change society in a futile effort to make the maladjusted happy. Which misses the point as the maladjusted will always remain maladjusted. A liberal would assert that the bully has as much right to be a bully as anyone else and so the only solution is to develop a thicker skin and deal with it.

    “Unless you define ‘left-wing’ to mean “disagrees with me”, of course.”

    Often the case.

  12. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “Turing knew very well what the consequences were. He had likely been targeted for the burglary because the thieves knew he’d be unlikely to report it, and when he challenged his boyfriend on it was threatened with him telling the police everything if Turing did. Turing reportedly replied: “Do your worst.””

    You don’t think that was a little stupid? If you don’t want your things stolen, you should not invite people you do not trust into your home and bedroom. Like rent boys. If he had been done over by a Thai prostitute while on holiday we would all laugh.

    “So not stupidity or ignorance so much as the moral courage to stand up for what he saw as right. Theft is wrong. Homosexuality isn’t.”

    That is another theological statement. You do not know whether homosexuality is wrong or not. Your world view simply forces you to say so – and is threatened by people who disagree. As pretty much all normal people do.

    Calling the police is so rarely represented as standing up for what was right by the way. So amusing to see it here.

    “Knowing that henceforth he had no protection under the law against any other crime from anyone who knew his secret. Rob him. Assault him. Kill his dog. There’s nothing he can do, because the state that enforces that law is evil.”

    If you are actively involved in a criminal act, it is not sensible to call the police. That is why drug dealers settle their problems themselves by and large. But that does not mean that Turing would have been a passive victim of all crimes. The police did not refuse to help homosexuals. If Turing had been mugged coming back from work, he would have got a proper investigation. But if a crime is committed in the course of another crime – like when your rent boy steals from you – the police can hardly ignore one crime in investigating another.

    Like Oscar Wilde, but less so, Turing had to do quite a lot to draw the attention of the police to his sexual preferences.

  13. “And we see the inevitable result of someone’s theology being challenged. No facts or attempt at a rational rebuttal. Just cognitive dissonance.”

    You wasn’t able to read as far as the next paragraph before commenting?

    Anyway, it was in response to your idiotic assertion that it was a theological assertion unsupported by evidence. Anyone whose ever watched gays (or anyone else who doesn’t fit in) being bullied by the MPW thugs would find it blindingly obvious.

    “You don’t think that was a little stupid? If you don’t want your things stolen, you should not invite people you do not trust into your home and bedroom.”

    Obviously. But what about people you trust?

    “Like rent boys.”

    If by “rent boy” you mean male prostitute, that’s entirely wrong. There was a longer-term relationship between them.

    “If he had been done over by a Thai prostitute while on holiday we would all laugh.”

    I wouldn’t.

    Someone got robbed and you think that’s funny? What kind of sick psycho does that?!

    “That is another theological statement. You do not know whether homosexuality is wrong or not.”

    Of course I do. I know the same way anyone knows the difference between right and wrong. As a libertarian, I hold to the principle that whatever consenting adults get up to in private is their own business. It does nobody else any harm.

    Whereas threatening someone with prison or chemical castration obviously *does* do harm to others, not justified by preventing any greater harm. That’s obviously wrong.

    Of course authoritarians like you and the SJWs have a different morality, that believes it’s right to enforce your own standards of moral purity on others, and any degree of violence or cruelty is justified in enforcing it. Nor are your victims entitled to any sympathy – they deserve everything they get for being what they are.

    I recognise that such a ‘morality’ exists, and that you believe in it sincerely, but I can only make moral judgements according to my own. I regard your morality as evil. That you would reciprocate is no surprise – what surprises me is that you all seem so confused about what your version of morality really means – that you think you’re some sort of liberal. You’re not, any more than the SJWs are.

    “Your world view simply forces you to say so – and is threatened by people who disagree. As pretty much all normal people do.”

    You’re still living in the 1970s. Back then, the MPWs were ascendant and non-vanilla sex was verboten. They didn’t like porn, prostitutes, gays, sex toys, fetishists, or trans. There were plenty of more enlightened liberals who were more tolerant – Alan’s sexuality was well known among the people he worked with – but it’s true that most “normal” people (in the Alf Garnett sense) were with Mary Whitehouse on that sort of thing.

    But today? Most normal people don’t care. Porn is openly available on the internet, and apart from keeping it out of the faces of pre-teens nobody cares. Porn use is not a perversion that will send you blind, but normal sexual behaviour. Prostitutes and their customers are tolerated – the police usually maintain liaisons with them. Gays are actually popular in the media – a lot of entertainers, actors, musicians, dancers, etc. are entirely open about it. Vibrators are sold openly on the high street and very popular nowadays. And about 80% of the population support trans rights.

    And they all see what happened to Alan Turing as a cruel injustice, and MPWs who did it as authoritarian bigots.

    You are no longer “normal”. It’s funny how standards change and evolve, isn’t it?

    “But if a crime is committed in the course of another crime – like when your rent boy steals from you – the police can hardly ignore one crime in investigating another.”

    That wasn’t what happened.

    Turing’s house got burgled by somebody entirely different, who turned out to be a friend of his boyfriend Arnold Murray. Murray had told his friend about Turing’s house, and that friend had independently decided to burgle it, presumably figuring that Turing would be unlikely to want to go to the police because he was gay. When Turing came to suspect Murray was involved and challenged him on it, Murray at first tried to defend his friend by threatening to tell the police about their relationship. Turing, not about to be blackmailed, told him to “Do your worst.” Then Murray admitted to Turing that he knew who had done it, but hadn’t been involved himself. Turing was reassured enough to make up with Murray, but decided to tell the police about the burglar.

    Turing tried to keep his relationship with Murray out of it, but under questioning by the police eventually had to explain about the relationship.

    It’s a story that plays out thousands of times in heterosexual relationships, too. The people you love know too much about your private life for you to ever be safe from them, and they can sometimes trust people that you wouldn’t.

    “the police can hardly ignore one crime in investigating another.”

    They routinely do so with informers. They’re well aware that if they didn’t talk to people they *knew* were criminals, and if witnesses refused to talk to them for fear they’d get prosecuted themselves, they’d not have the information to solve the more serious crimes.

    They prosecuted Alan because they wanted to – because they thought it was the right thing to do. The main thing they commented on was their surprise at how unrepentant and unashamed he was about it. And the MPWs would have cheered on the Authoritarian Jackboots of the State every step of the way.

  14. I won’t live long enough to fisk that load of drama-queen verbal diarrhoea.

    A few points:

    “If by “rent boy” you mean male prostitute, that’s entirely wrong. There was a longer-term relationship between them.”

    Which the rent boy showed by setting his bum chum up for thieves.

    “Someone got robbed and you think that’s funny? What kind of sick psycho does that?!”

    Genuine misfortune is not funny. Rank fucking stupidity is. Knock around with the dregs of humanity and then shriek when the inevitable happens.

    “As a libertarian, I hold to the principle that whatever consenting adults get up to in private is their own business. It does nobody else any harm.”

    Agreed. But that doesn’t mean– because people should be free to do something–that the something is “right”.

    “Of course authoritarians like you and the SJWs have a different morality, that believes it’s right to enforce your own standards of moral purity on others, and any degree of violence or cruelty is justified in enforcing it. Nor are your victims entitled to any sympathy – they deserve everything they get for being what they are.”

    Never said any of that–except that I have little sympathy for the stupid –as detailed above.

    ” You’re still living in the 1970s. Back then, the MPWs were ascendant and non-vanilla sex was verboten. They didn’t like porn, prostitutes, gays, sex toys, fetishists, or trans. There were plenty of more enlightened liberals who were more tolerant – Alan’s sexuality was well known among the people he worked with – but it’s true that most “normal” people (in the Alf Garnett sense) were with Mary Whitehouse on that sort of thing”

    Turing never made it to the 70s–what the hell are you on about?

    ” But today? Most normal people don’t care. Porn is openly available on the internet, and apart from keeping it out of the faces of pre-teens nobody cares. Porn use is not a perversion that will send you blind, but normal sexual behaviour. Prostitutes and their customers are tolerated – the police usually maintain liaisons with them. Gays are actually popular in the media”

    IE–with cultural Marxist scum who want to “de-normalise” and then destroy heterosexuals.

    ” – a lot of entertainers, actors, musicians, dancers, etc. are entirely open about it. Vibrators are sold openly on the high street and very popular nowadays.”

    Yawn

    ” And about 80% of the population support trans rights.”

    Lies NiV–most people have no issue with TS’ers in the “jail them” sense. But that does not mean they support the TS invasion of women’s toilets . Let alone the legion of perverts that would follow unhindered in their wake.

    There is a far greater reason to smash the TS’ers however. And that is their willingness to allow their delusions to be used by CM scum to promote Marxian subjectivist evil.

    GET THIS CLEAR NIV.

    You are NOT a woman if you “feel” you are a woman. You are a woman if you are born one. 2+2 does not–EVER =5 regardless of how many socialist scum say it does or how many fucking numb-nuts luvvies concur.

    “You are no longer “normal”. It’s funny how standards change and evolve, isn’t it?”

    Fuck your noise NiV. 2+2=4 for now and for all time.

    Back to the Turing Test.

    “Turing’s house got burgled by somebody entirely different, who turned out to be a friend of his boyfriend Arnold Murray.”

    What a co-incidence eh? Some who was a nasty, no-longer-normal person might just have a few suspicions there but not loving, trusting NiV.

    “Murray had told his friend about Turing’s house, and that friend had independently decided to burgle it, presumably figuring that Turing would be unlikely to want to go to the police because he was gay. When Turing came to suspect Murray was involved and challenged him on it, Murray at first tried to defend his friend by threatening to tell the police about their relationship. Turing, not about to be blackmailed, told him to “Do your worst.” Then Murray admitted to Turing that he knew who had done it, but hadn’t been involved himself. Turing was reassured enough to make up with Murray, but decided to tell the police about the burglar.

    Turing tried to keep his relationship with Murray out of it, but under questioning by the police eventually had to explain about the relationship.”

    A load of soap-opera bollocks but thanks NiV. For proving my point. Turing dropped himself in it by an act of stupidity far below his general level of intelligence.

    “It’s a story that plays out thousands of times in heterosexual relationships, too. The people you love know too much about your private life for you to ever be safe from them, and they can sometimes trust people that you wouldn’t”

    In your life maybe.

    ” “the police can hardly ignore one crime in investigating another.”

    They routinely do so with informers. They’re well aware that if they didn’t talk to people they *knew* were criminals, and if witnesses refused to talk to them for fear they’d get prosecuted themselves, they’d not have the information to solve the more serious crimes.”

    So what? Try that line of thought on the next copper who thinks that shackling you into a cell will get him the career-boosting “result” he is after. Probably as a result of your hanging about with those loose-lipped people you trust who know too much about your life.

    Of course 1950s coppers should have forgotten about a much bigger crime ( as it then was on the statute books) to focus on a petty theft. And I’m sure their bosses would have completely agreed with their decision.

    Enough.

  15. “I won’t live long enough to fisk that load of drama-queen verbal diarrhoea.”

    Why did you bother, then?

    “Which the rent boy showed by setting his bum chum up for thieves.”

    So having watch your bum-pal SMFS proved wrong about one thing, you want to double down on the bullshitting?

    So far as anyone else knows, no he didn’t. Alan would hardly have got back together with him if he had. You’ve got no evidence of that. You’re just making lies up to try to defend your sick prejudices.

    “Genuine misfortune is not funny. Rank fucking stupidity is. Knock around with the dregs of humanity and then shriek when the inevitable happens.”

    The claim that Arnold was the “dregs” was based on the lie/delusion/made-up-bullshit that he was a “rent boy”. Since we’ve just established that he wasn’t, you’ve got no evidence for that, have you? Not that I expect it to make a difference…

    “Agreed. But that doesn’t mean– because people should be free to do something–that the something is “right”.”

    Agreed. Homophobia being a case in point.

    “Never said any of that–except that I have little sympathy for the stupid –as detailed above.”

    It is so far beyond deranged as to be on another planet to consider Alan Turing of all people “stupid”!

    You don’t really expect anyone to take such an assertion seriously, do you? You think you’re smarter than the guy who solved the Entscheidungsproblem? Way to Dunning-Kruger yourself!

    You’re a liar. You were obviously just trying to excuse your bigotry – but to rely on the “stupidity” of Alan Turing to do it is one of the most spectacular ways to EPIC FAIL I’ve seen!

    “Turing never made it to the 70s–what the hell are you on about?”

    The 1970s was the last time “normal” people thought like that.

    “IE–with cultural Marxist scum who want to “de-normalise” and then destroy heterosexuals.”

    Oh, is that your brand of paranoia?

    I really don’t see Freddy Mercury fans doing that, do you?

    “Lies NiV–most people have no issue with TS’ers in the “jail them” sense. But that does not mean they support the TS invasion of women’s toilets . Let alone the legion of perverts that would follow unhindered in their wake.”

    More paranoia? What *is* this obsession you have with women’s toilets?

    If it’s regarded as important (and it isn’t) then it’s easy enough to make different arrangements that would avoid the problem. The vast majority of people in the UK live in houses with shared toilet facilities, and the worst disagreement that arises is whether the toilet seat should be left up or down. Solutions are available.

    The same reasoning applies, of course, to gay men being allowed in the gents toilets who – if your hallucinations had any bearing on reality would be kicking down doors and hanging over the tops of the cubicles every day to have a peek at your tiny cock. It’s not something any *sane* person is worried about.

    I’m beginning to suspect there’s a degree of ‘projection’ going on here. The reason you think there are lots of perverts planning to hang around in the ladies is that it’s what you would do yourself, if you had the opportunity. It’s something that others have noticed about the Muslim perverts (and proverbially, Catholic schoolgirls) – it’s precisely the conservative repression of sexual freedom that causes them to go so wild when the restrictions are lifted. I’m guessing you’re so starved of contact with women that you dribble at the mere thought of one doing something as sexy as taking a dump. You assume everyone else is the same as you.

    “GET THIS CLEAR NIV. You are NOT a woman if you “feel” you are a woman.”

    Wrong!

    Wrong, wrong, wrong!

    Totally and utterly wrong!

    Clear? 🙂

    “Fuck your noise NiV. 2+2=4 for now and for all time.”

    Yes it is. 2+2 = 4 and gender is determined by brain structures which can differ from the rest of the body.

    Your shouting about it doesn’t change biology.

    “What a co-incidence eh?”

    The last two people I knew who were in that situation (boyfriend/girlfriend had criminal friends who burgled them) were both *very* heterosexual. Coincidence?

    “A load of soap-opera bollocks but thanks NiV. For proving my point.”

    Only in your own head.

    “In your life maybe.”

    Yep. See above.

    “Of course 1950s coppers should have forgotten about a much bigger crime ( as it then was on the statute books) to focus on a petty theft. And I’m sure their bosses would have completely agreed with their decision.”

    Quite. And when the police of tomorrow kick the shit out of homophobes, misogynists, racists, indoor smokers, drinkers, drug takers, prostitutes, white male conservatives, global warming denialists, and all the other politically incorrect categories, I hope you’ll remember you asked for it!

    Don’t you get it yet? The MPWs who persecuted Turing in the 1950s are displaying the exact same authoritarian human tendencies that the SJWs do today. The mentality is the same. The methods are the same. All that’s changed is the target.

    Well, now *you’re* the target. You’re shortly to find yourself in the situation that Turing did – hated and persecuted by society for feelings you consider to be ‘natural’. Forget going to the police. If they find your “internet hate speech” (or if someone points them to it) you can forget about getting any justice from them. It’ll be “on the statute books”. That’s the moral precedent you’ve just set.

    And while I’ll continue to argue against them doing that, for the sake of everyone else’s liberty, I have to say I’d find it *really* hard to feel any sympathy. You’re not making it any easier.

    “Enough.”

    If only!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *