The Silent Genocides of the World Today - I accuse all corrupt governments - The duties, the systems...

(In Norwegian for now. Please use Google Translate or other)

Norges stille folkemord idag, nå i 2017. Det kan med system vitenskapen med rette påstås at det skjer et folkemord til, akkurat nå, med alle de systemer som er virksomme i Norge i 2017 og etter år 2000, internett inkludert.

Norges ledere! Jeg anklager dere for folkemord i Norge for å være årsaken til at 9120 (570 x 16, fom. 2001 - tom. 2016) mennesker har dødd ved idiotisk lederskap. Dette er ikke alle heller. Man har diverse forsvinninger og "andre drap" å legge til også!

Hvis man legger historiene til folk som har tatt sitt liv til grunn og analyserer disse ved system vitenskap om barnevern, politi, lærere, alle helsetjenester osv. (også media selv, også distriktsmedia) så kommer vi til at disse menneskene har dødd som følge av korrupt lederskap typisk sett ved grådighet og ondskap som motivasjon.

Igjen, altså, Norges ledere, regjeringen Solberg, først og fremst, jeg anklager dere for folkemord i Norge idag, 01.12.2017.

For å si det med en film, Collateral (2004): "Vincent! Go f*ck yourself!" - Det må tas grep! Våre ledere må stilles til ansvar for der det burde være systemkunnskap på plass for å gjøre Verden/Norge stadig bedre. Det holder ikke lenger å si at "det sulter mennesker i Afrika!"

Til sammenligning kalles det folkemord når det dør 8000 mennesker i Srebrenica!

Om system på engelsk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System.

Selvmordene (tenk mellom år 2000 og 2017): http://statistikkbank.fhi.no/dar/.

Registre fra politi, psykiatri, Advokatforeningen, Justisdepartementet, Helsedepartementet, Amnesty International ("som jo beskytter Menneskerettighetene"), kommuner, fastlegene, sykehusene og evnt. media. Dere skjønner sikkert tegninga!

19.01.12 19:55 her på VGD skrev jeg Rettssak mot staten for forfølgelse med selvmord.. - http://vgd.no/samfunn/jus/tema/1698925/tittel/rettssak-mot-staten-for-forfoelgelse-med-selvmord/innlegg/38113979/.

Videre: det ble diskutert noe om søksmålene mot Justisdepartementet for en tid siden, MEN hvor er mediaomtalen, enn fra "vårt kjære NRK" og hvem er menneskene som har fremsatt disse søksmålene? Hvor er disse tallene å finne? Hvor blir innføringen av løgndetektorer (AVATAR) av? (For politi, domstoler og Spesialenheten for politisaker)

Hvor lenge skal man finne seg i disse j*vla hodeløse "eksperter og ledere" før det skjer noe? Har ingen noe ansvar som helst?

(For min egen del: her sitter jeg etter bidrag til Verden og Norge i 35 år og f*en ikke enda er det tatt grep! Der sitter de! Hva f*en GJØR de?)

Det sies at hvert selvmord, generelt, har 10 - 20 selvmordsforsøk foran seg. Hvor mange desperate rop om hjelp? Hvor mange kontakter til ulike hjelpetelefoner, advokater, lærere, skolehelsetjenester, kommunefolk, Advokatforeningen, Amnesty Norge, politiet, foresatte, slektninger, osv.? Hvor mange "offisielle" innleggelser/formelle kontakter med helsetjenester?

Som sagt, å ta livet sitt tror jeg grunner i de mest alvorlige forhold og kommer ikke ut av det blå, ut av tynne luften! Produsenter av overgrepsmateriale fra barn og andre og sodomistiske "turister" gjør ikke saken lettere. Sårbarheten er der for de det gjelder i lys av det harde livet ved kriminalitet, først og fremst.

Litt historie
Så jeg sitter der på lesesalen på Eilert S. VGS og har egentlig gitt opp å gjøre det bra på skolen avsluttende året, 1993/1994.

Så tar jeg frem SSBs årbok/årsrapport fra 1993 av hyllene og leser litt om selvmordsstatistikk. Der står det under 1988 nesten 100 flere selvmord enn for de andre årene.

Siden har det slått meg: "politikode" for 1 rettssystem, Nein via EN: nine, Heil Hitler via tallkode 88 (18 for Adolf Hitler, f.eks.)!

Men ikke sant: jeg har aldri rett! Jeg kan ingenting! Tydelig realitetsbrist som psykiatrien raskt er ute med! Ingen j*vla autoritet som helst i samfunnet! (Men på den skjulte siden, mye sugling over min person likevel...)

Det er riktig, jeg leser også samfunnskunnskap (SK3) dette året!

Dette er alvorlige anklager, men dette handler om over 9000 (ni tusen) menneskeliv gjennom den moderne tiden etter 2000.

Dette er for viktig til å la være! Jeg betrakter meg selv som svært pro-aktiv så det er riktig, jeg kommer ikke til å sitte stille og se på! Som jo er det riktige.
Når jeg skriver alle selvmord så vil jeg gjerne være sikker på at jeg treffer. Litt som å bruke en hagle på jakt. Husk at jeg nevner forsvinninger også ved Elys registeret (som nå "selvfølgelig" holdes skjult).

"Etterlysningsregisteret (Elys) føres av politiet og ble opprettet i 1988 for å erstatte Polititidendes funksjon når det gjaldt etterlysning av personer, biler og båter/båtmotorer. Det er ikke allmenn innsynsrett. Registeret er tilgjengelig for alle med politimyndighet."

Fra: http://presse.no/offentlighet/register/alle-registre/

Jeg skal selvfølgelig bygge ut min argumentasjon, gjennom mange år om det trengs! Når det er sagt så håper jeg med dette at (mange) flere kan komme med bidrag til min side av argumentasjonen og en del ved det å skrive offentlig er selvfølgelig å skape både diskusjon og veier til rettferdighet ved å ansvarliggjøre lederne i vårt samfunn. De kan altså ikke bare sitte der og begå pliktbrudd i jobben sin og tro at det ikke får konsekvenser. Igjen altså, over 9000+++ menneskeliv i den moderne tiden hvor jo trafikkdødsfall får høyeste prioritet ved systematisk arbeid! Du kan jo finne tallene for de selv! Så, er ikke de bevis for at systematisk tilnærming virker?!!! JA! (For svarte!) Så igjen: hva med selvmordene og en del av disse forsvinningene enn si "andre tilfeller her og der", ulykker eller hva enn?

Så denne spede begynnelse... Jeg har altså sett på dette over lengre tid "og kan være kjent for mine bidrag (i Verden?) her og der"! Uansett, det skal ikke stå på meg! Jeg skal gi alt jeg kan!

En "liten" ting til: før i tiden, ved SSB (Stat. Sentral Byrå), så førte man opp 5 åringer til å ha tatt selvmord. "Av diverse grunner så gjør man ikke det lenger." Tror du virkelig det var godteriet som manglet? Kanksje ikke eller NEI!!!

Det er ingen som sier at etnisitet må være et premiss for folkemord. Ingen som sjekket hvem armenerne var da ottomanerne drepte dem og ingen som sjekket hvem ukrainerne var da Sovjetunionen drepte dem. Å kalle dette for folkemord er absolutt på sin plass, folkerettslig/rettslig/juridisk/etisk/moralsk (og alle de andre ordene).

Så: min argumentasjon inngår i "Emancipation 2.0", et nytt nivå for frigjøringen av "mennesket" generalt, at man kan være hyggelig og samtidig føle seg trygg så og si. Derfor synes jeg det er stygt eller svært uønsket at man er uærlig/"uærlig" i diskusjonen her. Dette kan få svære ringvirkninger i Verden for dette absolutt gode formål. Kan jo ikke argumentere for at folk skal ha det forferdelig, ikke sant?

"Kom igjen, folkens! Vær litt med da! Nå gjør vi det! Vi bryter ned ondskap og forhindrer at folk "terroriseres" i sin lovlydighet (karakterdrap en masse?)!"

Man er gjerne ivrig når man legger krav på arbeidsutførelse til vanlige folk i fabrikkene eller andre steder som helst. Nå er det på tide å sette de samme krav til jobbutførelse til disse viktige menneskene som jo gjerne skryter av ansvaret sitt når de sosialiserer! "Jeg er statsminister, jeg!" Titler skal det være og veldig fine også.

Selvfølgelig, Stalin (Russland/Sovjetunionen) og Mao (Kina) er jo beryktet for å drepe eget folk. Absolutt. Jeg er overbevist. Våre ledere må stilles til ansvar!

Gitt at det er ganske rutine å anonymisere selvmordsrapportene og forsåvidt å kategorisere disse, hvorfor kan vi ikke i grove trekk få vite hva som gjør at folk tar livet sitt? Hvor mange av dem har kontaktet politiet, Amnesty International Norge osv. osv.? Og her har man selvmordsforskere og psykiatere og psykologer gjennom år ut og år inn, tiår, og f*en ikke om de kan gi noen stødig rapport om disse menneskene (9120 døde). Hva skal det bety? Hvorfor er de så elendige om å ta opp omstendighetene for disse menneskene?

For ordens skyld: denne diskusjonen dreier som om hvorvidt Regjeringen Solberg kan dømmes for Folkemord på gruppen av mennesker gitt ved selvmordene, (en del av) forsvinningene og "noen andre dødsfall" etter år 2000! Jeg påstår altså at denne gruppen har blitt latt i stikken og at rapportene fra vårt samfunn om disse dødsfallene viser grov forsømmelse "i tjenesten/embetet" slik at tiltale for folkemord er på sin plass. Bevis vil bli bygget på grunnlag av system-kapasitet/system-muligheter/system-betraktninger i vitenskapen rettsvitenskap, medisinsk vitenskap osv.

Slik som jeg ser det, også ved meg selv gjennom 35 år "uten post, epost og telefoner" ("kinesisk fengsel/husarrest (detention)") så har Regjeringen begått mened! (Litt synd at dette skjer med en borgerlig regjering, men slik er det. De burde vite at jeg har vært og er en betydningsfull person. De kan ikke tilgis.)

Som det skrives over, så tenker jeg å bygge saken opp på grunnlag av suksessen med å bekjempe trafikkdødsfall systematisk. Gjerne når det skjer en dødsulykke i trafikken så blir Biltilsynet koblet inn for å gjøre en grundig rapport og de blir gjort ansvarlige for dette.

Men hva er etterretteligheten i saker som gjelder selvmord og forsvinninger? Jeg ser ikke noe spesielt for de i det hele tatt. De bare "forsvinner", liksom, kanskje også fordi de blir sett på som tapere i samfunnet hvor jo helst kriminelle skal bli tatt vare på: ikke for lange fengselsstraffer og Wayback til jobb og leilighet igjen. De kriminelle mister jo ikke livet, de blir ikke invalidisert, de er "bare hodeløse", de. Så våre ledere/politikere må bli stilt til ansvar for at det ikke foreligger en systematisk bekjempelse av selvmord og for at ikke noe ansvarlig "Biltilsyn" blir koblet inn når selvmord eller "stygge" forsvinninger skjer!

Siden den norske definisjonen av korrupsjon er så snever og på en måte så "skeiv" fordi "vi har ikke mottatt penger, de har jo begått selvmord og da har de jo lite, vi er jo politikere"!

Så til Verdensspråket engelsk som jo gjerne er litt bedre:

https://www.google.no/search?q=corruption&rlz=1C1ASUM_noNO670NO670&oq=corruption:

corruption

kəˈrʌpʃ(ə)n/Send

noun

noun: corruption; plural noun: corruptions

1.

dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.

"the journalist who wants to expose corruption in high places"

synonyms:dishonesty, dishonest dealings, unscrupulousness, deceit, deception, duplicity, double-dealing, fraud, fraudulence, misconduct, lawbreaking, crime, criminality, delinquency, wrongdoing, villainy; More

antonyms:honesty

the action or effect of making someone or something morally depraved.

"the corruption of youth was a powerful motif"

synonyms:sin, sinfulness, ungodliness, unrighteousness, profanity, impiety, impurity; More

antonyms:morality, purity

2.

the process by which a word or expression is changed from its original state to one regarded as erroneous or debased.

"a record of a word's corruption"

synonyms: alteration, falsification, doctoring, manipulation, manipulating, fudging, adulteration, debasement, degradation, abuse, subversion, misrepresentation, misapplication; rarevitiation

"these figures have been subject to corruption"

the process by which a computer database or program becomes debased by alteration or the introduction of errors.

"this procedure creates a temporary file to prevent accidental corruption"

og 2 andre linker:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corruption

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption

For "corrupt mind", se denne linken:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/corrupted + mind

Jeg har også undersøkt "ødelagte sinn" på andre måter:

Mask of Sanity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mask_of_Sanity

https://www.amazon.com/Mask-Sanity-Attempt-Psychopathic-Personality/dp/0962151904

Jeg har også tenkt på "Dr. Mengele Club" som ide til film over "utdannede mennesker med medisinsk kompetanse" som driver og torturerer og dreper alle slags mennesker, også barn.

Dr. Mengele er en historisk person fra Nazi-Tyskland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele

Videre: Selvmord deles opp i 2 grupper: 1. de som er på slutten av livet enten ved alderdom eller dødelig sykdom og ønsker å dø en verdig død og 2. de som under kriminelle forhold (overgrep, incest, vold, tortur, mobbing osv.) lever for vanskelige liv slik at de søker å avslutte sitt eget liv.

Den 1. gruppen er grei. Den er ikke et problem, ikke etisk/moralsk ihvertfall.

Det er den 2. gruppen jeg ser på spesielt og hvor man har kontaktet ulike mennesker mange ganger for å få hjelp til å få slutt på forhold som man i forhold til loven er garantert hjelp, dvs. ved Menneskerettighetsloven, straffeloven osv.

Som det står over: "Det sies at hvert selvmord, generelt, har 10 - 20 selvmordsforsøk foran seg. Hvor mange desperate rop om hjelp? Hvor mange kontakter til ulike hjelpetelefoner, advokater, lærere, skolehelsetjenester, kommunefolk, Advokatforeningen, Amnesty Norge, politiet, foresatte, slektninger, osv.? Hvor mange "offisielle" innleggelser/formelle kontakter med helsetjenester?"

"Som sagt, å ta livet sitt tror jeg grunner i de mest alvorlige forhold og kommer ikke ut av det blå, ut av tynne luften! Produsenter av overgrepsmateriale fra barn og andre og sodomistiske "turister" gjør ikke saken lettere. Sårbarheten er der for de det gjelder i lys av det harde livet ved kriminalitet, først og fremst."

Da er oppgaven ved systematisk kamp mot selvmord og ("noen") forsvinninger og noen andre drap at man sørger for en strammere disiplin mot de tjenester hvor oppgaven er nettopp å hjelpe disse sårbare menneskene som står i fare for å ta selvmord. Jeg ser jo at dette fort blir en kamp mot en type korrupsjon (se engelsk definisjon) i tjenesten, men ærlig talt, noen må vite at disse menneskene tar livet sitt hvis de allerede har prøvd å ta livet sitt 10 - 20 ganger og vært i kontakt med ulike mennesker 50 ganger, mer eller mindre, og fremdeles ikke får hjelp med støtte i Norges lover å få slutt på de forhold som leder til deres selvmordssituasjon.

Eksempel: La oss ta et "feil" eksempel: en pasient har opplevd mye kriminalitet og får ikke hjelp av politiet, men blir puttet inn i psykiatri gjentatte ganger for selvmordstanker, depresjon og angst. Denne personen har kontaktet ulike mennesker mange ganger for å få rettslig hjelp ift. politi, kommune, skole, overgripere osv. slik at lidelsene slutter. Dette skjer ikke og personen tar livet sitt. I dette eksempelet skjer det heller ingen etterkontroll fra myndigheters side eller evnt. tilsyn som et slags "Selvmordstilsyn" liksom Biltilsynet gjør etterkontroll ved trafikkulykker og spesielt trafikkdødsfall.

Dette "Selvmordstilsynet" kan man tenke seg har myndighet til å gå inn i hvert eneste tilfelle og ta ut tiltale for korrupsjon/brudd på tjenesteplikten i jobben der hvor man ikke har brydd seg med å gi mennesker i en selvmordssituasjon tilstrekkelig hjelp. Idag er det jo sånn at selvmordstallene bare rapporteres og det er det. Man får egentlig ikke noen systematisk arbeid mot selvmord av flere grunner. Slik som at selvmordskandidatene har levd under korrupsjon/brudd på tjenesteplikten i jobben i lengre eller kortere tid. Hvis noen har tatt kontakt ulike steder 50 ganger så vil "Selvmordstilsynet" kunne gå inn og sjekke disse ulike stedene og alle 50 ganger kontakten har funnet sted.

På denne måten kan man forbedre rettssystemet flere nivå oppover og få til bedre rapportering til samfunnet forøvrig når og hvorfor et selvmord har funnet sted.

Dermed slipper man å tenke på at eneste mulighet er "å låse selvmordskandidatene inne" for å hindre selvmord.

Bare så det er sagt. Disse forhold skal jeg forfølge "helt hjem"! ("The hunt is on!")

---------

A song for our march toward a better World:

Smells Like Teen Spirit

Nirvana

Load up on guns
Bring your friends
It's fun to lose and to pretend
She's overboard, self assured
Oh no I know, a dirty word
Hello, hello, hello, how low [x3]
Hello, hello, hello
With the lights out, it's less dangerous
Here we are now, entertain us
I feel stupid and contagious
Here we are now, entertain us
A mulatto, an Albino
A mosquito, my libido, yeah
Hey, yay
I'm worse at what I do best
And for this gift, I feel blessed
Our little group has always been
And always will until the end
Hello, hello, hello, how low [x3]
Hello, hello, hello
With the lights out, it's less dangerous
Here we are now, entertain us
I feel stupid and contagious
Here we are now, entertain us
A mulatto, an Albino
A mosquito, my libido, yeah
Hey, yay
And I forget just why I taste
Oh yeah, I guess it makes me smile
I found it hard, it was hard to find
Oh well, whatever, nevermind
Hello, hello, hello, how low [x3]
Hello, hello, hello
With the lights out, it's less dangerous
Here we are now, entertain us
I feel stupid and contagious
Here we are now, entertain us
A mulatto, an Albino
A mosquito, my libido
A denial, A denial, A denial, A denial, A denial
A denial, A denial, A denial, A denial

From: https://www.google.no/search?q=nirvana+smells+like+teen+spirit+lyrics&rlz=1C1ASUM_noNO670NO670&oq=nirvana+smells+like+teen+spirit

Youtube, the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTWKbfoikeg - Nirvana - Smells Like Teen Spirit

Extended Death in Dignity - Human Rights Improved, Suicides Prevented - The Ethics...

Now there is no doubt that "the right to a death in dignity" is important! Also for our own human worth. But... It might be that if for example this "right to a death in dignity" is ensured for typically younger people who have deep depressions and, as a result, are qualified (required) through 3 or 5 years(?) at psychologists or psychiatrists before they are allowed to die. This qualifying period will be reported to the authorities and thus you can use this to prevent suicide in this younger group in the future because they told about all the craziness/vileness (crime) they have been through and in this way, Norway and other countries  may improve their human rights work on a much deeper level so that ALL suicides can be prevented (except those where there are a disease and those who will die a death in dignity of old age). Is this something? Still good luck with the good work, you people who work for dying in dignity! WE WIN through!

There seems to be a duty in doing this work, making this happen that's implied by the suicides themselves, especially for the group 10 to 50 year olds. A citizens' commission for inquiry into suicides for this group?

Pro and Con Arguments of (Assisted) Suicide - The Argument has Now Grown into a Whole Full Bodied Power

Examination! Time for "inquisition"! I've made this topic because I think there are some (really) disgusting or stupid arguments against (Assisted) Suicide.

First of all, those who seriously argue for the right to (Assisted) Suicide (A)S seems to have the greatest integrity of the subject they're speaking of. Necessarily, those who oppose it, are on the outside of the situation, but may very well have been considering (Assisted) Suicide in the past.

Now, one person, Simone, argues in favour:
1. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are in great pain and are bound to die (terminally ill).
2. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are losing their mind (fx. Alzheimer's).
3. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are in great mental pain/distress to which there's no hope and there's no-one willing to significantly change the situation.
4. Combination of two or more of 1., 2. and 3.
5. People should have the possibility to (A)S so that people can't be kept as virtual slaves anymore or forced to compromise on themselves to that extent.
6. People should have the possibility to (A)S so that people aren't forced to compromise on themselves to any extent (by 1., 2., 3. and 4.), calling the situation for what it is, making the possibility to (A)S possibly less restrictive.
7. There's more dignity in dying reasonably healthy and able (by/implied by X. in post #4 on the PF forum).
8. If I have no constructive role in society, being an adult, and I have the urge to commit suicide. It should be my right to commit this suicide or else I might get involved with illegal guns and homicide(s). Being an adult involves knowing what's best for yourself as you are closest to yourself and clearly then, I'm ethically/lawfully entitled to choose my destiny of suicide in my own opinion. Therefore, also, I demand it!
9. We should allow people to die by 1. and 2., possibly also by 3., 5. and 6. because it's the decent approach to the matters (by Apathy Kills in post #18 on the PF forum). There's a certain power in using the word, "decent", here and I'd like you to contemplate this.
10. The fact that people are driven down to basic instincts, into corners of despair, forced to compromise on themselves is necessarily leading to unnecessary friction and unhealthy tendencies in society. (A)S should therefore be allowed! (I think this is slightly different than 4. and 5.)
11. Acknowledging point 5. of the opposition, I do still think the defacto performance of society in telling people to "get out of the way" in a possibly hidden and cruel manner (if nothing else then implicitly by use of threats and fear) is true whether this is unexpressed or not (because I can think of such thought as having existence, plausibly).

(It should be noted that assisted suicides if they become legal, always are qualified (by whatever requirements), assisted suicides. This is implicit, but now it's explicit!)

One person, Peter, argues against:
1. People should not have the possibility to die, (A)S, because of (my) (presumably) view of the sanctity of life.
2. People should not have the possibility to die, (A)S, because (unfounded) "it's the wrong signal to give".
3. In the case of older people, they may (mis-) perceive their burden on family and friends in an unproportionate way and thus wrongly requesting, wanting or actually committing suicide.
4. There simply is no unbearable/painful situation and therefore all suicides are wrong.
5. By allowing people suicide, one may give a (possibly subtle) signal that people should "get out of the way" and consequently devalue the human life. Therefore, suicide should not be legal. (This may likely be the real argument of 2. while 2. is just a "social" signal of ambiguity.)
6. By denying people (assisted) suicide, one (unfounded) prevents possibly a number of suicides. Therefore, suicide should not be legal. (By atightropewalker in post #47.)

It seems to me to be common to somehow discredit the person who wants to commit suicide by being in doubt of the person's intelligence, sanity or cognition of circumstances.

I'd like you to add arguments to either of these two people. I'd also like you to list possible hidden motives with either of these two persons.

Like this:
Hidden, Peter, "I like the fact that people die in severe pain and I also like the melancholy of thinking so."
Hidden, Peter, "I like the fact that people go through great pains before getting finally getting it done in all sorts of funny ways. Heck, it's a jungle out there and I'm an explorer!"
Hidden, Peter, "If we give people the possibility to (A)S, people can't be kept as virtual slaves anymore or forced to compromise on themselves to that extent."
Consequently, I also like you to note the possibilities of Simone having hidden motives and the very nature of them.

I also like to point out the usual ordeal of suicides. You know, people sobbing and complaining about losing someone beloved, but where are the f**king stories of these (deprived) people who commit suicides? Am I supposed to think they killed themselves because of some illusion? Hah, no way! If I'm supposed to think about suicide, it's the freaking last thing, I think about! I think it's so bloody clear, but people just shut up out of politeness or something. Psychiatry should have rife possibilities on telling people what kind of conditions that drive people into suicide, but do they? F**king never!

Objectively, every possible argument in the discussion of (A)S will take effect and thus be effectuated or denied.

You may find this interesting: "Autopsy of a Suicidal Mind
Edwin S. Shneidman, Ph.D., 2004, Oxford University Press.
Autopsy of a Suicidal Mind is a uniquely intensive psychological analysis of a suicidal mind. In this poignant scientific study, the author assembles an extraordinary cast of eight renowned experts to analyze the suicidal materials, including a ten-page suicide note, given to him by a distraught mother looking for insights into her son's tragic death. Each of the eight experts offers a unique perspective and the sum of their conclusions constitutes an extraordinary psychological autopsy. This book is the first of its kind and a remarkable contribution to the study of suicide." I note that this is from 2004 (why not 1985?).

Important:
People may say that they don't subscribe to all or some of the points or that they certainly not subscribe to the hidden motives (of some people). Their very subscription may very well be so, but this doesn't undercut the fact that their position may support it, objectively! Undeniably then, every possible argument in the discussion of (A)S will take part and thus be effectuated or denied. It should on the other hand, incline them to take part in the debate of preventing this kind of vicious thinking or act in different ways to prevent suicide altogether. Clearly, they will fail to prevent the possibility of such attitudes and I think the massive problem of suicide and its origins are too great to make any solid impact on the matter by practical action. Surely then, this impels a certain kind of dissemination of information. Has Simone won?

By examining the reasons for suicide, it can become a right to commit suicide. Open discussions will decide the laws in the various legislative domains/states and nations. This right can be qualified by fulfilling a set of requirements. I also think if people have a real chance to commit suicide legally, they will embark on a different procedure in relation to family and friends. There's also a chance that family and friends will care more and be more alert to factors leading to suicidal tendencies and the whole debate may also take on better characteristics.

Following the pattern of abortion that must be said to be very successful if you look closely on the statistics (leading to more: well being of kids, quality time, time for attention and love and so on), excluding, of course, the Christian conservatives (for them, we go the Hell all the same), I think this can turn out well for legalised (assisted) suicides too, that it gets accepted among the greater parts of the population, that for some, suicide by medicines is a good solution to sickness and other. There's nothing in the way for the possibility that near, dear people can take part in one's departure from life. The very (A)S can represent dignity in many ways, not to say fill many empty spaces (to make society "complete").

I think legalising suicide has the capacity to slash the "doctors'" vile, perverse, gruesome "games" quite heavily to put it bluntly (despite their, the medical doctors, Hippocratic oath)!

The final death to the Con-side of legalising (assisted) suicide:

The Hippocratic Oath poses in NO way any more charity toward anti-suicide than the charity of those who are in favour because both sides may equally say that they support the best humanity and the best dignity of it.

Thus, the mere uttering of a certain "devotion" to dignity is no point as such! Therefore, "I claim to follow the Hippocratic Oath" is just a blow in the air in this sense/relation!

Thus, in line with the argument started with as "Pro and Con Arguments of (Assisted) Suicide", I have this to add:

"The Intellectual Defence"

It can also be read as "Background for the Intellectual Defence", given the applied ethics. The intellectual defence for the pro-assisted suicide side is to be serious toward people who want the possibility to die because they suffer the most grievous pains. Now, after paying empathy to these people in pain, there are some common points like what possible hidden motives can the pro-side possibly have? Are we not supposed to be real about pain and therefore people in pain? Isn't a very painful life awful? And the arguments continue for the pro-side on this note, all very plausible and direct. So, who is the opposition? Who are they? The point here is that people who commit suicides always pay the highest price and that the opposition stands back confounded and at loss of words. That they are overrun! There is a logical chain of thoughts here that goes through several arguments of entailment to make this happen<ref>Warburton, N., 2004, p. 21. The Basics - Philosophy, 4th ed. Routledge: New York</ref><ref>http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime. FBI. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref><ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13877314. BBC News. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref><ref>http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/4/42/Crimes_recorded_by_the_police%2C_1998-2008_%281_000%29.png. Eurostat. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref><ref>Ref.:

http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/382.pdf. WHO. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref>. And that when these are counted there are 5 references all in all, only under the "Intellectual Defence".

The references then under "The Intellectual Defence" are explained as:

Here are the relevant facts FOR THOSE WHO HAVE ACQUIRED THE BOOKS(!!! A hard academic demand). This is also to be known as "The Explanation of the References (for The Int. Def.):
1. Warburton, N., 2004, p. 21. The Basics - Philosophy, 4th ed. Routledge: New York
The Problem of Evil. "...of the widespread practice of torture." and "...all examples of moral evil or cruelty: human beings inflicting suffering on other human beings..."

2. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime
FBI crime statistics. These are most relevant in order to explain that there is a good deal of crime in the World, this time in USA, specifically, and that many people are likely to suffer under it, also those who get to escape more atrocities, more pains, i.e., those who suicide.

3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13877314
A news story that details the backlog of the ECtHR by "There is currently a backlog of 150,000 cases at the ECtHR in Strasbourg, and costs of taking a case there are high." and additionally, but only secondarily, "According to SCHR, that means: "The ECtHR is not and should not be seen as a substitute for the individual's right of access to a remedy from domestic courts in Scotland and the UK.""

4. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/4/42/Crimes_recorded_by_the_police%2C_1998-2008_%281_000%29.png
Eurostat crime statistics. These are most relevant in order to explain that there is a good deal of crime in the World, this time in Europe, specifically, and that many people are likely to suffer under it, also those who get to escape more atrocities, more pains, i.e., those who suicide.

5. http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/382.pdf
A WHO document mentioning a totalling number of "1 million people" who are gone, who have committed suicide. And this is back in 1999. I've added this one instead of using the (invalid) reference on Wikipedia by its "suicide numbers", although they are also based on numbers from WHO.

Everybody knows there is a damn hard requirement of reading up FIRST!!! I bet this low "thing" hasn't even checked with Amazon for TOC (of anything). As much as a car can get totalled then also now the opposition that we are to seek out and highlight... (We have a clear conscience...)

Then the logical formal set-up, first we have the sentences (UoD, the entities, the whole disposition will have to wait for now):

1. There is a lot of crime in the World to such extent that even the (principal) ECtHR gets a huge backlog.

The references: Crime takes FBI and Eurostat. ECtHR takes BBC News.

2. And given that torture is part of crime then people may be in a World of hurt "here and there".

The reference: Torture takes Warburton's book. (But AI is also reporting a good deal, although they are very formal. So instead of saying torture they point to "abuse" and "domestic violence" and that children died under "unfortunate" curcumstances. They do avoid the word "torture" because they are part of some kind of political game or something. Annual report from them, although not formally in.)

3. When people are in a World of hurt "here and there", they want to suicide.

The reference: Suicide takes the WHO numbers, both for current (Wikipedia, but link isn't here because...) and this million.

4. People suicide, i.e., the suicide numbers, by hearsay, more than one million deaths every year.

The conclusion here is that people are unquestionably! I don't want to hear the slightest (lying) denial of this! And that this suffering, much because of corruption with the police, lawyers and doctors, cause suicides on the scale mentioned, 1 million in 1999, more than in all wars on Earth combined! I say, LET'S TAKE THEM ON. WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THESE RODENTS NOW AND THAT WE ARE TO PLAY THE WHOLE BOOK OF TRICKS AND MISBEHAVE IN ORDER TO LAND GREATER DIGNITY OUT OF ETHICS AND COSTING THESE RETARDS IN THE PROCESS! Good? Understand?

Of course then, as you can read yourself, enter crime -> ECtHR -> Nigel Warburton -> Suicides! Entailment! Even if these "angel" researchers (clinical/police/sociologists/psychologists/psychiatrists) tell you that they try to help people who are suffering from suicide-issues, i.e., that they consider to kill themselves, what guarantee do you get from them by that? Do they ever so much as (bl*ody) mention a time-scope? Do you see them somewhere in the legal system standing up for anything at all? Do they write sympathically in the newspapers about these issues so as to earn your trust? I can't see them lifting a g*d-d*mn finger for these people who are suffering. And that they do very little in terms of organisation or legal work, even by Amnesty International, domestically (they have duties by AI to care for all), even though, they have gained authority by achieving their degrees. What I figure is that they sit there and do the ordinary and bumble about with little differences to notice whatsoever. So the "entailment" chain of logics above describe these problems, that people are suffering from criminal circumstances so that painful conditions obtain in them (because police, lawyers, and doctors are corrupt, to start with some groups). This argument, along with my description of a possible (class-action) lawsuit are here to alleviate all this awfulness so that at least the theory and the formal deficiencies are described! And this is important beyond words to have this in place. Therefore, this whole argument you see unfolding here may provide for lots of people to either die with dignity or to (consciously) live with dignity. This is the feat of this text on my blog, that we've disclosed these freaked people and that we will fight in order to see increased levels of dignity worldwide!

PS1: I also note that the President of the Norwegian Doctor's Association is against (A)S and that other doctors (tossing in the "authority" and "status") also are usually in favour, citing Hippocratic Oath. This is in no way anything objectional and one is entitled the view, but still... (and silent waters run deep).

PS2: If I, by this, get to inform people and also get to sway opinion into being in favour of (A)S, taking the correct (ethical) view on the issue according to myself, I'll be a very happy person!

Note1: If one allows one suicide, it doesn't necessarily mean that you allow one more suicide. It can be that one "palliative" assisted suicide is prevented or that one actual suicide is prevented. Either way, assisted suicides can't be said to necessarily have a bearing on the total number of suicides, actual or possible.

Note2: stamps from the Philosophy Now forum,
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:58 pm; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:26 pm; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:14 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:24 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:28 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org.

The Implausible Slippery Slope Argument - Applied Ethics

The implausible slippery slope argument from the opposition is this,

- the "Slippery Slope" defeats itself (by fake ethics) by protecting hugely crazy people who have absolutely no problems accepting the devastation brought by it on human dignity and human worth/decency and how torture inflicts terror and deep fears, even sublimely, on the rest of the population.

- secondly, and more directly, the Slippery Slope never accounts for formal qualification, while citing this Nazi program "so seriously", "as if their whole bodies would be immersed", such as obtaining 3-year therapy after the age of 18 before getting the approval for suicide!

- "The Slippery Slope", in addition, has no concept or credible prediction for how many people Slippery Slope will affect outside those already, virtually, queued in! When 36 000 people die from guns (or gun deaths) in USA every year, would the rest of USA therefore get killed by guns next year? NO! Why is this? Because troubles need to obtain in certain ways first! This has a direct analogy to legislated suicides in that this counters the very Slippery Slope argument and the way these disgusting people (complex, as with traits of psychopathy and mis-a/-ophiles) remain active in society, "defending humanity" still! There is no doubt where I want: (Assisted) Suicides need legal defence/legislation and practice urgently so that people can achieve greater respect and have the possibility to escape the great horrors of the World today, thus moving the World up one step in terms of dignity and worth.

Note1: As people enter the academic discussion, they inherently commit to honesty!

Note2: They can call themselves doctors or whatever! They have been defeated! (That is, they're not "born" with credibility.)

Note3: (here) by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 at 02:45 CEST as note to Facebook.

End note: The opposition is getting ripe for utter defeat and I hope you bother to make it clear by making the defeat more firm the next few months and years to come!

Over "The Society"!

"THE SOCIETY": You know, there is a masquerade going on in the World and there are titles, there are also buildings and technology and science and other facts... this is what we call "society", contrary to common beliefs and on top of piezo-recharged electronics with senders and even magnetically rechargable devices on coil basis by induction, we have now entered THE HARD FACT OF George Orwell's "1984", but in a different form!!! Scream your complaints into the winds and declare yourself Sitting Bull, your efforts WILL still be in VAIN!!! (And try to get a decent lawyer too...!)



Note on Clairvoyance to Dr. Bem and brute immense physical threat (by hideous torture) for "strangling effect / difficulty to speak"!

Prove yourself as predator now! Eat or get eaten! Dog eats dog!

Class Action Lawsuit NOW against the Departments of Justice around the World!

As it's now conceived that many or all suicide victims/candidates are persecuted (to death), it should be possible for class action lawsuit to happen for every family involved, that is related to the victim/candidate in question, in the World under the relevant legal domain (of jurisdiction) and directed against the Department of Justice, also everywhere in the World as appropriate. You know, the Department of Justice is probably one of the most common departments there are in the World!

You probably also need to read through my arguments here and consider Sociology of Suicide Candidates before the case can proceed under Court of Law!

(Is this the biggest Class Action Lawsuit yet waged in the World?)

The Class-Action Case More Elaborate by Description

So the procedure for these people who are affected by these suicide problems, relatives/close ones to deceased people or the people who are affected directly, being alive, but in frequent troubles with thoughts to commit suicide and their relatives primarily:

Pre-requisites:
The deceased/the person affected must have reported consistent problems to various people of trust, psychiatric services, the family physicians, the teachers relevant, the school health care service, family members, etc. "for a number of months or years", depending on how strict the relevant authorities are supposed to set this, what behaviour that has been displayed, i.e., the character toward duties at hand.

Given the case, the material, the data-set of law from above, then this:
Open the case against the Justice Department in the relevant country, starting lowest of the usual 3 levels, serving the summons there.

Of course, the legal foundation relates, at the most fundamental level, to the Human Rights, whether the ECHR or UDHR under UN internet domain. Start with checking UDHR art. 3 and 8, fx.

Then the case unfolds, that our daughter/son bla, bla, bla, that somebody should have intervened... Duties have been violated... Police has been corrupt, failed the duties, the police instructions... Failure to supply psychiatric support for this person to get out of these troubles that we happen to think are of the physical kinds, i.e., consistent physical abuse, even torture, leads to suicide ideation, to thoughts of killing oneself...

Fx., then the Justice Department's lawyer gives in, in being the defendant, that they have a valid lawsuit against us, we see that we have committed mistakes, we add nothing further, politely. Then the judge's ruling: AGAIN, Justice Department, you have failed to supply reliable services to the public and in this case to the plaintiff [name] (in question here for us in theory) and that the plaintiff is awarded legal victory over the Justice Department.

Hurray! Then a certain legal procedure, unknown how it connects with the very ruling against the Justice Department, but let's say that negotiations are entered, that the troubles have been this and that, status of being deceased vs. alive, the pains, the time of suffering, bla, bla, bla, material arguments toward reaching a decent compensation for the ones involved.
Not only this, but a class-action lawsuit has many legal significances and given the individual cases, numbering severe/high enough, then ALL are granted a kind of (increased) freedom toward improved legal system in terms of fighting corruption and heightening the physical security for ALL so that as few people as possible are to suffer from thoughts of killing themselves in the future!

THEN THE BIGGEST HURRAY FOR ALL OF HUMAN KIND, LOCALLY OR REGIONALLY OR GLOBALLY!

Good?
(Go, go, go!)