thrwaway69

If people want to advocate that overpopulation isn't a problem, they should live in dhaka or other densely packed poor areas. Anyone living in developed countries have no idea how it is to live there.

US population density = under 100 per mile^2

SF population density = 18k per mile^2

Major cities in Bangladesh, India, Phillipines have well over 50k/ml^2

Those countries also have nation wide population density of over 500/ml^2 at least.

Most people there can't buy an electric vehicle any time soon. They don't have tall buildings or functional transportation. They don't have enough jobs. The pollution levels are worse. Their countries have more corruption and less rights for everyone. They don't have enough drinking water or land for agriculture geographically.

Overpopulation makes solving all the problems harder.

What do men get out of catfishing other men?

It's mind blowing the number of people who are defending apple everywhere by making any excuse they can. Some of them have comments implying otherwise if you check their history but apple gets a leeway. Is there some kind of cognitive dissonance?

Why are people so attached to a greedy corp worth 2 trillion whose entire business rely on child and exploitative labour, has avoided billions in taxes, has been bullying others legally, don't want you to own anything or repair (climate?), etc?

People who have overused whataboutism as a logical fallacy to stop an argument are doing the same today themselves.

spoiled consumer.

I am not saying they shouldn't ban accounts or allow free speechers. But I don't buy they should be allowed to do whatever they want because they are private company. If the past hack resulted in market manipulation or a bigger shit show, should twitter be liable for that?

Stop government officials from making policies on twitter and we will consider twitter private company. Still, no one thinks there should be additional regulation on something like twitter? The past account hack just made me think it should be scrutinized more.

> It's just hard for me to take a any positive feedback from a person I pay to listen to the said feedback.

If someone is crying, you are getting emotional feedback from that person that they need help. They could cry for any number of reasons but the feedback they provide you by crying remains the same until you discuss it more. Paid feedback or not - outsiders will provide you similar feedback that will be relevant to you because they are able to empathize (that is if you are honest).

But I get you. if you think of paid feedback as fake reviews on playstore, you will get discouraged. It's hard to give a fake plausible review and it's quick to spot for human interaction though.

Wait I referenced the wrong one but you replied to the correct one already. Yeah I don't think duration alone is enough as mentioned in the other comment.

I believe in planned euthanasia. If I am getting crunky and old, there is a point where I would consider a peaceful death and celebrate it myself. I will have chance to say goodbye. Similarly, a depressed person after trying reasonable number of methods and spending enough effort, should be able to consider it as an option. Not everyone will end up hopeful and that's fine. We shouldn't try to pressure or shame that. Currently, too many people end up ruining their life through failed attempts. Many end up dying who could have been saved if they had legal system and society that gave them an alternative option. Many are currently suffering with terminal illness or mental health problems that won't be fixed any time soon. All three categories will benefit from a legal euthanasia system.

There are people who live through the day thinking that they could end it all if things go too wrong. It can stem from unhealthy environment but it might not always be that way. These people are ready to get help if they have a choice in the matter.

The problem is he jumped. He didn't have access to health professionals who will assess him before he could die. He wouldn't have jumped if he knew he could die in a more peaceful and controlled manner without shame. An euthanasia facility would have given him a second chance if it was properly maintained. They don't let you kill as you pass the door. They will make you wait, have you try things to help you before you could sign off the paper to die.

I don't see why it should be illegal. it's like being against addiction control centres.

Euthanasia can be restricted. No need to make it illegal and places where it is legal have measures in place to stop this.

The thing is why does everyone seem to forget here that some people don't have money, resources, family, environment or location to get access to many things that could help. Poor people surely will get happy if they get money, right? Surely therapy without a single worry in life will help them, right?

Do you tell others to think about how happy you could be in a few years when they are sad? No, you don't.

Do you encourage systematically poor people to suck it up because things will get better?

Same mentality is used to justify racial injustices and inequality. Things will get better in future so suck it up for the movement. These people are in pain and should be able to stop it if they see it not worth it. Obviously there can be some time period such as a year or two before you can access euthanasia. Otherwise, it's cruel to let people suffer for years in false hopes.