We all want to die with dignity and not violently. It think this is uncontroversial.

So there must be consequences for those things, but it cannot be more violence and death..

Discrimination

We cannot treat people differently because of what we think of the group we think they belong to. We cannot be sensitive to naming groups if they exist.

Blonds is a group based on a property they share, you can say someone is Blond. Stinking Blonds is not a significant group, you cannot say someone is a stinking Blond. But you can say someone stinks.. (This is an opinion) or that someone stinks now (this is an observation)

We cannot make sweeping statements in public like: All people with freckles are criminals, or red heads are good at Football (doesn´t matter if it is ´positive´) unless in a form of a scientific documentation. We want statistics and percentages..

You might be able to say 3.2% of Mexicans are criminals by the laws of Mexico (No idea, but there will be A number) You cannot say in public that half of all the people from Iceland are rapists, even if you are a president of something. This is a sweeping statement. It´s only intention is to influence peoples opinions.

You cannot say some Dutch are rapists, unless you say some are NOT. You can be vague about these kind of things, but we cannot allow one-sided-vagueness. This is rethorics. All people should learn about rethorics and fallacies in school. Like learning to read or write.

You CAN say that 15% of immigrants from Holland are rapists IF you can back it up with research, that has been reviewed by peers and not found wanting. This you CAN do even if you are the president.

So Iḿ giving you permission to be racist, but you must be accurate.. If you are right, that means you can be racist. If I am right this will stop all racism dead in it´s tracks. Also there is the thing about phenotype and genotype, but you won´t know about that if you want to be racist.

Ending of life, Abortion, suicide, euthanasia

There is heated discussion about pro-life/pro-choice. This is nonsense. A foetus cannot speak or think, neither can a dolphin. Unless you are a vegan, you cannot be pro-life, you must be pro-choice. AND there must be a line else we get POST-natal abortion and then I think everybody agrees it´s murder. So we have eshtablished we are prostitutes, now we are just haggling about the price, like the joke goes.. We can not base our way of thinking or living on texts written thousands of years ago or on something we believe. Sorry, we just can´t. But we don´t need to discard it either. We can take in lessons learned, we can adapt, emulate, but it´s not dogma. We need to think, challenge. Learn to distinguish information from opinion.

Ending of life should be the responsibility of the person, who´s life is being ended. It is not a crime to commit suicide. It is something that must be permitted and assisted with if someone is sane. There is no way to index suffering, so we should not attempt that. This is presumptuous. If a child or a patient cannot speak for itself, is not conscious, guardian/caretaker or the next of kin should decide. There is much grey area here in the words ´sane´, ´conscious´ and ´speaking´, ¨guardian/caretaker¨ or ¨next of kin¨ Age should not be brought into this.

Doctors can refuse to assist.