Senior citizen euthanasia

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser

Whilst it would bring our totalt population to a more desireable level it would also be too random. We need something more systematic.

DeathCleansing-camps for the handicapped could be a start.

Rather than give red rep, I'll respond to this here... There are plenty of people who would be very supportive of this idea, and even Hitler started working toward that goal. I've lived on disability for years, but probably contribute more to the community than most of the working people do. If you just mean financially contributing, why not just give a price tag for living - there are a lot of young people who don't contribute any more than their grandparents do :p
 

DeletedUser

I'd give you some rep, but I have to wait. So yes, if we are to kill useless old people, then we should kill even more useless you young people aswell.
 

DeletedUser

Wow ... why kill people ... why not help them out. Killing is such a gruesome word.
 

DeletedUser

Rather than give red rep, I'll respond to this here... There are plenty of people who would be very supportive of this idea, and even Hitler started working toward that goal. I've lived on disability for years, but probably contribute more to the community than most of the working people do. If you just mean financially contributing, why not just give a price tag for living - there are a lot of young people who don't contribute any more than their grandparents do :p
Meh, Goodwin laughs at you.

There are plenty of ways to contribute, but if it can't be measured in some way, chances are you aren't contributing.

The price-tag on living issue has been bumped into, by Desi in that 10 mill USD question. It's quite the moral dilemma.

I'd give you some rep, but I have to wait. So yes, if we are to kill useless old people, then we should kill even more useless you young people aswell.
Yes, for instance the handicapped.

Wow ... why kill people ... why not help them out. Killing is such a gruesome word.
I agree, killing is indeed a dirty word.
Let's put them out of their misery.

Some people are beyond that point where you can still help them. some are just lost cause.
Indeed, some people are better put down.
 

DeletedUser

Meh, Goodwin laughs at you.

There are plenty of ways to contribute, but if it can't be measured in some way, chances are you aren't contributing.

The price-tag on living issue has been bumped into, by Desi in that 10 mill USD question. It's quite the moral dilemma.


Yes, for instance the handicapped.


I agree, killing is indeed a dirty word.
Let's put them out of their misery.


Indeed, some people are better put down.
So, you're saying that as long as I don't get paid for what I do, the world would be better off if I were dead? You know you'd miss me! :razz:
 

DeletedUser

So, you're saying that as long as I don't get paid for what I do, the world would be better off if I were dead?
You know you'd miss me! :razz:
Indeed I would AG. I appreciate your insights.
I wasn't saying you had to be paid, I was saying your contribution ought to be measureable.

Anyways, my missing someone doesn't mean it wouldn't be for the greater good if they were indeed gone.

You know I didn't meant the handicapped.
I don't know what you mean, but I assume you ment killing people at random again, which is unacceptable.
If we are to kill our citizens it has to be done in a orderly fashion.
 

DeletedUser

My blood... It runs cold when I read all this. The old exist for a reason, they can teach the young some important lessons, infact it's amazing how many people only figure out how much they needed daddy or grandpa to mantain their status of living only when they're (pops and grandad) dead. Also people who retire do not instantly cease contributing to society in fact many retired people work hard till the day thy die, they just don't get paid for it or their social security and such goes down the drain. In fact it would seem that the solution to your problem of noncontributing elderly is already solved by a mechanism in the human body. Whether it be something darwinian or act of god when a person has truly ceased to work and contribute when they're old it sometimes is surprising how quickly their health spirals downwards. In effect when you cease contributing you're dead, it simply may be a question of time. One however can point out the boatload of assorted elderly hooked up to feeding tubes and stuck in nursing homes. I can't say why that mechanism fails but I think that they still have the right to live. You know what in way I could call you all Commies and Nazis at the end of this ramble. I could comment on life's great value and such but I'm thinking that is a dead end. So instead this will have to do. In the end though this falls to the greatest question of all though, is earth full? From an urban perspective perhaps, but from the rural view their is still a lot of spaces. And, this may sound like the words of a dreamer but man can't stay on this rock forever. We must quest further if for no other reason than darwinian survival. For even from a darwinian perspective haveing only Earth is a death warrant in itself. We must venture beyond thus increasing our chances of survival. What the heck though this is for a different discussion and possibly a completely unrelated ramble. Thus I make my case that old people shoul live. (I have the feeling my post is about to be shot down in flames...)
 

DeletedUser8950

Lol I love this thread, it brings the lols.
Btw, you didn't give a reason why those not contributing shouldn't be prematurely ended for the greater good of society.
 

DeletedUser

Oh yeah, a reason. From a Darwinian perspective they should be slaughtered and then eaten so that they can contribute to humanity one last time. Of course this is after the medical school kids get done playing with them. However moving on to why not eliminate them, those not contributing I rather inconveniently have no defense. Since here we seem to have every moral and sense of humanity stripped and running naked, without bringing in naked humanity or morals I don't have much of a defense. In other words, SHOOT!
 

DeletedUser8950

Wow, you just destroyed all your own arguements, save me the time.
Also, cannabalisim can be discussed in the thread dogs are food, too.
 

DeletedUser

Oh yeah, a reason. From a Darwinian perspective they should be slaughtered and then eaten so that they can contribute to humanity one last time. Of course this is after the medical school kids get done playing with them. However moving on to why not eliminate them, those not contributing I rather inconveniently have no defense. Since here we seem to have every moral and sense of humanity stripped and running naked, without bringing in naked humanity or morals I don't have much of a defense. In other words, SHOOT!

Eaten their bodies wouldn't be healthy thus their bodies are given to science.
 

DeletedUser

The Containment Program

Oh well I enjoy when I know I can horribly mangle my argument. I figure when you strip everything to a Darwinian perspective mantaining useless members of society is pointless. The only question is how to define useless. Of course if poor innocent morals and humanity weren't stripped and running naked around here one could put up a defense in a non-darwinian situation. Otherwise here's the management plan for disposal after the doctors play with the subjects. All youths who must be prossessed will first undergo incredibly dangerous medical tests that will help pioneer medicine for society's contributors. If they survive the testing they will be used to test assorte genetic technologies and if they survive that they get to undergo a nuclear bomb kill capability test. Fair right? After prossesing is complete maybe we have cannibalism for 75% of all useless youths to middle aged people, remaining 25% are turned into fertilizer, then 25% of elderly are used for cannibalism, 5% for creepy marionettes, and 70% for fertilizer. The creepy marionette balance could always be edited for up to 5% of youths if neccesary. Obeying these strict standards humantiy will then forcibly enter space and then if warlike alien races are encoutered and/or there is a war up to 30% of each program can be modified to use those considered useless as cannon fodder. Over the next 200 years this program should sufficiently supress the useless extra human beings and create a perfect human race- GAUGGH! I'm starting to sound like a nut job! So that's what I'd do if I were all powerful ruler, errr what I wouldn't do. :rolleyes:
 

DeletedUser

wow! i'm really feeling this thread!!! you all make such wonderful points - so maybe i can help you :) it seems the only problem you have now is deciding how to determine who should live and who should die. Being the wise, ageless and contributionable type person that i am - i will graciously offer my services as a phrenologist. naturally there is no reason to argue or leave these important decisions up to chance or guess work.... SCIENCE!!!!! that is what we need here!!!! and i am fully qualified to judge - being of sound psychopathic mind- and i mean that in the best sense. that of having the gift of objectivity and not being hindered by foolish emotion - together with the ability to read the map of the skull - which everyone knows defines the parameters for the full expression of human potential and the worth of each individual!!!

kay kay - shave your heads and line up - let us commence with the screenings!!!
 

DeletedUser

This is all so passe (no accents on my keyboard; you'll have to imagine that acute). The Nazis figured out that some people were more valuable than others ages ago. The ones with tainted blood (Jews, blacks etc.) were killed on principle as a matter of hygiene. The old, crippled and insane were quietly done to death in sanatoria and institutions and their family given some -and-bull story to keep them quiet. Less valuable members of humanity were given 'jobs' in camps and there were periodic selections to determine who were the least productive and weak, and their lives were terminated in the gas chambers.
Culling the old is just another variation on the same theme. Get yourself a cross John, put a right angle bend in each arm and wear it on your chest with pride. You deserve it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Hey now, if you're not fit to live, then you aren't fit to live.
Easy as that.

Certain people are better off dead, be it for their own sake or that of society.
 

DeletedUser

As our technology have progressed further, so has our quality of life,
our skills in medicine, and the average lifespan increased.

I do not know what kind of society you were born in, but that doesn't really matter.
We bring fewer children to the world and with the increased lifespans the
costs of senior citizens towards family and state soars.

What am I arguing here you might ask?

I'm arguing that we subject our senior citizens to a practice of systematic euthanasia.

Woah... well, as long as the senior citizen *CHOOSES* the death, and isn't regulated to be killed.
 

DeletedUser

Hey now, if you're not fit to live, then you aren't fit to live.
Easy as that.

Certain people are better off dead, be it for their own sake or that of society.

That's exactly what Hitler believed. Anyways, who then judges those fit and unfit for life?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top