DeletedUser
Wowsa! Youse guys aren't all a bunch of crypto-fascists after all. There's hope for this forum yet. 
- Status
DeletedUser
Well... he can choose to accept it? *chuckle*
What is it with you and bringing up Hitler?
I've already stolen it from him several times over, and I'll attempt to snatch it one more time.
DeletedUser8950
GODWIN, not "Goodwin.":razz:
DeletedUser
DeletedUser
The fantasy that a better society can be built on the bones of some of its own members is like trying to clean yourself with dirt. Fascism was not killed in 1945 - every generation has to re-conquer it as the descent into barbarism is always possible.
Childishly, its proponents always asssume that they will be holding the gun barrel and not staring down it.
Childishly, its proponents always asssume that they will be holding the gun barrel and not staring down it.
DeletedUser
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
I assume you know who said it, and I also assume you know what he accomplished.
DeletedUser
What he accomplished was that he killed more of his own people than any other leader ever. But still he isn't considered as bad as Hitler or Stalin.
DeletedUser
*sigh*
Again with Hitler.
What is it with you and your fascination with Hitler?
Nevermind, I don't want to know.
Bottom line: your post was irrelevant to the point I was making.
DeletedUser22575
According to those who debate ethics and ideas like this professionally human beings are broken down into three groups.
1. The Person Future: For example babies, etc, who are not yet able to contribute but will be able to some day in the future.
2. The Person Present: This would be those able to contribute now.
3. The Person Past: Those who are past the age to contribute.
^ Simplified version of it anyhow.
So what you are advocating is euthanasia for the third group, those who are no longer in fact able to contribute with say...5 years to enjoy their retirement.
In fact they do contribute to the economy in a major way. Think of the impact this would have on the pharmaceutical companies alone, not to mention all of the other companies who have sales depending on the elderly.
Another problem is this is in fact a slippery slope that once the first step is taken would gain momentum on its own.
How about someone in group 2 that is in a car accident and paralyzed for life and unable to contribute further. Would they then be moved to group 3?
Someone who commits a crime from group 2 and sent to prison and no longer contributing to society, but now a drain on it. Would they move to group 3 also.
And lets see. 5 years of retirement, then zap your done.
Well, using the same logic a newborn from group 1 would not be a contributing member of society for about 18 years.
To long to wait while they leach from society? Move them to group 3?
This would in fact be nothing but an excuse for someone to play God for a group whose religion, believes, or skin color they were prejudiced against.
Wait, thats already happened at least once hasn't it in the past.
1. The Person Future: For example babies, etc, who are not yet able to contribute but will be able to some day in the future.
2. The Person Present: This would be those able to contribute now.
3. The Person Past: Those who are past the age to contribute.
^ Simplified version of it anyhow.
So what you are advocating is euthanasia for the third group, those who are no longer in fact able to contribute with say...5 years to enjoy their retirement.
In fact they do contribute to the economy in a major way. Think of the impact this would have on the pharmaceutical companies alone, not to mention all of the other companies who have sales depending on the elderly.
Another problem is this is in fact a slippery slope that once the first step is taken would gain momentum on its own.
How about someone in group 2 that is in a car accident and paralyzed for life and unable to contribute further. Would they then be moved to group 3?
Someone who commits a crime from group 2 and sent to prison and no longer contributing to society, but now a drain on it. Would they move to group 3 also.
And lets see. 5 years of retirement, then zap your done.
Well, using the same logic a newborn from group 1 would not be a contributing member of society for about 18 years.
To long to wait while they leach from society? Move them to group 3?
This would in fact be nothing but an excuse for someone to play God for a group whose religion, believes, or skin color they were prejudiced against.
Wait, thats already happened at least once hasn't it in the past.
DeletedUser
i find that this is even being discussed rather sad and somewhat horrific
so in essence yoru saying the only point of my living to contribute to other peoples lives and once im done being a slave to society i should be stripped of a lifetime of hard work and summarily exicuted
if this was the case why bother EVER working hard
why not simply do teh BARE minimum to get by since it has no meaning it eh long run as it will all be taken from me and ill never get to enjoy it
this kind of of closed minded thinking will only lead to a complte breakdown of society and the utter stagnation of any further progress or advancement int he world as there will no longer be a point to trying any harder than you have to or ever doing anything more than the absuloute basics to get by and live compfortably
so in essence yoru saying the only point of my living to contribute to other peoples lives and once im done being a slave to society i should be stripped of a lifetime of hard work and summarily exicuted
if this was the case why bother EVER working hard
why not simply do teh BARE minimum to get by since it has no meaning it eh long run as it will all be taken from me and ill never get to enjoy it
this kind of of closed minded thinking will only lead to a complte breakdown of society and the utter stagnation of any further progress or advancement int he world as there will no longer be a point to trying any harder than you have to or ever doing anything more than the absuloute basics to get by and live compfortably
DeletedUser22575
exactly.
DeletedUser
Life is short. Spend your life giving not taking away. Especially taking the life of other humans. I think euthanasia in itself is wrong because of the factor of killing. Now want to kill yourself is a totally different dilemma.
DeletedUser
This thread is mostly puerile (not you TJT). Join up the thinking:
Most of us know or care about at least one senior citizen (parent, grandparent etc) and would not want them murdered or to be murdered themselves some years later. Those working with the elderly or selling services to them would not want to lose their livelihoods either. There would be no popular majority, so you would first need a dictatorship of some sort to implement euthanasia.
Ageing people are not vegetables and would not stick around to be gassed. All your victims and most of your future targets would leave your sorry country and take their wealth with them. So you would have to close your borders to human & financial traffic. Your economy would pretty much go down the tube once all the banks and financial institutions had disinvested in you (remember, pension funds are pretty much the bedrock of their business) and people realised there would be no point in saving for old age. Health workers, insurers, fund managers, advertisers, social carers, travel companies, airline employees etc (the list is huge) would have no jobs without an elderly market and they would form a huge unemployed and discontented constituency. So you would need more police, but without money to pay them they would probably rely mostly on corruption and bribery. People would lose or falsify their identities to escape selection. Someone who is due to be gassed would likely be a lot more resourceful than your underpaid police. Everyone would have to carry papers and be subjected to constant checks, raids and roadblocks. It would be a little like North Korea, but without the perks and privileges.
Eventually an external power with an eye on your economic potential, or maybe just annoyed at the refugees flooding in, would kick the door in and your sorry set-up would collapse just like the Khmer Rouge did when Vietnam intervened. You would be most likely hanged by a mob and the people would cheer.
Most of us know or care about at least one senior citizen (parent, grandparent etc) and would not want them murdered or to be murdered themselves some years later. Those working with the elderly or selling services to them would not want to lose their livelihoods either. There would be no popular majority, so you would first need a dictatorship of some sort to implement euthanasia.
Ageing people are not vegetables and would not stick around to be gassed. All your victims and most of your future targets would leave your sorry country and take their wealth with them. So you would have to close your borders to human & financial traffic. Your economy would pretty much go down the tube once all the banks and financial institutions had disinvested in you (remember, pension funds are pretty much the bedrock of their business) and people realised there would be no point in saving for old age. Health workers, insurers, fund managers, advertisers, social carers, travel companies, airline employees etc (the list is huge) would have no jobs without an elderly market and they would form a huge unemployed and discontented constituency. So you would need more police, but without money to pay them they would probably rely mostly on corruption and bribery. People would lose or falsify their identities to escape selection. Someone who is due to be gassed would likely be a lot more resourceful than your underpaid police. Everyone would have to carry papers and be subjected to constant checks, raids and roadblocks. It would be a little like North Korea, but without the perks and privileges.
Eventually an external power with an eye on your economic potential, or maybe just annoyed at the refugees flooding in, would kick the door in and your sorry set-up would collapse just like the Khmer Rouge did when Vietnam intervened. You would be most likely hanged by a mob and the people would cheer.
DeletedUser
DeletedUser
<sarcasm>
I propose that 12-14 be the age because that's when all the problems start and when kids are strong enough to start causing problems. People, as a whole, aren't really productive in their teens. As for the old folks, our senior citizens, they are the ones donating their time, money, and experience.
Why can't we just let the intelligence and experience live for the seniors and figure a way to harvest the bodies of the 12-14 year olds. Parents would not have to pay for college and the Medicare system would only have to absorb the occasional surgery as healthy 12-14 year olds become donors.
After all this is an argument about physicial viability and not mental viability, right?
</sarcasm>
I propose that 12-14 be the age because that's when all the problems start and when kids are strong enough to start causing problems. People, as a whole, aren't really productive in their teens. As for the old folks, our senior citizens, they are the ones donating their time, money, and experience.
Why can't we just let the intelligence and experience live for the seniors and figure a way to harvest the bodies of the 12-14 year olds. Parents would not have to pay for college and the Medicare system would only have to absorb the occasional surgery as healthy 12-14 year olds become donors.
After all this is an argument about physicial viability and not mental viability, right?
</sarcasm>
DeletedUser
Kill all 12-14 year-olds for 40 years and you wont have a generation. earth would be dead after the last senior died since we have no more kids to fill this earth meaning no more parents to give birth to more kids. I know you were being sarcastic.
ps. I wish there was a sarcastic bb-code.
ps. I wish there was a sarcastic bb-code.
DeletedUser
What I've understood, work like a dog for 50 years, stay retired for 5 years, and after you get mercy killed? Bull 
DeletedUser1121
We could all follow Steve Hawkings idea and take over another planet in the next 200 years: http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978434783
DeletedUser
hell no, it's not morally ethic! Even if it's for the ,,save the planet'' thing. Btw, can't aliens help? Lmao
DeletedUser
What I've understood, work like a dog for 50 years, stay retired for 5 years, and after you get mercy killed? Bull
Basically yes.
People are opposing the idea, because such an extreme situation hasn't come yet. Imagine the Earth in 100-200 years, possibly with limited resources, and overpopulated cities. You either risk perfect spreading grounds for diseases, everyone having limitations on what they can do, etc. Or start killing people..
You'd either have to kill the young, which isn't a good idea; cause that's a whole new generation of potential workers, leaders, whatnot. Or you'd have to kill the old.
Now, the old; most likely are a parent and or grandparent. It's their obligation to provide a better life for their children, grandchildren, and so on. They shouldn't have a problem with death, since it provides a better quality of life for their children.
---
Now, you'd have to set up a complicated process. Just because someone is 65 years old, doesn't mean they're providing a lot more to society than some 20 year old. It also doesn't mean that they're not healthy.
So it'd be complicated to set up a meeting ground, or an average where people start dying/sickness/stop working. And even then, we'd have a bunch of healthy, providing seniors being outraged that they're going to have to die when they can still provide..
- Status