If a person is defective, they should be eliminated

Post Reply New Topic

I don't.

I fully embrace the idea of right to life. I'm not sure every human qualifies imo. I think self consciousness and all that profound awareness crap we usually have is required for right to life. (That's all opinion, of course)

Human is the name of our kind, it's too broad and too narrow a word for whether something has rights. Does human hair have a right to life? It is human...it must right. Do human sperm have right to life? They are alive, and human....they must, right? You probably understand what I mean, silly examples aside. But it’s too narrow too, since I think something nonhuman that was self conscious and is aware should have an equal right to life too.

Besides, I like bacon too much. Mmmm.

I believe in survival of the fittest and dealing with the cards your dealt the best you can.
People/animals have a right to survive as long as they are capable, it may be unfair but it is the law of nature, and going against nature is swimming against the current.
I also believe that we are unique in our ability to look at things objectively and exercise compassion and restraint beyond our social survival mechanisms.. which is interesting.

The right to live is essentially the right not to be killed by another human being. It is true that there is no such right in nature. Nature doesn't grant us any rights. But we as a society are in a position to grant rights to one another, i.e., to agree that we won't kill one another or steal from each other.

You could argue that our aversion to killing each other is part of our nature as social animals, and it manifests as society (as well as other social instincts)
We punish those who kill within our own tribe, but justify it when we kill people of other tribes in conflict.

I'm not sure I understand this line.

There is not a right to survive. Although things will survive if they are capable. I'm not sure which law of nature you're invoking here. Or precisely what you mean by going against nature. In one context, going against nature is strictly impossible, everything that happens is in accordance with nature.

Basically all I'm saying is survival is in your own hands.

Elimination is the wrong policy, it becomes impossible to decide which lives may give fiscal value and which do not. Personally, I don't buy into the whole "X persons love is worth more than money" claim that some make and I also do not think artificially keeping people whom nature have rendered incapable of life alive is a bad decision. If we look at many birth defects, we are now in fact keeping people alive who would not be able to live if born 100 years ago.

Over-breeding is a huge problem and it will continue as long as people are uneducated. It does not help that just about every society views having children as something positive, when our world is overpopulated as is. Nationalism plays a part here because in my home country for instance, its not so much about needing younger people to replace an aging workforce but about maintaining a cultural and national identity.

However, industrialized and civilized societies such as the one which I currently live in is not the problem, rural, uncivilized areas are the problem. If we put in place a cap of 2 children for everyone, then we could deal with the population issues much like China did with the 1 child policy.

Frankly, I don't get why people are still responding to this. The topic is absurd. The moment you start analyzing whether people are "deserving of life" is the moment you have given up on humanity itself. I mean, it's ridiculous. There are 1000 better ways to deal with overpopulation than killing off the "weak."

I don't view it as giving up humanity as much as giving up a view of humanity based in idealism rather than reality. Ideally yes, if one bases a view of humanity as a mix between bleeding heart empathy and egalitarianism, however neither hold up in logical argumentation. The idea that most humans are of similar value at birth may hold some persuasive points of view from a non-objective point of view, however the question then becomes what credence should be lent to subjective views on such a matter.

The choices of each individual are already limited, one cannot chose to use narcotics for instance because society deems it costly behavior so the question becomes which questions should be left to the individuals.

and that is why you are not a fit candidate to decide. how can you "fully embrace" the right to life when you then go on to consider that it is possible that not all lives have the right to continue to live?



i believe animals are self aware. if they were not, then they would not get scared and run from danger. animals do not want to experience pain or death just like humans. an impala that is in the midst of a crowd of enclosing lions will exhibit extreme behavior and energy to leap out of the situation. i understand how they feel, and i know they are self aware. i know they are very scared and want to return to safety. that, in my "opinion" makes them deserved of life.

yes silly examples. human hair is not alive. it is keratin just like fingernails and horns on animals. a cut fingernail is not a murdered life.

human sperm is more difficult to determine in a philosophical sense. it is not yet alive i believe because it is pre-zygotic. it does perform an action in that it seems to swim like a living tadpole toward an egg, but i do not think it consciously does so. it is more an inevitability of chemistry than a conscious decision, i think it is in a similar manner to the fact that a bubble rises to the surface of a body of water and many other inevitablities.


i do not like bacon much. it is too salty and when i eat bacon, i can only eat one or 2 rashers before i am thoroughly sick of it.

i can not find the word "argumentation" in a dictionary. i do not think that word exists.


who cares? "credence lent" by a random mind is just baggage heaped on the crux of the matter.
things are the way they are whether or not any person is alive to see them. it does not take consciousness and approval for the universe to unfold as it will.

No. Of course not. That goes against all laws of nature and collectivism.

I'll tell you a story however, back a long time ago you use to have to carry at least some sort of amount of money on your person
at all times when you were in public, b/c cops thought you were out to cause trouble if you didn't have any capital.

But it doesn't matter what I think, because they've already figured out a way to halt the progress of successful democracy through technology and design, see also the shock doctrine.

It is not necessarily a good thing that 'narcotics' are illegal........and all that is, is a word meant to sound scary than drugs. Just because the law deems something appropriate does not make it right. If they tried to pass a law allowing for the extermination of the disabled or flawed or some crap we might as well just declare this Nazi America....its bad enough they treat people for criminals for using drugs, and you think if the law were to dictate its ok to kill certain people it would be justified and logical? Meh its not logical because then the perfect people will start seeing flaws in each other and everyone would just end up killing each other.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/argumentation

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argumentation

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/argumentation

Get a new dictionary or a better vocabulary.



Well, there are always social concerns and opinions that need to be taken into account. If one ignores human emotional concerns and look purely for efficiency, there are quite a few people who should be killed off since it would be a "net profit" for society as a whole, however arguing that point results in a thread such as this. As an example, there is a debate in my country currently about prenatal screenings for amongst others Down's syndrome. In Denmark making such screenings available have resulted in 90% of pregnancies where Down's syndrome is discovered being terminated.

The termination of such pregnancies does result in millions saved by the government who otherwise have to pay for the care of people with Down's syndrome. Now, this is to me a perfectly logical and reasonable approach, yet quite a few people are comparing it with eugenics.

It would start out with eliminating Down Syndrome sufferers and end up by euthanizing people who voted Republican.

The most enthusiastic advocates of eugenics and elimination of the unfit were political Progressives, people of the same political strip as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Margret Sanger, that saint of birth control was in favor of sterilizing Negroes.

ruveyn

That's a slippery slope argument, while I do agree that part of the people who do vote republican only contribute in ways that holds society back, killing them would be problematic. We can go both ways really, Hitler was pretty much the staunchest advocate of eugenics ever and he belonged to the reactionary right, the same reactionary right that large parts of the republican party belong to. In fact, you could replace "national socialist" or "Fascist" in the history books with "Christian reactionary right wing" and the meaning remains the same, which only strengthens the statement I made earlier.

Personally, I'm in favor of a meritocracy with technocratic leanings and most likely a third-way capitalist/socialist combination. In this society voting for instance wouldn't be a right but a privelidge that one earns through completing tests on political competence and understanding, similar to how a driver's license is obtained today. Furthermore, a public official wouldn't be allowed to run for election until they have demonstrated the talents and knowledge required for that specific position.

Now, on one hand, this may seem like I'm taking away rights from people, and I am. However, on the other hand, President Palin, President Santorum or President Haggard scares me. Just look at how easily the tea party movement was manipulated into becoming an advocacy group for Steve Forbes rather than Joe the Plumber.

Proving once again that politics is the grease that make the Slippery Slope slippery.

ruveyn