JesusofChaos™ Posted September 15, 2008 Report Share Posted September 15, 2008 When people get old they get ill. Should we really treat people over 70? The world is already overpopulated. They are not contributing anything to society. Debate away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoshIcy Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 rofl Old Age Discrimination based on overpopulation... If they can pay the bills or someone is willing to do that for them. I say let them live. Just as in any other situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willieh Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 I say we kill babies. Afterall, they don't contribute to the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frlf Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 Old people still buy stuff, and they can sell their houses, old things, ect. That helps the economy. Afterall, in 55 years or so, you get cancer, you'd like to get ''You're over 70, we won't treat you.'' Im for the oldies treatment.. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoshIcy Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 I say we kill babies. Afterall' date=' they don't contribute to the world.[/quote'] Yes... Thats because we obviously can't wait the 12-18yrs until they can.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 Kill the Disabled babies. Physically handicapped children aren't as capable as members need to be, and fixing all of them just wastes the resources for those who aren't going to need them wasted on them. Kill the elderly who cannot contribute. A good general standard for this is 65-70. Definitely take away their right to drive at 65 if they aren't perfect visioned or near perfect perceptive, and if this makes them useless, kill them. If they get sick, kill them, f-ck medicine, that's for people who can contribute and make up for the resources we used on them to keep them alive. Marxism applied at its best, when the people serve the state equally, then the state serves the people best. The state reflects the people, and everyone who puts in is happy, and unlike capitalism, it doesn't give really good outcomes to some that screw over others. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazer Yoshi Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 Static is right about their Driving.They should have to take a driving test every year like EVERY other adult.Oldies DO need treatment, but just someone to watch them. Not a whole entire shelf FULL of medicines, dietaries, pills, ETC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Best Male 2008 Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 Kill the Disabled babies. Physically handicapped children aren't as capable as members need to be' date=' and fixing all of them just wastes the resources for those who aren't going to need them wasted on them. Kill the elderly who cannot contribute. A good general standard for this is 65-70. Definitely take away their right to drive at 65 if they aren't perfect visioned or near perfect perceptive, and if this makes them useless, kill them. If they get sick, kill them, f-ck medicine, that's for people who can contribute and make up for the resources we used on them to keep them alive. Marxism applied at its best, when the people serve the state equally, then the state serves the people best. The state reflects the people, and everyone who puts in is happy, and unlike capitalism, it doesn't give really good outcomes to some that screw over others. :D[/quote'] Epic post is epic. Your my hero <3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoshIcy Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 ._."Static scares me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusofChaos™ Posted September 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 I say we kill babies. Afterall' date=' they don't contribute to the world.[/quote'] Babies have potential for helping in a few years time. Old people have no potential left and will not contribute anything in the future. It is like going to a TV shop. Your not going to invest in an old, broken, used TV. Your going to invest in a new one that will work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted September 17, 2008 Report Share Posted September 17, 2008 ._."Static scares me... You value life too much. Value what is in life more than life itself, then you'll get it. Life in itself is just a platform for the energy that makes up your consciousness to manifest predetermined emotions and "act" on predetermined events. Its fun while its going, but 1. the time you are alive isn't relevant, its what you make of it, and 2. time has no value, so cutting someone short makes little relevance to the scheme of anything, and it was predetermined to happen anyway if it does, so there is no fault. If we can raise people to enjoy life for what it is rather than to make it better than it is, we can achieve the type of people who will happily contribute what they can, who will have a deep-found sense of comradeship rather than instinctive greed, and, though they may live lives that we see as more servile (then again, ours are just as much), they will be happy, so whats in gods name is the evil that you see in my ideal view of the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoshIcy Posted September 17, 2008 Report Share Posted September 17, 2008 ._."Static scares me... 1 - You value life too much. Value what is in life more than life itself' date=' then you'll get it. [b']2 - Life in itself is just a platform for the energy that makes up your consciousness to manifest predetermined emotions and "act"[/b] on 3 - predetermined events. Its fun while its going, but 1. 4 - the time you are alive isn't relevant, its what you make of it, and 2. 5 - time has no value, so cutting someone short makes little relevance to the scheme of anything, and it was predetermined to happen anyway if it does, so there is no fault. If we can raise people to enjoy life for what it is rather than to make it better than it is, we can achieve the type of people who will happily contribute what they can, who will have a deep-found sense of comradeship rather than instinctive greed, and, though they may live lives that we see as more servile (then again, ours are just as much), they will be happy, so whats in gods name is the evil that you see in my ideal view of the world? Bold 1: We live it, therefore we value it. Thus is my realization.Bold 2: Given.Bold 3: If you hold that true, I do not want to see you in the Debate Section again.Bold 4: Yes, and enjoying it by caring is what I make of it.Bold 5: Time is the sense of Progression, it holds all value. The rest is just personal belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supernova513 Posted September 18, 2008 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 A question for Static: If life has no value, or we value it too much, then if someone had a gun to your head would you readily let them shoot you? Why do you eat, drink fluids? It doesn't matter if you die right. Why should we care about the things that make society and this unnecessary life productive if it is unimportant anyway? Why not kill yourself right now if life isn't as valuable as we mistake it to be? Just lookin for an elaboration not tryin to be rude or nothin. if I'm mistaken about your ideology please correct me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted September 18, 2008 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 ^^ Pfft. Been there done that. I like thinking, thus I continue to live, and only for that mind you. I see little importance in social aspects of life, its the mental aspect that I enjoy, thus I live for. @ Icy: If you're not a Determinist, you're missing something. There is no free will, and you can't change that. Don't tell me to leave the area of YCM whose founding is due to two others and my own more than yours. The value in time is not in the time, it is in the event, which we just happen to associate with that segment of time, but it does not have to be classified exactly that way. And you didn't answer my last question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoshIcy Posted September 18, 2008 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 Fine.. If we can raise people to enjoy life for what it is rather than to make it better than it is' date=' we can achieve the type of people who will happily contribute what they can, who will have a deep-found sense of comradeship rather than instinctive greed, and, though they may live lives that we see as more servile (then again, ours are just as much), they will be happy, so whats in gods name is the evil that you see in my ideal view of the world? [/quote'] lol, in "reality" nothing is wrong. But the balance for this is stupid delicate as I have tried this philosophy for years. And it causes my mentality to crumble disgustingly. Probably due to the amount of emotional drive left in me. This one requires a strange balance of Logic and Emotion, from which I have yet to find. I have managed to null out Greed and Anger within myself. But the rest are in total fluctuation. @ Icy: If you're not a Determinist' date=' you're missing something.[/quote']I enjoy the concept, and I know the reasoning for this. Yet I am an optimist in this area, whether it makes sense or not. I choose to have hope for control over my life. Don't tell me to leave the area of YCM whose founding is due to two others and my own more than yours. You more than anyone should know that statement was loose and intended for a soft hit rather than a harsh one. But those like you have no right to complain since it will happen anyway. Much of debating is trying to kill the inevitable through conversations is it not? Thats still contradicting against that belief if so. The value in time is not in the time' date=' it is in the event, which we just happen to associate with that segment of time, but it does not have to be classified exactly that way.[/quote'] So what? We freeze frame an event without letting it unfold and doing that assumption? Nty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HORUS Posted September 18, 2008 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 The physically and mentally handicapped, incapable elderly, and the mentally unstable should be removed from society by death. These people require medical and social attention that could be spent otherwise in furthering the existence of the physically and mentally strong. Welfare for people with no future is futile and wasteful. Attention to the incapable wastes resources. Aktion Tiergartenstraße 4. Hitler applied this concept until the public recognized the decree and proclaimed its immorality after 275,000 incapables were killed. Stupid, ignorant, moral and peace-loving idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoshIcy Posted September 18, 2008 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 ' pid='1130790' dateline='1221715650']The physically and mentally handicapped' date=' incapable elderly, and the mentally unstable should be removed from society by death. These people require medical and social attention that could be spent otherwise in furthering the existence of physically and metally greater stronger people. Welfare for people with no future is futile and wasteful Attention to the incapable wastes resources. Aktion Tiergartenstraße 4. Hitler applied this concept until the public recognized the decree and proclaimed its immorality. Had it continued, Germany would have been economically stronger.[/quote'] Toss the emotional implications aside? Lol, you and Static never cease to amaze me in the lack of middle ground you seem to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HORUS Posted September 18, 2008 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 People should recognize that to further the greatness of society hindrances must be removed. Without controversy there can be no change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoshIcy Posted September 18, 2008 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 ' pid='1130803' dateline='1221716143']People should recognize that to further the greatness of society hindrances must be removed. Without controversy there can be no change. Lol maybe I am sadistic like that. But I have the patience to wait and skip anarchy and the possibilities. Then manipulate slowly into what I need so that I mess with the idea of "choice"... But meh... Your point is valid. I just rather manipulate from mass choice than force it :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HORUS Posted September 18, 2008 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 Just consider this scenario, if you will. 2 men are dying. Both men are in the same family. One man, aged 70, is dying from heart problems that have plagued him for several years while he stays alive by use of a respirator. The second man, aged 24, enlisted in the army, and in perfect health, has contracted a virus that is deadly if untreated. The family has money only to help one of the two dying men. Which should they choose to keep alive? The life of a capable man is more valuable to society than the life of an impotent and effete aged man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoshIcy Posted September 18, 2008 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 If they can pay the bills or someone is willing to do that for them. I say let them live. I stand by this regardless of the beneath quote. ' pid='1130811' dateline='1221716467']Just consider this scenario' date=' if you will. 2 men are dying. Both men are in the same family. One man, aged 70, is dying from heart problems that have plagued him for several years while he stays alive by use of a respirator. The second man, aged 24, enlisted in the army, and in perfect health, has contracted a virus that is deadly if untreated. The family has money only to help one of the two dying men. Which should they choose to keep alive? The life of a capable man is more valuable to society than the life of an impotent and effete aged man.[/quote'] The younger of course. But to eliminate the old altogether is just repulsive. My Tuti (Great Grandma is 78yrs old, she was born in 1930), I would hate to see her die due to this inhuman law. And she can pay for her health care, [despite being on an oxygen machine/respirator). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HORUS Posted September 18, 2008 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 I just want to point out as well that when I say the incapable should be killed, I mean euthanized. Like putting a pet to sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoshIcy Posted September 18, 2008 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 ' pid='1130823' dateline='1221716938']I just want to point out as well that when I say the incapable should be killed' date=' I mean euthanized. Like putting a pet to sleep.[/quote'] Let the families decide. Win on both situations too. You can be sadistic and watch that moral implication cross them.And of course Freedom of Choice is uphold. Just make sure it is free, or it won't have such an effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakura Vessal Posted September 18, 2008 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 I say we kill babies. Afterall' date=' they don't contribute to the world.[/quote'] great, just great and lets just say one of those babys was gonna be someone like, i dont know THE PERSON WHO WOULD CURE CANCER?!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2sick4u Posted September 18, 2008 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 I say we kill babies. Afterall' date=' they don't contribute to the world.[/quote'] great, just great and lets just say one of those babys was gonna be someone like, i dont know THE PERSON WHO WOULD CURE CANCER?!! 99.9% chance that the one child you're describing won't cure cancer. He was being sarcastic, Haruhi, implying that the euthanizing of the socially inept and non-beneficial can be morally wrong and flawed. Although he factored out that the child gets better with age, whilst the elderly gets worsened with age, as JesusOfChaos said. Besides. Look at the world. Look at the gloated dinosaurs that are apparently running it. Look at the ones with money, the money that grants power, being able to succumb the governments through bribery and natural greed into eating out of their hand. All capitalistically. Not beneficial, not for a society. It's only independent accumulation. Now. Consider it grander. The fuel crisis, is commonly attributed to inflation. This can be simply solved by the euthanizing of the elderly. Our taxes will lower, leaving room for the ones on businesses to rise. My perspective is simple: Ones worth comes from the need for them to be here. Simply put. The need for one to be in a place promotes worth, value of that person. The elderly do not need to be here. For their input, the input to which attributes to ones need, is uncontrollably negative. They mine a capitalistic society out of it's own money, requiring homes, nursing facilities, all these provided by governing offices. The elderly fail at producing worth. I'll genuinely say that the elderly are some of the most insightful people around, but the lack of worth once again over-comes this. ' pid='1130823' dateline='1221716938']I just want to point out as well that when I say the incapable should be killed' date=' I mean euthanized. Like putting a pet to sleep.[/quote'] Let the families decide. Win on both situations too. You can be sadistic and watch that moral implication cross them.And of course Freedom of Choice is uphold. Just make sure it is free, or it won't have such an effect. The families decision will always revert back to emotional bonding, thus sparing life. It doesn't win on neither side, for putting the power in the hands of the families is biased, and is essentially what we have now without the capitalistic medical system. Now, the simple reasoning is, who's hands does the power over their lives fall into? Answer: No one. I'm saying do not let the elderly continue to live through technology, let them die naturally. Euthanize when ones suffering is too grand, as apposed to trying to prevent the suffering. The prevention is temporary, a mere emotional benefit, whilst the benefit of the "Put-Down" of the elder would be more permanent, more globally scaled, better for the rest of us. Euthanizing is essential to reduce suffering, free-up hospital area's, and cap population efficiency. However, preventing death is nearly as horrid as preventing life. It's not about being able to live, it's about being able to contribute to our livelihood. I'm not saying we should go on some sort of elderly genocide, I'm saying that they shouldn't be treated on the scale they are now. They are inept at even being able to run their own lives. They need others to help. If one can't help themselves achieve, what's ones purpose in life anymore? The elderly once again, do not contribute. They can't contribute. For them to contribute, it'd take the contributions of others. Then again, this is said sadistically, and immorally, but logically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.