Should we treat the over 70s?

[Guest JoshIcy]

I'm saying do not let the elderly continue to live through technology' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

This wins the topic.

But a personal question...

 

Would you accept the use of at the very least, Painkillers that do nothing to actually prevent what is happening? Simply to stop this pain they may have.

[MasterOfMagicians]

Yes, treat the elderly. Just because they aren't contributing anything to YOU, doesn't mean they aren't contributing.

 

Many can offer their insight on situations that we have not yet experienced, or are experiencing now. Many have seen some amazing things in their life. WWII, Vietnam War, Assassination Attempts, Terrorist Attacks, etc. Who would want to pass up great stories about our nations history?

 

Almost all of them are grandparents or great-grandparents. Just because YOU want your grandparents dead when they reach 70 (If they are still alive) doesn't mean someone else does.

And if this is just some hurt attempt at making others feel how you do because they have grandparents and you don't, just stop.

 

Our elderly are important to the prosperity of our nation, whether you realize it or not.

And the world is not over-populated. We have plenty of landmass to go around, just because everyone wants to cram themselves into New York, California, and the largest suburbs of our states, is not the elderly's fault.

[JesusofChaos™]

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?!!

 

Do we really need a cure for cancer? Humans obession of prolonging life will be the downfall of society

[Guest JoshIcy]

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?!!

 

Do we really need a cure for cancer? Humans obession of prolonging life will be the downfall of society

 

And kill this thread.

 

If people over this age can be useful it has no justification xD

[JesusofChaos™]

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?!!

 

Do we really need a cure for cancer? Humans obession of prolonging life will be the downfall of society

 

And kill this thread.

 

If people over this age can be useful it has no justification xD

 

Show me one way that old people are useful to society. To make rational decisions you must seperate from emotions.

[Guest JoshIcy]

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?!!

 

Do we really need a cure for cancer? Humans obession of prolonging life will be the downfall of society

 

And kill this thread.

 

If people over this age can be useful it has no justification xD

 

Show me one way that old people are useful to society. To make rational decisions you must separate from emotions.

 

Useful to society. No.

Useful to families as an emotional support and care. Yes.

 

"See through the eyes of the many, so that you may manipulate from within".

~ Josh [icyblue]

 

You all talk about usefulness, but emotion is what drives the world. Even more so than this order, usefulness in logic is true. But so is the emotional impact.

 

If you do not see this, how you function as normal humans is beyond me and everyone around you.

 

Mind you, I do see what you say and can defend it as well. But do not expect me to defend it by any means.

[Willieh]

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?!!

 

Do we really need a cure for cancer? Humans obession of prolonging life will be the downfall of society

 

And kill this thread.

 

If people over this age can be useful it has no justification xD

 

Show me one way that old people are useful to society. To make rational decisions you must seperate from emotions.

They buy and sell sheet.

 

And seriously, stop all this cold shell bull sheet. If the government came to your house one day and informed you that everyone over 65 in your family had been slaughtered, would be glad that they were doing something rational? Besides, the world isn't going to over populate. And if it does, who cares? It's just life. Don't over-glorify it. Life is just animated tissue, in reality it's nothing. For every person born there's a person that dies, so what's it matter, honestly.

 

Oh yeah, and if you are considering over population of the earth at all, wouldn't it be more sensible to kill the babies? Let's say you kill 100 babies a day. Well we all know that that would eliminate 100 lives automatically. And the old people would still be able to buy and sell. However, the old people would die eventually, seeing as their years are numbered anyway. So theoretically, for every 100 babies you eliminate, you are also helping the economy and eliminating 200 lives that could have wasted space on the earth.

 

But the way I look at it; humans are just animals with adapted logic. So why should we be able to decide what the rational decision is for our earth? The earth doesn't care about us...

[HORUS]

The idea is not to do it in one fell swoop. It is intended to develop over time through generations until the policies are accepted by the public as a way of life.

 

Currently, I would not want to lose my elderly family members, but after influence of several generations of these policies, it seems like a normal thing.

 

 

Over many many years, the Catholic church deviated sexual intercourse from a ritual of the utmost importance and spiritual meaning into a sinful act against god. Sex is viewed negatively in society because of this, and it has been for hundreds of years.

 

Read Brave New World.

[Static]

Kramer gets it. Jesus gets the subjects he has mentioned, but has not addressed enough of the whole idea for me to judge whether he gets it entire. Justin gets it. Willieh gets it in his own way, but is clouded with the "American" perception, so he sees it through that light.

 

And Icy, in an ideal society, emotion would not exist, just contentment and will to do what one was born to do. You wish to let people be manipulated by consent, what the US Capital imperialistic government does. I wish the same thing, but I think it should be forced, so we can have more control over the quality of life of every individual and ensure that it is as balanced as possible. Humans are only biological machines as it stands now, whose existence is to play out their role and think they have some control in it, slaves to their societies and those who were determined to be better off than them (in context and perspective of course, I'm not implying that not so well off Kenyans help Chavez or anything). We are slaves no matter how you look at it, why not make people content with their servitude AND make them equal, because on the conscious level, they are the same, and equality in this sense is reflective of the universe.

 

How I function as a human being? I perceive that everything I feel is a facade created by inevitable circumstances, everything I do the fault or glory of existence, and just enjoy the ride because I know that's all that's worth doing while I'm at it. Once I get bored, I'll probably blow my own head off because I have had enough of witnessing suffering in others because I know I had near rid myself of it, that or leave society entire and quit feeling bad for it because I know they will inevitably fall victim to their own greedy individualistic "self image" perspective. That may seem completely crazy to you, but I'm ok with that, I hold no value to anything, so I can do anything I want without fear of consequence.

[2sick4u]

I'm saying do not let the elderly continue to live through technology' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

This wins the topic.

But a personal question...

 

Would you accept the use of at the very least, Painkillers that do nothing to actually prevent what is happening? Simply to stop this pain they may have.

 

Firstly, the adding to my ego is always welcome. =).

 

Secondly, Painkillers are a mild supplement for time. My main view was that when ones suffering was grand, so much so that the use of a machine was needed to produce life in the elder, that they should be euthanized. When an elder is healthy to an acceptable standard, the elder can contribute towards families and such. Breaking ones back in order to preserve this benefit, however, is extremely one-sided, and non beneficial.

 

Yes' date=' treat the elderly. Just because they aren't contributing anything to YOU, doesn't mean they aren't contributing.

 

[b']I never said specific contributions to an individual. I mentioned that, and implied it was non-beneficial for their lives to require what they do in order to maintain, whilst only have that as an output. The contribution to society, the only contribution that accounts to anything, is what I was referring to. Not contributing to myself, for that's irrelevant and unneeded. [/b]

 

Many can offer their insight on situations that we have not yet experienced, or are experiencing now. Many have seen some amazing things in their life. WWII, Vietnam War, Assassination Attempts, Terrorist Attacks, etc. Who would want to pass up great stories about our nations history?

 

If this is your best defensive argument, you shouldn't bother replying to this. What is offered in one elders retelling can be offered in a thousand other books at a higher standard. The elderly serve no purpose in their ego filled retelling's of events that mightn't of occurred. On that topic, you might reply "The books don't deliver to the magnitude of the elders retellings." Who cares? The elder's retelling only promotes patriotic supple that serves no purpose, at least no purpose worthy of what it takes to maintain the elder.

 

Almost all of them are grandparents or great-grandparents. Just because YOU want your grandparents dead when they reach 70 (If they are still alive) doesn't mean someone else does.

And if this is just some hurt attempt at making others feel how you do because they have grandparents and you don't, just stop.

 

... YOU HAVE CRAPPY-DAPPY ARGUEMTNTS.

 

...

Sorry. I felt like being immature, as I expected more flare for the length of your post. Now, as most people seem to assess, the attack on the elderly wasn't targeted on an individual preservation level. No self-accumulation is/was involved. Rather, societies benefit was taken into account, which should be our main goal. I care about my grandparents, care about their well-being, but it takes a stronger will to care about the well-being of others. Others being the upcoming generation, the new contributors to the world. It's not a hurt attempt, and if you perceive it to be some emo dribble, fall off a cliff. It perceives a greater good option, an option which could provide a greater standard and living for our race.

 

Our elderly are important to the prosperity of our nation, whether you realize it or not.

 

No, they're not. My realization is in tune, but I realize what is beneficial and what isn't.

 

And the world is not over-populated. We have plenty of landmass to go around, just because everyone wants to cram themselves into New York, California, and the largest suburbs of our states, is not the elderly's fault.

 

The world is drastically over-populated.

 

Unless all want to live in mud-huts, without running water or electricity, (Basically poverty stricken area's of Africa become suburban lifestyle..) you will agree that our population doesn't attack land-mass. It attacks resources. We need less population.

 

So, based upon that, I present two options.

 

1) Release a largely contagious Air-borne virus into Africa, China, Japan and possibly half of America/Australia, and we'll be able to sustain our current lifestyle.

 

2) Start cutting off resources on those that don't produce enough input to claim those resources. The elderly have pensions, great health cover and government care, all of which take a budget that can be used more efficiently on those that actually contribute to society.

 

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?!!

 

Do we really need a cure for cancer? Humans obession of prolonging life will be the downfall of society

 

And kill this thread.

 

If people over this age can be useful it has no justification xD

 

Show me one way that old people are useful to society. To make rational decisions you must seperate from emotions.

They buy and sell s***.

 

Supply and demand doesn't promote worth. You may feel so, but it doesn't. It scarcely promotes benefit to capitalistic ideals, which we should stream away from.

 

And seriously, stop all this cold shell bull s***. If the government came to your house one day and informed you that everyone over 65 in your family had been slaughtered, would be glad that they were doing something rational? Besides, the world isn't going to over populate. And if it does, who cares? It's just life. Don't over-glorify it. Life is just animated tissue, in reality it's nothing. For every person born there's a person that dies, so what's it matter, honestly.

 

It's not about our own benefit. Individual levels of benefit do not accumulate to society. Point being, it is just life. I'm not over-glorifying it, rather, doing a normal reaction. That is, trying to sustain it effectively.

 

The elderly euthanizing comes from a simple ideal:

 

Why do something normally, when you can do it better?

 

You're saying the elders lives can stay or go, that it doesn't matter if we dispose of those said or not. The disposal grants a better standard. It's cold, it's irrational, but it's logical. Morals don't apply to logic, and never will.

 

Oh yeah, and if you are considering over population of the earth at all, wouldn't it be more sensible to kill the babies? Let's say you kill 100 babies a day. Well we all know that that would eliminate 100 lives automatically. And the old people would still be able to buy and sell. However, the old people would die eventually, seeing as their years are numbered anyway. So theoretically, for every 100 babies you eliminate, you are also helping the economy and eliminating 200 lives that could have wasted space on the earth.

 

Killing the babies is a coin-toss perspective of this idea. I dunno, I guess I agree with it, although it denies a future generation being present.

 

But the way I look at it; humans are just animals with adapted logic. So why should we be able to decide what the rational decision is for our earth? The earth doesn't care about us...

 

Our adapted logic promotes us to think like this. The earth doesn't have adapted lologic, therefore, it's us to foster the earth.

 

Eh. Willieh, you bring up a good argument from a side that I wouldn't of thought could have one. However, you still disregard that it could simply be better without the elderly. An improvement, so to speak. Our race prides itself on it's advancement, so why not continue?

 

Eh. I pretty much replied to what I felt like replying to, although, I feel as if Willieh brick-walled my perspective, and presented one of equal worth.

 

=/.

 

FOR F-CKS SAKE, WILLIEH, STOP DOING THIS SHIZ.

 

=D.

 

For the record, Static gets it.

[Static]

Willieh has a very different eye than we do Justin, he does not have the philosophic third eye, but has the logic to make determinations based on the cliched "superficial rebel" perspective. It can be crushed, but it would take too much work to deal with because he still sees everything through the same light, his problems are based on superficial mass, and his solutions are on the same mind scheme.

 

He needs to 1. Get out of his "Metal head angry rebel" phase, and 2. Get on the hallucinogenic's.

 

That aside, Justin and Kramer really get it. The rest need to immediately provide more fuel to the argument.

[Willieh]

Static, your logic defeats your own logic.

 

Who cares about what happens? Because according to you, whatever happens will happen because of the boundaries cause and effect hold on us. So technically your opinion is useless to you. ;)

 

I'm not going through a "phase." I'm using common sense. You are trying to be some outcast different person who doesn't take feelings, emotion, morals, or anything of the sort into consideration. The entire concept of this is stupid. Why do people even care about life or the earth? It's life. It's earth. funking deal with it.

 

Besides, why should we be able to determine what "contributes to society?" You know what money is? Paper with a materialistic meaning set to it by PEOPLE. ANIMALS THAT HAVE LOGIC. People are just animals with logic. We don't have any right to funk around with caring about nature. However we should be concerned with ourselves when we roll up our sleeves and dig into things we don't need to know.

 

Ex.

The theory of gravity.

 

Why do we need to know that? It's not important. It's just a meaning that we set to something happening.

 

Human thoughts are worthless, and so is the thought of every other animal.

 

Therefore we shouldn't be allowed to set a boundary as to what gets to live, what gets to die, and what's useful in our world.

 

Curiosity killed the cat.

[Static]

Static' date=' your logic defeats your own logic.

 

Who cares about what happens? Because according to you, whatever happens will happen because of the boundaries cause and effect hold on us. So technically your opinion is useless to you. ;)

 

I'm not going through a "phase." I'm using common sense. You are trying to be some outcast different person who doesn't take feelings, emotion, morals, or anything of the sort into consideration. The entire concept of this is stupid. Why do people even care about life or the earth? It's life. It's earth. f***ing deal with it.

 

Besides, why should we be able to determine what "contributes to society?" You know what money is? Paper with a materialistic meaning set to it by PEOPLE. ANIMALS THAT HAVE LOGIC. People are just animals with logic. We don't have any right to f*** around with caring about nature. However we should be concerned with ourselves when we roll up our sleeves and dig into things we don't need to know.

 

Ex.

The theory of gravity.

 

Why do we need to know that? It's not important. It's just a meaning that we set to something happening.

 

Human thoughts are worthless, and so is the thought of every other animal.

 

Therefore we shouldn't be allowed to set a boundary as to what gets to live, what gets to die, and what's useful in our world.

 

[i']Curiosity killed the cat.[/i]

 

So if I convinced the vast majority that gravity did not exist, suddenly, I could fly?

 

Try again, with less hypocrisy.

[HORUS]

Static' date=' your logic defeats your own logic.

 

Who cares about what happens? Because according to you, whatever happens will happen because of the boundaries cause and effect hold on us. So technically your opinion is useless to you. ;)

 

I'm not going through a "phase." I'm using common sense. You are trying to be some outcast different person who doesn't take feelings, emotion, morals, or anything of the sort into consideration. The entire concept of this is stupid. Why do people even care about life or the earth? It's life. It's earth. f***ing deal with it.

 

Besides, why should we be able to determine what "contributes to society?" You know what money is? Paper with a materialistic meaning set to it by PEOPLE. ANIMALS THAT HAVE LOGIC. People are just animals with logic. We don't have any right to f*** around with caring about nature. However we should be concerned with ourselves when we roll up our sleeves and dig into things we don't need to know.

 

Ex.

The theory of gravity.

 

Why do we need to know that? It's not important. It's just a meaning that we set to something happening.

 

Human thoughts are worthless, and so is the thought of every other animal.

 

Therefore we shouldn't be allowed to set a boundary as to what gets to live, what gets to die, and what's useful in our world.

 

[i']Curiosity killed the cat.[/i]

 

So if I convinced the vast majority that gravity did not exist, suddenly, I could fly?

 

Try again, with less hypocrisy.

 

Have you read 1984?

[Static]

I have not.

 

I need to immediately.

[Tabris]

To OP:

 

The people you are comparing to old television sets are human beings too, you know. No reason to treat them as merchandise you can dispose of. Really.

[Static]

To OP:

 

The people you are comparing to old television sets are human beings too' date=' you know. No reason to treat them as merchandise you can dispose of. Really.

[/quote']

 

Why not? You gave yourself worth, and gave them worth. I choose not to see this worth because it is just perception.

 

There is no harm in euthanizing, no evil can come from having a better standard of living as a whole, regardless of how many people die.

[HORUS]

I have not.

 

I need to immediately.

 

Well, the guy literally says in 1984 that if he could convince the masses that there was no gravity that he could fly.

[Static]

' pid='1138866' dateline='1221884240']

I have not.

 

I need to immediately.

 

Well' date=' the guy literally says in 1984 that if he could convince the masses that there was no gravity that he could fly.

[/quote']

 

It's like I read it in another lifetime. :O

[HORUS]

Yeah, weird.

 

Actually I think he says something more along the lines of "If I convinced the masses that I can fly, then I can"

 

I don't remember.

 

But still.

[Willieh]

Static' date=' your logic defeats your own logic.

 

Who cares about what happens? Because according to you, whatever happens will happen because of the boundaries cause and effect hold on us. So technically your opinion is useless to you. ;)

 

I'm not going through a "phase." I'm using common sense. You are trying to be some outcast different person who doesn't take feelings, emotion, morals, or anything of the sort into consideration. The entire concept of this is stupid. Why do people even care about life or the earth? It's life. It's earth. f***ing deal with it.

 

Besides, why should we be able to determine what "contributes to society?" You know what money is? Paper with a materialistic meaning set to it by PEOPLE. ANIMALS THAT HAVE LOGIC. People are just animals with logic. We don't have any right to f*** around with caring about nature. However we should be concerned with ourselves when we roll up our sleeves and dig into things we don't need to know.

 

Ex.

The theory of gravity.

 

Why do we need to know that? It's not important. It's just a meaning that we set to something happening.

 

Human thoughts are worthless, and so is the thought of every other animal.

 

Therefore we shouldn't be allowed to set a boundary as to what gets to live, what gets to die, and what's useful in our world.

 

[i']Curiosity killed the cat.[/i]

 

So if I convinced the vast majority that gravity did not exist, suddenly, I could fly?

 

Try again, with less hypocrisy.

 

My point went flying over your head. -_-

[Static]

Static' date=' your logic defeats your own logic.

 

Who cares about what happens? Because according to you, whatever happens will happen because of the boundaries cause and effect hold on us. So technically your opinion is useless to you. ;)

 

I'm not going through a "phase." I'm using common sense. You are trying to be some outcast different person who doesn't take feelings, emotion, morals, or anything of the sort into consideration. The entire concept of this is stupid. Why do people even care about life or the earth? It's life. It's earth. f***ing deal with it.

 

Besides, why should we be able to determine what "contributes to society?" You know what money is? Paper with a materialistic meaning set to it by PEOPLE. ANIMALS THAT HAVE LOGIC. People are just animals with logic. We don't have any right to f*** around with caring about nature. However we should be concerned with ourselves when we roll up our sleeves and dig into things we don't need to know.

 

Ex.

The theory of gravity.

 

Why do we need to know that? It's not important. It's just a meaning that we set to something happening.

 

Human thoughts are worthless, and so is the thought of every other animal.

 

Therefore we shouldn't be allowed to set a boundary as to what gets to live, what gets to die, and what's useful in our world.

 

[i']Curiosity killed the cat.[/i]

 

So if I convinced the vast majority that gravity did not exist, suddenly, I could fly?

 

Try again, with less hypocrisy.

 

My point went flying over your head. -_-

 

No it didn't, you missed the fact that in Hierarchial society, power is very, very relative, and that human thought does have value if it is that of a powerful person. My opinion is fact when I hold the gun. I can decide what contributes to society, I can decide what is wasting resources, and I can decide what has value, and what value is, simply because I have the ability to annihilate you if you disagree. It might not be "Universally True," but given the current circumstances, the ones that need immediate improvement, opinions of power hold much higher ground.

 

You said we shouldn't dig into things that we don't need to know. It is with knowing that we will make the best decisions, the most truth based decisions (and enough with the truth isn't relative, in this society, perceptive truth is VERY relative) will be the ones that will get us the furthest from the problems because they are more rooted.

 

With knowing enough, and being powerful enough, and there are many that fit this bill, and they should be allowed to determine what is allowed and what is not allowed to die, if the decisions are rooted in the intellect and deduction of the powerful, and the powerful has the power to act on it and do it the right way.

[Willieh]

Static' date=' your logic defeats your own logic.

 

Who cares about what happens? Because according to you, whatever happens will happen because of the boundaries cause and effect hold on us. So technically your opinion is useless to you. ;)

 

I'm not going through a "phase." I'm using common sense. You are trying to be some outcast different person who doesn't take feelings, emotion, morals, or anything of the sort into consideration. The entire concept of this is stupid. Why do people even care about life or the earth? It's life. It's earth. f***ing deal with it.

 

Besides, why should we be able to determine what "contributes to society?" You know what money is? Paper with a materialistic meaning set to it by PEOPLE. ANIMALS THAT HAVE LOGIC. People are just animals with logic. We don't have any right to f*** around with caring about nature. However we should be concerned with ourselves when we roll up our sleeves and dig into things we don't need to know.

 

Ex.

The theory of gravity.

 

Why do we need to know that? It's not important. It's just a meaning that we set to something happening.

 

Human thoughts are worthless, and so is the thought of every other animal.

 

Therefore we shouldn't be allowed to set a boundary as to what gets to live, what gets to die, and what's useful in our world.

 

[i']Curiosity killed the cat.[/i]

 

So if I convinced the vast majority that gravity did not exist, suddenly, I could fly?

 

Try again, with less hypocrisy.

 

My point went flying over your head. -_-

 

No it didn't, you missed the fact that in Hierarchial society, power is very, very relative, and that human thought does have value if it is that of a powerful person. My opinion is fact when I hold the gun. I can decide what contributes to society, I can decide what is wasting resources, and I can decide what has value, and what value is, simply because I have the ability to annihilate you if you disagree. It might not be "Universally True," but given the current circumstances, the ones that need immediate improvement, opinions of power hold much higher ground.

 

You said we shouldn't dig into things that we don't need to know. It is with knowing that we will make the best decisions, the most truth based decisions (and enough with the truth isn't relative, in this society, perceptive truth is VERY relative) will be the ones that will get us the furthest from the problems because they are more rooted.

 

With knowing enough, and being powerful enough, and there are many that fit this bill, and they should be allowed to determine what is allowed and what is not allowed to die, if the decisions are rooted in the intellect and deduction of the powerful, and the powerful has the power to act on it and do it the right way.

 

But our opinions are useless in the long run. In theory, killing a dog = killing a human. It's just killing an animal of it's evolved sub-species trying to survive it's life. So above all, we're all worthless, meaning we can't put a worth on life. Power has nothing to do with natural value.

[Static]

Static' date=' your logic defeats your own logic.

 

Who cares about what happens? Because according to you, whatever happens will happen because of the boundaries cause and effect hold on us. So technically your opinion is useless to you. ;)

 

I'm not going through a "phase." I'm using common sense. You are trying to be some outcast different person who doesn't take feelings, emotion, morals, or anything of the sort into consideration. The entire concept of this is stupid. Why do people even care about life or the earth? It's life. It's earth. f***ing deal with it.

 

Besides, why should we be able to determine what "contributes to society?" You know what money is? Paper with a materialistic meaning set to it by PEOPLE. ANIMALS THAT HAVE LOGIC. People are just animals with logic. We don't have any right to f*** around with caring about nature. However we should be concerned with ourselves when we roll up our sleeves and dig into things we don't need to know.

 

Ex.

The theory of gravity.

 

Why do we need to know that? It's not important. It's just a meaning that we set to something happening.

 

Human thoughts are worthless, and so is the thought of every other animal.

 

Therefore we shouldn't be allowed to set a boundary as to what gets to live, what gets to die, and what's useful in our world.

 

[i']Curiosity killed the cat.[/i]

 

So if I convinced the vast majority that gravity did not exist, suddenly, I could fly?

 

Try again, with less hypocrisy.

 

My point went flying over your head. -_-

 

No it didn't, you missed the fact that in Hierarchial society, power is very, very relative, and that human thought does have value if it is that of a powerful person. My opinion is fact when I hold the gun. I can decide what contributes to society, I can decide what is wasting resources, and I can decide what has value, and what value is, simply because I have the ability to annihilate you if you disagree. It might not be "Universally True," but given the current circumstances, the ones that need immediate improvement, opinions of power hold much higher ground.

 

You said we shouldn't dig into things that we don't need to know. It is with knowing that we will make the best decisions, the most truth based decisions (and enough with the truth isn't relative, in this society, perceptive truth is VERY relative) will be the ones that will get us the furthest from the problems because they are more rooted.

 

With knowing enough, and being powerful enough, and there are many that fit this bill, and they should be allowed to determine what is allowed and what is not allowed to die, if the decisions are rooted in the intellect and deduction of the powerful, and the powerful has the power to act on it and do it the right way.

 

But our opinions are useless in the long run. In theory, killing a dog = killing a human. It's just killing an animal of it's evolved sub-species trying to survive it's life. So above all, we're all worthless, meaning we can't put a worth on life. Power has nothing to do with natural value.

 

But it does have to do with social value.

 

Which is what the men who control our lives are going to base social change on.

 

Meaning it is prevalent when applied, though in theory, like if the world thought of this world as a dream to a greater existence in which ones actions were irrelevant, then you would be correct, but as long as people are allowed to think freely, and not be raised and told what is good and what is not, there will be no universal judgment.

[「tea.leaf」]

Activate T4, everyone is happy.