「tea.leaf」 Posted October 2, 2008 Report Share Posted October 2, 2008 I was changing in the shower room at the gym the other day and I came up with an analogy that compares T4 to dilapidated cars. It was a good idea at the time. Why isn't it a good idea now? Because social norm now states that genocide is evil and the news is everywhere? The world isn't going to get anywhere without change' date=' be it new or recourse. We [b']need[/b] to kill these useless people to 1, make a huge blow against social value, and 2, make society more efficient. We do not need to do anything. However we should If we want a certain outcome, we need certain things to happen. Germany needed Hitler to rise to power to start World War 2, and Japan needed to agree to make it as widespread as it became. But if we are not to base it on a certain event, you are right, it is not needed, it is just enforcing opinion, which just makes my argument appear more forceful. I don't believe in Barack Obama. The idea went something like this. People buy cars. People buy cars to drive them, to go places, to pick-up groceries, to go home and beat the sheet our of their wives for messing up their roast beef sandwiches. However, people suck at taking care of cars, and that is why most cars expire after around ten years; sometimes less, if the initial owner was a brainless teenager. People get angry when their cars break. Some have the patience to patch them up at a repair shop, where people attempt to put the car back together. Others throw them away. Eventually, even the patient people get fed up with constantly visiting their repair shops, and they throw their cars away, just like everyone else. Sometimes the car factory makes a mistake, and ever so often a malfunctioning car is produced. The people would slap themselves in the face, and then throw it away. Now all the broken cars sit in giant piles all over the planet. Some wait to be squashed into cubes to be melted down, while others are picked apart to fix other cars. If we can do this to cars, why can't we do this to people? Emotional attachment? ... Is the root of all suffering. ... Is selfishness. ... Is the inherent flaw of every human being. Go home, lie down, think on it; you'll reach the same conclusion. Remove the emotional attachment and what do you get? A machine with a (subjective) purpose powered by chemical reactions. That's all a car is. That's all a human is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted October 2, 2008 Report Share Posted October 2, 2008 I was changing in the shower room at the gym the other day and I came up with an analogy that compares T4 to dilapidated cars. It was a good idea at the time. Why isn't it a good idea now? Because social norm now states that genocide is evil and the news is everywhere? The world isn't going to get anywhere without change' date=' be it new or recourse. We [b']need[/b] to kill these useless people to 1, make a huge blow against social value, and 2, make society more efficient. We do not need to do anything. However we should If we want a certain outcome, we need certain things to happen. Germany needed Hitler to rise to power to start World War 2, and Japan needed to agree to make it as widespread as it became. But if we are not to base it on a certain event, you are right, it is not needed, it is just enforcing opinion, which just makes my argument appear more forceful. I don't believe in Barack Obama. The idea went something like this. People buy cars. People buy cars to drive them, to go places, to pick-up groceries, to go home and beat the s*** our of their wives for messing up their roast beef sandwiches. However, people suck at taking care of cars, and that is why most cars expire after around ten years; sometimes less, if the initial owner was a brainless teenager. People get angry when their cars break. Some have the patience to patch them up at a repair shop, where people attempt to put the car back together. Others throw them away. Eventually, even the patient people get fed up with constantly visiting their repair shops, and they throw their cars away, just like everyone else. Sometimes the car factory makes a mistake, and ever so often a malfunctioning car is produced. The people would slap themselves in the face, and then throw it away. Now all the broken cars sit in giant piles all over the planet. Some wait to be squashed into cubes to be melted down, while others are picked apart to fix other cars. If we can do this to cars, why can't we do this to people? Emotional attachment? ... Is the root of all suffering. ... Is selfishness. ... Is the inherent flaw of every human being. Go home, lie down, think on it; you'll reach the same conclusion. Remove the emotional attachment and what do you get? A machine with a (subjective) purpose powered by chemical reactions. That's all a car is. That's all a human is. Under that logic, there is no such thing as a good idea or a bad idea. Humans probably are just biological machines, but machines exist only to run as efficiently as possible (the purpose we gave them, and the purpose mind gives to matter), so why shouldn't we as a race be as efficient as we can? There's no emotionality to it whatsoever, its just fulfilling the subjective purpose it was given, and that makes quite a bit more sense than doing nothing because of a lack of objectivity. I'm fully aware that attachment holds all suffering, as if speaking to me like I'm a Christianized Ameritard will change my response, but it is not a flaw to suffer. To be fully relieved is not to be fully enlightened, enlightenment is a simple understanding of the way the world is, and knowing that you can become free of suffering by just letting go of reality and becoming one with the world, there is no dictation that you must be unattached all of the time, and using that assumption to disprove a need or desire for one piece of legislation (Action T4) is nothing short of fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flinsbon Posted October 6, 2008 Report Share Posted October 6, 2008 ' pid='1180278' dateline='1222661477']Ironically enough' date=' Hitler had Bipolar Disorder (Manic - Depressive Disorder). For those of you that do not know what that means, he would be completely hyper and crazed for months (Manic). Then all of a sudden, he would become extremely depressed and remain that way for months (Depressive). That cycle repeated for his entire life. Bottom line - if Hitler really wanted to finish the job entirely, he would have had to kill himself (he really did, but for a different reason).[/quote'] It wasn't a disorder, it was the effect of what happened. When he was denied the position of chancellor and alliance with Hindenburg and the other guy whose name I've forgotten, he was rather dejected for a while. He didn't have a disorder, it was just his reaction to circumstances. He still had Bipolar because it affected him even before that. Napoleon Bonaparte was also bipolar, as was Isaac Newton. So is my sister, so now you know what I have to go through :( Sometimes, she's a menace. Help me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecoboy1324 Posted October 6, 2008 Report Share Posted October 6, 2008 In a world where everyone thinked logically this whould be a great idea. However sience humans are by the by not rational when they think. This is a terrible idea. If action T4 was enacted in this day and age you whould have unsettleing rebellion by the people. This whould lead to wasting money on a army to put down said rebellions. More then the goverment whould save in healthcare. In a society where the government has absolute control yes great idea. In a Democracy where people can oppose what the government does so openly its not a viable idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flinsbon Posted October 6, 2008 Report Share Posted October 6, 2008 You make it sound like having a dictatorship and killing people is a good idea. :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecoboy1324 Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 Read my post again I said a goverment with tight control over its people and with this plan We whould only be killing those who whould want to be dead anywhey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Altair Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 People who cannot contribute to the society at all are the only ones should be killed, if there is a 70-80 years old man with perfect health and can do something to the society then he shouldn't be killed. Simple Logic, Epic Win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted October 8, 2008 Report Share Posted October 8, 2008 ' pid='1180278' dateline='1222661477']Ironically enough' date=' Hitler had Bipolar Disorder (Manic - Depressive Disorder). For those of you that do not know what that means, he would be completely hyper and crazed for months (Manic). Then all of a sudden, he would become extremely depressed and remain that way for months (Depressive). That cycle repeated for his entire life. Bottom line - if Hitler really wanted to finish the job entirely, he would have had to kill himself (he really did, but for a different reason).[/quote'] It wasn't a disorder, it was the effect of what happened. When he was denied the position of chancellor and alliance with Hindenburg and the other guy whose name I've forgotten, he was rather dejected for a while. He didn't have a disorder, it was just his reaction to circumstances. He still had Bipolar because it affected him even before that. Napoleon Bonaparte was also bipolar, as was Isaac Newton. So is my sister, so now you know what I have to go through :( Sometimes, she's a menace. Help me! It is not likely that Hitler was Bipolar. His body was burned by the Russians at his request, so we never could do any sort of medical tests on him to see if anything was wrong with him. He may have been skitzophrenic, severely depressed, or held a minor form of a "retarding" disorder which made him react in a more self aware sort of way. It is more likely that he was depressed than Bipolar, because going in and out of phases of severe discontent and euphoria sounds a lot like depression to me.You make it sound like having a dictatorship and killing people is a good idea. :shock: We're slaves to fate as it is, why not just make everything more orderly? That's why I like dictatorship more than democracy. However, allowing social class in Dictatorship isn't getting the job done, so in no way do I support Hitler's philosophy of extreme Capitalism/Class division, but I do support removing people who cannot be made equal with the rest. (which means people with Downs can be removed, but come on, the Jews may be the most genetically advanced people on the planet and removing them would be silly (they own "half the world" as they say, it must take some skill to do that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HORUS Posted October 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2008 OBVIOUS PROPAGANDA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted October 8, 2008 Report Share Posted October 8, 2008 How would one remove the cross in the image? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HORUS Posted October 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 I dunno. The cross is a headstone that says "R.I.P. TERRA". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.