U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do You support euthanasia for non-contributing members of society?
Yes 6 8.82%
No 60 88.24%
Undecided 2 2.94%
Voters: 68. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-19-2008, 07:56 PM
 
55 posts, read 60,890 times
Reputation: 11

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by catfishing View Post
You are a fine debator, but obviously you didn´t read my entire post. This ¨false system¨ you refer to was created during the dawn of human civilization and has been passed on and improved upon over thousands of years. It is now not simply a standard, but an actual pattern of human behavior. Once a behavior has been established by the vast majority of the human population over such a long period of time, it can´t be called anything but a form of evolution. Often it is behavioral patterns that detemine the destiny of a species, ranging from socialization to mating habits, the creature´s food sources, where or how it lives, etc. I repeat, this is human evolution at work, accept it for what it is.
You make a good point. However, religion has been constantly evolving alonside humankind. This asks the question, "what is religion?" If religion is simply a system of basic truths to help explain reality--something that has been constantly progressing, then perhaps we've come to the point of enlightenment in our own recognition of our origins and its dynamic process. Thus, perhaps we should move to adopt evolution as our new "religion." A religion decidedly more logical than its predecessors, but not yet fully elucidated on humanity. If evolution therefore, becomes our religion, should we not follow it where it directs us and therefore order human society around it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-19-2008, 07:59 PM
 
55 posts, read 60,890 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by karfar View Post
If you propose to do away w/people by euthanasia, simply because you think they aren't contributing, THAT is not evolution. That is trying to disrupt the natural course of evolution.
True, but the other side of the question is: do we spend so many resources, effort and money to save such people? That is the most pertinent question of evolution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2008, 08:01 PM
 
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
38,888 posts, read 20,174,085 times
Reputation: 35917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jihadist View Post
Our society is far too concerned about the "sanctity of life." There are so many people who are simply a drain on our economy. The elderly, prisoners, the mentally disabled and unwanted children are the main offenders as they contribute nothing to the world financially and yet eat up billions of dollars each year. The elderly are utterly useless; prisoners cause the crime; the mentally disabled are actually allowed to breed, and so, make the human race genetically inferior; and unwanted children grow up to be criminals among other low-lifes. What we need is to start a mass eugenics movement, so that we may purge our pure society from such undesirables. After all, science has proven that everything in existence is based on the material and its laws. Evolution is the law of life--we therefore, should not spend so much time and effort protecting those who cannot protect themselves. The weak die off and the strong live on...it is the law of nature, the only absolute source for our moral codes. We are simply material beings who live and die...it's just the way things are, so why concern ourselves with life so much? Therefore, do you support euthanasia, abortion and sterilization of the non-contributors of society? If not, please offer logically justification for your claims.
Do you support this when it comes to your own aging, retired, elderly parents?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2008, 08:02 PM
 
Location: um....guess
10,478 posts, read 13,867,539 times
Reputation: 1825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jihadist View Post
True, but the other side of the question is: do we spend so many resources, effort and money to save such people? That is the most pertinent question of evolution.
Yes, we do because evolution is a change. A change in the process of life. We are constantly in a state of evolution, although we don't really see it because it happens slowly. However, through the decades as medical research & practices have become more sophisticated, that has allowed the advancement of life. That is a state of evolution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2008, 08:02 PM
 
5,767 posts, read 10,306,134 times
Reputation: 3813
Quote:
If we all believe in the power of evolution, then why can't we simply let it work for the good of humanity?
Evolution is just a way of describing a natural process; it has no independent philosophical implications. It only carries what is assigned to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2008, 08:02 PM
 
55 posts, read 60,890 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by msconnie73 View Post
Would you support this for your own parents when they are elderly and using lots of medical resources?
Maybe if I knew my parents I wouldn't. However, instead of simply euthanizing unwanted infants, we could simply eliminate the family structure as it currently is. Marx saw this as possible solution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2008, 08:07 PM
 
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
38,888 posts, read 20,174,085 times
Reputation: 35917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jihadist View Post
Maybe if I knew my parents I wouldn't. However, instead of simply euthanizing unwanted infants, we could simply eliminate the family structure as it currently is. Marx saw this as possible solution.
So if you knew your parents, then you would not support euthanizing them because they are elderly and "useless"? But you would support euthanizing the elderly parents of others without any remorse because you deem them to be useless and non-contributing members of society?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2008, 08:09 PM
 
55 posts, read 60,890 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn View Post
Evolution is just a way of describing a natural process; it has no independent philosophical implications. It only carries what is assigned to it.
I disagree. Everything has its own philosophical implications. If science becomes powerful enough to one day prove that the causation of the universe and mankind was totally random, then this obviously implies no intelligent designer. If no intelligent designer, then this implies that all theocentric religions are incorrect and have no bearing on our behavior. If there are no absolute restrictions on our behavior, then there is only power, and the power to shape our world as we see fit. Therefore, the implication is that we may follow whatever order we please and decide which order is the best to follow. Every claim of truth has implications because it has application to our world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2008, 08:13 PM
 
55 posts, read 60,890 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by msconnie73 View Post
So if you knew your parents, then you would not support euthanizing them because they are elderly and "useless"? But you would support euthanizing the elderly parents of others without any remorse because you deem them to be useless and non-contributing members of society?
I didn't say that...you're reading implication into my post that were not originally intended. Of course for the sake of intellectual legitimacy, I wouldn't say that "because they're not my parents, they must not be useful." It was more a stab at my own non-existent folks. Lighten up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2008, 08:13 PM
 
5,767 posts, read 10,306,134 times
Reputation: 3813
That's not really an argument about evolution. That's a slippery slope argument along the lines of Plato's "noble lie," or maybe Leo Strauss's revision of that same idea. You're saying that regardless of whether or not evolution is true, you'd rather not have people believe it to be true, because you think that would set in motion is slippery slope in which all 'morality' is abandoned.

That would also imply that the only thing keeping you from a killing spree is a nonbelief in evolution, which strikes me as (hopefully!) not the case. But if it is not the case, then why not? Wouldn't that imply some sort of embankment on your slippery slope?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top