kvnchrist Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Well, I don't believe in euthanasia. I do believe that people should be able to end their own lives if they had a chronically terminal disease and didn't want to suffer or watch their families suffer, seeing them suffer. What I believe is that we all have a debt to society, because those that came before us paid the taxes and fees that provided the schooling and opportunities that have came our way. Wither we embraced those or rejected them we need to do all we can to continue the maintenance of society, so that those coming up after us can have the same or better than we have had. Maybe some of us faltered. I know I did. I grew up doing drugs and alcohol and nearly lost my life several times, but finally saw where I was going and entered detox. Got into the military and learned to take responsibility for myself. I've been drug ans alcohol free for almost 38 years now, but I could never have done that without the Welfare that paid for my time in detox. I have no problems with people making mistakes or being a burden on society, for a short while. Just as long as they learn from their mistakes and straighten themselves out. What I do have issues with are those who think they are entitled to social programs and see no issue with taking no responsibility for what they do or who they do it to. This is a juvenile mindset and the offspring of those who embrace this mindset are at a disadvantage, unless they see the impotence of their forebearers and determine for themselves that this is not right. The acorn doesn't necessarily have to fall close to the tree. Some run from that tree before it burns itself and everything around it. I've seen that happen before. We need to support each other, but not blindly so. We need to associate with one another, not facilitate those who refuse to do the same for others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 The only problem with any euthanasia involving quality of life, but not involving terminal illness, is where to draw the line. Euthanising the "useless" people is a slippery slope towards elitist fascism, since at what point do people become useless? Slippery slope never really happens though. It is also easier to prevent such an occurrence by divesting it from political or religious intonations. Obviously, it would only be implemented in the more severe cases where efforts were already made to try and salvage the situation, but failed... Such as people with repeated and long term drug abuse issues, multiple convictions of rape, being morbidly obese and not following treatment. Situations where little to nothing can be done for the person, but they remain tied to the system clogging it until they eventually die. There's no reason why it should go anywhere near fascism. Eugenics only took its bad reputation because some idiot over in Germany thought genocide was a good idea. And his notion of a "master race" was utterly destroyed in both the Olympics as well as in actual war. Rather than turn away any mere suggestion of anything similar, we should try to take the positive aspects, but retain the understanding that genetic and cultural diversity is a GOOD thing if only because that is how we will continue to evolve. For example, cases of ADHD where there is hyperactivity but without the learning disorder. In these cases the learning process can essentially become supercharged and continually built up allowing both retention and quick acquisition of new information. Many of the most brilliant minds on earth have probably been people who would be categorized as ADHD, but their particular combination of genes and brain development led to a marked advantage instead of a disadvantage. If you look hard enough, you can also see similar things among those who are classified as Autistic where they may have some deficit in what we consider normal ability, but their other abilities or insight becomes much greater than your average "healthy" person. There is also nothing to say that Autism may not actually be part of a series of traits related to a step higher on the evolutionary chain but is just now present without supporting genetic combinations or mutations. Meaning that screening and removing people based on genes out of context to how those genes actually end up impacting that person's abilities is essentially creating the foundation of genetic stagnation (where there is no mutation or recombination of genes) and potentially death of a species if the genepool isn't varied enough. With enough science and reason, it doesn't have to repeat history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 (edited) The only problem with any euthanasia involving quality of life, but not involving terminal illness, is where to draw the line. Euthanising the "useless" people is a slippery slope towards elitist fascism, since at what point do people become useless? There's no reason why it should go anywhere near fascism.The idea of euthanizing any persons deemed to be a burden on society, and we aren't talking about murders or criminals here, but fat people, is rather near what many would call fascism. Also the slipperly slope clearly happens. Some idiot born in Austria should be the first one to spring to mind... Edited March 17, 2013 by Ghogiel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboUK Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 Who do you move onto after the fat people have been dealt with? the unemployed? the blind? the disabled? these people could all be described as burdens. Creating the master race has been tried before, it's not something most of us would want repeated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dweedle Posted March 17, 2013 Author Share Posted March 17, 2013 :confused: well this thread escalated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyro Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 I don't see obesity as a problem, I really don't! When I went to highschool, there was about 30 obese kids, and the other 300 or so were your average person. I've never seen a child younger than 10 who was fat. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arukata Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 (edited) -Soy Beans -High Fructose Corn syrup -Fluoride and water quality -Pesticides and preservatives -Chronic stress -Pollution -General water quality -Increase in sedentary habits Edited March 17, 2013 by Arukata Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 Who do you move onto after the fat people have been dealt with? the unemployed? the blind? the disabled? these people could all be described as burdens. Creating the master race has been tried before, it's not something most of us would want repeated. It doesn't seem to be about the persons status, or what particular issue they actually have, being unemployed, blind or disabled would be ok, as long as you can afford it or someone affords you. It's about finding money. So if it is left up to the state to provide of you for what ever reason, then after a few years or so, and there is no change in that, then they come around with a needle and a mop and say pick one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadMansFist849 Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Who do you move onto after the fat people have been dealt with? the unemployed? the blind? the disabled? these people could all be described as burdens. Creating the master race has been tried before, it's not something most of us would want repeated. This, so much. Thank you. Also: fat does not equate to unhealthy, plus if you (general "you" referring to skinny peeps in this case) actually gave a monkey's about someone's health, you wouldn't call them names and tell them they're disgusting. Making people depressed and encouraging restrictive eating disorders is bad for their health. One link to consolidate a bunch of others I could've posted:http://www.fatnutritionist.com/index.php/articles-evidence/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kvnchrist Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Who do you move onto after the fat people have been dealt with? the unemployed? the blind? the disabled? these people could all be described as burdens. Creating the master race has been tried before, it's not something most of us would want repeated. This, so much. Thank you. Also: fat does not equate to unhealthy, plus if you (general "you" referring to skinny peeps in this case) actually gave a monkey's about someone's health, you wouldn't call them names and tell them they're disgusting. Making people depressed and encouraging restrictive eating disorders is bad for their health. One link to consolidate a bunch of others I could've posted:http://www.fatnutritionist.com/index.php/articles-evidence/Sounds like someone's taking this personally. Excess fat does place you in line for a lot of health risks. That and a lot of other obsessive activities. The calling of names is something I've never be a fan of and I apologize if anyone has targeted you. I've been on the receiving end of juvenile taunts before. I know the feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now