Tyrannical wrote:Because I am a racialist and I don't like to lie.
I once thought an atheist site would be enlightened enough to accept my view points, but just as Copernicus found the "church" does not allow dissension.

So, assuming that you were telling the truth when you said

Tyrannical wrote:I kind of lean towards aborting a healthy fetus with good genes as a waste. I won't define "good" because of that pesky FUA

I assume that really you were just saying that you jumped to incorrect assumptions about how much racism would be tolerated before you read (or at least, understood) the FUA, but that even knowing what the rules were didn't prevent you joining and/or staying to whine about the rules and try and hint your way round them.

For the record, the Copernicus reference does rather smell like the pseudoscientist crank trying to play the tired old 'but they laughed at Newton/Einstein/Galileo' card when people ridicule their dumb theory.

Historically speaking, in truth there doesn't seem to have been a whole lot of objection in his lifetime from 'the' church to what Copernicus wrote.
In his own (Catholic) church, he'd been dead for around another lifetime before much happened, so if he had been dumb enough to moan about desperate Church repression of his freedom of speech, I imagine many people would have thought of him as a self-absorbed whiny little fucker, or the 16th century Polish equivalent.

Your bogus reference is surprising, since I would naturally have assumed that someone happy to prejudge people based on their 'racial' group and supposedly keen to jump to conclusions about what a website would allow before trying to find out would be likely to be a real stickler for historical accuracy.

THWOTH wrote:Ty,

THWOTH @ Why aren't disabled people who can't work euthanised?

As simple 'I don't know' is OK too.

That is true.

The trouble comes with the fact we are a social animal and at the same time instinct for survival has the urgings about survival of the fittest with some not being a burden and so... removed.

Thing is in this day and age we have enough to go around, we can support many people.

But we can't keep growing as we are especially with how the advances in medicine are making people live longer and longer.
Overpopulation really is starting to become trouble.

A throttling back of lifestyle is needed and on a large scale not the one or two people making a sacrifice
And I would rather see policies to restrict adding people to the pool of people to support as opposed to removing those already in it that aren't measuring up to standards we are having trouble agreeing on or defining.

So yes. I don't now.

Wuffy wrote:But we can't keep growing as we are especially with how the advances in medicine are making people live longer and longer.
Overpopulation really is starting to become trouble.

A throttling back of lifestyle is needed and on a large scale not the one or two people making a sacrifice
And I would rather see policies to restrict adding people to the pool of people to support as opposed to removing those already in it that aren't measuring up to standards we are having trouble agreeing on or defining.

Agreed - there are few obvious benefits from having an ever-increasing population, and numerous downsides.

Unfortunately, it does seem to be somewhat a taboo subject - media reporting on drought-ridden country X suffering a famine rarely seems to mention how much larger the population is now than the last time there was a famine there.

So are we now talking about how euthanising the disabled might ease population pressure?

I guess we'll never find out what he meant by 'racialist'. Not that it would have been nice to learn of what he truly meant.

THWOTH wrote:So are we now talking about how euthanising the disabled might ease population pressure?

I would have thought the most sensible solution would be family planning.

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:I guess we'll never find out what he meant by 'racialist'. Not that it would have been nice to learn of what he truly meant.

Seems likely it would have been some half-baked bullcrap anyway.

In some ways, the FUA does protect many people who (if they are to be believed) subscribe to some of the dumber self-aggrandizing philosophies from explaining their ideas and having the various stupidities contained within pointed out by others.

They can whine on about how they could show everyone up if only they were allowed freedom of speech, even if they do end up sounding like a crank droning on about how they could overturn biology or thermodynamics if only some scientist would really listen to them.

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:I guess we'll never find out what he meant by 'racialist'. Not that it would have been nice to learn of what he truly meant.

But it's not as if we cannot draw certain conclusions from what has been said, and perhaps even from his refusal to address simple follow-up questions.

THWOTH wrote:

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:I guess we'll never find out what he meant by 'racialist'. Not that it would have been nice to learn of what he truly meant.

But it's not as if we cannot draw certain conclusions from what has been said, and perhaps even from his refusal to address simple follow-up questions.

Why should it matter what he means by "racialist"? Why not simply go by the definition dictionaries offer?

I don't understand what's all the fuss about the youth in asia.

The fuss about the youth in Thailand is they have terrible education.

Have we decided to kill the cripples yet?

Still kicking and screaming.

THWOTH wrote:Still kicking and screaming.

I'm just interested in their brains. No sense wasting a valuable resource. Also, I would like to have them killed while they were having a particular subjective experience if possible. Attempting to run and screaming for their lives will be a good start.

You just broke my irony meter!

I have a touch of sciatica at the moment, I suppose some folks would want to turn me into Soylent Green.

What? Who said anything about eating the dead handicapped. I mean jeeze, that would just turn be extremely ... Solve world hunger. Less people & More food at the same time PERFECT

Wuffy wrote:What? Who said anything about eating the dead handicapped. I mean jeeze, that would just turn be extremely ... Solve world hunger. Less people & More food at the same time PERFECT

Are you volunterring to be the next batch of long pork then?

I see the OP hasn't been here in 3 months, but I'll bite anyway. I think the answer he is looking for is that such a policy would not necessarily improve the lives the the living because they would worry that they might one day become disabled or a philosopher. Not necessarily a concious worry, just a calculation the brain does in the background that causes you to rally against such a policy, even if such revulsion is not easy to rationalise. Perhaps why certain white societies didn't have a problem with black slaves for a time?

Paging @cjoe1994 ...