I have nothing against disabled people, but if someone can't work and has no one to work for them, why is their life so important? How is it fair that money is wasted on people who aren't particularly useful for much at all when money could easily be spent to save productive and important people and improve their quality of life?

Why not just humanely kill/"murder" them?

!	GENERAL MODNOTE The reports for this post have been dealt with. Darkchide.

Kill em' all!

Is this a poe? I can't tell; I'm having a hard time taking the OP seriously...

Kill those uneducated people as well. Fucking useless cunts.

And don't get me started on stay at home mum's!

Ihavenofingerprints wrote::rofl:

Kill em' all!

No, just those that aren't supporting themselves or have nobody willing to support them.

We should probably kill off the chronically unemployed as well — oh, and lazy sods... and philosophers. Unfortunately, though, it would appear that modern forms of society come with the burden of its people having a conscience, which in turn requires them to exhibit some degree of compassion. Sucks, huh?

Oh.. and the homeless. They should probably die - I mean, uh... be euthanised - as well.

cjoe1994 wrote:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote::rofl:

Kill em' all!

No, just those that aren't supporting themselves or have nobody willing to support them.

Do you actually know anyone who has no-one willing to support them? If they didn't have anyone supporting them, they'd die pretty quickly anyway (because they can't help themselves). This whole argument refutes itself.

LucidFlight wrote:We should probably kill off the chronically unemployed as well — oh, and lazy sods... and philosophers.

What is wrong with that? And philosophy is hardly a job so that should be put under the chronically unemployed and lazy people.

Unfortunately, though, it would appear that modern forms of society come with the burden of its people having a conscience, which in turn requires them to exhibit some degree of compassion. Sucks, huh?

If they felt compassion they would stop wasting money on people who are unproductive and start spending it on people who can work and prosper.

Oh.. and the homeless. They should probably die - I mean, uh... be euthanised - as well.

No, homeless people might have potential so should be assessed.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:

cjoe1994 wrote:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote::rofl:

Kill em' all!

No, just those that aren't supporting themselves or have nobody willing to support them.

Do you actually know anyone who has no-one willing to support them? If they didn't have anyone supporting them, they'd die pretty quickly anyway (because they can't help themselves). This whole argument refutes itself.

If people are truly willing to support them there can be charities for them.

Stephen William Hawking, CH,CBE,FRS,FRSA. Useless?

james1v wrote:Stephen William Hawking, CH,CBE,FRS,FRSA. Useless?

He has a job though and IS useful. He also pays to support himself.

james1v wrote:Stephen William Hawking, CH,CBE,FRS,FRSA. Useless?

Nah. He's a working celebrity. And, he writes books. Hmm... I guess philosophers might write books, too. Well, we'd have to evaluate philosophers based on their literary prowess and practical contributions to society.

cjoe1994 wrote:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:

cjoe1994 wrote:
No, just those that aren't supporting themselves or have nobody willing to support them.

Do you actually know anyone who has no-one willing to support them? If they didn't have anyone supporting them, they'd die pretty quickly anyway (because they can't help themselves). This whole argument refutes itself.

If people are truly willing to support them there can be charities for them.

THERE ARE CHARITIES FOR THEM.

IF someone can't support them-self, and they don't have anyone willing to support them. THEY WOULD DIE ANYWAY!

Why kill anyone? This is getting ridiculous.

cjoe1994 wrote:

james1v wrote:Stephen William Hawking, CH,CBE,FRS,FRSA. Useless?

He has a job though and IS useful. He also pays to support himself.

But,but...Shouldnt he have been killed, the moment he became "disabled", whatever that means?

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:THERE ARE CHARITIES FOR THEM.

IF someone can't support them-self, and they don't have anyone willing to support them. THEY WOULD DIE ANYWAY!

Why kill anyone? This is getting ridiculous.

They are supported by the state through taxes, not by charities.

Okay ... I'll play along.

cjoe wrote: How is it fair that money is wasted on people who aren't particularly useful for much at all when money could easily be spent to save productive and important people and improve their quality of life?

Care to define the word "fair" as you see it?

Care to define the word "wasted" as you see it?

Care to define the phrase "particularly useful"?

Care to define "important and productive people"?

If the "important and productive people" need to improve the quality of their lives so much, then maybe they're disabled! Maybe they're NOT so important OR productive. If they're unimportant and haven't produced for a week, can we euthanise them too?

cjoe wrote:

No, just those that aren't supporting themselves or have nobody willing to support them.

Care to define a time limit on not supporting themselves? Are they out of work for a week, a month, a year? How long is too long before you start murdering them?

cjoe wrote: If people are truly willing to support them there can be charities for them.

Not if you've already killed them there can't.

Why do you support post-mortem charities?

--GA

james1v wrote:

cjoe1994 wrote:

james1v wrote:Stephen William Hawking, CH,CBE,FRS,FRSA. Useless?

He has a job though and IS useful. He also pays to support himself.

But,but...Shouldnt he have been killed, the moment he became "disabled", whatever that means?

No, because he was already a useful scientist before his disability.

Man, still can't tell if the OP is serious or not. Someone help me out here?

cjoe1994 wrote:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:THERE ARE CHARITIES FOR THEM.

IF someone can't support them-self, and they don't have anyone willing to support them. THEY WOULD DIE ANYWAY!

Why kill anyone? This is getting ridiculous.

They are supported by the state through taxes, not by charities.

OK, now we are getting to the bottom of this.

You are against the government giving benefits to people who can't work full time jobs or contribute to the workforce? And think that we should just kill them instead? I'm sure you'll hold the same views the day you get hit by a drunk driver and need 5 years of expensive medical treatment to have a small possibility of returning to the workforce.

Anyway...Why not just cut the tax benefits and let disabled find support elsewhere? Killing people doesn't seem to be justified here.

MoonLit wrote: Man, still can't tell if the OP is serious or not. Someone help me out here?

MoonLit, here's my advice (for what it's worth): "Expect the worst and hope for the best!"

--GA