GreatApe wrote:Care to define the phrase "particularly useful"?

Productive people

Care to define "important and productive people"?

People who can work, do work or are just beneficial to everyone else.

If the "important and productive people" need to improve the quality of their lives so much, then maybe they're disabled!

They don't need to, however I'm sure all want to.

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

Why do you support post-mortem charities?

--GA

They won't need to be killed if a charity supports them.

cjoe1994 wrote:

james1v wrote:

cjoe1994 wrote:
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.

But, no none knew he was going to be useful in the future. Only "Mystic Meg"! Is you Meg?

Sounds like someone wants the Aktion 4 programme up and running again. How lovely!!

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/euthanasia.htm

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

I think it's perfectly justified. If no one supports them they'll starve slowly and painfully. If they are euthanised they can die peacefully.

james1v wrote:

cjoe1994 wrote:

james1v wrote:


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.

But, no none knew he was going to be useful in the future. Only "Mystic Meg"! Is you Meg?

We are all "Mystic Megs" in that we can give a good guess at how useful someone is going to be, and Stephen Hawking did seem quite useful.

cjoe1994 wrote:

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

I think it's perfectly justified. If no one supports them they'll starve slowly and painfully. If they are euthanised they can die peacefully.

OK. So are you going to design a welfare system where citizens who can potentially work in the long term get benefits (in the hope they one day return). And those who are unable to work in the long-term get cut off?

If you get hit by a drunk driver walking home this afternoon, and you can only potentially get back to work within the next 8-10 years after extensive medical treatment. Do you think it's OK for the government to cut off any welfare you might have been able to get otherwise and kill you in the name of "humanity"?

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:If you get hit by a drunk driver walking home this afternoon, and you can only potentially get back to work within the next 8-10 years after extensive medical treatment. Do you think it's OK for the government to cut off any welfare you might have been able to get otherwise and kill you in the name of "humanity"?

It depends on the person, the job and the damage done.

cjoe1994 wrote:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:If you get hit by a drunk driver walking home this afternoon, and you can only potentially get back to work within the next 8-10 years after extensive medical treatment. Do you think it's OK for the government to cut off any welfare you might have been able to get otherwise and kill you in the name of "humanity"?

It depends on the person, the job and the damage done.

It's a 55 year old Australian man who trains paramedics for a living. They expect him to recover in about 10 years in order to continue his job. However he will be at retirement age (65) when that happens.

He is in a coma for the next 2 weeks. If he isn't going to get killed under your scheme I don't know who is.

Actually, this idea opens up a whole new range of employment opportunities: disability assessors, unproductivity detection squads... not to mention an absolute plethora of jobs to service the euthanisation industry: euthanasation equipment developers and manufacturers, administrators, support personell, counsellors, live human and human remains transport and disposal technicians, truck drivers, cleaners, organ salvagers — the list goes on.

cjoe1994 wrote: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?

It's been attempted many times, of course. But, like the elderly, disabled people are lethal when it comes to defending their rights and welfare. Sure, go ahead and see if you can succeed where a million others have failed. You think regular assassins are deadly? Just wait till they're outfitted with silent wheelchairs.

You'll soon see why it's reasonable to fear the disabled. They will get you!

:tehe:

LucidFlight wrote:Actually, this idea opens up a whole new range of employment opportunities: disability assessors, unproductivity detection squads... not to mention an absolute plethora of jobs to service the euthanisation industry: euthanasation equipment developers and manufacturers, administrators, support personell, counsellors, live human and human remains transport and disposal technicians, truck drivers, cleaners, organ salvagers — the list goes on.

Not to mention the job opportunities on the soylent green factories.

PoDtheElder wrote:Not to mention the job opportunities on the soylent green factories.

Oddly enough, I happen to be watching that very movie this very minute.

cjoe1994 wrote: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?

It's great to see that someone finally had the courage to speak out against our "compassionate" society with all of its "moral values" and "empathy." Our society's reckless policies regarding the disabled should come to an end so that those of us who can work, do work, and will clearly always be able to work can have moderately more money and stuff. Those people who need food and shelter but are unable to work for it due to severe injury, illness, etc, can just go fuck themselves; I want more stuff.

Unfortunately, I think you're being a bit soft. For instance, what about all of those orphaned toddlers and young children who live off our society's welfare system? You don't think that we productive and important people should be responsible for them do you? We weren't the ones that had them, and I don't think we should be responsible for paying for their care. They shouldn't be exempted from work due to their young age; if they have the dexterity to eat Cheerios then they have the ability to sort bolts. I want more stuff, because I work and I'm important.

this would be a wonderfully valid argument if the point of human existence was to work and generate product.

You are against the government giving benefits to people who can't work full time jobs or contribute to the workforce?

Working in welfare for 25-odd years.I often ran across dropkicks who advocated the same thing. For some strange reason,it never seemed to occur to these brilliant social engineers just how little it would take for them to join the group they so callously advocated murdering.

Could be a poe,or just a teenage boy,all ego and testosterone,with the empathy and sense of a carrot.

cjoe1994 wrote: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?

To take your OP in good faith cjoe99, and to avoid getting bogged down in discussion of morals or origins of altruism by addressing it purely in terms of self interest -

Do you think your quality of life, as a productive and important person (a construction worker, perhaps), would be improved or impaired by the knowledge that you were always one spinal injury away from involuntary euthanasia?

I like turtles.

I am fully in agreement with the OP, "stars" of reality TV should be euthanised, for the good of all.

They're the only people he could mean, surely?

cjoe1994 wrote: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?

Surprisingly hard to respond to this, so.....

...........................................................................................................................................................................................................wait what?

Like, as much as I am supportive of smaller government in regulation like seriously? Why not euthanize mentally challenged people as well? My mom has Cerebral Palsy which makes working (unless a desk job) nearly unbearable for her, guess I should break it to her that she needs to die.

Seriously? o.0

Speaking of my mother can you guys keep the Willhud9 family in your thoughts We lost our only car today due to several missed payments and well seeing as there is no effective public transportation system in our local area (unless one wants to fork the money to pay for private transportation) we are without means until my dad gets the situation settled to get around. My mom is not handling it well. Thanks guys