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?

Because people aren't just productive cogs in society.
Because modern governments are democratic and don't have the right to murder people.
Because disabled people can and do still give benefit to society.
Because their lives are important to their families.
Because mere pennies from your tax (when you start paying it) go towards maintaining basic living conditions for people who were just unfortunate from genetics or accident.
Because we're humanitarian.

Because you could have an accident tomorrow and become disabled for the rest of your life.

And you'd immediately see that you don't value your life by placing a figure on your productivity for society.

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?

I think the original question was meant as a Poe or morality baiting, but poe or not I think it is a valid question with a very good answer.

Because as a society we have chosen to value the life of the individual as the individual values their own life. I think that you honestly would not want to live in a society that did not.

The Final Solution started after a mother from Bavaria asked the Fuhrer for the right to have her disabled son, an affront to the Aryan nation, put down. Hitler was said to be so touched by her offer of sacrifice that he agreed to her request & her son was euthanised.

I know it's Godwin's Law, but the OP's suggestion smacks off Nazism. cjoe1994 should be fucking ashamed of himself.

Merge with the North Korea threads.

chairman bill wrote:The Final Solution started after a mother from Bavaria asked the Fuhrer for the right to have her disabled son, an affront to the Aryan nation, put down. Hitler was said to be so touched by her offer of sacrifice that he agreed to her request & her son was euthanised.

I know it's Godwin's Law, but the OP's suggestion smacks off Nazism. cjoe1994 should be fucking ashamed of himself.

I assumed he's just young and asking naive questions rather than actually invested in the idea.

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?

I've seen some dumb questions asked in this forum, but this one absolutely takes the cake.

Spearthrower wrote:

chairman bill wrote:The Final Solution started after a mother from Bavaria asked the Fuhrer for the right to have her disabled son, an affront to the Aryan nation, put down. Hitler was said to be so touched by her offer of sacrifice that he agreed to her request & her son was euthanised.

I know it's Godwin's Law, but the OP's suggestion smacks off Nazism. cjoe1994 should be fucking ashamed of himself.

I assumed he's just young and asking naive questions rather than actually invested in the idea.

How naive can you get? A three year old could figure this out.

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.

... without a shred of horror at the injustice of it all, I suppose, and never going to see or touch your loved ones again.

Your propositioin is entirely and utterly inhuman, but we are humans here, and everywhere, and we don't resonate with inhumane acts. In fact, we think they're despicable.

And if you can't figure out why ... then perhaps we should start a program of euthenasia for those who don't get it and can't or refuse figure it out, eh? Cleanse the Earth of all human looking but inhuman primates who may be wandering around. We sure as hell don't need 'em.

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

EXACTLY!

There's nothing to see here ... I'm going back to the eating babies thread. At least there's something Swiftian in it.

I wonder if the OP's parents know he's using their computer again? 17 and posting about euthanasia. How about you live, get a job, work and be a bit productive yourself first, eh?

I have a suggestion: let's euthanise anyone under 18 ... they're not useful OR productive. The joy of it is that once you beat them about the head a bit and they become a bit disabled, then you're perfectly justified in liquidating them.

(P.S. MoonLit was right. And I stand corrected ... this seems to be a poe and there's nothing new here).

(P.S.S. I hope this thread starves slowly and painfully)!

--GA

I can't work euthanized either. Why aren't they what?

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

chairman bill wrote:The Final Solution started after a mother from Bavaria asked the Fuhrer for the right to have her disabled son, an affront to the Aryan nation, put down. Hitler was said to be so touched by her offer of sacrifice that he agreed to her request & her son was euthanised.

I know it's Godwin's Law, but the OP's suggestion smacks off Nazism. cjoe1994 should be fucking ashamed of himself.

I assumed he's just young and asking naive questions rather than actually invested in the idea.

How naive can you get? A three year old could figure this out.

I applied Hanlon's razor.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Coming from a family with a seriously disabled mother myself, and having lived in a disabled community (which incidentally hosts a huge proportion of Olympic athletes) my initial reaction would be disgust as well. Were the OP to be policy, my little brother would never have existed because my mother would have been deemed 'superfluous to society's needs'. Fortunately, we live in a more enlightened age within a humane society.... but we can still ask why this is, and give solid reasons without resorting to waving the guy's question away. It may well turn out to be some kind of perverse trolling, but the benefit of the doubt actually helps expand the topic.

I'm going to wait to see his response to my challenge: because it could happen to you / your loved ones. Let's see if that pierces the veil.

I wonder who the fuck pays cjoe's bills.

It's all those friggin' over-30 geriatrics that are the real drain on society. "Renew" them all!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WUUnc1M0TA[/youtube]

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.

You know, someone with the only prospect of dying slowly and painfully might be inclined to try and not go peacefully. And since there would be quite a few of them, they could actually do a lot of damage. I wouldn't want to be around.

If framed as an exercise in objectivism the OP might have some point.

Although even then it doesn't take much thought to answer it.

People's existence is not there to sustain labour / the economy.
Labour / the economy is there to sustain people's existence.

We put a lot of effort into creating machines and computers so that we can achieve more productivity with fewer human labour. So why should it be a bad thing when we can sustain humans that do not directly participate in labour?

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?

Is one's "importance" always and only ever a function of their capacity to work, their capacity to earn money?

Infant children cannot earn their keep - should they be euthanasia too?
Well that would be silly as there would be no-one to grow up to be a productive and important' person. Perhaps then we need to strangle disabled children at birth, but this does not address those who move from the 'important' category to the 'unimportant' category later in life - either through some illness or accident.

How are we to judge these people's relative importance? Who will draw up the criteria and head the panel?

And what do we do about the unproductive non-disabled members of society? Shouldn't we really be looking to euthanise all those who are unable to work regardless of their physical and/or mental capacity?

THWOTH wrote:How are we to judge these people's relative importance? Who will draw up the criteria and head the panel?

Why, human value experts, of course.

THWOTH wrote:And what do we do about the unproductive non-disabled members of society? Shouldn't we really be looking to euthanise all those who are unable to work regardless of their physical and/or mental capacity?

Yep. You know what they say: no ability to work, no right necessity to live.

THWOTH wrote:
Who will draw up the criteria and head the panel?

Hmm....I see a new role for myself...

A new career for 2012....

For a start, all those under 6ft tall to be considered 'disabled and surplus to requirements' on grounds they cannot reach top shelves in supermarkets.
All those unable to sufficiently appreciate my good looks to be considered 'disabled, irredeemably flawed' and 'surplus to requirements'.

Wonder if the OP can grow his own food??
- farmers perspective -he's a useless sod - turn him into fertilizer.... just sayin'