by TWilliam » Wed 04 Mar 2009, 19:22:42
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'N')o,TWilliam, I find your manner of communicating to be very confusing. You seemed to be advocating the "culling" of people including criminals. My mistake.
I am NOT giving a false appearance of simple frankness, I am trying to figure out what you are REALLY trying to say.
It looks to me like you are advocating killing people.
You say you are not. So I was in error.
You SEEM to be calling members of my family "parasites" and advocating they be "culled."
Is this or is this not true? You think the disabled should be euthanised?
I am not
advocating anything, Ludi. I am acknowledging
what will be. And I'm not trying to
say anything; I'm ASKING, and what I'm asking are these questions: dieoff WILL be occurring in the not-to-distant future. Whether by human action, or by human INaction, it WILL occur.
Given that this is an unavoidable
fact, which is preferable? Death at the hands of brutal Nature (meaning in this case the inevitable outcome of unchecked population growth, i.e. the 'collapse of civilization'), or death at the hands of a caring, compassionate human being?
Suppose everything and everyone you rely on to maintain your existence and that of your family were gone tomorrow Ludi? Are you able to maintain it yourself? Are they? Which of the above options would you prefer? Which do you suppose they would prefer?
What about your children (if you have any)? What if your insistence on being supported in your disability meant they were certainly doomed to an early death, without even the opportunity to have children of their own? What if your graceful and willing surrender to Thanatos meant that they might at least have a chance? What choice then, Ludi?
What choice on a global scale? We're not going to save everyone. It's simply not possible, and it is pointless to presume otherwise. So then again: what choice? Stubbornly insist that we MUST save
everyone, or worse yet, simply ignore the issue because it happens to make us uncomfortable, thereby likely condemning
all to pain, misery and death? To species extinction? Or do we do the sensible thing and try to devise some way to
intelligently and humanely reduce our numbers? And if so, why is it not reasonable to make some kind of attempt to maximize our long-term survival through a
selective, rather than a
random reduction?
What criteria then for selecting? I've still yet to hear anyone offer better ones than those I've proposed, or offer a non-moralistic,
pragmatic reason why those particular criteria are inappropriate. Remember now, we're talking a choice that WILL be made. The option not to choose does not exist.
[Addendum: Oh and incidentally I thought I was clear on this point up-thread, but just in case I wasn't, I'll make it so now. I do not consider congenitally disabled people as 'parasites'.
Nature considers them
genetically non-viable, and I simply support honoring Nature's judgment
at the occasion of birth.]
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "