 |
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by DaShi
A lot of products now have the label, "May contain peanuts." |
Ya -- big help there since they stick that on pretty much everything they make. Its usually just to cover their own behinds and has nothing to do with any assessment of whether the product actually does have peanuts.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:33
|
|
"Are some people too weak to live?"
of course but murder is illegal.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Inverse Icarus
|
 |
flying too low to the ground
May 2001 time: 00:33
|
|
to the thread title: yes.
evolution has done a bang up job of weeding out the weak and letting the strong survive, "sirvival of the fittest" and all that garb. humanity and human compassion seem to work conversely to that end, and we end up saving our weak, the ones who would die off if society had not coddled them.
it's going to sound horrible when i say this, but we save far too many people, and make far too many accomodations for those two weak to survive on their own. i must admit that there is a line, however. for example, physically handicapped people that are at full mental capacity. in my eyes, yes they should be saved. there are various people that i personally balieve should not be saved, but i will not mention specifics because i do not wish to offend anyone here who knows / is related to anyone i would mention.
i find it hillarious when people use the phrase "who are you to play god?!" in movies and such, because we do it every day. why is it that we only use that phrase when someone's doing something contraversial to certain groups? for example, every medicine you can think of, especially those that save lives, are us playing god. in the wild, those people would have died, and that would be that. we made a magic pill, and we defy nature, and play god. but when someone wants to clone a sheep, "WHO ARE YOU TO PLAY GOD?".
i'm getting waaaay off topic, so i'll stop there.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001 time: 23:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Azazel
erm, without fire, tools, and writing, we'd number around a million worldwide. hey, that means that the acceptable human population is one million.  | I'd say acceptable human population is about a billion... even without technology, early human populations numbered around 200 million
quote:
We must colonize space. | sure... you know what will happen, however, our bodies will adapt to the new environments... people growing up on places like Mars, where gravity is less, will have significantly less muscle and cardiovascular developed, and would not be suited to visit places like Earth.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote: But why could this person not sue to have peanuts banned throughout the U.S.? It endangers his life. |
Cars endanger my life.
Large swarms of bees endanger my life too.
As do large holes, and explosives.
Are these things all banned?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Everyone who actually agrees some people are "too weak to live" disgust me.
First off, consider that it's human life. Human life--no matter what kind--has a value to it. Just taking out the parts you don't like is inhuman; it's still murder. This thread disturbs me, so I'll go ahead and Godwinize it by reminding you how the Nazis had the whole "lives not worth living" thing.
Secondly, "weakness" is only as weak as society defines it. Today, being a vegetable is weak. 200 years in the future, who knows what could be weak? Be careful with what you're doing.
Thirdly, "weak"--disabled mentally or physically--people teach us things. They teach us that it's alright not to be perfect, or even that it's alright to be much less than normal. Amongst themselves there are exceptional exceptions that show us how incredible perserverance or hard work can make up for nature giving them a shitty go, and they can still be prosperous citizens.
And, think about this for a minute. If you remove the "weak" people, there's still going to be a class that's weaker than the others. It will only be natural for society to adjust so that the line for "weak" moves up that much higher, and then you've got a whole 'nother class of citizens that are probably quite normal by today's standards but after the first cleansing just the bottom layer of the world.
Finally, would you like it if everyone was perfect? What would be the point?
---
Not sure how much I leaned off the main topic. But the "I don't think some people are too weak to live, but I do think that some people are too weak to live" people started me off.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote: why is that good? people suck... more of them = bad |
Sava, go play in traffic.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33. Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|