 |
| |
|
|
Dis
|
 |
Las Vegas, Nevada
Feb 2000
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 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. |
did you read the thread? no where does it discuss removing people from society. What kind of cold hearted people do you think we are.
Half the thread posts deal with the word irregardless.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
well, dissident, uber saying "we save far too many people," was enough. Not saving them when you can is really not too much different than just removing them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Smiley:
Then again you also have genes that skip a generation (I forget the term) and also just out-of-the-blue mutations. So you couldn't completely eliminate it that way.
(But what do I know? I'm no doctor or geneticist.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
D'oh! Or, Smiley, you have that it's not passed down by genetics (thanks Diss).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:33
|
|
Why do so many have allergies and asthma these days. Back when I was a young-un, way back in the 60s, I knew one kid who had asthma. Now it seems like half the kids get it.
Pollution. Modified foods. Chemical flavour enhancers. Are we creating a world that we're allergic to?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JellyBean
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by  Smiley
A tech fix to genetic defects will solve most of the problem, who after all is gonna want their kids to have defects? |
Surprisingly, some deaf people were surveyed and found to be unwilling to select gametes so that their children were not deaf, even if it were possible. The motivation, apparently, was that they would then stay within their parents' rather segregated deaf community.
I can't find the original article (from about four years ago), but here's a similar sentiment :
quote:
We will oppose any uses of genetic technologies that seek to eliminate deafness from society however unrealistic that goal. |
I've heard speculation that the increasing prevalence of immune disorders (asthma, allergies, etc) may be due to decreased exposure to allergens in the environment. Basically, we're not being exposed to as many different bacteria as our ancestors, so our immune systems have less to do and start attacking other things (like pollen grains or peanuts).
Finally, a hypothetical question for those who believe that human life must be preserved at any cost:
If there were one person in the world with such a bizarre range of life-threatening illnesses that it took the dedicated effort of the rest of humanity to keep them alive and functioning, should it be done? No rest, no free time, just every single moment growing the crops that feed the researchers who desperately develop new antibiotics to keep up with one of their patient's menagerie of chronic infections.
Personally, my test is this: if the effort required to keep them functional is greater than the amount of effort they would then have to give back to society, it's not worth it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JellyBean
Personally, my test is this: if the effort required to keep them functional is greater than the amount of effort they would then have to give back to society, it's not worth it. |
So do you just euthanize all the elderly?? It would seem to be the logical extension if you only put the amount of effort into people that you expect to get back. That would be a scary society
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I Am Jeff
|
|
New Jersey
Feb 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
I have a unique insight to what is wrong with this kid, I too have a nut/peanut allergy along with asthma. Not to mention a few other problems that have made life a bit more difficult but have made me a better person (considerably imo). (I wrote a lot, skip to last paragraph if you feel like it)
First off I think the parents/doctor are being a little extreme about the nut allergy thing. There is no need for a nurse with needle ready incase he feels the need. Simple solution is ban food from class rooms and only have it in lunch rooms. Then the kid should have an epipen, which is a needle that will inject itself and can be carried around with you. If he feels or knows he ate a nut he could open this up, have it inject and then get help to go to the hospital. BOTH sides are being unreasonable. And it is ridiculus to say that it could take 30 minutes the get the meds, he could carry them around on his person.
Also for an allergic reaction to occur (in my experience) it needs to get into the body. Good places for this are the mouth, nose, eyes, etc. Touching it on your skin does not cause a reaction. Again in my experience.
For example the last time I had an allergic reaction (back in 88 or 89), I was in preschool and we were preparing for passover. I had the job of moving nuts from one bowl to another (why they gave me this job is beyond me they knew my allergy). I did it and I was fine, about 10 minutes later I reacted. Why you may ask? I rubbed my eyes and it was clear because that is the area that was swollen. There is nothing that frequent washing of hands can not cure.
Personally I had it worse (at least medicaly) then this kid and I was able to attend school almost on a normal basis.
I think his mother and doctors made him paranoid about everything and I think it is all overblown. Trust me it sucks how almost all candy/cookies "May contain traces of peanuts". Look it is there. But I eat them anyway and I decide to take the risks because I feel the risks are worth taking in order to live an good life. And Like I said it has been almost 16 years since my last nut reaction, AND I TAKE ALL OF THESE RISKS. All it takes is a little bit of smarts and common sense to figure out what is most likely "safe" and what is probaly dangerous. Shame on the school, the parents, and doctors. (unless this kid has some strange condition not mentioned)
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-02-2004 02:49
Geeez, you're a mean one, Mr. Grinch. 
they can still have sex
|