Embracing Genocide

[anathematized_one]

In evolution, for all animals, for all time, the weak have died out. Nobody would breed with them, nobody would help them, and they'd even be killed. This has made the strongest animals survive for centuries.

Humans used to be like this, but now we embrace and coddle the weak and feeble. I believe this is bringing our society down as a whole.

Just imagine how much harder people would work, how much harder they'd try, if they knew they would be killed for not living up to certain standards!

And let's not forget about the population cap problem - this would surely help that in part.

Of course, with everyone trying harder, some are still not going to make it. So much energy and time would be saved not having to support those substandard individuals that could be poured into other, more useful things.

What does everyone else think? I'm not suggesting genocide by my standards, but standards voted on by everyone - if we committed genocide by my standards, there'd be maybe 1,000 people left in the world (not including nonindustrial countries like Africa)

 

[BloodSword]

Well, how can I be nice about this? That is completely moronic. I assume your not one of the weak and useless, for if you were regarded as such, you wouldn't have posted that statement. People who think like you should be loaded into a Port-A-John and blown up with a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. How's that for genocide? Maybe some weak individual could find the strength to pull the trigger on you. It's a "bootstrap proposition" dumbass. We all need to pull ourselves up. Weak and strong. And maybe by doing that the weak will become strong.

 

[Bulldozer]

anathematized_one has a point actually, we would probably not survive in this amount if we didn't make medicine and tools to make our lives more simple.

BUT, on the other hand, you're taking it too far. it's impossible for a specie to get this kind of intelligence like we got, and NOT try to cure diseases and help each other to survive, even though we might not survive "in the wild". if this is something the human race will benefit from... i have no answer to that, but i just can't see it happening in any other way. we have this moral sense of what is right and wrong. and if what we are doing is wrong, if it's not something good for us humans, then we will suffer and become extinguished anyway.

and it's not what one person thinks is "weak" and "strong" that matters, it's natures choice. just because you're intelligent doesn't mean you automatically would become the "survival of the fittest". it's the species that adapts the best to the environment and is capable of reproducing this quality at the same time.

 

[anathematized_one]

You guys are looking in this too critically.

I'm not saying commit genocide on everyone who gets a fucking cold. I'm talking about bums, white-trash, meth-heads, etc..

People who don't try in school, people who just don't give a fuck at all, etc..

This is also why I proposed VOTED and AGREED UPON standards as opposed to mine. That'll be "fair."

And yes, the weak should be given a chance to improve.

And when I say weak, I don't necessarily mean physically, or what have you, but overall - kind of like trailer trash.

 

[Bulldozer]

that's not what i said either.

i was talking about people with deadly diseases that we now can cure. it's "against natures choice" or is it?

and if you read the last part of my post, just because you live in a fancy house, and you are a well educated person wouldn't automatically make you "natures choice" to survive.

if a, what you call, white-trash-person is more adaptable to the environment, and also reproduces stronger/healthier offspring (preferrable from several fathers/mothers), chances are that he or she is more "fit" to survive than you and me.

 

[anathematized_one]

Might I also add (before this gets out of hand), that if you disagree, that's fine, but give logical reasons and be civil about it, instead of using ad hominem tactics and petty name-calling.

 

[anathematized_one]

that's not what i said either.

i was talking about people with deadly diseases that we now can cure. it's "against natures choice" or is it?

and if you read the last part of my post, just because you live in a fancy house, and you are a well educated person wouldn't automatically make you "natures choice" to survive.

if a, what you call, white-trash-person is more adaptable to the environment, and also reproduces stronger offspring (preferrable from several fathers/mothers), chances are that he or she is more "fit" to survive than you are.

What I was basically getting at is genocide not necessarily towards those who don't add anything, but those who are a detriment to society.

This has a lot less to do with "natural selection" than what you guys are being led on to believe (I guess I should have made that point more clear in my original post).

 

[anathematized_one]

Also what I meant by white trash was more along the lines of people who rape welfare for their means of subsistence.

 

[Bulldozer]

i brought natures selection up since you talked about evolution and the stronger always survives. i'm just saying that your or mine perception of a strong person, might not be the same in natures eyes.

and i'm kind of curious, IF we decide that we need to kill a bunch of people that does nothing to our society, on what conditions do we make that desicion? do we decide this in grades in school? or salary? IQ-test? or those in prison? the convicted? how do we do this without killing someone that is actually to societys benefit? how do we know that the people voting makes the decision that the human race would benefit most from?

and how do WE know that we benefit more from making our own "natures selection" and not go with the ones already given by nature? if "survival of the fittest" worked before, why change a winning concept?

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not saying commit genocide on everyone who gets a fucking cold. I'm talking about bums, white-trash, meth-heads, etc..

People who don't try in school, people who just don't give a fuck at all, etc..

But there are reasons people gravitate towards these addictions or flaws. What if a school district in the inner city has no funds to properly educate their students? Is it then the students' fault that they're incompetent? What if the economy of a nation is in shambles and unemployment shoots through the roof? Can we blame the unemployed who actively seek jobs but are unlucky? What if a white trash family has seven kids that probably won't achieve great things in their life? Can we blame the children for being born into such a house?

I don't believe we have the right to judge human life as valuable or invaluable. I believe in individual freedom. Genocide can be argued either way. It can be seen as a gross infraction against individuality, or it can be seen as a certain few exacting their own supreme individuality. However, I find it very difficult to justify the extermination of thousands based purely on what the more fortunate determine to be in their best interest.

Lastly, when observed from a logical standpoint, genocide is the last option we would want to consider. The system of perpetual extermination that you suggest will end only in disaster.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

It is very simple: the markets decide. If one is incapable or unwilling to support one's self, then one simply starves to death or dies of hypothermia or something of that nature.

Of course, welfare (including 'famine relief')by its nature attempts to halt this by distributing from those who can and are willing to work. If there is a food shortage or famine, the price of food just goes up and the ones smart enough to have saved and the ones who can afford to eat will, the rest will get culled, and the population will have adjusted to carrying capacity vis-a-vis the crop yields. It will happen anyway, the productive elements of society will thus be spared in a laissez-faire manner.

 

[razoredge]

So interesting for me. A few years back I wrote a little thing called "The men that could" but damn if I didnt write it down. It had to do with the physically inept that could not chase and kill the buffalo and deer or wolly mammoth... whatever. These were called "the men that couldnt". This inept ability made them outside the basic group and they looked bad. So they decided to create laws and rules and organize so they could claim the credit for all the prizes that were actually performed by the men that could. This is how we came to have morons running the world, greed, taking credit for what they did not actually do... you know, the champaine bottle breakers and ribbon cutters.

So anyhow that is what I think of your opinion about those that "do not try" in school. I never tried, I hated it and it was an insult to my intelligence. I had a different calling and that was to perform the tasks at hand... to be one of the men that could

So I have been wishing hard for a highly selective virus that only attacks white collar jack offs that think their education gave them the only brains around. When it reality it simply made them great qouters of all the writings of the other men that couldnt.

The best thing that could happen is if the men that could just stopped doing for the men that couldnt but alas look at how well they developed the world to HAVE to dance to the pull of their strings.
-----------------------------------

I would never support genocide. I am more rational, but my ideas are still too radical for the ball asses of the world.

I would impose a one child only standard. Which would be complied with because any woman walking into a hospitol to have a baby would have a hysterectomy immeadily after recovery. Regardless their race, income level or any other trivial matter. Men would be rounded up and if they had a child anywhere they would have their balls snipped.

Prisoners would be executed, murderers, rapists, larcenists with long running records, drug dealers... you want deterrent... you got it.

First time offenders of the little crimes would do their time in hard labor camps, treated humanly, they would learn how to work, how to earn a days pay (recieve none, room, board and meals is it pal) learn skills and they would apply them after release... or they could meet the former prisoners from catagory 1

Any white collar criminals... and boy would we have laws, no more loop holes you scanky motherfuckers. They would be executed. Their actions are against large populations not just one victim, right straight in the catagory with the murderers, baa bye!

Welfare would have to work for that money, they would provide labor for our municipalities. I realize this is sort of what current municipality workers are the equivelent of but when I say work, I mean work... crack the whip.

Now this brings me to those born with deficiencies. I am a compassionate person and we are a compassionate breed. There is nothing we can do there... after the fact. However we have mandatory testing of the fetus and make sure everything is looking good. Now, knowing a couple or individuals only get one shot at this in the first place... people are going to have to make judgment calls. I'll say no more.

Disabled - nothing we can do there either, they have already made it though my initial "crack down" lol and well... shit happens and with the less saturated population in most cases it will be no problem for them to find a slot in the productive world, doing the best they can.

Bottom line, curb the population, put up some serious deterrents, problem solved!

{gee I wonder if this proposition will get the arms just a flailin' :Smokin: }

 

[razoredge]

But there are reasons people gravitate towards these addictions or flaws. What if a school district in the inner city has no funds to properly educate their students? Is it then the students' fault that they're incompetent? What if the economy of a nation is in shambles and unemployment shoots through the roof? Can we blame the unemployed who actively seek jobs but are unlucky? What if a white trash family has seven kids that probably won't achieve great things in their life? Can we blame the children for being born into such a house?

I don't believe we have the right to judge human life as valuable or invaluable. I believe in individual freedom. Genocide can be argued either way. It can be seen as a gross infraction against individuality, or it can be seen as a certain few exacting their own supreme individuality. However, I find it very difficult to justify the extermination of thousands based purely on what the more fortunate determine to be in their best interest.

Lastly, when observed from a logical standpoint, genocide is the last option we would want to consider. The system of perpetual extermination that you suggest will end only in disaster.

^ this to genocide

 

[razoredge]

It is very simple: the markets decide. If one is incapable or unwilling to support one's self, then one simply starves to death or dies of hypothermia or something of that nature.

Of course, welfare (including 'famine relief')by its nature attempts to halt this by distributing from those who can and are willing to work. If there is a food shortage or famine, the price of food just goes up and the ones smart enough to have saved and the ones who can afford to eat will, the rest will get culled, and the population will have adjusted to carrying capacity vis-a-vis the crop yields. It will happen anyway, the productive elements of society will thus be spared in a laissez-faire manner.

this is what would lead to the men that couldnt being the only ones left

 

[Vimana]

While we do waste money supporting people the thing is that the "weak" do not corrupt the "strong". Intelligent people tend to reproduce with intelligent people. More desirable people tend to reproduce with more desirable people.

 

[Blowtus]

anathematized - Can you explain why you think it would be better for the human species / culture to be 'strong'?

 

[Carey]

Answer me what were the reasons for acts of genocide in Kosovo, Jugoslavia, South Osetia, provoked by fucking u.s.?
After that I can answer you any issue on genocide.

 

[razoredge]

Answer me what were the reasons for acts of genocide in Kosovo, Jugoslavia, South Osetia, provoked by fucking u.s.?
After that I can answer you any issue on genocide.

we didnt like em and felt Hitlers death camps were too much like work

what do I win ?

 

[NinjaGeek]

The idea that society being "improved" will actually do anything at all for people is a simple-minded one that far too many hold.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

i've also thought of this, but going through countries and killing those that are not "up to par" would of course cause tons of controversy and most likely, war.

the only way that we could actually do something about population is to make a 1-2 child limit and cut down on funding to countries in poverty which, i would have no problem with