Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
Resident_Hazard
Possessed by Starscream's Ghost

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:33 pm
Posts: 2678
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:38 am 
 

I approve of euthanasia, mass killings, execution, assassination, and genocide.


One could say, I'm in favor of killing in general. But after the exhaustive conversation I had about executions on the GameInformer forum (before that derailed thread mysteriously disappeared), I don't feel like adding too much here.


However, for those curious, I'm in favor of killing as a way of thinning the vastly over-populated human race, clearing out criminals and "genetic mishaps" of sorts. Essentially, anyone not contributing to the scientific and intellectual advancement of the human race. They should be wiped out. That's, um, essentially how I feel on the subject.
_________________
Game dev company I co-founded: From Nothing Game Studios

Top
 Profile  
Woolie_Wool
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:56 pm
Posts: 1676
Location: Far beyond the prophecy of tyrant guardians
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:54 am 
 

Resident_Hazard wrote:
I approve of euthanasia, mass killings, execution, assassination, and genocide.


One could say, I'm in favor of killing in general. But after the exhaustive conversation I had about executions on the GameInformer forum (before that derailed thread mysteriously disappeared), I don't feel like adding too much here.


However, for those curious, I'm in favor of killing as a way of thinning the vastly over-populated human race, clearing out criminals and "genetic mishaps" of sorts. Essentially, anyone not contributing to the scientific and intellectual advancement of the human race. They should be wiped out. That's, um, essentially how I feel on the subject.


This is a hideous and warped way of viewing the world, but if it brings you any comfort, this may very well happen to much of the third world if peak oil is as bad as many people say it is (considering the low birth rate of the developed world, this could very well solve the overpopulation problem forever, but it's a cure that seems worse than the disease). Especially if some first and second world (second world is the former Eastern Bloc) nations feel a resources pinch and rape the poor nations for oil, farmland (maybe to grow oil-producing bacteria, which are already being grown in laboratories), and whatever else they can get their hands on.

Top
 Profile  
Kruel
Veteran

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:56 pm
Posts: 3426
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:59 am 
 

Woolie_Wool wrote:
Resident_Hazard wrote:
I approve of euthanasia, mass killings, execution, assassination, and genocide.


One could say, I'm in favor of killing in general. But after the exhaustive conversation I had about executions on the GameInformer forum (before that derailed thread mysteriously disappeared), I don't feel like adding too much here.


However, for those curious, I'm in favor of killing as a way of thinning the vastly over-populated human race, clearing out criminals and "genetic mishaps" of sorts. Essentially, anyone not contributing to the scientific and intellectual advancement of the human race. They should be wiped out. That's, um, essentially how I feel on the subject.


This is a hideous and warped way of viewing the world, but if it brings you any comfort, this may very well happen to much of the third world if peak oil is as bad as many people say it is (considering the low birth rate of the developed world, this could very well solve the overpopulation problem forever, but it's a cure that seems worse than the disease). Especially if some first and second world (second world is the former Eastern Bloc) nations feel a resources pinch and rape the poor nations for oil, farmland (maybe to grow oil-producing bacteria, which are already being grown in laboratories), and whatever else they can get their hands on.

I don't think it's hideous or warped, just different from most others, and "immoral."
_________________
Quote:
So, Manes > Samael?
Quote:
yeah, it's ironic, they are so pretentious, yet one can say that at least they don't pretend. They don't release some techno-rap-whatever album and say "on this record we tried to sound like in our old days"

Top
 Profile  
Woolie_Wool
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:56 pm
Posts: 1676
Location: Far beyond the prophecy of tyrant guardians
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:05 am 
 

I find the idea of slaughtering millions or billions of people nothing short of sickening. I wouldn't cringe if it was recited in thrash metal lyrics, but it's just heinous when written seriously.

Top
 Profile  
Kruel
Veteran

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:56 pm
Posts: 3426
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:10 am 
 

Woolie_Wool wrote:
I find the idea of slaughtering millions or billions of people nothing short of sickening. I wouldn't cringe if it was recited in thrash metal lyrics, but it's just heinous when written seriously.

Just because we naturally don't like death that much, and it's further strengthend by the insistence of the society.
_________________
Quote:
So, Manes > Samael?
Quote:
yeah, it's ironic, they are so pretentious, yet one can say that at least they don't pretend. They don't release some techno-rap-whatever album and say "on this record we tried to sound like in our old days"

Top
 Profile  
Resident_Hazard
Possessed by Starscream's Ghost

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:33 pm
Posts: 2678
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:13 am 
 

You people honestly don't think we should go through and cleanse the human race of it's impurities? I'm not talking about a racial holocaust where we "just go 'round burnin' up the niggers," I'm talking about wiping out the areas of the world which offer nothing positive to the whole of the human race. The Middle East deserves to be erased from existence since the area is little more than a womb for new wars. Much of Africa should be wiped out, along with many third world nations. If they aren't even going to bother trying to evolve and become civilized, better to just eradicate them altogether so the rest of humanity can move on and advance.


These places are like the slow kid in class that forces a teacher to teach at a slower pace to benefit the mentally deficient at the cost of the advancement of the rest.


You want to stop pollution, over-use of fossil fuels and rampant holy wars? Best thing to do is mass erasures of peoples. The world gets a littler harder to live in every single day, and it continues to decline. As populations continue to grow, things will just continue to get worse. Better to start over at zero and make a clean break.
_________________
Game dev company I co-founded: From Nothing Game Studios

Top
 Profile  
saintinhell
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:19 am
Posts: 1426
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 2:03 am 
 

Resident_Hazard wrote:
I'm talking about wiping out the areas of the world which offer nothing positive to the whole of the human race.


What exactly is defined as positive?? It's a very contentious subject and what is positive for you may not be for me and vice versa.

Resident_Hazard wrote:
If they aren't even going to bother trying to evolve and become civilized, better to just eradicate them altogether so the rest of humanity can move on and advance.


Again, what is the definition of evolution, of becoming civilised..getting rich, busting gazoline on Hummers, doing drugs and then going into rehab?? These questions are not so easy to answer. I don't suggest that that is the only outcome of Western civilization but it is certainly one undesirable development we have seen in the past decade or seen.


Resident_Hazard wrote:
These places are like the slow kid in class that forces a teacher to teach at a slower pace to benefit the mentally deficient at the cost of the advancement of the rest.


It is therefore up to the mentally 'proficient' kid to wait after lectures to catch up with his tutor and seek "advancement". It is not a sin to be born imbecile, because parents and teachers can only prop you up thus far, in the real world, the imbecile is easy prey anyway.


Resident_Hazard wrote:
You want to stop pollution, over-use of fossil fuels and rampant holy wars? Best thing to do is mass erasures of peoples. The world gets a littler harder to live in every single day, and it continues to decline. As populations continue to grow, things will just continue to get worse. Better to start over at zero and make a clean break.


So the third world should be denied fuel for sardine-like crowded trains and buses so that the first world can drive its Limos and Hummers?? I hope that is not what you are proposing, because what exactly is over-use of fossil fuels anyway? The third world once knew how to live their lives without gasoline, it's the West that colonised them and forced their "Way" on these countries...today, when populations are growing and economies are booming, it is a pain in the arse, I see. Not a bit surprised, only surprised that this is the first time I have come across this viewpoint in MA.


But I do not dismiss your viewpoint totally...on moral grounds, it is blasphemous, but realistically this is exactly what I foresee in the distant future. As the resource crunch gets worse, I foresee George Bush Jr's Jr or his Jr or whatever bombing out Africa in the name of "War on Tribal Terror" or what have you. And I herewith thank the British for colonising India and uniting the scattered, warring provinces into one nation. :lol: It makes it that much more difficult for any nation to just take us over like that.

Top
 Profile  
Woolie_Wool
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:56 pm
Posts: 1676
Location: Far beyond the prophecy of tyrant guardians
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 2:27 am 
 

Kruel wrote:
Woolie_Wool wrote:
I find the idea of slaughtering millions or billions of people nothing short of sickening. I wouldn't cringe if it was recited in thrash metal lyrics, but it's just heinous when written seriously.

Just because we naturally don't like death that much, and it's further strengthend by the insistence of the society.


Why is it wrong for society to tell us not to kill people? I actually, you know, attach a great deal of value to human life, because human beings, think, feel, and experience consciousness. That makes them pretty fucking special in my book.

The Middle Easterners everyone wants to kill have lives, families, hopes, dreams, love, art, culture, music (even metal, in some places), and history. You want to just wipe all that away with hydrogen bombs? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Top
 Profile  
Kruel
Veteran

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:56 pm
Posts: 3426
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 2:44 am 
 

Woolie_Wool wrote:
Kruel wrote:
Woolie_Wool wrote:
I find the idea of slaughtering millions or billions of people nothing short of sickening. I wouldn't cringe if it was recited in thrash metal lyrics, but it's just heinous when written seriously.

Just because we naturally don't like death that much, and it's further strengthend by the insistence of the society.


Why is it wrong for society to tell us not to kill people? I actually, you know, attach a great deal of value to human life, because human beings, think, feel, and experience consciousness. That makes them pretty fucking special in my book.

The Middle Easterners everyone wants to kill have lives, families, hopes, dreams, love, art, culture, music (even metal, in some places), and history. You want to just wipe all that away with hydrogen bombs? What the fuck is wrong with you?

I never said I wanted to, though I wouldn't oppose it strongly. You attaching a great deal of value to human life doesn't mean that we shouldn't kill people. Just check out the thread Beyond Good and Evil. I think this discussion is more fitting there.
_________________
Quote:
So, Manes > Samael?
Quote:
yeah, it's ironic, they are so pretentious, yet one can say that at least they don't pretend. They don't release some techno-rap-whatever album and say "on this record we tried to sound like in our old days"

Top
 Profile  
The_Count
Village Idiot

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 3:04 pm
Posts: 407
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 2:45 am 
 

Woolie_Wool wrote:
Kruel wrote:
Woolie_Wool wrote:
I find the idea of slaughtering millions or billions of people nothing short of sickening. I wouldn't cringe if it was recited in thrash metal lyrics, but it's just heinous when written seriously.

Just because we naturally don't like death that much, and it's further strengthend by the insistence of the society.


Why is it wrong for society to tell us not to kill people? I actually, you know, attach a great deal of value to human life, because human beings, think, feel, and experience consciousness. That makes them pretty fucking special in my book.

The Middle Easterners everyone wants to kill have lives, families, hopes, dreams, love, art, culture, music (even metal, in some places), and history. You want to just wipe all that away with hydrogen bombs? What the fuck is wrong with you?


And they can keep those lives,families,hopes,dreams,love,art,culture,music (even metal in some places), and history if they pass the trial by fire of the receiving end of a few thousand M16A4s as they are already having to do as I type this.

Meh but in all seriousness it really does not bother me anyway. Live or die I do not give two shits about the hadjis.
_________________
Thorgrim_Honkronte wrote:
I'd be more than welcome to take on the jihadists. If they think they are the only ones who know how to make home made bombs and use guns... well they know nothing about redneck America.

Top
 Profile  
DustyFox
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:27 pm
Posts: 136
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 3:42 am 
 

Resident_Hazard wrote:
You people honestly don't think we should go through and cleanse the human race of it's impurities? I'm not talking about a racial holocaust where we "just go 'round burnin' up the niggers," I'm talking about wiping out the areas of the world which offer nothing positive to the whole of the human race. The Middle East deserves to be erased from existence since the area is little more than a womb for new wars. Much of Africa should be wiped out, along with many third world nations. If they aren't even going to bother trying to evolve and become civilized, better to just eradicate them altogether so the rest of humanity can move on and advance.


These places are like the slow kid in class that forces a teacher to teach at a slower pace to benefit the mentally deficient at the cost of the advancement of the rest.


You want to stop pollution, over-use of fossil fuels and rampant holy wars? Best thing to do is mass erasures of peoples. The world gets a littler harder to live in every single day, and it continues to decline. As populations continue to grow, things will just continue to get worse. Better to start over at zero and make a clean break.


Such is the price one will inevitably have to pay for being part of a species that is able to populate and prosper unchecked. I've always thought that perhaps, if it were feasible, rigorously controlling the population by placing limits on births/couple (say, one birth per couple) throughout the developed world at the least would be more palatable for most. Perpetrating a systematic genocide like that is just using brute-force and very unsettling, at least for me, to think about.

Top
 Profile  
saintinhell
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:19 am
Posts: 1426
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:09 am 
 

Kruel wrote:
I never said I wanted to, though I wouldn't oppose it strongly. You attaching a great deal of value to human life doesn't mean that we shouldn't kill people. Just check out the thread Beyond Good and Evil. I think this discussion is more fitting there.


Killing a person - except when said person is attempting to take your own life and you need to stop him - is wrong...war and other such things are just contrived sanctions to justify the taking of a life. Like I said in the Beyond Good And Evil thread, once we accept that the killer has a justifiable reason for his act, we have a worldwide bloodbath on our hands. Say, for instance, I can kill you because I could not afford to buy your metal collection in dollars. :lol: Bad example, but you see that any airy-fairy reason would then be enough to kill. The world may have fought many wars over the years, but what is the proof that any of them at all are necessary...the powers-that-be propose and we the commoners get drafted and dispose...and then pave the way for the victor to get elected for sanctioning carnage. This really doesn't belong in this thread but we have digressed after Resident_Hazard posed the question as to what is essentially wrong with the act of killing.

Top
 Profile  
Kruel
Veteran

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:56 pm
Posts: 3426
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:17 am 
 

saintinhell wrote:
Kruel wrote:
I never said I wanted to, though I wouldn't oppose it strongly. You attaching a great deal of value to human life doesn't mean that we shouldn't kill people. Just check out the thread Beyond Good and Evil. I think this discussion is more fitting there.


Killing a person - except when said person is attempting to take your own life and you need to stop him - is wrong...war and other such things are just contrived sanctions to justify the taking of a life. Like I said in the Beyond Good And Evil thread, once we accept that the killer has a justifiable reason for his act, we have a worldwide bloodbath on our hands. Say, for instance, I can kill you because I could not afford to buy your metal collection in dollars. :lol: Bad example, but you see that any airy-fairy reason would then be enough to kill. The world may have fought many wars over the years, but what is the proof that any of them at all are necessary...the powers-that-be propose and we the commoners get drafted and dispose...and then pave the way for the victor to get elected for sanctioning carnage. This really doesn't belong in this thread but we have digressed after Resident_Hazard posed the question as to what is essentially wrong with the act of killing.

I certainly agree that if we can just kill anyone, then the world will turn into chaos. But what I'm saying is that, killing isn't "essentailly" wrong. We don't like it because it harms us, at least in general, and that killing is not wrong in the absolute sense, like "it's wrong because God told us not to kill," or "it's wrong because it's immoral."
_________________
Quote:
So, Manes > Samael?
Quote:
yeah, it's ironic, they are so pretentious, yet one can say that at least they don't pretend. They don't release some techno-rap-whatever album and say "on this record we tried to sound like in our old days"

Top
 Profile  
saintinhell
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:19 am
Posts: 1426
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:22 am 
 

Kruel wrote:
I certainly agree that if we can just kill anyone, then the world will turn into chaos. But what I'm saying is that, killing isn't "essentailly" wrong. We don't like it because it harms us, at least in general, and that killing is not wrong in the absolute sense, like "it's wrong because God told us not to kill," or "it's wrong because it's immoral."


Yes, that I would agree with...I too feel that killing deserves capital punishment solely to keep us civilized. Killing by itself isn't wrong...we "kill" plants and animals for food anyway and animals kill each other for food or rather carnivores kill herbivores. So it depends on the context. A more appropriate way of putting it is "Killing is not essentially wrong, murder is," There, that's fixed.

Top
 Profile  
Kruel
Veteran

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:56 pm
Posts: 3426
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:40 am 
 

saintinhell wrote:
Kruel wrote:
I certainly agree that if we can just kill anyone, then the world will turn into chaos. But what I'm saying is that, killing isn't "essentailly" wrong. We don't like it because it harms us, at least in general, and that killing is not wrong in the absolute sense, like "it's wrong because God told us not to kill," or "it's wrong because it's immoral."


Yes, that I would agree with...I too feel that killing deserves capital punishment solely to keep us civilized. Killing by itself isn't wrong...we "kill" plants and animals for food anyway and animals kill each other for food or rather carnivores kill herbivores. So it depends on the context. A more appropriate way of putting it is "Killing is not essentially wrong, murder is," There, that's fixed.

Actually, I was saying that even murder, rape, nuclear holocaust, artificially induced asteroidal crash or whatever are not wrong per se. Simply put : nothing is good, nothing is evil, in the absolute sense. We just decide things based on what is beneficial to us or what our genes tell us to do.
_________________
Quote:
So, Manes > Samael?
Quote:
yeah, it's ironic, they are so pretentious, yet one can say that at least they don't pretend. They don't release some techno-rap-whatever album and say "on this record we tried to sound like in our old days"

Top
 Profile  
saintinhell
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:19 am
Posts: 1426
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:50 am 
 

Kruel wrote:
saintinhell wrote:
Kruel wrote:
I certainly agree that if we can just kill anyone, then the world will turn into chaos. But what I'm saying is that, killing isn't "essentailly" wrong. We don't like it because it harms us, at least in general, and that killing is not wrong in the absolute sense, like "it's wrong because God told us not to kill," or "it's wrong because it's immoral."


Yes, that I would agree with...I too feel that killing deserves capital punishment solely to keep us civilized. Killing by itself isn't wrong...we "kill" plants and animals for food anyway and animals kill each other for food or rather carnivores kill herbivores. So it depends on the context. A more appropriate way of putting it is "Killing is not essentially wrong, murder is," There, that's fixed.

Actually, I was saying that even murder, rape, nuclear holocaust, artificially induced asteroidal crash or whatever are not wrong per se. Simply put : nothing is good, nothing is evil, in the absolute sense. We just decide things based on what is beneficial to us or what our genes tell us to do.


Well that leads us back to square one. In that case, no, there are some unwritten rules that man has to adhere to for the greater good of all, not himself alone. Animals instinctively adhere to jungle law..for instance, a tiger will never kill more than it can consume and will not kill men until it is incapacitated sufficiently to be a weak predator. Man differs from animals in his ability to reason out things and the problem with that is that it is tempting to question truisms. Man is also gifted with the qualities of compassion, caring and empathy...these are only partly imposed by society, some of it is inherent. Ordinarily, one should be able to empathize with the other person and see why killing him would be wrong....but since people frequently break this trend, it is frowned upon legally and punished. Why do politicians get away with murder?? They have no fear of the law, simple. Fear of God is melting away but at least the fear of law remains at the lower strata of society. If that too is gone, then humanity be damned.

Top
 Profile  
Morrigan
Crone of War

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:27 am
Posts: 9817
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2008 8:31 pm 
 

Split the thread again due to derail... yet strangely I can't see this thread unless I search for it? :scratch: I hope this will "bump" it on page 1 somehow...

Edit: wait, I see that this is actually a really old thread that Nightgaunt revived for some reason? I'm kind of confused... but whatever, carry on.

Top
 Profile  
Osmium
The Hateful Raven

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 2:18 am
Posts: 2521
PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2008 8:57 pm 
 

Morrigan, Nightgaunt revived the thread because someone started another euthanasia thread and this one was unfortunately auto-locked.

On a meta-ethical level, I generally agree with Kruel: we are both non-cognitivists. However, this position unfortunately negates any discussion whatsoever of applied ethics, which seems to be the subject of this thread. When I use the words "good" and "evil" in this thread, I will be referring to the utilitarian definitions: happiness and suffering, respectively. My use of the terms has nothing to do with divine command theory as I am an atheist.

Now, Resident Hazard's standards for who gets to survive are that they contribute in some way to the scientific and intellectual advancement of the human race. He does not define what precisely that means and why it is intrinsically desirable. His motivation for this seems to be the cessation of pollusion, holy wars, and fossil fuel overuse.

I'd like to add another factor to consider regarding human advancement: the evolution of morality. Surely, human morality has improved for the better in much of the world, particularly Europe and North America. After all, we no longer kill/dismember people for relatively innocuous offences, no longer blasphemy, atheism, or lack of patriotism, and no longer force women (or other races) to be our slaves. Surely, it is not only the advent of medicine, computers, and cars that inspire RH's admiration for the west. Our societies have higher average and net levels of happiness than those of previous centuries, and this is largely due to our moral advancement. However, annihilation of large segments of other populations seems absolutely contrary to our moral advancement. One of the main reasons that I imagine most of us are opposed to Islamic theocracy is that we consider them to be morally (and scientifically) retrograde. Yet annihilating them for this would only demonstrate our own moral failings.

Of course, my argument does not even take into account the fact that there are many (think millions) of highly-educated, relatively secular people living in the Middle East--which would all be annihilated as well if RH got his wish.

Furthermore, RH's suggestion--nuclear holocaust in the Middle East--will probably severely hamper the world's advancement. It will spawn rivalries around the globe, and the United States will be seen as the greatest monster (far worse than Nazi Germany) the world had ever witnessed. Since the ME is the world's biggest fuel supplier (including the US), our economy would grind down to a choad of its former self. Dreams of mass apocalypse of the sub-humans (per RH's definition, those who were unlucky enough not to be born in western Europe or the US/Canada) are certainly counterproductive to the desire of human advancement, so here we see another contradiction.

These are only a few of the criticisms I have. I think RH's proposal is utterly absurd, impractical, and ironically, utterly contrary to the humanistic principles of the West that many westerners view as our crowning achievements.

Top
 Profile  
Morrigan
Crone of War

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:27 am
Posts: 9817
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2008 9:43 pm 
 

Ah okay. I've changed the auto-lock setting to 90 days instead of 21 for this forum. So don't all start whining at bumping old threads in this forum, so long as the bumping post has relevant content.

Quote:
These are only a few of the criticisms I have. I think RH's proposal is utterly absurd, impractical, and ironically, utterly contrary to the humanistic principles of the West that many westerners view as our crowning achievements.

Couldn't agree more. I'll add that it's also very simplistic and juvenile, the kind of thing teenagers who just found out about Nietzsche say to sound all misanthropic and rebellious.

Top
 Profile  
goatmanejy
Village Idiot

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:38 am
Posts: 218
PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2008 9:54 pm 
 

Resident_Hazard wrote:
I approve of euthanasia, mass killings, execution, assassination, and genocide.


One could say, I'm in favor of killing in general. But after the exhaustive conversation I had about executions on the GameInformer forum (before that derailed thread mysteriously disappeared), I don't feel like adding too much here.


However, for those curious, I'm in favor of killing as a way of thinning the vastly over-populated human race, clearing out criminals and "genetic mishaps" of sorts. Essentially, anyone not contributing to the scientific and intellectual advancement of the human race. They should be wiped out. That's, um, essentially how I feel on the subject.


Well, I guess theres really no way to argue with a philosophy like thta, but I cant say I agree. Now, im all for thinning the population, but this should be done by executing those who have been proven to be criminally insane. Not just normal criminals.

Now, my plan on this is to have couples get there genes and psychology checked before the goverment gives them a liscence to have children. Those who do not pass the test will be made infertile by that surgery where they re-route your sperm (I forgot what its called... Vasectonomy? Something like that?) and whatever equivalent goes for girls.
_________________
I Crown me Tarzan, King of Mars.
Lord Slop wrote:
Me likes loud music

Bezerko wrote:
"You're honour, I do believe that Slayer is fucking awesome. I rest my case."

Top
 Profile  
goatmanejy
Village Idiot

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:38 am
Posts: 218
PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2008 9:58 pm 
 

Morrigan wrote:
Quote:
These are only a few of the criticisms I have. I think RH's proposal is utterly absurd, impractical, and ironically, utterly contrary to the humanistic principles of the West that many westerners view as our crowning achievements.

Couldn't agree more. I'll add that it's also very simplistic and juvenile, the kind of thing teenagers who just found out about Nietzsche say to sound all misanthropic and rebellious.


Yes, its very nietzche-esque. Its pretty impractical and simplistic as well, but I find it hard to imagine a juvinile being ruthless enough to approve of genocide. I attend a private school, so...
_________________
I Crown me Tarzan, King of Mars.
Lord Slop wrote:
Me likes loud music

Bezerko wrote:
"You're honour, I do believe that Slayer is fucking awesome. I rest my case."

Top
 Profile  
thomash
Metal Philosopher

Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:31 pm
Posts: 1855
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2008 10:59 pm 
 

goatmanejy wrote:
Morrigan wrote:
Quote:
These are only a few of the criticisms I have. I think RH's proposal is utterly absurd, impractical, and ironically, utterly contrary to the humanistic principles of the West that many westerners view as our crowning achievements.

Couldn't agree more. I'll add that it's also very simplistic and juvenile, the kind of thing teenagers who just found out about Nietzsche say to sound all misanthropic and rebellious.

Yes, its very nietzche-esque.

Except that it's a horrible misreading of Nietzsche that has next to no relevance to his actual philosophy.

Top
 Profile  
goatmanejy
Village Idiot

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:38 am
Posts: 218
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 12:27 am 
 

thomash wrote:
goatmanejy wrote:
Morrigan wrote:
Quote:
These are only a few of the criticisms I have. I think RH's proposal is utterly absurd, impractical, and ironically, utterly contrary to the humanistic principles of the West that many westerners view as our crowning achievements.

Couldn't agree more. I'll add that it's also very simplistic and juvenile, the kind of thing teenagers who just found out about Nietzsche say to sound all misanthropic and rebellious.

Yes, its very nietzche-esque.

Except that it's a horrible misreading of Nietzsche that has next to no relevance to his actual philosophy.

I said its nietzche-esque, not actually nietzcheistic (Word I made up - sorry). Nietzche was in favor of genocide and killings to help pave the way for the superman.
_________________
I Crown me Tarzan, King of Mars.
Lord Slop wrote:
Me likes loud music

Bezerko wrote:
"You're honour, I do believe that Slayer is fucking awesome. I rest my case."

Top
 Profile  
Scourge441
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 839
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 2:03 am 
 

This is the problem I see with genocides to remove the lowest common denominators: where does it stop? Once you kill off the bottom level of humanity, what happens to the new bottom level? Are they not detrimental to the advancement of society as well?

And (this has been mentioned already) how do you know who is detrimental to society and who isn't? There would be plenty of extremely intelligent people who would hold beliefs and have ideas that they believe would benefit the world, while others would believe to be a negative influence (see: abortion, gay marriage, religion, the death penalty, gun control, etc.). Essentially, "detrimental to society" means "anything that doesn't fit into my view of the perfect world."

goatmanejy wrote:
I said its nietzche-esque, not actually nietzcheistic (Word I made up - sorry). Nietzche was in favor of genocide and killings to help pave the way for the superman.

Um, I'm pretty sure he wasn't in favor of genocide. At all.

Top
 Profile  
FateMetal
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:09 am
Posts: 305
Location: Uganda
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 7:45 am 
 

saintinhell wrote:
Resident_Hazard wrote:
I'm talking about wiping out the areas of the world which offer nothing positive to the whole of the human race.


What exactly is defined as positive?? It's a very contentious subject and what is positive for you may not be for me and vice versa.

Resident_Hazard wrote:
If they aren't even going to bother trying to evolve and become civilized, better to just eradicate them altogether so the rest of humanity can move on and advance.


Again, what is the definition of evolution, of becoming civilised..getting rich, busting gazoline on Hummers, doing drugs and then going into rehab?? These questions are not so easy to answer. I don't suggest that that is the only outcome of Western civilization but it is certainly one undesirable development we have seen in the past decade or seen.


Resident_Hazard wrote:
These places are like the slow kid in class that forces a teacher to teach at a slower pace to benefit the mentally deficient at the cost of the advancement of the rest.


It is therefore up to the mentally 'proficient' kid to wait after lectures to catch up with his tutor and seek "advancement". It is not a sin to be born imbecile, because parents and teachers can only prop you up thus far, in the real world, the imbecile is easy prey anyway.


Resident_Hazard wrote:
You want to stop pollution, over-use of fossil fuels and rampant holy wars? Best thing to do is mass erasures of peoples. The world gets a littler harder to live in every single day, and it continues to decline. As populations continue to grow, things will just continue to get worse. Better to start over at zero and make a clean break.


So the third world should be denied fuel for sardine-like crowded trains and buses so that the first world can drive its Limos and Hummers?? I hope that is not what you are proposing, because what exactly is over-use of fossil fuels anyway? The third world once knew how to live their lives without gasoline, it's the West that colonised them and forced their "Way" on these countries...today, when populations are growing and economies are booming, it is a pain in the arse, I see. Not a bit surprised, only surprised that this is the first time I have come across this viewpoint in MA.


But I do not dismiss your viewpoint totally...on moral grounds, it is blasphemous, but realistically this is exactly what I foresee in the distant future. As the resource crunch gets worse, I foresee George Bush Jr's Jr or his Jr or whatever bombing out Africa in the name of "War on Tribal Terror" or what have you. And I herewith thank the British for colonising India and uniting the scattered, warring provinces into one nation. :lol: It makes it that much more difficult for any nation to just take us over like that.


War On Tribal Terror????????? :lol: Priceless.

Seriously, though the resource crunch could get worse. And Africa is where it's at. We've got alot of unexploited mineral wealth not to mention chunks and chunks of land. The Government of Uganda is just thinking of drilling petroleum in the West- when they knew about it's existence from colonial times.

Top
 Profile  
Scorpio
Healthy Dose of Reality

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 3:30 pm
Posts: 3654
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 8:14 am 
 

The desire to cleanse humanity of defectives is itself humanistic, since it finds value in humanity's achievements. If you don't value humanity, you won't give a damn whether the quality of humans gets better or worse. You'll note that most eugenicist writers have an almost worshipful attitude towards humanity's accomplishments. Everyone is a humanist except believers in certain strains of religious fundamentalism and true misanthropes.
_________________
It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this. -Bertrand Russell

Top
 Profile  
Scorpio
Healthy Dose of Reality

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 3:30 pm
Posts: 3654
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 8:27 am 
 

BTW, in theory, conquering Africa is a good idea. It would be easy and parts of it contain useful resources. The only reason not to do it is that it would be tremendously unpopular. Nowadays, states have to pretend that they're attacking others for their own good or they risk international backlash and intervention. If not for the sway of liberal ideology in the US and Europe, we'd be dividing Africa up shortly. Within a mere few months, we could take the entire continent. If the US falls and an illiberal regime becomes predominant, Africa will be in for it. The continent is a military embarrassment and has no way of defending itself against a competent modern military. Any state seeking to expand by conquest will go after easy prey and it doesn't get softer than Africa.
_________________
It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this. -Bertrand Russell

Top
 Profile  
Seriphyn
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 8:12 am
Posts: 12
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 8:43 am 
 

Sieg Heil!

Seriously, I'm from, say, Saudi Arabia.

I think the US is overpolluting, the prime cause for global warming. Also it's a bully and blasts a country to bits if it refuses to suck its dick made out of uranium.

So let's get rid of the US! Oh crap I just became a terrorist

My point is, while I'm not anti-US, I think that someone on the other side of the world is thinking exactly like you, but wants to get rid of the West. (hmm, I think we already have those...Islamist fundies I believe...)
_________________
Metallica - Keep the same underproduced sound for 20 years, or else
Nightwish - Because a 14 minute album opener and Master Passion Greed is really 'pop'
British metalheads - They will mosh to ANYTHING

Top
 Profile  
Prodd
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 5:15 am
Posts: 147
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 10:03 am 
 

Errr... ok.


I just found this thread really depressing. Not only because I'm from a third-world country, but because it's an opinion, one that insists on applying a brash and blind theory that promotes survival of the superior. And if it really is so right, why is it coming from someone who is a first world citizen?

The sad thing is, I think RH made a post that he himself couldn't defend. Are you so sure, RH, that your future generations will always remain titans? Are you sure that your kids will be superior enough to survive the selection procedure? Like somebody said earlier, there's always a new bottom layer, like a game of Tetris. Who knows, your future generations may end up cursing you some day for your contribution to kick starting this thing, if somebody DID take you seriously and applied your theory.

And suppose the Middle East rose to power and wiped out everything you represent? Are you gonna stand around and say, yeah, they are superior and they need resources, so go ahead and slice me up?

This thing reminded me of tribes from the early ages that used to dispose of the weak. And we humans EVOLVED into a place where such practices were abolished. There is good reason.

Anyway, I'm gonna go have a beer. :(
_________________
Obscenity is the crutch of inarticulate fuckers.
-Anonymous

Top
 Profile  
greysnow
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:01 am
Posts: 378
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 10:51 am 
 

Scorpio wrote:
The desire to cleanse humanity of defectives is itself humanistic, since it finds value in humanity's achievements.

That is the most anti-humanistic use of the word "humanistic" I have ever seen. Humanism, as I understand it and, I believe, as it is understood by most secular humanists, means respecting the individual's human rights, be they "defective" or not, not some sort of quality control of humanity.

In secular humanist ethics, the most important individual human right is the right to live. Now, "cleansing humanity" either means "eugenics (in the sense of prevention of genetic defects)" or "killing or rendering infertile existing humans". I'll go with the second interpretation, since from the context of the earlier posts in this thread and because prenatal eugenics cannot have anything to do with the offspring's achievements, I suspect that this is what you meant. Under the normal definition of humanism, killing humans for perceived defects is a grave violation of one of its most important principles and totally inexcusable. Sterilizing them is hardly better.

If "defect" is used to mean "lack of achievement", the proposition becomes even more callous, if at all possible. Firstly, the word "achievement" implies a value judgment. Who gets to judge what constitutes an achievement and what doesn't? Who has the right to weed out whom? If I find fault with your way of life or am dissatisfied with, say, the level of technology at your disposal, I get to pass judgment on you? (For what crime, by the way?) In this scenario, why wouldn't you be allowed to pass judgment on me?

Secondly, is lack of achievement, however you define it, seriously reason enough for you to warrant anyone's death (or sterilization)? Even if I thought that any human had the right to decide whether another may live or die-which I do not, barring self-defense, abortion and switching off life-prolonging machines- or to have children, the idea that the grounds for being deemed unworthy to live or to procreate could be mere underachieving is, to put it mildly, a decidedly unfriendly one. Less mildly, I might also call it fascistic or insane. However, it definitely is not humanistic.

Scorpio wrote:
If you don't value humanity, you won't give a damn whether the quality of humans gets better or worse.

Again, who gets to judge the "quality of humans"? On what definition? By which measure? And: while the sentence quoted is logically valid, the converse does not hold. If I do value humanity, that doesn't mean I must at all be concerned with its "quality"; I might value humanity as it exists now, the living, breathing, striving, dreaming, "defective" beings that exist at this moment.

Scorpio wrote:
You'll note that most eugenicist writers have an almost worshipful attitude towards humanity's accomplishments.

What they regard as achievements. And that they cherish, say, Picasso or the emancipation of women or the invention of polyvinyl chloride does not mean that they thereby get the moral authority to decide who is to live and who is to die. So this is not an argument; it's an empty phrase.

Scorpio wrote:
Everyone is a humanist except believers in certain strains of religious fundamentalism and true misanthropes.

And fascists.

Scorpio wrote:
BTW, in theory, conquering Africa is a good idea. It would be easy and parts of it contain useful resources. The only reason not to do it is that it would be tremendously unpopular.

It could only ever be a good idea to the conquerors. Parts of Africa also contain human beings, a number of whom would die by such action. So another reason not to do it is that it claims victims. A third reason not to do it would be that the resources are their resources.

Hey, I think I like your stereo. It's a useful resource for me, it'll allow me to finance my crack addiction for another week. I'll bring ten friends, then conquering your house will be easy. You may die in the process, and that might be unpopular, but, hey, in theory it's still a good idea.

Finally, as an aside, I must say that it was very difficult for me to refrain from ad hominems in addressing your posts.
_________________
Looking up at the stars, I know quite well
That, for all they care, I can go to hell.

Top
 Profile  
DGYDP
Leather Lion

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:19 pm
Posts: 1244
Location: Belgium
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 11:35 am 
 

The truth is that if huge amounts of people don't start dying quite soon we'll have an extreme overpopulation causing almost everybody to die. Since no predators are making sure there is balance, the only solution I see is getting rid of a LOT of people by ourselves. It's bad for the individual that dies, but good for the entire human race. What's worse; a billion people dying so the human race can survive or everybody surviving for a little longer until the entire human race is near extinct?

That being said I don't advocate actively killing humans, but some people really need to get their heads out of their asses and start realizing that helping the weak is bad for the human race. Obviously I don't think we should all go out and murder people; but in fact that would be positive on the long run. To be entirely honest I think we should passively let lots of people die, to save the human race in the future.

The huge problem is that is immoral (even I think so) and nobody would let it happen. I wouldn't, even though I realize it's necesarry. Perhaps it's time that somebody takes one for the team and starts killing anybody who only causes trouble to others (subjective, I know) ...
_________________
Geshy wrote:
DEH NEH NEH NEHHHH.. BEH DUNDUNDUNDUN WAHHH NAHHH DEH NEH NEH NEHHHHH, BEH DUNDUNDUNDUNDUN WAHHHH DEH NEH NEH NEHHHHH

Top
 Profile  
greysnow
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:01 am
Posts: 378
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 12:04 pm 
 

DGYDP wrote:
The truth is that if huge amounts of people don't start dying quite soon we'll have an extreme overpopulation causing almost everybody to die.

How so? Any species that reaches its boundaries of sustainability shrinks until its population is sustainable again. They don't all die out. So there is no reason to panic.


DGYDP wrote:
What's worse; a billion people dying so the human race can survive or everybody surviving for a little longer until the entire human race is near extinct?

That's not a valid alternative, since simple overpopulation won't cause humanity to go extinct. A billion people dying, by the way, would carry us back about ten years. Killing four billion would get us back to 1950. The unprecedented mass dying or killing that you're contemplating would buy us preciously little time.

DGYDP wrote:
That being said I don't advocate actively killing humans, but some people really need to get their heads out of their asses and start realizing that helping the weak is bad for the human race.

I guess you can count yourself lucky that you are not among the weak-at least in your own perception. (Try not to become unemployed and dependent on welfare. You might be considered weak by some, and as superfluous humanity by others.)

DGYDP wrote:
Obviously I don't think we should all go out and murder people; but in fact that would be positive on the long run. To be entirely honest I think we should passively let lots of people die, to save the human race in the future.

The huge problem is that is immoral (even I think so) and nobody would let it happen. I wouldn't, even though I realize it's necesarry. Perhaps it's time that somebody takes one for the team and starts killing anybody who only causes trouble to others (subjective, I know) ...

Care to offer yourself up for the greater good of the human race? Because that's the only moral alternative left to you, after your own reasoning.
_________________
Looking up at the stars, I know quite well
That, for all they care, I can go to hell.

Top
 Profile  
FateMetal
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:09 am
Posts: 305
Location: Uganda
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 3:05 pm 
 

Osmium wrote:
Morrigan, Nightgaunt revived the thread because someone started another euthanasia thread and this one was unfortunately auto-locked.


Osmium wrote:
On a meta-ethical level, I generally agree with Kruel: we are both non-cognitivists. However, this position unfortunately negates any discussion whatsoever of applied ethics, which seems to be the subject of this thread. When I use the words "good" and "evil" in this thread, I will be referring to the utilitarian definitions: happiness and suffering, respectively. My use of the terms has nothing to do with divine command theory as I am an atheist.


Osmium wrote:
Now, Resident Hazard's standards for who gets to survive are that they contribute in some way to the scientific and intellectual advancement of the human race. He does not define what precisely that means and why it is intrinsically desirable. His motivation for this seems to be the cessation of pollusion, holy wars, and fossil fuel overuse.


Get real, Resident Hazard!

Osmium wrote:
I'd like to add another factor to consider regarding human advancement: the evolution of morality. Surely, human morality has improved for the better in much of the world, particularly Europe and North America. After all, we no longer kill/dismember people for relatively innocuous offences, no longer blasphemy, atheism, or lack of patriotism, and no longer force women (or other races) to be our slaves. Surely, it is not only the advent of medicine, computers, and cars that inspire RH's admiration for the west. Our societies have higher average and net levels of happiness than those of previous centuries, and this is largely due to our moral advancement. However, annihilation of large segments of other populations seems absolutely contrary to our moral advancement. One of the main reasons that I imagine most of us are opposed to Islamic theocracy is that we consider them to be morally (and scientifically) retrograde. Yet annihilating them for this would only demonstrate our own moral failings.


It is contrary to advancement of said morality. One thing about Africa and it's "butchery" is that there exists a detachment from the rest of the world. People here don't view themselves as citizens of the world. Domestic issues are so overwhelming that it is hard to look at a bigger picture.

Osmium wrote:
Of course, my argument does not even take into account the fact that there are many (think millions) of highly-educated, relatively secular people living in the Middle East--which would all be annihilated as well if RH got his wish.


Another of the flaws i found in RH's theory. The world should be appreciated in it's diversity. The way we get great ideas is by looking at how the others play their game. If it's a good game. Millions of intellectual human lives living in Africa or Asia can bring something new to the global picture. I'm sure America isn't so pompous as to think they've leraned it all.

Osmium wrote:
Furthermore, RH's suggestion--nuclear holocaust in the Middle East--will probably severely hamper the world's advancement. It will spawn rivalries around the globe, and the United States will be seen as the greatest monster (far worse than Nazi Germany) the world had ever witnessed. Since the ME is the world's biggest fuel supplier (including the US), our economy would grind down to a choad of its former self. Dreams of mass apocalypse of the sub-humans (per RH's definition, those who were unlucky enough not to be born in western Europe or the US/Canada) are certainly counterproductive to the desire of human advancement, so here we see another contradiction.These are only a few of the criticisms I have. I think RH's proposal is utterly absurd, impractical, and ironically, utterly contrary to the humanistic principles of the West that many westerners view as our crowning achievements.


Furthermore, RH -the world being a global village is not a cliche. America needs the Middle East. America needs Africa. America needs India. A nuclear holocaust propagated by any Western power would have ultra violent effects spanning continents which would affect us all -not only retarding human development and economic growth but social relations as well. It would create a state of fear -fear of retribution, fear of the "unknown" (who's allying with whom and so on.) Hell, fear of the dark.
Anihilating giant masses of human life can never work -it's been tried before.

Top
 Profile  
DGYDP
Leather Lion

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:19 pm
Posts: 1244
Location: Belgium
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 3:48 pm 
 

greysnow wrote:
DGYDP wrote:
The truth is that if huge amounts of people don't start dying quite soon we'll have an extreme overpopulation causing almost everybody to die.

How so? Any species that reaches its boundaries of sustainability shrinks until its population is sustainable again. They don't all die out. So there is no reason to panic.


What I was trying to say is that it's better to let "unproductive" people die in stead of "random" people, which would be the case when overpopulation becomes a global catastrophe in the future.

Quote:
DGYDP wrote:
What's worse; a billion people dying so the human race can survive or everybody surviving for a little longer until the entire human race is near extinct?

That's not a valid alternative, since simple overpopulation won't cause humanity to go extinct. A billion people dying, by the way, would carry us back about ten years. Killing four billion would get us back to 1950. The unprecedented mass dying or killing that you're contemplating would buy us preciously little time.


I know that, reread my post to see how I stand regarding active murdering.

Quote:
DGYDP wrote:
That being said I don't advocate actively killing humans, but some people really need to get their heads out of their asses and start realizing that helping the weak is bad for the human race.

I guess you can count yourself lucky that you are not among the weak-at least in your own perception. (Try not to become unemployed and dependent on welfare. You might be considered weak by some, and as superfluous humanity by others.)


I know that, that's why I say it's immoral. It's also not practically doable, but that wasn't really what I was trying to say. My point was that people should realize that the deaths of unproductive people are not a bad thing (on a large scale, of course!).

Quote:
DGYDP wrote:
Obviously I don't think we should all go out and murder people; but in fact that would be positive on the long run. To be entirely honest I think we should passively let lots of people die, to save the human race in the future.

The huge problem is that is immoral (even I think so) and nobody would let it happen. I wouldn't, even though I realize it's necesarry. Perhaps it's time that somebody takes one for the team and starts killing anybody who only causes trouble to others (subjective, I know) ...

Care to offer yourself up for the greater good of the human race? Because that's the only moral alternative left to you, after your own reasoning.


Again, reread my post ... I clearly stated it's immoral to start killing people! Anyway, to me my death wouldn't be a good thing; but on large scale it would be. That's what I was trying to say: it's a cruel reality that many people seem to ignore.
_________________
Geshy wrote:
DEH NEH NEH NEHHHH.. BEH DUNDUNDUNDUN WAHHH NAHHH DEH NEH NEH NEHHHHH, BEH DUNDUNDUNDUNDUN WAHHHH DEH NEH NEH NEHHHHH

Top
 Profile  
Seriphyn
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 8:12 am
Posts: 12
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 5:31 pm 
 

You know what?

This thread probably has something to do with why the black metal help thread is the longest thread of its type.

Misanthropy FTL
_________________
Metallica - Keep the same underproduced sound for 20 years, or else
Nightwish - Because a 14 minute album opener and Master Passion Greed is really 'pop'
British metalheads - They will mosh to ANYTHING

Top
 Profile  
Kruel
Veteran

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:56 pm
Posts: 3426
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 5:44 pm 
 

Seriphyn wrote:
You know what?

This thread probably has something to do with why the black metal help thread is the longest thread of its type.

Misanthropy FTL

Black Metal Help Thread is the longest because it is much older than other help threads.

And as somebody has pointed out, ridding "human waste" to better humanity is humanistic, not misanthropic (not that I think that humanism is good and misanthropy is bad, but....).
_________________
Quote:
So, Manes > Samael?
Quote:
yeah, it's ironic, they are so pretentious, yet one can say that at least they don't pretend. They don't release some techno-rap-whatever album and say "on this record we tried to sound like in our old days"

Top
 Profile  
Seriphyn
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 8:12 am
Posts: 12
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 5:59 pm 
 

Ah right, fair enough.

Maybe if the "human waste" were terrorists at least...fine...but entire demographics? They can't help being poor...

Why not go and help them instead of killing them?
_________________
Metallica - Keep the same underproduced sound for 20 years, or else
Nightwish - Because a 14 minute album opener and Master Passion Greed is really 'pop'
British metalheads - They will mosh to ANYTHING

Top
 Profile  
goatmanejy
Village Idiot

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:38 am
Posts: 218
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 9:27 pm 
 

Scourge441 wrote:
This is the problem I see with genocides to remove the lowest common denominators: where does it stop? Once you kill off the bottom level of humanity, what happens to the new bottom level? Are they not detrimental to the advancement of society as well?

an excellent point. You would ahve to kill everythign eventually. A noble cause, eh?

Scourge441 wrote:
And (this has been mentioned already) how do you know who is detrimental to society and who isn't? There would be plenty of extremely intelligent people who would hold beliefs and have ideas that they believe would benefit the world, while others would believe to be a negative influence (see: abortion, gay marriage, religion, the death penalty, gun control, etc.). Essentially, "detrimental to society" means "anything that doesn't fit into my view of the perfect world."

I think most people agree that detrimental to socioty sort of things would eb murderers, rapists, etc. all the things and people that cause harm to others on a habitual or extreme basis.

Scourge441 wrote:
goatmanejy wrote:
I said its nietzche-esque, not actually nietzcheistic (Word I made up - sorry). Nietzche was in favor of genocide and killings to help pave the way for the superman.

Um, I'm pretty sure he wasn't in favor of genocide. At all.

I havent read anything by him, but the articles ive read on him appear taht he was in favor of genocide. I could be wrong, but from what I know he seems to be rather genocidal.

Top
 Profile  
Burzukur
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 11:13 am
Posts: 110
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 9:29 pm 
 

So even if your plan to wipe out entire demographics worked, where would it end? How could we know that the powers controlling this slaughter don't go on their own personal agendas and start killing off entire demographics that are "valuable" to the human race? Say you have a leader in control of this cleansing campaign. What if he's a racist? Or a homophobe? He can say that gays don't produce children, and are thus not helping society. From there it's not a far jump to a fourth Reich.
_________________
http://dontmesswithdinosaurs.com/
Dinosaur themed hip-hop. I know, but seriously, check it out.

Top
 Profile  
Noobbot
Mors_Gloria + Thesaurus

Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 4:48 pm
Posts: 426
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 9:51 pm 
 

DGYDP wrote:
The truth is that if huge amounts of people don't start dying quite soon we'll have an extreme overpopulation causing almost everybody to die. Since no predators are making sure there is balance, the only solution I see is getting rid of a LOT of people by ourselves. It's bad for the individual that dies, but good for the entire human race. What's worse; a billion people dying so the human race can survive or everybody surviving for a little longer until the entire human race is near extinct?

That being said I don't advocate actively killing humans, but some people really need to get their heads out of their asses and start realizing that helping the weak is bad for the human race. Obviously I don't think we should all go out and murder people; but in fact that would be positive on the long run. To be entirely honest I think we should passively let lots of people die, to save the human race in the future.

The huge problem is that is immoral (even I think so) and nobody would let it happen. I wouldn't, even though I realize it's necesarry. Perhaps it's time that somebody takes one for the team and starts killing anybody who only causes trouble to others (subjective, I know) ...


Because this overpopulation crisis is so grave, I suggest that most of the global scientific resources are used to develop some parasite that would thus cause a zombie apocalypse. Sound good?

Enough of the tongue-in-cheek shit (although I still think it's a good idea ;) ). But the best way to solve the overpopulation bit is this: increase the efficiency of crops and to build our houses and buildings higher. Major metropolises are already doing, as we all know, but why not the suburbs? You can still have a house, but rather than having most or all of the 3000 ft² on a single story, why not distribute it equally over two stories?

However, genocide (unless zombies are the cause) is certainly not the way. And as another said, massive and forced sterility wouldn't be much better. I may hate many people on an individual basis and would gladly rid myself of them if given the opportunity, but I can't see killing all citizens of a nation simply for being so, let alone most of humanity. Eugenics, as in altering prenatal children genetically, would be great as well, but eugenics as some in the past have attempted will always fail. You can't ensure that because people match your perception of ideal traits that they will possess all of the desired qualities that aren't superficial. And even if there's a higher incidence of those wanted non-superficial traits, your brand of eugenics will still have failed.

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Nochielo, Xlxlx and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

 
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group