Some issues for debate (UPDATED)

[Nielk1]

The same question in two different forms will result in two different answers.

Normally, do not kill the brain dead to save another, BUT, neglect to help the brain dead when encountering two different individuals at the same time when you can only save one.

Morals are so strange.

[cheesepuffly]

No, no, no. Two wrongs don't make a right. Killing people is wrong. Killing a killer is... also wrong.

Splain what you mean there, im not talking about like um really killing people. As in murder.

[Red Devil]

Basic triage:  If it's going to cost more than 5 minutes and critical supplies/tech to save someone, move onto the next one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage

Here's one:  Save the mom or save the baby?  Well, can the mom have more babies?  If not, save the baby; otherwise, save the mom.

"A man's *got* to know his limitations."

[mrtwosheds]

4. Gay Marriage:  Really none of my business, never could really figure out why they would want to. The issue of property rights however is another matter.

5. Putting Humans Down:
Death is (at the moment) the unavoidable consequence of life. It is not necessarily a bad thing. If people want to die, who the service truck does anyone think they are trying to stop them. Getting someone else to do you in, however, is dubious and a very inconsiderate request to make of another person, It should certainly not be a service doctors are required to supply.

Never fails to make me laugh that the greatest opponents of this are often those who believe they will go to a better place...So what's the problem?

Folk like me, know we have been dead before, and it really is not a problem or something to worry about at all.

[OvermindDL1]

Personally, screw morals, look at this from a logical viewpoint (of the realm of what is better for humanity as a whole, not for an individual person, and you have to think long-term, none of this modern day thinking crap).

DO NOTE, not all of this is my opinion, not anywhere near actually, it just makes the most 'sense' to me.

1 Crime)  If a crime is to cause harm to the standards of humanity (from expensive theft to murder) I think the penalty should be the same, and it should be dependent on how likely the person is to be reformed.  If they have a high chance of reformation then solitary confinement while they work on a book detailing what they did wrong and why might be good.  If there is a medium chance of reformation then a lot of psychological work with possibly a bit of torture might be useful, along with publicly exposing their deeds for all to know.  If there is a low chance of reformation then perhaps public torture then death would serve multiple reasons, remove their bad genetics from the human gene pool (many criminal tendencies have been proven to have genetic links with certain chromosomes), as well as let the public know what will happen if they perform an criminal activities.

2 Animal Treatment)  I see no reason to treat them different compared to humans.  Just as it makes sense to perform experiments on certain unsatisfactory humans, they need to be removed from society anyway, do so to animals.  (this is one of those I really do not agree with, but it still makes logical sense when you remove the annoyances known as morality and emotions.)

3 Beginning of the Universe)  Go with whatever has the most proof, which currently discounts every religion in existence, and considering how the universe is expanding, the equal energy concentrations, the expansion is speeding up, and a few other forces, a big bang makes the most sense (and the main theory as to the cause of the big bang is best explained by M-Theory as our Universe impacting another for just an instant).  It has also been shown that constant darwinism evolution is not the most likely course of most life on this planet, rather it seems more likely that extraordinary events cause a rapid and sudden change in a species based on its environment.  It has been shown that when a change takes place than the change is quick and species-wide (in an environmental area).

4 Homosexual marriage)  Sure, why not.  If they are productive members of society then they should be allowed to.  If they are exceptional members of society then perhaps their genes could be frozen to be put to good use by others who want such good genes, but otherwise see no reason against it, when people are comfortable with their surroundings, they are more efficient workers.

5 Putting Humans Down)  Absolutely.  If a person is in pain or otherwise a drain on society and its resources, and they are unlikely to now or ever again contribute toward society, then if they wish for that to happen then there is absolutely no reason not to go ahead and do so.


Again, as stated, all the above is what makes sense to me, may not be what I agree with, but it makes perfect sense to me and can argue and change those points based on changing information.
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script via GreaseMonkey

[mrtwosheds]

Personally, screw morals, look at this from a logical viewpoint (of the realm of what is better for humanity as a whole, not for an individual person, and you have to think long-term, none of this modern day thinking crap).

Thinking this way also leads to the inevitable conclusion that what is better for humanity as a whole would be a substantial cull of our particular species. Hopefully morality and emotion will find us a better way.

I'm not feeling optimistic about this though.

[Nielk1]

Screwing morals, I agree with OM, with them, I refer to my previous post.

[Axeminister]

5 Putting Humans Down)  Absolutely.  If a person is in pain or otherwise a drain on society and its resources, and they are unlikely to now or ever again contribute toward society, then if they wish for that to happen then there is absolutely no reason not to go ahead and do so.

So with this thinking then hospitals could be like Burger King, and you can have it your way. "Say doc, I don't want to face the music come monday morning, just go ahead and put me down." And the doc stabs him in the heart with a scalpel and calls for the janitor to clean this mess up. Come on Overmind, I know you can put more thought into this than that. That can't make any sense.
A lot of people live with pain, and contributing to society can mean a whole lot of things. Some people give hope to family with just a yes or no answer from their pinky because they can't move anything else. Their contribution is just being there for their family, which is the highest valued item most people want. Just because he wants now to die, but the family doesn't, should you be able to put him down?
Just like I said before, I'd hate to be a doctor. Especially if he has a "screw my morals" episode. lol

[OvermindDL1]

So with this thinking then hospitals could be like Burger King, and you can have it your way. "Say doc, I don't want to face the music come monday morning, just go ahead and put me down." And the doc stabs him in the heart with a scalpel and calls for the janitor to clean this mess up. Come on Overmind, I know you can put more thought into this than that. That can't make any sense.
A lot of people live with pain, and contributing to society can mean a whole lot of things. Some people give hope to family with just a yes or no answer from their pinky because they can't move anything else. Their contribution is just being there for their family, which is the highest valued item most people want. Just because he wants now to die, but the family doesn't, should you be able to put him down?
Just like I said before, I'd hate to be a doctor. Especially if he has a "screw my morals" episode. lol

You also did not read through the post.  Allow me to bold what you obviously missed:

5 Putting Humans Down)  Absolutely.  If a person is in pain or otherwise a drain on society and its resources, and they are unlikely to now or ever again contribute toward society, then if they wish for that to happen then there is absolutely no reason not to go ahead and do so.

If they can still be productive in society, there is no reason to kill them, even if they want it.  Please try to read it all first.

Also, with that hope thing, that does not follow logic, that is a pure emotional answer and as stated that entire post was emotionally unbiased, please try to think through everything before you post.
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script via GreaseMonkey

[cheesepuffly]

Dont start flaming please, i mean ya know, just peaceful debates.


But if you cannot do anything, and your in incredible pain i think if you, your family, and with multiple doctors approval, you should be able to.

[Nielk1]

Dont start flaming please, i mean ya know, just peaceful debates.


But if you cannot do anything, and your in incredible pain i think if you, your family, and with multiple doctors approval, you should be able to.

No one is even an ember here, it is just a discussion

Though Ax should have read it better.

[cheesepuffly]

Yeah kinda just said that for general reasons.

[OvermindDL1]

Yea, I just do not like it when people post a response without even reading what they are responding to.
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script via GreaseMonkey

[sabrebattletank]

ABSOLUTELY not. It's UNNATURAL. If two people of the same sex marry, they should NOT be treated like a normal married couple. This is mostly because it is NOT normal. You're NOT born gay. You just have formed a bad habit if you like someone of the same sex...

Whether homosexuality is inherent or acquired is up for debate. I tend to think that it is inherent. A quick statistic: the more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be gay. I read that in Time Magazine or The Atlantic or something.

You know what else is not normal? Driving. You aren't born with the ability/habit of driving, yet it is clearly not a bad thing. What makes being gay a bad habit while driving a car is not?

[Red Devil]

Everything you do is a choice.  Everything you don't do is a choice.