Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,848
- Likes
- 4,028
This is what the little weasel wrote:
"I reckon we should control popullations in a civilised way by putting to sleep old people who can no longer look after them selves."
It seems perfectly straightforward to me - he suggested that old people should be killed (or "put down" in his revolting terminology) when they are no longer capable of looking after themselves. That is nothing other than murder, plain and simple. This could not be construed in any way as being the same as the right to assistance in killing oneself.
By his repulsive criteria, the severly handicapped and disabled would also be legitimate targets for state-sanctioned murder. They too are unable to care for themselves.
Split, you might wish to end your own life if you were in severe pain or had a very poor quality of life. Others however might not, and it is not for the state to decide which innocents live or die.
We already massacre nearly 200,000 unborn babies a year in this country. Frankly, and despite the frequently idiotic and bizarre nature of Atilla's posts, I am still surprised that he thinks we should add thousands more unwilling victims to the annual holocaust.
"I reckon we should control popullations in a civilised way by putting to sleep old people who can no longer look after them selves."
It seems perfectly straightforward to me - he suggested that old people should be killed (or "put down" in his revolting terminology) when they are no longer capable of looking after themselves. That is nothing other than murder, plain and simple. This could not be construed in any way as being the same as the right to assistance in killing oneself.
By his repulsive criteria, the severly handicapped and disabled would also be legitimate targets for state-sanctioned murder. They too are unable to care for themselves.
Split, you might wish to end your own life if you were in severe pain or had a very poor quality of life. Others however might not, and it is not for the state to decide which innocents live or die.
We already massacre nearly 200,000 unborn babies a year in this country. Frankly, and despite the frequently idiotic and bizarre nature of Atilla's posts, I am still surprised that he thinks we should add thousands more unwilling victims to the annual holocaust.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,848
- Likes
- 4,028
I wrote:
"I reckon we should control popullations in a civilised way by putting to sleep old people who can no longer look after them selves. Instead of spending a fortune looking after incapicitated elderly people who have a very poor quality of life - that money should be spent on the young neglected generation who is the new blood of society and wealth generation. "
You need to go back to school and learn comprehension of the written word rather than your narrow interpretation...
Why are you choosing to take words out of context and twist them in labouring some personal point?
"You need to go back to school and learn comprehension of the written word" - that is hilarious coming from you.
However, look again at what you said and this time underlined. People "who can no longer look after them selves"and "incapicitated elderly people who have a very poor quality of life". Your contention is that these two states remove a person's right to life. You say nothing as to whether they choose to die or not - your position is that a person who has a very poor quality of life and is unable to look after himself can be murdered by the state.
I have not twisted anything nor taken anything out of context. I have merely pointed out the horror and wickedness of your views - namely, that the state can decide to kill, or "put down" as you put it, innocent people against their will. You have not denied that this is your belief.
You are a vile little cretin who advocates murder. I note that you have not attempted to explain why an elderly person in such a situation would be different from a handicapped person in the same situation, and one would conclude from this either that your position is logically inconsistent or that you would apply your sick presecription to those people also.
However, look again at what you said and this time underlined. People "who can no longer look after them selves"and "incapicitated elderly people who have a very poor quality of life". Your contention is that these two states remove a person's right to life. You say nothing as to whether they choose to die or not - your position is that a person who has a very poor quality of life and is unable to look after himself can be murdered by the state.
I have not twisted anything nor taken anything out of context. I have merely pointed out the horror and wickedness of your views - namely, that the state can decide to kill, or "put down" as you put it, innocent people against their will. You have not denied that this is your belief.
You are a vile little cretin who advocates murder. I note that you have not attempted to explain why an elderly person in such a situation would be different from a handicapped person in the same situation, and one would conclude from this either that your position is logically inconsistent or that you would apply your sick presecription to those people also.
Last edited:
Ninja_Trader
Member
- Messages
- 95
- Likes
- 4
I'm sitting here trying to imagine everything in a British accent.
It's quite hilarious.
It's quite hilarious.
You're in luck my friend! For a limited time only (I'm tough like that - if it's limited, it's limited) you can join a free webinar on accent imagination!
Simon says!
Ninja_Trader
Member
- Messages
- 95
- Likes
- 4
Sorry Numpty_Trader, the limited trial period is over - I told you that you had to be quick. This by the way is a hallmark of an honest system seller.
Fortunately, I am planning to hold a new seminar to scoop up any gullible idiots I missed in the last sweep.
"Oooh Simon, you're soooo big..."
Keep flogging your nonsense, er I mean proven trading methods, Knicker_Taker.
Fortunately, I am planning to hold a new seminar to scoop up any gullible idiots I missed in the last sweep.
"Oooh Simon, you're soooo big..."
Keep flogging your nonsense, er I mean proven trading methods, Knicker_Taker.
Ninja_Trader
Member
- Messages
- 95
- Likes
- 4
Right, and you are how old? 12?
No, a bit older than that Knicker_Sniffer. When I was 12 I was doing scummy things like trying to flog crappy systems on forums.I've grown up a bit since then.
Ninja_Trader
Member
- Messages
- 95
- Likes
- 4
I love you British and your slang. Get me every time.
No hard feelings mate. Don't mean to offend you guys. I'd much rather be British myself.
No hard feelings mate. Don't mean to offend you guys. I'd much rather be British myself.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,848
- Likes
- 4,028
I think I have made my point fairly well.
1. I wasn't advocating controlling popullation growth.
On the contrary my point was that we didn't have excess popullations. I was advocating a more equitable distribution of wealth. (Point missed by your good self
)2. In response to reducing popullation in a civilised way - a valid point raised by another member - I merely added my opinion we should consider revising our approach to looking after the very frail, incapacitated elderly if they could not be supported by their own immediate family or resources. Instead of trying to control new births. In effect diverting limited finite resources from the old to the young. Merely a point for discussion.
You have noticed some qualifying words and taken it out of context - twisted it by applying to handicapped and charged - high on your horse...
Why not apply the same civilised approach to the handicapped. If immediate family members do not look after their own flesh and blood - and an individual is very much incapacitated by their handicap (and in some cases they endure much pain) the same could apply to them. There have been some cases in the press where couples unable to cope have killed their own to end their suffering. Another couple committed suicide all together at the loss of a loved child. In the spectrum of life there are many 000s of suffering bodies within the constraints of our judicial systems.
Perhaps our rules and policies on euthanasia - death wrt to old age and severe handicapped people can be reconsidered and revised. Changing our approach to these personal life and death issues can be for the good. It is merely an idea. I wasn't suggesting a compulsory execution. But to have daft laws against them is stupid. Law of the jungle will take care of it sooner or later anyway as has been mentioned.
I am all reducing wars and deaths, raising of taxes and equitable distribution of wealth. Always have been. I am a socialist at heart.
Calling me Vile cretin who advocates murder? That is a little strong - do you think?
There may be a third realistic solution. As the USA is so heavily involved, maybe they should offer to relocate Israel and its people in a dedicated space carved out of the Texas/ New Mexico/Arizona hinterland -there is plenty of it still.
Stupid answer? Well there is plenty of land there, it gets the rabid zionists out of the troubled area and the US would save itself a very large subsidy to Israel as it now exists.
You are, way, over the top.
I never said that anything about what I wanted to do but, since you mention it, I might wish to end my life peacefully, who knows?
The point of my post was about the world population growth and control of it because, whether we like it or not, that is what all this is about (including Israel/Palestine and any other conflict that you wish to talk about).
Too many people, too few resources, including water which is essential for life.
Social Services are going to break down under the strain. It is inevitable and being "humane" by extending lifespan is not solving the problem.
Did you know that plankton produces 40% of the world's oxygen? What's that about the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico?
I have had experience of old folk in geriatric homes. I do not want to be there, thanks.
Even the nicest and kindest of nursing staff cannot keep up with toils of the job and we all know about budget restrictions, don't we?
Killing off anyone against their will, regardless of their mental state, is absurd. Killing off people to regulate population growth is absurd.
Pumping millions into keeping the ever increasing elderly and socially useless demographic alive is absurd, a solution is needed.
Putting to sleep the brain dead would be a far too ambiguous endeavour, considering those that return to an active life after decades in a coma for example. Putting to sleep the terminally brain dead is perfectly acceptable.
Euthanasia should be fully legalised immediately.
Population growth is not so much of a problem now but will be a huge one in the very near future, as we all know. There has to be a solution, and that solution needs to be implemented now. Single child policy maybe?
Chavez is right - capitalism is the road to hell. There are many calculations that government scientists will have done that conclude many disasters in society, including that of over-population - these need to be revealed and addressed by an honest government, but what's the likelihood! Although the probability being that there would be mass denial, we need a bit of scare injected into us to wake the majority up from this lovely bubble we've created around ourselves. It's almost time for it to burst. I can't wait.
All in my opinion.
Pumping millions into keeping the ever increasing elderly and socially useless demographic alive is absurd, a solution is needed.
Putting to sleep the brain dead would be a far too ambiguous endeavour, considering those that return to an active life after decades in a coma for example. Putting to sleep the terminally brain dead is perfectly acceptable.
Euthanasia should be fully legalised immediately.
Population growth is not so much of a problem now but will be a huge one in the very near future, as we all know. There has to be a solution, and that solution needs to be implemented now. Single child policy maybe?
Chavez is right - capitalism is the road to hell. There are many calculations that government scientists will have done that conclude many disasters in society, including that of over-population - these need to be revealed and addressed by an honest government, but what's the likelihood! Although the probability being that there would be mass denial, we need a bit of scare injected into us to wake the majority up from this lovely bubble we've created around ourselves. It's almost time for it to burst. I can't wait.
All in my opinion.
One child families? The Chinese tried that but had to give up because of the subsequent aging of its population..
It's a serious problem, there is no doubt about that. I'm not sure, at this stage, that there is a solution. I suppose that the subject has drifted, slightly. The real question of these posts, as I see it, is how to die peacefully and with dignity and there is a natural tendency to not want to pull the trigger on anyone, especially loved ones.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,848
- Likes
- 4,028
How about we start by bringing back capital punishment. Jails are bursting at the seams with crooks being released early.
Those couple of twits who tortured those two French students would be high on my list as well as peadophiles who kill little children. Baby P killer and 2 year old baby rapist as well as the Soham murderer. Why do we let these people live in jail and eventually to be let out again? Cost a fortune and have nought benefit to society.
We go so far that - we even take the right of people with a sound mind the absolute right over their life.
We cherish life and extend the life of those who take it away from innocents in horrendous ways. Crazy...
I'm sure if euthanasia is legalised the take up on it would increase as it becomes and acceptable option. It would end much suffering. The Swiss are well ahead of the game.
Another typically bizarre, rambling post. I think it unlikely that I will bother to respond to you in future given your inability either to argue rationally or read what others have posted. Nonetheless, this one will only take a short time to shred:
I think I have made my point fairly well.
1. I wasn't advocating controlling popullation growth.
What is the point of this statement? I did not say that you were.
On the contrary my point was that we didn't have excess popullations. I was advocating a more equitable distribution of wealth. (Point missed by your good self
I did not miss this point - it is simply trivial in comparison to the issue I was raising and so I consciously ignored it. As an aside though, in what way is this an "equitable" distribution of wealth? Absurd.
2. In response to reducing popullation in a civilised way - a valid point raised by another member - I merely added my opinion we should consider revising our approach to looking after the very frail, incapacitated elderly if they could not be supported by their own immediate family or resources. Instead of trying to control new births. In effect diverting limited finite resources from the old to the young. Merely a point for discussion.
So you do advocate killing certain innocent people against their will, which was my point all along. This is nothing but murder and the suggestion that we consider it is evil.
You have noticed some qualifying words and taken it out of context - twisted it by applying to handicapped and charged - high on your horse...
I do not understand what you mean by "You have noticed some qualifying words" - I suspect that you mean the opposite of what you wrote. Nonetheless, I have taken nothing out of context - I have accurately stated your position, which is that you believe that the state should have the ability to kill certain elderly people against their will.
I introduced the question of severly handicapped to see whether you understood the logical implications of your support for state-sponsored murder. You claim that the state should be able to kill certain people against their will on the grounds not of age but of poor quality of life and the burden they place upon public resources. If this is the case, this would surely apply equally to those who are severely handicapped and lack private resources sufficient to cover their own care.
Why not apply the same civilised approach to the handicapped. If immediate family members do not look after their own flesh and blood - and an individual is very much incapacitated by their handicap (and in some cases they endure much pain) the same could apply to them. There have been some cases in the press where couples unable to cope have killed their own to end their suffering. Another couple committed suicide all together at the loss of a loved child. In the spectrum of life there are many 000s of suffering bodies within the constraints of our judicial systems.
And here you admit (despite your odd reference to my high horse) that you would indeed support the murder of the handicapped as well as the elderly (under certain circumstances).
Perhaps our rules and policies on euthanasia - death wrt to old age and severe handicapped people can be reconsidered and revised. Changing our approach to these personal life and death issues can be for the good. It is merely an idea. I wasn't suggesting a compulsory execution. But to have daft laws against them is stupid. Law of the jungle will take care of it sooner or later anyway as has been mentioned.
Euthanasia is an entirely different question - you advocate killing even when the person in question does not wish to die. This makes the statement " I wasn't suggesting a compulsory execution" false. Compulsory execution (or murder, to give it its correct name) is what you are suggesting in circumstances where people have sufficiently low quality of life and cannot afford their own care costs.
I am all reducing wars and deaths, raising of taxes and equitable distribution of wealth. Always have been. I am a socialist at heart.
Calling me Vile cretin who advocates murder? That is a little strong - do you think?
Well, you advocate murder (killing innocent people against their will) so that part is accurate. No, it is not a little strong - people that advocate murder are vile. And wicked, evil, hateful and a host of other unpleasant things. So I'm fine with that part too.
As for cretin, your posting record speaks for itself. Nonetheless, I will highlight one very recent example. You proclaim yourself to be a socialist.
OK, you would possibly not agree that this is sufficient evidence. You would be wrong, but still.
You say that there is a case for killing certain burdensome members of society. You do not however advocate the same where people have the wherewithal to survive without placing a burden on the state - in other words, people with very considerable private means. You therefore advocate a situation where poor people are killed against their will (this is still murder by the way) because they cannot afford the care necessary to keep them alive. However, people that can afford to pay will be permitted to live, solely on the basis of their wealth. I should point again that you claim to be a socialist.
No, I do not think cretin is a little strong. I think it is fairly charitable.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,848
- Likes
- 4,028
Maiden you obviously have a chip on your shoulder...
Shred away and enjoy all that you do...
Maiden you obviously have a chip on your shoulder...
Shred away and enjoy all that you do...
Actually, I don't. However, this is a forum, which can be enjoyed actively and passively. Your repulsive views prompted me to participate more actively.
Once again, you don't seem willing to have your position challenged and make no attempt to respond.
Still, at least you "made your point fairly well"
.
