NationStates Jolt Archive

We should support euthanizing the mental retarted, becuse they are a drain on the tax payer, and people with alzhemers when they reach a certain point.

Yay!

We should support euthanizing the mental retarted, becuse they are a drain on the tax payer, and people with alzhemers when they reach a certain point.
So, you would have yourself euthanized?

We should support euthanizing the mental retarted, becuse they are a drain on the tax payer, and people with alzhemers when they reach a certain point.
I disagree with you. Euthanasia is murder, and not an acceptable practice.

I disagree with you. Euthanasia is murder, and not an acceptable practice.
What if someone requested it?

We should support euthanizing the mental retarted
Are you really, really sure that YOU want to be advocating that? I mean, you can't spell "retarded" correctly, kiddo...ever hear the one about the stone-throwing behaviors of people who live in glass houses?

I say, if we can bomb Iraq we can also bomb Euthanasia. Damn Euthanasians.

We should support euthanizing the mental retarted, becuse they are a drain on the tax payer, and people with alzhemers when they reach a certain point.
Will you be the first volunteer for the program?

This is an icky issue. The mentally retarded are a drain on society and by letting them die we could put the money elsewhere. There are many possible societal benefits to this strategy of killing the retarded or using them for medical experiments.

The problem with this is that they are still considered human. Killing them or using them for experiments would be sort of cruel and would seem immoral. It may be possible to morally justify the loss of life if we used the money gained from killing these people off for a greater societal benefit but doing so still leaves a cold spot in the pit of my stomach.

people do not exist to support the state. the state exists to support people

ALL people.

Not another fascist! :headbang:

Why couldn’t you guys have shut up after Hitler shot himself like a coward, and the Russians told everyone he had one testicle before desecrating his remains?

Depends on your view. However, morally I cannot allow it. Voluntary Euthanasia maybe but the euthanasia of the incapable is wrong.

This is the least icky issue that I've ever seen. The idea is based in ignorance. http://www.aamr.org/index.shtml
The thought that this was even proposed as any type of solution is ludicrous. I mean, ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS?

*walks in and puts up a sign*

"Do not feed the troll*

*leaves , whistling*

The mentally retarded are a drain on society and by letting them die we could put the money elsewhere.

The mentally retarded are only a drain on society if you are incapable of conceiving of the state as anything other than an enormous ledger concerned with financial transactions.

We should support euthanizing the mental retarted, becuse they are a drain on the tax payer, and people with alzhemers when they reach a certain point.

BWO, is that you?

people do not exist to support the state. the state exists to support people

ALL people.
The state is comprised of people. If some people can not carry their share of the work then that means that everyone else has to carry more and therefore the lives of these people come at a cost.

The idea of this solution may be inhumane but the most efficient distributions of resources can provide gains that are many times what was sacrificed.

I, personally, have no real problem with euthanasia, as far as its the real dumb or insane people (thats no life, being not able to speak and think properly or to remember your own name). BUT I know many people don't share this view, and as long as there are people who want to see these people alive nobody should have the right to decide over them.

AND I don't think I could do it myself before I don't really know the people (I know some I could kill because I think it's better for them and others). But I don't have the right to decide. THEY should have the right to decide. If somebody doesn't lead a happy life and wants to die, retarded or not, he should have the right to. If he isn't able to express what he wants (by mental, not physical reasons), I can't see why he should have a right to live at all.
Still, this is a very difficult question. I'm very social-thinking, in many ways, but I have problems with stupid people, even with normal stupid ones. I don't want to decide on this. (And I'm NO fascist, just to make that clear).

The mentally retarded are only a drain on society if you are incapable of conceiving of the state as anything other than an enormous ledger concerned with financial transactions.
How are they not a cost? Under the idea of seeking the benefit for the most they should die. Under the ideal of a more efficient society they should die. To some extent their deaths are the best thing for society. You may speak of some morality but using the money elsewhere may provide the most benefit to the most people.

The state is comprised of people. If some people can not carry their share of the work then that means that everyone else has to carry more and therefore the lives of these people come at a cost.

The idea of this solution may be inhumane but the most efficient distributions of resources can provide gains that are many times what was sacrificed.

There are times where efficiency is not the best thing to be found. This is one of those times.

snip
I'm curious about how much you know about the mentally disabled.

How are they not a cost? Under the idea of seeking the benefit for the most they should die. Under the ideal of a more efficient society they should die. To some extent their deaths are the best thing for society. You may speak of some morality but using the money elsewhere may provide the most benefit to the most people.

This is why I have serious problems with utilitarian morality. There are higher absolutes to be considered here.

I support voluntary euthanasia like if I was 96 and couldn't leave my bed and it hurt to do everything then I would sign papers to allow a doctor to kill me

This is an icky issue. The mentally retarded are a drain on society and by letting them die we could put the money elsewhere. There are many possible societal benefits to this strategy of killing the retarded or using them for medical experiments.

The problem with this is that they are still considered human. Killing them or using them for experiments would be sort of cruel and would seem immoral. It may be possible to morally justify the loss of life if we used the money gained from killing these people off for a greater societal benefit but doing so still leaves a cold spot in the pit of my stomach.
Perhaps you should also be a candidate for this program, along with Nationalsozialististis?

The state is comprised of people. If some people can not carry their share of the work then that means that everyone else has to carry more and therefore the lives of these people come at a cost.

The idea of this solution may be inhumane but the most efficient distributions of resources can provide gains that are many times what was sacrificed.
yes

there are times for all of us when we are more of a drain on society than a contributor. childhood comes to mind but there are others. it is of course ridiculous to suggest that children be euthanized because they are an approximate 18 year drain on society.

the benefit of human society is that we can carry those who are unable to contribute at any particular time. the greater the society the more we are willing and able to support those who cannot support themselves.

I support voluntary euthanasia like if I was 96 and couldn't leave my bed and it hurt to do everything then I would sign papers to allow a doctor to kill me
That is the time when I start taking heroin. I mean, its supposed to be a great drug and what have I got to lose?

It doesn't work that way. Taking an innocent life without their consent is murder, no matter which way you try and equivocate it. Killing someone to save resources is nothing more than cheapening human life, and that leads to a very dangerous path.

What happens when the groups considered "drains on society" are extended to the dissidents? Or the opposition? Or the religious, or atheists, or homosexuals, or anyone else? This is the path that led to the world's greatest atrocities.

Ugh, as a healthcare worker, the first post of this thread makes me sick. As a man, it makes me ashamed of being human.

That is the time when I start taking heroin. I mean, its supposed to be a great drug and what have I got to lose?
well said

This is an icky issue. The mentally retarded are a drain on society and by letting them die we could put the money elsewhere. There are many possible societal benefits to this strategy of killing the retarded or using them for medical experiments.

The problem with this is that they are still considered human. Killing them or using them for experiments would be sort of cruel and would seem immoral. It may be possible to morally justify the loss of life if we used the money gained from killing these people off for a greater societal benefit but doing so still leaves a cold spot in the pit of my stomach.

Sort of cruel?? Retarded people are precious human beings who didnt choose to be the way they are. They feel pain just like you and I. They have a right to live just like you and I. You speak as if they can be tossed aside like a piece of garbage. And I cant even believe you mentioned that they could be used for experimentation :confused:

I hope it does leave a cold spot in the pit of your stomach.

read the book "of mice and men" it made me love the mentally disabled

Well, I have met the mentally retarded and talked to them in the past. I do realize that they are human but logically we can do more if we have the resources. Helping these people out will provide a small amount of pleasure now but investing in capital and research will provide a lot of pleasure in the future.

Emotionally my argument is inhuman, logically it does make sense because of the growth that could be attained by using the resources to do something like build more infrastructure or even do medical research designed to reduce the occurance of mental retardation. Your arguments seem to be based on emotions or even false analogies like comparing people that will not generate future progress to children and the like who if given the proper environment and such will create economic growth and support future societies.

Well, I have met the mentally retarded and talked to them in the past. I do realize that they are human but logically we can do more if we have the resources. Helping these people out will provide a small amount of pleasure now but investing in capital and research will provide a lot of pleasure in the future.

Emotionally my argument is inhuman, logically it does make sense because of the growth that could be attained by using the resources to do something like build more infrastructure or even do medical research designed to reduce the occurance of mental retardation. Your arguments seem to be based on emotions or even false analogies like comparing people that will not generate future progress to children and the like who if given the proper environment and such will create economic growth and support future societies.

I will laugh heartily when you spawn a mentally challenged child

Emotionally my argument is inhuman, logically it does make sense because of the growth that could be attained by using the resources to do something like build more infrastructure or even do medical research designed to reduce the occurance of mental retardation. Your arguments seem to be based on emotions or even false analogies like comparing people that will not generate future progress to children and the like who if given the proper environment and such will create economic growth and support future societies.

No, it's based on history. Allowing euthanasia that is involuntary, aside from being tantamount to order, gives the ones controlling it the very power of life and death. Once that power is bestowed, they have never stopped in their killing until removed from power, and that is the fundamental wrong besides murder. You cannot do this, and you cannot assign monetary value to human life.

Would you allow them to euthanise a member of your family without consent, perhaps a parent or sibling wounded in an accident?

Well, I have met the mentally retarded and talked to them in the past. I do realize that they are human but logically we can do more if we have the resources. Helping these people out will provide a small amount of pleasure now but investing in capital and research will provide a lot of pleasure in the future.

Emotionally my argument is inhuman, logically it does make sense because of the growth that could be attained by using the resources to do something like build more infrastructure or even do medical research designed to reduce the occurance of mental retardation. Your arguments seem to be based on emotions or even false analogies like comparing people that will not generate future progress to children and the like who if given the proper environment and such will create economic growth and support future societies.
if the only point of life is productivity

if we are only as important as our usefulness to the state

if we want to live in a prosperous but inhumane society

if we are comfortable with the notion that the next time we have problems WE might be euthanized for the good of society

no thanks

As far as I'm concerned, government should only really be concerned with protecting people from blatantly voilent or destructive acts (what with government being a social contract amongst all the members of a society not to kill, rape, burglarize, etc.), not deciding what is the most "fair" or "efficient" way of distributing resources (let free citizens take care of that.) I also think that a good point was made earlier, about killing the mentally retarded to save some money (aka "equitable distribution of resources") being the starting point for new Hitlers and Stalins. I'm not comfortable living in a country that forces people to move out of their homes to make way for shopping malls, let alone killing them for essentially the same reason.

Mentally Disabled people can still be productive and supportive members of society.

They can feel pain, and they have minds, and they''re concious...unlike..PVS PATIENTS!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=441855

I will laugh heartily when you spawn a mentally challenged child
That would be an interesting challenge for me to deal with. I have considered that there might be a possibility of that happening but I have no idea what to do if that actually does happen.

No, it's based on history. Allowing euthanasia that is involuntary, aside from being tantamount to order, gives the ones controlling it the very power of life and death. Once that power is bestowed, they have never stopped in their killing until removed from power, and that is the fundamental wrong besides murder. You cannot do this, and you cannot assign monetary value to human life.

Would you allow them to euthanise a member of your family without consent, perhaps a parent or sibling wounded in an accident?
Ok, I still do not really get the entire complaint, this is not because I am stupid so much as the ideological diffeerences we have. Life must submit to life and killing to promote better lives for future generations, therefore life must have an economic value.

I suppose that I would allow such to happen if that family member was that damaged. An individual that was incapable in such a manner is really no benefit to anyone, but if they are going to euthanize anyone please make it so that they are my uncles and cousins because I am not entirely certain that some of them are really all that deserving of life considering the crap that they do.

As far as I'm concerned, government should only really be concerned with protecting people from blatantly voilent or destructive acts (what with government being a social contract amongst all the members of a society not to kill, rape, burglarize, etc.), not deciding what is the most "fair" or "efficient" way of distributing resources (let free citizens take care of that.) I also think that a good point was made earlier, about killing the mentally retarded to save some money (aka "equitable distribution of resources") being the starting point for new Hitlers and Stalins. I'm not comfortable living in a country that forces people to move out of their homes to make way for shopping malls, let alone killing them for essentially the same reason.
I guess that the capitalist method of dealing with the issue may be ok. That way the relatives of the person can handle the issue and the person that they want that does not help society can be their burden and therefore to some extent less of a burden because they would be paying for something that they want. Besides, people spend money on things worse than the welfare of a mentally challenged person, I am more unsure about the idea that the state should be forced to deal with the burden.

Can't we euthanize Nazis instead? At least their problem is actually their own fault...

;)

BWO, is that you?

No, I'm over here.

How are they not a cost? Under the idea of seeking the benefit for the most they should die. Under the ideal of a more efficient society they should die. To some extent their deaths are the best thing for society. You may speak of some morality but using the money elsewhere may provide the most benefit to the most people.


A state is not solely concerned with money, and the life of any individual within the state cannot be judged solely on the basis of a financial criterion.

Let us imagine that there is a mentally handicapped person who brings joy to those who care for them: what monetary value do we put on that joy?

We should support euthanizing the mental retarted, becuse they are a drain on the tax payer, and people with alzhemers when they reach a certain point.Let's not and say we did.
Volontary Euthanasia, maybe. Otherwise its only state sanctioned murder. There's plenty of people willing to take that "tax burden" on themselves for the sake of preserving their humanity.

Well, I have met the mentally retarded and talked to them in the past. I do realize that they are human but logically we can do more if we have the resources. Helping these people out will provide a small amount of pleasure now but investing in capital and research will provide a lot of pleasure in the future.

Well, I'm physically disabled, 35, probably have another 30 or 40 years left in me, and will unlikely ever be able to fully support myself again. By your definition I'm a drain on society. Am I part of the next group you plan on sending off to the gas chambers? Because that's usually what folows.

A state is not solely concerned with money, and the life of any individual within the state cannot be judged solely on the basis of a financial criterion.

Let us imagine that there is a mentally handicapped person who brings joy to those who care for them: what monetary value do we put on that joy?
The economy of a nation is an important thing. A good economy is often an efficient economy and a good economy can provide better healthcare, better education, more and better jobs, better quality of life and more technological development.

In the situation that you spelled out below I could understand if the people who derive joy from the handicapped person were the ones to pay or if the person was euthanized anyway to cut costs. Both work because if you want something then you pay for and the other because on average handicapped peoples cause great problems and hurt marriages, cost society due to the required development of special ed programs, and really are not capable of paying their own way. I suppose that if a person can be deemed societally useful than they are acceptable because of the services provided but people should not hurt society.

If you've got to kill someone, kill the "normal" people. They're the ones who cause all the trouble.

...

...I was happy in the psychiatric unit. Well, not exactly happy, but happier. How the hell you "normal" people can live like this I will never know.

Well, I'm physically disabled, 35, probably have another 30 or 40 years left in me, and will unlikely ever be able to fully support myself again. By your definition I'm a drain on society. Am I part of the next group you plan on sending off to the gas chambers? Because that's usually what folows.
I am sorry that you are handicapped, we do need to do research to find ways to cure more problems including this one. I would not wish to have the life that you do and I am sorry that a reasonably intelligent individual has the burden of such a curse.

I am sorry that you are handicapped, we do need to do research to find ways to cure more problems including this one. I would not wish to have the life that you do and I am sorry that a reasonably intelligent individual has the burden of such a curse.But you're willing to fund that research with what you take from the non-"reasonably intelligent"? From talking to the mothers of such "cases", they would never for one second consider euthanizing them.
The first Nazi euthanasia programs were shut down when the public got wind of it, and from then on they pulled it off with much greater secrecy.

It doesn't work that way. Taking an innocent life without their consent is murder, no matter which way you try and equivocate it. Killing someone to save resources is nothing more than cheapening human life, and that leads to a very dangerous path.

What happens when the groups considered "drains on society" are extended to the dissidents? Or the opposition? Or the religious, or atheists, or homosexuals, or anyone else? This is the path that led to the world's greatest atrocities.
Possibly including the unborn?

Ooh, I’m controversial. :p

I dont believe in euthanising(sp?) mentally retarded people. However, no government money should go to them to support them, other than benefits to all, such as police and whatnot.

If someone who is mentally retarded cannot support themselves in a capitalist society, or find someone in the private sector to do so for them, then they will die off. Its natural selection. Fight, bite, or night.

How about this:
We create zombies and then we could "euthanize" them by having a huge human VS zombie battle?

Possibly including the unborn?

Ooh, I’m controversial. :pNah. Just off topic. ;)

We should support euthanizing the mental retarted, becuse they are a drain on the tax payer, and people with alzhemers when they reach a certain point. No, I know alot of really mentally retarded people who are useful still in this world.
But I think you should be euthanized.

Are you really, really sure that YOU want to be advocating that? I mean, you can't spell "retarded" correctly, kiddo...ever hear the one about the stone-throwing behaviors of people who live in glass houses?Your right i can,t spell worth a s**t, but i am also a productive TAX payer, i contrebute, not a leech.

Your right i can,t spell worth a s**t, but i am also a productive TAX payer, i contrebute, not a leech.Are you suggesting doctors don't pay taxes? :p

Nah. Just off topic. ;)
Quiet you!

Every debate longer than two pages must eventually feature either an abortion debate, a cheap shot at Bush, a late hit on Clinton, Nazis, Americans saying that Europe sucks, Europeans saying America sucks, or, quite commonly, all six of them. It’s a rule on this forum or something.

Well, I'm physically disabled, 35, probably have another 30 or 40 years left in me, and will unlikely ever be able to fully support myself again. By your definition I'm a drain on society. Am I part of the next group you plan on sending off to the gas chambers? Because that's usually what folows.If your family wont support you, you have to go.

Are you suggesting doctors don't pay taxes? :p
Not at all, but it takes more then doctor taxes to pay for there upkeep, its simpile Darwism.

If your family wont support you, you have to go.

You, sir, are officially sickening. The value of a person is based strictly on being people, not on what they can contribute to society. Anything that does not acknowledge that, whether it's abortion, euthenasia, etc., must be stopped.

"We should support euthanizing the mental retarted, becuse they are a drain on the tax payer, and people with alzhemers when they reach a certain point."

That's just cruel, why don't you go wallow in your own hatred and leave us good people alone. The mentally ill have feelings too.

My own mother has alzhemers so bad she knows no one, remembers nothing, theres a quility of life issue here, if there was,t the WHOLE United States would not be in a debate on the right to die, and DR Koverken would have had no one to put out of there missery, the metal retarded would be better off the American tax payer would be better off, if we put them down at birth, and the Nazis were not the first people to do away with them.

My own mother has alzhemers so bad she knows no one, remembers nothing, theres a quility of life issue here, if there was,t the WHOLE United States would not be in a debate on the right to die, and DR Koverken would have had no one to put out of there missery, the metal retarded would be better off the American tax payer would be better off, if we put them down at birth, and the Nazis were not the first people to do away with them.

True, the Nazis weren't the first, but hopefully they will be the last. Quality of life is not the only consideration. Just being a human life makes it invaluable.

You, sir, are officially sickening. The value of a person is based strictly on being people, not on what they can contribute to society. Anything that does not acknowledge that, whether it's abortion, euthenasia, etc., must be stopped.
There are people starving to death and dying of simple sickness, that would be better serverd with monye spent saving them, then keeping a bunch of retards alive.

My own mother has alzhemers so bad she knows no one, remembers nothing, theres a quility of life issue here, if there was,t the WHOLE United States would not be in a debate on the right to die, and DR Koverken would have had no one to put out of there missery, the metal retarded would be better off the American tax payer would be better off, if we put them down at birth, and the Nazis were not the first people to do away with them.

I believe that maybe the complete Comatose Retarded would make sense. But I know this person with an IQ of around 50. Can't say a word, doesn't know their own strength. But I won't believe how many people that person has cheered up if someone told me that they were going to legally kill that person because of their 50 IQ then I'd tell them I'd take them out first because I won't let anyone kill them because of some stupid Tax quota.

Oh and guess what. those Retards are being taught how to clean. In other words an actual JOB. **** your idea.

There are people starving to death and dying of simple sickness, that would be better serverd with monye spent saving them, then keeping a bunch of retards alive.

Better yet, those people would be better served if we didn't pay millions of dollars for our singers, movie stars, and sports players.

The problem with world hunger is not one of production, but one of distribution. Warlords, unexpected famines, and other tragedies are causing it, not spending money on the mentally handicapped.

What if someone requested it?

This is the only reason to euthinize someone...because they could give informed consent and willingly wanted to die...not because they are some kind of financial burden on an economy...even then there have to be strict rules and guidelines in place to guard against the "slippery slope" of euthinasia

Better yet, those people would be better served if we didn't pay millions of dollars for our singers, movie stars, and sports players.

The problem with world hunger is not one of production, but one of distribution. Warlords, unexpected famines, and other tragedies are causing it, not spending money on the mentally handicapped.
Your right to a point we do spend way to much monye on that stuff, but also remember Darwin figured it out truth as theory pure and simple, i,m not advocating that if someone paid taxes and socal securty then got invalid they should go, as LONG as they understand whats going on around them and are able to funcation even if it is limited.

I think its very disrepectful of you to have such little regard for mentally handicapped people. I doubt they are bothering you personally. I certainly dont mind my tax dollars going to help them live. Have some respect please.

There are very few cases where I support murder:
1. Self-defence
2. the victim is in pain caused by an uncurable disease. They either die painfully or die quickly with a bullet in the head.

Tax relief is not one of them. I wouldn't want my tax dollars to fund gas chambers and organized killings in mass numbers similar to the Nazis. After all, that "retard" might be smarter than you think. People believed that Einstien was mentally retarded when he was young. Would you go back in time and shoot him? By executing people believed to be retarded, you could really be killing the next Einstien. Plus, a government that sanctions killings based off of percieved inferiority has failed its people and its job. I mean, if over a century of slavery help cause the single bloodiest war in American history in terms of American lives, imagine what instability a second Nazi regime would cause. Sadaam's bloody dictatorship caused all those hidden problems in Iraq.

My own mother has alzhemers so bad she knows no one, remembers nothing, theres a quility of life issue here, if there was,t the WHOLE United States would not be in a debate on the right to die, and DR Koverken would have had no one to put out of there missery, the metal retarded would be better off the American tax payer would be better off, if we put them down at birth, and the Nazis were not the first people to do away with them.
Volunteering to kill your own mother, thats classy. ;) Nazis are a far larger drain on the society then the retarded.

Volunteering to kill your own mother, thats classy. ;) Nazis are a far larger drain on the society then the retarded.
Well, his mother is almost a veggie and he does pay his taxes. He has not made comment about killing jews or anything like that. He does not sound that draining so far but I do support the killing of people who are openly racist.

They are sentient. Killing them would be murder.

If you don't care whether you cause immense sufferring to other sentient beings or not, then people who spend more money than they earn, basically anyone who inherits money or gives it to stock brokers who do all the work, should also be executed. Other money saving schemes would include the usage of strategic nuclear weapons to frighten other nations into submission instead of wasting money on conventional forces, forcing everyone to live in communes (why should the economy support 20 houses and 20 washing machines when you can support one large hotel and 1 washing machine) and forcibly disband retail stores, malls and cinemas, places which sell goods and services that can be sold more cheaply. This would also involve forcing businesses to lower prices.

What do you think?

Volunteering to kill your own mother, thats classy. ;) Nazis are a far larger drain on the society then the retarded.
Becuse my own mother wanted to die when she found out she had it, her own mother died of it, so she know what was going to happen, she even tried to commit suicide, so don,t judge when you don,t know the facts, as for tax relife it costs more over a life time to care for the mental retarded then to give them peace and relife.

There are ways for the government to get more money. It could kidnap people for randsom. Any nations doing anything to stop it would see mushroom clouds. Would you support that? The government can capture people for other people to shoot for a fee. Would you support that? How about the government place a 100% tax on EVERYONE. How about a tax on everyone, regardless of age, meaning that baby is very taxable. Would you support that?

Thats nice but the facts never changed the situation, that you're willing to kill your own mother. You also never adressed my point that Nazis are a greater drain on funds then the retarded, so you might want to be working on that to. :)

Your right to a point we do spend way to much monye on that stuff, but also remember Darwin figured it out truth as theory pure and simple, i,m not advocating that if someone paid taxes and socal securty then got invalid they should go, as LONG as they understand whats going on around them and are able to funcation even if it is limited.

Sorry, but "survival of the fittest" should go out the window when we are talking about people. The value of a human life is priceless, regardless of ability. Sorry, but I'm not into this Neitzsche "Superman" thing.

This "kill the useless" principle sounds an offly like what Hitler did. He had those deemed unworthy either gassed, shot, or cooked in crematory ovens. he started a regime known for its ruthlessness and cold-blooded calculated mass murders.

Don,t confusse murder,with mercy killing, and as far as Darwin is conserned there were no NAZIS when he came up with his therory, and unlike hitler who was a greatman but villennized, Darwin is still thought in school and respected for his theroy of natural solution.

Don,t confusse murder,with mercy killing, and as far as Darwin is conserned there were no NAZIS when he came up with his therory, and unlike hitler who was a greatman but villennized, Darwin is still thought in school and respected for his theroy of natural solution.
All credibility lost in forty-eight posts! :eek:

All credibility lost in forty-eight posts! :eek:

Oh, he lost that long before that post, but it was just a nice confirmation for my early dismissal.

No one noticed that the guys name is "Nationalsozialististis". Still hasn't addressed my point that he is a greater drain on society then the retarded.

Don,t confusse murder,with mercy killing, and as far as Darwin is conserned there were no NAZIS when he came up with his therory, and unlike hitler who was a greatman but villennized, Darwin is still thought in school and respected for his theroy of natural solution.

What you are talking about is called Social Darwinism. It has nothing to do with Charles Darwin or evolution. It is an outdated and discredited philosophy invented by a group of elitist victorians to justify their opression of other "races" as they built their empires. Pick up a history book sometime. But until then check out the link.

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

Well, I'm physically disabled, 35, probably have another 30 or 40 years left in me, and will unlikely ever be able to fully support myself again. By your definition I'm a drain on society. Am I part of the next group you plan on sending off to the gas chambers? Because that's usually what folows.

Dude, Physically Disabled people can support themselves just as well as physically non-disabled people. Look at Stephen Hawkings.

Thats nice but the facts never changed the situation, that you're willing to kill your own mother. You also never adressed my point that Nazis are a greater drain on funds then the retarded, so you might want to be working on that to. :)
the eskomos left there old and invalids on the ice to die, so yes i would put her out of her misery.

iLock pending Moderator review.

I'm going to bed. I'm not going to review this right now.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

There are people starving to death and dying of simple sickness, that would be better serverd with monye spent saving them, then keeping a bunch of retards alive.

Don,t confusse murder,with mercy killing, and as far as Darwin is conserned there were no NAZIS when he came up with his therory, and unlike hitler who was a greatman but villennized, Darwin is still thought in school and respected for his theroy of natural solution.

We've had enough of your trolling. Even if you truly believe this, saying things to purposely upset others is what trolling is considered.
Nationalsozialististis: Official Warning for Trolling

Everyone else needs to cool down as well. Responding to these remarks is exactly what you shouldn't do.