matrixmann | Keeping the throw-outs alive

I agree that it is absurd how people act so shocked when there is a death like it is unexpected.

I think I sort of believed what you said there.

The problem I see now though is that who makes the decision about who lives and who dies. If human life wasn't sacred then some huge hospital would decide to dump the elderly and disabled that are poor, but save the ones that came from wealthy families.

Also, cities would exterminate all their homeless. Once you got to that point, the abusers of power would throw in extra people because they are potentially getting in the way and they just aren't connected so no one will care.

I've worked with quadrapelegic kids that can't speak and it does feel like there is something there. I usually see things really objectively too. There have been cases where someone that was in a coma comes back and tells stories showing that they were aware.

Besides, humanity is doing basically nothing much important, so I don't think the more wealthy and powerful ones should decide who is worthless.

I know this and that's why I didn't put it as a general termination. It's more like a general questioning.
You see, by close look, in nature there would be a clear rule to this. If you wanted to orientate by it would be an ethic question. Human society can't solely work by the rules of nature, otherwise you'd have that kind of shit like the Holocaust again. Humans aren't that objectively and randomly like nature that you can say "those which have a handicap are significantly disadvantaged compared to those which don't have one and that difference makes out that bit that determines between survival or death".
In human society it's already enough owning enough money and wealth and you can get by because you can afford yourself medicine and aid for the things you cannot do. This already distorts the rule that nature has.

I hope this sort of doesn't sound like I'd welcome eugenics - it was also a thought I had in mind with this observation, but only a thought: If in nature there are more born or more blossoms form than survive in the end of a species, wasn't it originally the destination of those with a flaw to actually die - and mankind removed that?
You know, I'm none of these unconditional pro-lifers (I see this term the dictionary translates with the meaning of "being against abortion"; I rather use that term in its literal meaning - being pro life), none of these people which say "every life is worth keeping it", no matter how crippled it is.
I think if you're 15 and if you realize you cannot walk, you're that mentally damaged that you can never reach up to them, you're as intelligent to notice it. And, as 15-years-olds are, you can be frustrated about it if you can't be like everybody else in your age.
People always want to tell you differently because it's the age of artificial positive thinking, positive thinking by command, and because all fear a dawn of the age of eugenics again if they admit a handicapped person can be desperate about its existence.

I didn't put it that directly because - you see why, don't you?
Especially as a German, I think, I need to take care of this.
And also, I don't wanna arrogate it to me to be the judge over such issues. I think I'm not the one to decide that.
I only name it how it's treated in nature to give a little thinking, give a little reminder - but, as said above, human society can't exactly function by the laws of nature.

I can see why someone would write what you wrote. It is just more complicated than that. I'd say the best thing about the United States and all the lawsuits and gridlock in government here is that it does protect the individual and powerful people are frightened into respecting the rights of minorities including homeless and people undervalued.

What if someone like quirkytizzy or myself, people that sort of dotter and limp along on the margins of society, suddenly wrote some novel or book that tens of thousands of people took comfort in. Also, I've substituted a class with a teenager that looked homeless and when I tried to get him to do something he told me about hearing voices in his head. I might have convinced him to go get medicated concerning that. So, who knows who I've helped and who I haven't helped.

It's too easy to write a paragraph or two about how everything is worthless. Words don't really correspond that well to reality. People have more faith in them than they should.

I think it works better to say something like: " I feel frustrated and worthless because the structure of society keeps me from fulfilling a potential and also everyone else is frustrated and worthless because of the structure of society".

Say, I could have a purely social Darwinistic opinion about this, but I don't want to. I see this is more complicated than just making a judgment and then it's done with it. This has severe consequences, if done short-sightedly.
Also, this is another thing if it affects yourself and if the things goes as not you ask someone to kill you, but someone else decides to kill you.

What if this is not what one's trying to say?

Edited 2016-07-03 00:06 (UTC)

That's true. It is really different, but I was starting from the viewpoint that not including yourself in the whole statement is what is missing from it. It is too easy to say "everyone sucks and should die" without including yourself in the assessment. Also, someone, you or I or anyone, might be better than average now, but you could lose a limb, or have something happen, and all of a sudden you are the homeless, seemingly less than average one.

Also, everyone will someday be elderly and it will suck for everyone.

This is also why I don't want to make that judgment final. It's too easy to get into the position of the one who's going to be eaten yourself. And you know yourself how you'd think of that - you wouldn't regard it as a joy.
An another note - as human society can and needs to work differently from nature, it is the way in human society that even someone who is not perfectly healthy can also contribute his part to the whole system.
It becomes difficult if the handicaps become more than what is healthy on you - but a single one, be it physically or psychically, in human society it doesn't need to mean the end of your existence. With human society, you can go on living even if you wouldn't if you were in free nature.
It's only... well, you need to be aware of the fact that it's a dependence. Without it, without civilization, you could cut the possiblity.

Keeping the throw-outs alive

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject