Killing the weak.A practical point.

[Masterzakk]

The act of keeping diseased people and the like from giving birth and killing them can help our people evolve. Pretty much everyone agrees with me whenever two stupid people get together and have children they will have a retarded child. Science supports this ideallogy. From a moral standpoint I cannot see how it is bad for us to kill the weak because it helps keep humanity strong. To some people this is a necassary "evil" (evil means live so be evil). Thus if we kill the weak and the sick (people with aids and other diseases) our blood will be clean (not pure) and can normally resist diseases.

Would you like to add something to this standpoint or give another opionion on it? I would love to know.

[ScytheCutter]

And I suppose you'd like to start the ovens in Poland again to get rid of the corpses?

[rainmaker]

Then we should start with you because your cognitive ability is seriously flawed, you sick brute.
You deserve nobody's respect. To be so nonchalant about killing the less fortunate is troubling. Troubling.

[Masterzakk]

At 7/16/09 09:16 PM, rainmaker wrote: Then we should start with you because your cognitive ability is seriously flawed, you sick brute.
You deserve nobody's respect. To be so nonchalant about killing the less fortunate is troubling. Troubling.

Being a sociopath helps my friend. Please I doing this from a practical standpoint so please give me a reason to not feel this way.

[poxpower]

Well there's no need to kill them but in the future, as genetic monitoring becomes easier, we can prevent them from being born.

We'll be able to know a lot more precisely when parents are at risk of giving birth to some defective kid.

And hopefully, as time goes by, we can even fix some of these later on.

[Masterzakk]

At 7/16/09 09:18 PM, poxpower wrote: Well there's no need to kill them but in the future, as genetic monitoring becomes easier, we can prevent them from being born.

We'll be able to know a lot more precisely when parents are at risk of giving birth to some defective kid.

And hopefully, as time goes by, we can even fix some of these later on.

Thank you poxpower for your opionions. I think you did a good job!

[Tancrisism]

At 7/16/09 09:10 PM, Masterzakk wrote: The act of keeping diseased people and the like from giving birth and killing them can help our people evolve.

Hmm...

Pretty much everyone agrees with me whenever two stupid people get together and have children they will have a retarded child. Science supports this ideallogy.

Please show me the scientific basis that you got this from. Many retarded people are born from perfectly healthy, intelligent parents.

Bad parenting is a problem, for sure, but to kill bad, or as you said, stupid parents serves as a problem because how do we define who is stupid? Stupidity itself is entirely subjective. I would say that any parent who allows their children to watch Sean Hannity is a stupid, irresponsible parent, but many parents who allow their children to watch Sean Hannity would probably consider me stupid.

From a moral standpoint I cannot see how it is bad for us to kill the weak because it helps keep humanity strong.

Explain this "moral standpoint".

To some people this is a necassary "evil"

To some a man was resurrected and will one day come back to lead the zombie apocalypse.

(evil means live so be evil).

I did not know that we defined words by their backwards spelling. Good to know.

Thus if we kill the weak and the sick (people with aids and other diseases) our blood will be clean (not pure) and can normally resist diseases.

While I agree that there should be some way to be able to make AIDS, for instance, more detectable, given the overall attachment we feel towards other human beings, killing them is not a good idea. Also, other diseases and such would spring up.

Would you like to add something to this standpoint or give another opionion on it? I would love to know.

I think you need to experience a bit more of the world, kid.

[Dawnslayer]

"Diseased people" has had a very broad definition throughout history. You need to be more specific if you want to make this argument. Also, two none-too-bright people can produce a very intelligent offspring who chooses not to follow the path of their parents, one instance being my mother.

Anyway, the official name for what you are proposing is eugenics. And while I would love to explain why it doesn't work, I'll let the thread develop a little more before I post my explanation.

[rainmaker]

At 7/16/09 09:17 PM, Masterzakk wrote: Being a sociopath helps my friend. Please I doing this from a practical standpoint so please give me a reason to not feel this way.

Well if you're a sociopath you'd be the first to go - is a lack of self-preservation a symptom of sociopaths? I mean,
BUT! I'll play by your rules. Let's look at... Sparta.

I also believe Nazi Germany had a thing for killing all handicapped citizens... The human mind which lacks the logical ability to empathize or sympathize can never know evolution. Is not a deep understanding of human emotion a sign of evolution? That's just what empathy is.

Humanity is so far advanced that we've created a society in which even the weakest among us can thrive. To destroy this element is not evolution, regardless of how powerful the human body or the human mind becomes.

[Patton3]

It says a lot about a society when you look at how they treat criminals, elderly, infirm, etc. What does committing genocide of the weak say about your society, other than you're barbaric and possibly racist?

[Masterzakk]

At 7/16/09 09:20 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Please show me the scientific basis that you got this from. Many retarded people are born from perfectly healthy, intelligent parents.

Social sciences (and just knowing) states the fact that there is a huge possiblity that retarded parents will give retarded off spring. Also my case here is that we should kill the child (I'll give it about 5 or so years to see it actually is retarded rather than just a slow learner). To help the parents from taking care of something that society and themselves don't love.

Bad parenting is a problem, for sure, but to kill bad, or as you said, stupid parents serves as a problem because how do we define who is stupid? Stupidity itself is entirely subjective. I would say that any parent who allows their children to watch Sean Hannity is a stupid, irresponsible parent, but many parents who allow their children to watch Sean Hannity would probably consider me stupid.

Political Idealogies =/= retarded no matter what people will think

Explain this "moral standpoint".

"don't kill, steal, lie, and such"

To some a man was resurrected and will one day come back to lead the zombie apocalypse.

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

I did not know that we defined words by their backwards spelling. Good to know.

Djhives.blogspot.com is where I got it from.

While I agree that there should be some way to be able to make AIDS, for instance, more detectable, given the overall attachment we feel towards other human beings, killing them is not a good idea. Also, other diseases and such would spring up.

Your half right half wrong. Having killing the aids victims will no longer bring up aids and other diseases thus stopping them.

I think you need to experience a bit more of the world, kid.

Oh really now? Tell me what I should "experience" that I haven't known so far?

[Bacchanalian]

At 7/16/09 09:36 PM, Masterzakk wrote: Social sciences

You are aware that retardation isn't transmitted via social medium... right?

(and just knowing)

... just knowing? For someone knowledgeable in the "social sciences" you sure seem to fail psychology.

To help the parents from taking care of something that society and themselves don't love.

Retards: Impossible to love.

Is that something else you "just know"?

[fatape]

you realize that by these "weak" people having kids more often then you, they are more "fit" from a evolutionary standpoint.

it dosen't matter how strong , intellgent, and strong you are if you never pass on your genes.

[nehemiah135]

what if you somehow got aids or another disease and you were badly injured so you went to the hospital, they found out you had aids and they killed you right there. that dosen't seem barbaric at all. then this would turn into a whole system of a holocaust with sick people. and for some odd coincidance let say that they finnally got rid of this disease entirely. were do you think it came from. it didn't just spawn out of nowere. so after a while it would come alive again in one person. and they would stop running test because they thought "oh its gone its not gonna happen anymore" and it spreads again then we go through this whole scenario again.

[Ledgey]

So you're saying that unhealthy, "unclean" people don't contribute anything to society? There are many disabled people who have achieved beyond your means, for example, Stephen Hawkins.

Whatever you say, Social Darwinism is a crude policy that makes little sense today.

But evenso, you claim the moral high ground. Now, you wouldn't say any of this to the mother of a disabled child would you? Or even to a disabled person?

[Masterzakk]

At 7/16/09 09:59 PM, Ledgey wrote: So you're saying that unhealthy, "unclean" people don't contribute anything to society? There are many disabled people who have achieved beyond your means, for example, Stephen Hawkins.

Yes but he isn't retarded nor does he have a disease. Also even if he was to die what the hell did he do accept bring in more athiest? Seriously I am very curious about that.

Whatever you say, Social Darwinism is a crude policy that makes little sense today.

Nature states that the weak and those unwilling to live is to die but many people a charitable for selfish reasons thus we should help nature.

But evenso, you claim the moral high ground. Now, you wouldn't say any of this to the mother of a disabled child would you? Or even to a disabled person?

Yes I would. I am not conserned with emotional problems seeing as I don't give a damn about emotions but evolving and becoming stronger.

[Bacchanalian]

At 7/16/09 10:03 PM, Masterzakk wrote: Yes but he isn't retarded nor does he have a disease

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyotrophic _lateral_sclerosis

Colloquially known as Lou Gehrig's Disease.

MAY BE GENETIC!

[homor]

At 7/16/09 09:17 PM, Masterzakk wrote: Being a sociopath helps my friend.

HURR YOU SURE ARE HARDCORE.

seriously, for this idea to go into action we would have to start with the people who came up with, supported, and enacted this idea. and then we would have to kill ourselves for supporting such a bad idea.

[MultiCanimefan]

At 7/16/09 09:10 PM, Masterzakk wrote: The act of keeping diseased people and the like from giving birth and killing them can help our people evolve.

You realize that artificial, voluntary natural selection is NOT evolution.

Pretty much everyone agrees with me whenever two stupid people get together and have children they will have a retarded child.

Besides, you, yourself, and yourself? Please give us one contemporary, legitimate scientist who agrees with you. Make sure he's not hellbent on removing parts of the brain to prohibit certain behavior, as well.

Science supports this ideallogy.

Science also tells me, or, rather YOU tell me, that you're a sociopath, which the last time I checked is an overall maladaptive attribute.

From a moral standpoint I cannot see how it is bad for us to kill the weak because it helps keep humanity strong.

You can't see it because you don't care. It's very simple, and just because YOU don't care, does NOT mean it's correct.

To some people this is a necassary "evil" (evil means live so be evil).

Please tell us about some of these people.

Thus if we kill the weak and the sick (people with aids and other diseases) our blood will be clean (not pure) and can normally resist diseases.

Our blood will be "clean"(whatever that means) temporarily, even if that. You do realize that eliminating diseases makes us WEAKER and not stronger? Having diseases around builds up our immune system. It would be the equivalent of living inside a bubble since birth; as soon as you exit(eliminate disease) you'll catch all sorts of illnesses, against which you could have become strong.

Would you like to add something to this standpoint or give another opionion on it? I would love to know.

Well I disagree.

At 7/16/09 09:36 PM, Masterzakk wrote:

Also my case here is that we should kill the child (I'll give it about 5 or so years to see it actually is retarded rather than just a slow learner).

Unbelievable.

To help the parents from taking care of something that society and themselves don't love.

Now you think you're qualified to talk about an extremely complicated emotion that is love? Don't make laugh, kid. You don't even know what the hell "love" is, and chances are you've never experienced it either.

Your half right half wrong. Having killing the aids victims will no longer bring up aids and other diseases thus stopping them.

You won't stop the disease completely. New diseases will always emerge, whether you like it or not, and simply killing whoever has it is a FAILED methodology.

At 7/16/09 10:03 PM, Masterzakk wrote:

Yes but he isn't retarded nor does he have a disease.

He DOES have a disease. Did you do ANY research at all?

Also even if he was to die what the hell did he do accept bring in more athiest? Seriously I am very curious about that.

Ha ha ha, oh wow.

Nature states that the weak and those unwilling to live is to die but many people a charitable for selfish reasons thus we should help nature.

Naturalistic Fallacy, look it up.

Yes I would. I am not conserned with emotional problems seeing as I don't give a damn about emotions but evolving and becoming stronger.

You're NOT going to be evolving if you do it yourself; you're going to be modifying yourself and your genes. That is NOT nature. Nature is letting things take their course, something it seems you're entirely disinterested in. In your quest to become the perfect being, you'll end up destroying yourself.

[Tancrisism]

At 7/16/09 09:36 PM, Masterzakk wrote: Social sciences (and just knowing) states the fact that there is a huge possiblity that retarded parents will give retarded off spring.

You sad "bad" parents, not retarded parents.

Also my case here is that we should kill the child (I'll give it about 5 or so years to see it actually is retarded rather than just a slow learner). To help the parents from taking care of something that society and themselves don't love.

Have you ever spent time with a retarded person, or a deformed person, or someone with something like cerebral palsy? It would do you some good. You'd find they are people just like everyone else; cerebral palsy especially - this is a perfectly developed human brain trapped within a non-responsive and chaotic body. These people have as much a right to live as you or I.

Political Idealogies =/= retarded no matter what people will think

That is only according to your ideology, though.

Do you see how unpractical this sort of thing is?

Explain this "moral standpoint".

"don't kill, steal, lie, and such"

So you'd kill so that you can fulfill the moral standpoint of not killing?

To some a man was resurrected and will one day come back to lead the zombie apocalypse.

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Of course. Relevance?

Djhives.blogspot.com is where I got it from.

Propaganda websites are usually good sources of information.

Your half right half wrong. Having killing the aids victims will no longer bring up aids and other diseases thus stopping them.

But diseases form randomly, you see? AIDS won't exist anymore, but something else will take its place. That's how the natural world that you love citing for this argument works.

Oh really now? Tell me what I should "experience" that I haven't known so far?

Human interaction would be a good start.

[Proteas]

At 7/16/09 09:17 PM, Masterzakk wrote: Being a sociopath helps my friend. Please I doing this from a practical standpoint so please give me a reason to not feel this way.

There's a difference between a sociopath and a troll, kid.

At 7/16/09 09:36 PM, Masterzakk wrote: Social sciences (and just knowing) states the fact that there is a huge possiblity that retarded parents will give retarded off spring.

... since when have retarded people been capable of knowing what sex is, much less how to perform it willingly with each other?

Having killing the aids victims will no longer bring up aids and other diseases thus stopping them.

And how exactly do you intend to rally support for this cause, much less everything else you've said so far?

[Ledgey]

Yes but he isn't retarded nor does he have a disease. Also even if he was to die what the hell did he do accept bring in more athiest? Seriously I am very curious about that.

He has Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. "A form of motor neuron disease." And I'm not a science wizz or anything, but I'm pretty sure he furthered the development of Quantum Physics. And since you seem to be siding with Science, you should respect his achievements.

Nature states that the weak and those unwilling to live is to die but many people a charitable for selfish reasons thus we should help nature.

Natural selection has no place in society, only in nature. And even then, in the mammal world, you don't see them consuming eachother because their offspring is dysfunctionate.

But using your theory, we should elimate all other species on earth, because we're "cleaner" than them and they do little to further human development.

Yes I would. I am not conserned with emotional problems seeing as I don't give a damn about emotions but evolving and becoming stronger.

I'M SORRY MR ROBOT.

No seriously, with medicine and whatnot, evolution has pretty much stopped with humans. Your idea of becoming stronger is similar to some geezer from Austria's ideology. You try to dress it up with Science and claim it not to be evil, as did he.

Trying to tamper with human evolution is dangerous anyway. As history has shown us, it only brings hatred and racism into the equation.

[Masterzakk]

At 7/16/09 11:05 PM, Tancrisism wrote: You sad "bad" parents, not retarded parents.

Oh

Have you ever spent time with a retarded person, or a deformed person, or someone with something like cerebral palsy? It would do you some good. You'd find they are people just like everyone else; cerebral palsy especially - this is a perfectly developed human brain trapped within a non-responsive and chaotic body. These people have as much a right to live as you or I.

Bullshit! I have spent about 5 minutes with an actual retard and I wanted to beat the fuck out of him. I don't even look at people who like pop music as "human" more like "sheep". I am not saying I'm perfect nor would I ever wish to be nor would humanity but..but they are just IRATATING! Whatever this strict formalation of what is human or not is what society needs. We need more people being more judgemental over people and this guilt complex you assholes have is bullshit! Yes I am an asshole to half the people I know! Yes I do have homicidle thoughts against the less fortonate! That isn't exactly the point but the practicalness of the killing the weak is great! Even though I don't like Nazi Idealogy anywhere else but the killing of their retarded people made them strong! (until hitler refused to use the machine gun)

That is only according to your ideology, though.

Eh most people who'd kill for an idealogy are what needs to be exterminated anyways (except this one)

Do you see how unpractical this sort of thing is?

No I think it is practical.

So you'd kill so that you can fulfill the moral standpoint of not killing?

Well I'm not trying to fulfill a moral standpoint. Morality is what made man so weak in the first place.

Of course. Relevance?

Yes

Propaganda websites are usually good sources of information.

How is this propaganda?

But diseases form randomly, you see? AIDS won't exist anymore, but something else will take its place. That's how the natural world that you love citing for this argument works.

I know what your talking about and we can stop them with a little sacrifices and genocides so we wont have epidemics!

Human interaction would be a good start.

I don't need that sort of thing

[MultiCanimefan]

At 7/16/09 11:22 PM, Masterzakk wrote:

At 7/16/09 11:05 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

Well I'm not trying to fulfill a moral standpoint. Morality is what made man so weak in the first place.

Morality made us STRONGER you idiot. I'm sorry, I don't like to insult people, but for fuck's sake you're a full-blown RETARD.

I know what your talking about and we can stop them with a little sacrifices and genocides so we wont have epidemics!

NO YOU CAN'T. Diseases are OUT OF YOUR CONTROL in terms of how and when they develop.

Human interaction would be a good start.

I don't need that sort of thing

Then you're a failure.

[Bacchanalian]

At 7/16/09 11:22 PM, Masterzakk wrote: Bullshit! I have spent about 5 minutes with an actual retard and I wanted to beat the fuck out of him.

Posted at: 7/16/09 10:03 PM by YOU: I don't give a damn about emotions.

So what are you doing using your EMOTIONAL reaction to the disabled to support your argument?

I don't even look at people who like pop music as "human" more like "sheep"

Relevance?

this guilt complex you assholes have is bullshit!

As you are an expert in social sciences, I'm sure you know what I mean when I say you're projecting.

Ah hell I'll explain: You are irritated by the disabled. Therefore, you see guilt as the primary motive to care for them, rather than say... compassion or some-such.

Yes I am an asshole to half the people I know! Yes I do have homicidle thoughts against the less fortonate! That isn't exactly the point but the practicalness of the killing the weak is great!

Don't get ahead of yourself there.

(except this one)

Why?

No I think it is practical.

Hmm...

You: This cabinet is made of wood, because it is brown.
Other Guy: No, that cabinet is made of metal, because this magnet sticks to it.
You: No, I think it's wood.

Well I'm not trying to fulfill a moral standpoint. Morality is what made man so weak in the first place.

Posted at: 7/16/09 09:10 PM by YOU: From a moral standpoint I cannot see how it is bad for us to kill the weak because it helps keep humanity strong.

I know what your talking about and we can stop them with a little sacrifices and genocides so we wont have epidemics!

If only epidemics actually worked that way. You seem to be an expert in genetics too.

I don't need that sort of thing

Oh hello. Welcome to Newgrounds?

[drDAK]

We can find cures to their disease and enable them to be productive members of society.

So, yeah, let's add some intelligence to your decision.

[Proteas]

At 7/16/09 11:22 PM, Masterzakk wrote: Yes I do have homicidle thoughts against the less fortonate!

And nobody cares. We're not impressed by your pseudo-psychopathy or your attempts to shock people with your cut-and-paste eugenics philosophy, what we want to see is how dedicated you are to your ideas and how you intend to defend them. We're toying with you at this point.

So you spent 5 minutes with a mentally handicapped person and wanted to beat the fuck out of them, hm? Is that more a testament to your intolerance, immaturity, and inability to control your own anger, or an example of a serious problem that society needs to deal with ASAP that you can back up with charts, graphs, and extensive research SHOWING how society would benefit from executing less than 3% (at most) of the population as a whole, much less 15% of the population when talking about people in this country with varying PHYSICAL disabilities?

You think that executing all the current AIDS patients would work to prevent the spread of AIDS? Really? And how will society benefit from killing off 2 million people who did nothing to deserve death more than just screwing around?

Even though I don't like Nazi Idealogy anywhere else but the killing of their retarded people made them strong!

In what way?

You do realize the irony and outright hypocrisy in Hitler - a short, dark complected german -- touting the "virtues" of the Aryan race, right?

I don't need that sort of thing

There's the door.

[Masterzakk]

At 7/17/09 12:18 AM, Proteas wrote: And nobody cares. We're not impressed by your pseudo-psychopathy or your attempts to shock people with your cut-and-paste eugenics philosophy, what we want to see is how dedicated you are to your ideas and how you intend to defend them. We're toying with you at this point.

Shocking people?! I'm not trying to shock anyone and if I did I'd just say I'm gay or something to my peers. Also on the "cut and pasteness" of my idealogy I can assure you that it is not racist or anything and that can be said about any political idealogy. I am rather dedicated to my idealogy but I will not sacrifice my life for them. You hate me because you think I'm a retard and "I'm out of my place and should never be interested in something outside my own area"

So you spent 5 minutes with a mentally handicapped person and wanted to beat the fuck out of them, hm? Is that more a testament to your intolerance, immaturity, and inability to control your own anger, or an example of a serious problem that society needs to deal with ASAP that you can back up with charts, graphs, and extensive research SHOWING how society would benefit from executing less than 3% (at most) of the population as a whole, much less 15% of the population when talking about people in this country with varying PHYSICAL disabilities?

I don't see why society would want to kill me because most people do agree with me that they do need to be killed. Seeing as pretty much everyone hates retarded people and most of the time you hate someone it is because you think they are stupid. Also if we would kill 3 percent of the population then we would have more food and more places for people to work with actual skill rather than some fringe lunatic that might kill them on the drop of a hat because of their schiziodphrenzic hatred of society as a whole. Also this is not hypocritical as I don't hate society but the people who MAKE IT WORSE.

You think that executing all the current AIDS patients would work to prevent the spread of AIDS? Really? And how will society benefit from killing off 2 million people who did nothing to deserve death more than just screwing around?

Yes so they can't spread Aids any more. People die for being "good people (I.E. selfish assholes with a passive agressive superority complex) are often not even recognize because it isn't an "in" disease to care about. Ulterism is a lie and selfishness is a vice!

In what way?

The Eugenics of the mentally retarded.

You do realize the irony and outright hypocrisy in Hitler - a short, dark complected german -- touting the "virtues" of the Aryan race, right?

Its a tad funny ain't it?

There's the door.

Seeings as I am fairly stubborn (I know I spelt it wrong) no.

[Bacchanalian]

At 7/17/09 12:34 AM, Masterzakk wrote: I don't see why society would want to kill me because most people do agree with me that they do need to be killed.

Can you supply a study that supports this? It's an awfully radical stance, something which in itself would suggest that most people don't agree with you.

Seeing as pretty much everyone hates retarded people

Now you're just making things up.

and most of the time you hate someone it is because you think they are stupid.

Someone failed their psych 101 class... or never took it. Then again when you "just know" do you really need a class?

Yes you do. Because you're wrong.

Aversion (hate) is a reaction to dissonance. "Stupidity" is a derogatory generalization, exploited to source and subsequently justify one's own stance as superior, in order to resolve the dissonance. Such a resolution is of course, usually, superficial and unsubstantiated - hence the abstraction: aversion.

Difference motivates aversion, of which mental capacity may be a variable, but certainly isn't the only variable.

[Bacchanalian]

Mind you masterzakk....

Since emotion is not conducive (according to you), all your arguments proposing hate as a justification are void.

Since morality is not conducive (according to you), all your arguments proposing moral grounds are void.

Aside from the "its practical" argument, which got tossed aside by you for some reason or another... do you have a point to make that you actually agree with yourself on?