Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/1/13 06:30 PM, Ejit wrote:

At 10/1/13 02:03 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 10/1/13 01:49 PM, Entice wrote: Maybe some people don't feel so disadvantaged by stupid people existing that they think it's justifiable to sterilize or murder people with low IQ.

Listen to your friend Billy Zane,
He's a cool dude
And he's trying to help you out.

You make this forum worse.

At 10/1/13 08:32 PM, poxpower wrote: You make this forum worse.

Don't talk that way about my friend!!!

Less people, more food, equals more years of humanity

Ethical things - it is only what some society think what things are good, and what things are bad. No more, no less.
Make change in time and\or place, and you will find same thngs have another state of good/evil.

Funny about people write here about things what why did not really know.
Sadly about people write here and think they wrote a good joke.

Less idiots. More food. Faster technological advances. Increased life spans. Less violence. Fewer wars. Government control. Yet we choose to keep an overall balanced population because, as I see it, we may become sadistic beings who know not what empathy is, or as emotionless and cold as a machine. Perhaps, we would become machines ourselves, and consider human life expendable, all in the name of progress.

Just speculation. Twisted, yet plausible speculation.

At 10/1/13 11:15 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 10/1/13 10:39 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote: "Maybe if they integrated?" No. Fuck that. They were there first, the others would have had to integrate. And your argumenting with social darwinism makes you sound exactly like Hitler, just so you know.

I don't maybe its part of human nature? when a stronger culture becomes the dominate force the lesser one either adapts or dies, examples: Persian Empire the British and Spanish during their colonial periods. just get over it, they got their reservations which are pretty much sovereign up to a point and reperations.

Agreed, violence is part of human nature, but that is the main reason why I hate this fucking world. Take the colonialists, for example. Why couldn't they just let the others live in peace? They never did anything to them. Some dick just wanted attention and went on a mass killing. "Adapt or die" is probably the assholiest thing one could ever say. I thought humans were somehow more evolved than animals, but unlike animals, humans kill for no reason at all. I am so fucking sick of this world.

At 10/2/13 09:50 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote: unlike animals, humans kill for no reason at all.

yeah thats totally true

At 10/2/13 09:50 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote:

but unlike animals, humans kill for no reason at all. I am so fucking sick of this world.

The most evolved animals are the ones who kill for pleasure or for non-food related reasons.
For instance killer whales will toy with seals, cats will do so with mice as well. Kodiak bears kill and only eat a small part of the salmon when there is lots of fish.

Lots of primates kill each other in turf wars and the chimps, worst of all, organize actual "wars" to take over enemy territory.

It's so dumb to think animals are somehow noble. They're stupid and violent. Their entire existence is violence, pain and fear.

At 10/2/13 11:13 AM, Elitistinen wrote:

At 10/2/13 09:50 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote: but unlike animals, humans kill for no reason at all. I am so fucking sick of this world.

Animals do kill for fucking unclear reasons.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/06/21/chimpanzees-murder-for-land/

Elephants kill rhinos for no reason.

We are not alone.

OK, we are not alone, but we have the means to do it on a much greater scale. And we only do it for the lulz. Animals, at least most of the time, kill either for food or for pussy.

At 10/2/13 11:15 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 10/2/13 09:50 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote:

but unlike animals, humans kill for no reason at all. I am so fucking sick of this world.

The most evolved animals are the ones who kill for pleasure or for non-food related reasons.

Sorry for the double-post, but if you are really implying that bloodthirst is a sign of evolution, then you are only making me more sick of this world.

At 10/2/13 11:19 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote: Animals, at least most of the time, kill either for food or for pussy.

But humans, most of the time, don't kill at all lol.
Animals are crap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp3nsgTQNiI

At 10/2/13 11:33 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 10/2/13 11:19 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote: Animals, at least most of the time, kill either for food or for pussy.

But humans, most of the time, don't kill at all lol.
Animals are crap.

Still not an excuse to create a thread advocating genocide.

I guess I could see it in a eugenics kind of way completely eliminating objectively undesirable traits, not things such as looks or all that, from the gene pool, but go overboard and it might cause a genetic bottleneck. Or something, I'm not really that great on genetics so take anything I say about it with a grain of salt.

At 10/2/13 01:23 PM, NewgroundsMike wrote:

Still not an excuse to create a thread advocating genocide.

Which this.. is not... so yeah

At 10/2/13 01:38 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 10/2/13 01:23 PM, NewgroundsMike wrote:

Still not an excuse to create a thread advocating genocide.

Which this.. is not... so yeah

The title says it all. THERE ARE NO FUCKING POSITIVE BENEFITS OF GENOCIDE! Accept it, dudes.

At 10/2/13 11:24 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote: Sorry for the double-post, but if you are really implying that bloodthirst is a sign of evolution, then you are only making me more sick of this world.

Welcome to the real world, it really shocking how different the world works compared to your rather naive worldview.

Genocide may not be condoned, but let's be honest here, there are times when thinning the herd is a good thing and people have always tried to find justification for this. I'll say it before and I'll say it again, all men are not created equal, and people end up dying because they don't adapt to the advancement of society, especially if they are sick and feeble.

Society and technology is an unfaltering march of progress, {though it is extremely subjective} and people who fall behind on the times intentionally will most likely not be missed. This is what seperates us from the animals, and I would rather keep it that way.

At 10/1/13 04:07 AM, 24901miles wrote: People like to say that the best leaders are those who take something negative and make it into a positive. Could that also apply to the most intuitively unethical practices of history, like genocide?

Let's look at Syria, for example. A nation which has just declared its own government to be bankrupt and deeply divided has declared the actions of Assad's military as morally evil when they use chemical weapons to kill large numbers if civilians, and yet they avoid confrontations in Syria when large numbers of bullets and conventional bombs are used to kill a greater number of people.

Or look at the differences between Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and the United States Government in the 20th century. Each of the four were responsible for large numbers of deaths to faceless members of their own societies, yet, only Hitler is a socially reprehensible character to bring up in conversation. Is that because the ethics are inequitable, or are the outcomes different for each?

What could some of the positive outcomes of genocide be? Are some methods more ethical than others?

you know what forums poster 24901miles real fuckin nice kind of makes you think a bit, but for a good bit; a kind of bit that makes you stand back sit down and kind of reevaluate everything you once thought was normal. kind of fucked up if you think about it

Well, it does help with preventing a superpopulation.

Well, its like, kind of alright because it DOES help with preventing a superpopulation like in those future based stories ive read.. Genocide is a viable option, TF2 servers would be cluttered with TOO many idiots (but maybe then i could get some epic scout frags..)

The problem with genocide is that it's never done right. When you put a group of people under too much stress and just try slaughtering everyone in sight, the rate of birth increases exponentially to the point where you not only destroy so much of your own resources and the environment housing the people you're trying to kill, but you also change the dynamic of that culture to be more militant (as only the die-hard survivalists will survive). Ultimately trying to kill off an entire demographic of people results in too many people getting involved in too many conflicts and an every-man-for-himself territory war.