Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists

reply to post by Battleline

Why are you putting this on the west? this is a world event that is happening, the west did not create this as you say, it is the whole world that is involved in supporting the billions that refuse to take responsability for them selves or just can't because of there surrondings, and then breed even more into there world of hand outs and intitlements and just plain dirt poor poverty.

This is not an imagined event, this is real, it is all about humans and our lazy self distructive nature.

Wonder how much of the world you know first hand to make the claim.

I live in a part of the world where entitlement handouts from the government are practically non-existent. Everyone depends on their economic usefulness to the society around them, their families or any charitable people that exist.

Yeah, some of them live in dirt poor poverty, but they don't come to "get me", so they don't present an existential threat to me or anyone else that is better off than them. Others care for them in a manner that they see fit, not in a manner that the recipients demand. The recipients feel grateful when they receive help and not resentful when they don't.

Most of the non-Western world exists this way. Being "entitled" to something just because one exists is a distinctly Western concept and even there developed after the 1930s.

You tell me, do you really think the people that are in need of assistance in the world is going to get better? and if so, how.

It is none of your business whether they get "better" or "worse" as long as they don't present an existential threat to you requiring you to do "something" about them. You don't own the world.

Originally posted by Observor
reply to post by Battleline

 

Why are you putting this on the west? this is a world event that is happening, the west did not create this as you say, it is the whole world that is involved in supporting the billions that refuse to take responsability for them selves or just can't because of there surrondings, and then breed even more into there world of hand outs and intitlements and just plain dirt poor poverty.

This is not an imagined event, this is real, it is all about humans and our lazy self distructive nature.

Wonder how much of the world you know first hand to make the claim.

I live in a part of the world where entitlement handouts from the government are practically non-existent. Everyone depends on their economic usefulness to the society around them, their families or any charitable people that exist.

Yeah, some of them live in dirt poor poverty, but they don't come to "get me", so they don't present an existential threat to me or anyone else that is better off than them. Others care for them in a manner that they see fit, not in a manner that the recipients demand. The recipients feel grateful when they receive help and not resentful when they don't.

Most of the non-Western world exists this way. Being "entitled" to something just because one exists is a distinctly Western concept and even there developed after the 1930s.

You tell me, do you really think the people that are in need of assistance in the world is going to get better? and if so, how.

It is none of your business whether they get "better" or "worse" as long as they don't present an existential threat to you requiring you to do "something" about them. You don't own the world.

So this whole debate has been about you and your part of the world. I was haveing a hard time understanding where you were comeing from or where you were going with how the world was just fine and this was all just a problem created in the west.
"Economic usefulness" is that a phrase you use for people that are kept in there place to serve a purpose for a corrupt government? the only reason i ask is we kind of have something like that here in the U.S.
I don't need an "existential threat" to be realistic about something going terribly wrong and yes I don't own the world but I live in the world which gives me the right to have an opinion about my survival.If you choose to see nothing and do even less then I would imagine you may well be cannon fodder, every catastrophic event needs cannon fodder to warn the rest of whats comeing.
Its obvious we will go no where with this debate so I agree to disagree and wish you well in your naivety.

By the way, you might want to read up on the "Tutsi's and the Hutu's", its a small part of the world but it is a disease that is spreading between the have's and have not's in every part of the world, just a thought.



I just read your other threads and they are not worded or spoken anything like the retorts you present to me.........................how's that cubical working for you?

reply to post by Battleline

So this whole debate has been about you and your part of the world. I was haveing a hard time understanding where you were comeing from or where you were going with how the world was just fine and this was all just a problem created in the west.

I was pointing out that you and your neighbourhood don't represent the world, nor do you own the world.

"Economic usefulness" is that a phrase you use for people that are kept in there place to serve a purpose for a corrupt government? the only reason i ask is we kind of have something like that here in the U.S.

Economic usefulness has nothing to do with governments and everything to do with voluntary exchange of goods and services. When a person wishes to acquire another's possessions or services, the person has to have something the other values for offering in exchange. That is what results in commerce and economy and can be termed economic usefulness. I work for someone who values what I can do for him and pays me money which I value. If I retire or can't find a way of engaging myself in a way that someone else finds useful, I am not economically useful.

I don't need an "existential threat" to be realistic about something going terribly wrong and yes I don't own the world but I live in the world which gives me the right to have an opinion about my survival.

Go right ahead and have your opinions. But when you express them, be prepared for them to be questioned. All I have been saying is don't project your experiences of your neighbourhood as the general behaviour of the world.

If you choose to see nothing and do even less then I would imagine you may well be cannon fodder, every catastrophic event needs cannon fodder to warn the rest of whats comeing.
Its obvious we will go no where with this debate so I agree to disagree and wish you well in your naivety.

Thanks for your concern, but I will do just as fine without it.

By the way, you might want to read up on the "Tutsi's and the Hutu's", its a small part of the world but it is a disease that is spreading between the have's and have not's in every part of the world, just a thought.

I am quite familiar with what happened in Rwanda and it might happen, as you predict, in the West between the haves and have-nots. But most of the world is safe from a conflict on exactly those lines. There are other fault lines that can lead to massacres and anyone can find himself/herself on the losing side, but the world doesn't have a single fault line of the kind you mentioned.

I just read your other threads and they are not worded or spoken anything like the retorts you present to me.........................

Perhaps no one I was responding to arrogated themselves to speak like they know the entire world or own it.

.how's that cubical working for you?

Fine, thank you!

Originally posted by Observor
reply to post by Battleline

 

So this whole debate has been about you and your part of the world. I was haveing a hard time understanding where you were comeing from or where you were going with how the world was just fine and this was all just a problem created in the west.

I was pointing out that you and your neighbourhood don't represent the world, nor do you own the world.

"Economic usefulness" is that a phrase you use for people that are kept in there place to serve a purpose for a corrupt government? the only reason i ask is we kind of have something like that here in the U.S.

Economic usefulness has nothing to do with governments and everything to do with voluntary exchange of goods and services. When a person wishes to acquire another's possessions or services, the person has to have something the other values for offering in exchange. That is what results in commerce and economy and can be termed economic usefulness. I work for someone who values what I can do for him and pays me money which I value. If I retire or can't find a way of engaging myself in a way that someone else finds useful, I am not economically useful.

I don't need an "existential threat" to be realistic about something going terribly wrong and yes I don't own the world but I live in the world which gives me the right to have an opinion about my survival.

Go right ahead and have your opinions. But when you express them, be prepared for them to be questioned. All I have been saying is don't project your experiences of your neighbourhood as the general behaviour of the world.

If you choose to see nothing and do even less then I would imagine you may well be cannon fodder, every catastrophic event needs cannon fodder to warn the rest of whats comeing.
Its obvious we will go no where with this debate so I agree to disagree and wish you well in your naivety.

Thanks for your concern, but I will do just as fine without it.

By the way, you might want to read up on the "Tutsi's and the Hutu's", its a small part of the world but it is a disease that is spreading between the have's and have not's in every part of the world, just a thought.

I am quite familiar with what happened in Rwanda and it might happen, as you predict, in the West between the haves and have-nots. But most of the world is safe from a conflict on exactly those lines. There are other fault lines that can lead to massacres and anyone can find himself/herself on the losing side, but the world doesn't have a single fault line of the kind you mentioned.

I just read your other threads and they are not worded or spoken anything like the retorts you present to me.........................

Perhaps no one I was responding to arrogated themselves to speak like they know the entire world or own it.

.how's that cubical working for you?

Fine, thank you!

Im not sure why you keep coming up with me thinking i own the world just because I have an opinion about what is going on in it and about one event I see happening.

You are starting not to make sense in your response's, I have every right to make these observations, I have done the research. Your doublespeek is weak at best and what you purpose are weak opinion's of your own which means nothing to me, you have not mentioned one thing a person can research so I'm done here.

reply to post by Battleline

Im not sure why you keep coming up with me thinking i own the world just because I have an opinion about what is going on in it and about one event I see happening.

It is your opinion that gives your arrogance away. You started with a "question"

Question:what do we do with the billions of humans that serve no purpose what so ever except to take from the world and give back nothing, while these humans are idle (except to breed billions more just like them) they become more and more demanding and powerful every day?

You declare billions of humans serve no purpose and you have to do "something" about it and ask what to "do" with them and pretend its just an "opinion"?

How about: mind your own bloody business and let others mind theirs?

You are starting not to make sense in your response's, I have every right to make these observations, I have done the research. Your doublespeek is weak at best and what you purpose are weak opinion's of your own which means nothing to me, you have not mentioned one thing a person can research so I'm done here.

Your research capabilities seem quite impressive. Search for 'New Deal'. You will find that that is the beginning of entitlement handouts from government and it is limited to Western states.

Of course it's wrong

Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists

In that case, let the bioethicists be the only ones on their hit list.
These people are playing God. Let me guess........ they are "above" being bought?
Not a chance.

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady

Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists

In that case, let the bioethicists be the only ones on their hit list.
These people are playing God. Let me guess........ they are "above" being bought?
Not a chance.

I think posters may be confusing life with human life. If its wrong to kill life, then we are all in the wrong because we kill to eat, whether it be animal, plant, or insect.