Kill Yourself

[blahblah18]

RE: uh

A) I don't believe in anything I wrote.. as I STATED, it was merely a topic i was shooting around to use in a debate round, therefore IMPLYING that i'm simply looking at the matter on 1. a personal fun elvel to discuss , and 2. morally relativistic only so I can set any preset guidelines I want in describing the situation (thats moreso a reply to deltro who obviously didn't understand that)

B) the should is morally should, moral set being used most liekly would be John Locke's Second Treatise , specifically the Social Contract, which I'm not gonna go into huge detail about here... I just assumed people knew it, but reeeeal basically its that we enter a contract with government by allowing its creation... Government grants us the right to life, liberty, and property, and in return we sacrifice certain freedoms and guarantee a contribution to society. The gist of the argument therefore is that when a member in society no longer offers ANYTHING to society, then shouldn't he not be allowed to reap the benefits from the government that he put into place? The converse would be that if a government didn't give liberty to its citizens, then the citizens would be morally justified in overthrowing that government since it didn't hold up its end of the Social Contract
(Quick Aside) Constitution was based off Social Contract, 3 biggest names in Social Contract are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

It is very different from utilitarianism, because I'm not trying to claim that he kill himself for the betterment of other people , that just happens to be an external relation. The main concept is that he should kill himself since he is just mooching off society. One could replace kill himself by moving to a desert island for all I care, I just like to strike the point home with suicide to make it a more interesting discussion, and then leads into the muhc deeper philisophical issue of "Is suicide ever morally justified" which has been a centerpiece of philosophy for centuries.

That's enough for now... hopefully this post clarified what was meant in the original one, and all the ignorant people will stop thinking they're so smart from flaming me when they clearly missed the boat (not Bigsley, since he wasn't retarded, but just responded based on the vein that the thread had taken)

[-Skooter-]

Re: RE: Kill Yourself

It really wasn't to be controversial... Its an interesting idea, extrapolate on it. What is the worth of a life, and when does it go past use. You can also say that the life of person X is worth more then the life of person Y, so while homeless familyless jobless bum is sapping society's resources, he, by definition has to be depriving the life and resources of someone else, even if its the unborn child of an unborn child. And since we're assuming this guy is basically at the bottom of the barrel for "human worth", then if he is a "moral" person, shouldn't he kill himself, thus paving the way for the rest of society to move on without him?

Ok, so you're on this big speel about homeless people being a pain in the ass to society, and for that reason needing to die. They obviously have something to live for if they actually stand on the street and bear the embarassment for the money that "we throw at them in pity"... Secondly, he obviously doesn't want to die, or he would've though of that already. I believe that homeless people are well aware of what they have and what they lack...Therefore, there's obviously something he sees that you don't that prevents that as an option. Just because they're homeless, and you see them on the street doesn't mean you know their whole life story, or why they are that way. Not to mention, the way that you're acting right now, is the way that everyone acts to them, so why does he give a hell what benefits he takes from all of the other ass loads like yourself...Ever thought maybe it's not their fault that they're homeless..? (Don't respond to me with that half-witted bullshit of how they can do something about it...that's not always true) I feel like your classifying and judging, and I don't find it fair. If you didn't read the book, why should you make the ending?

[hEaLiNgViSiOnAnGeLicMiX]

RE: Re: RE: Kill Yourself

(Don't respond to me with that half-witted bullshit of how they can do something about it...that's not always true)

I already justified why they're not always capable of 'doing something about it' (go back a page to see) no worries

[hatakikakashi]

RE: Re: RE: Kill Yourself

The U.S. government doesn't give me the right to live. It protects that right. Here in America we are supposed to be a government by the people and for the people. The ones who don't contribute are under no obligation, they are just ingrates. It's like the honor system. It may not be fair what the hypothetical human waste is doing to society, but society isn't allways fair either.

[hEaLiNgViSiOnAnGeLicMiX]

RE: Re: RE: Kill Yourself

Think of it this way; with the government system we have now, we can hypothetically say everyone deserves a chance to live regardless of wether or not they contribute to society.

However, being alive is often not enough to fulfill one's needs. One living on welfare still receives meal tickets, clothing donated by Salvation Army, etc... These things are given to ensure that said person is still capable of surviving. He is being fed, and somewhat well clothed.

To us, this is obviously not enough. We go to school to gain an education. We work to make a living. Having an education gives you the knowledge you need to later on take a job when you become an adult. When you are an employed adult, you reap benefits for your hard work. You are paid a salary, and most jobs offer other benefits such as health insurance. etc...

From that, I interpret it as the more you contribute, the more you gain. If the only thing you are doing is living on the streets, then all you really get it the privelege to live. All you're doing is living = 0. You're giving nothing = 0.

0 + 0 = 0. Nothing was taken away. Meaning, taking away one's life cannot be justified, because there's no subtraction.

Okay so that last part didn't make hte least bit of fucking sense..... ignore it if you want, but that's just the way I see it :S

[archevil]

RE: Kill Yourself

But by actually taking from society (money going to feed the homeless, medical systems dealing with them, supplying beds, etcetera), they've just added a subtraction... if that makes sense. So now 0 + -10 = -10, therefore they are in debt. The whole point of this topic is whether when somebody is at the <0 stage whether they should kill themselves to balance it out. Nobody is saying anybody is worthless, it's a hypothetical situation. Often I feel that pensions should be removed, or old people 2 days from death should be kicked out of hospital (often elderly people in nursing homes are transferred to hospitals for a very few days before they die, leading to nothing but increased trauma for everyone involved and excessive strain on health systems). I really feel that natural selection should play a more important part in our society. Helping people beyond productive and reproductive ages or situations to survive we are actually placing an increased strain on those who are productive.

But I don't think anybody should feel obliged to kill themselves (except people who can't spell IQ, but then it doesn't matter to them).

[makaveli121212]

Re: Kill Yourself

As opposed to what one may think, from seeing the topic, this is a real thread, so don't be retarded when you post. This is an idea I've been tossing around for a while, I"ll probably use it as a debate construct, but I"m curious on people's ideas on it.

Ok so here goes...

Basically, assume you're homeless, no job, no family. The only reason you're alive is because people sometimes toss money at you out of compelte pity as you're sleeping in the streets... You get sick, you still go to hospitals for treatment, etcera. You might even be receiving food stamps or welfare.

You should just kill yourself. Moreso you should have an Obligation to society to kill yourself. First of all, you're draining from society and giving nothing back in return. No one will miss you since you have no one to miss, and probably most importantly, you've broken your part of the Social Contract. Government is protecting you and keeping you alive practically, and you're giving NOTHING back in return... So come on, think about it, and jump in front of that subway train.

Wow, sir, you are my new best friend. I couldn't agree more although I would like to add a tidbit.

You can take the arguement further by killing off the elderly. If you go on a strictly scientific view the meaning of life is to pass as much of your genetic material on to the next generation as possible. Well, if you can no longer have offspring then your life is pointless. Furthermore, the elderly are a drain on society politically and economically. Everyone knows with the increase age of americans and the growing elderly population due to the baby-boom generation maturing, us younger generations will be paying up the wazoo just to keep these living corpses breathing. Quite frankly I don't see what their purpose is to live, and maybe its not my business, but it becomes my business when I have to pay to keep them alive. I say they should stop being so selfish, realize the burden that they put upon the population, and croak already.

[hEaLiNgViSiOnAnGeLicMiX]

RE: Re: Kill Yourself

Not trying to bitch here but..

I say they should stop being so selfish, realize the burden that they put upon the population, and croak already.

The selfishness(Rofl i doubt that's a word) goes both ways. By not paying for the needs of the elderly, we would also become selfish bastards. Why? Simple. Because without these people, we would not be alive in the first place. Without them, our generation would not have made the discoveries and advancements in technology that we have today. And now after they've helped us with so much, you feel unobligated to give back to them in anyway?

You argue that since they are no longer to reproduce, their purpose/job in life has been fulfilled, therefor continuing to live is pointless. That is no different from saying "Oh okay I've retired now so I should go commit suicide since I am no longer going to contribute to society." Just because they are not giving to society, does NOT mean they lose the right to live.

[QreepyBORIS]

RE: Re: Kill Yourself

Why should society have to support them? Sounds a bit unfair, if you ask me.

And another thing: sterile people have no purpose in society, either. If society rids itself of the sterile, that could help slightly, too. The only thing as that although they cannot contribute to the SIZE of society, they can still be effective by working in a job. I can accept that, so long as it is an extremely demeaning job. Like, working at a sperm bank. Ouch.

While we're at it, all peopole must LEGALLY produce children. All the ones that are defective ought be slaughtered.




I'll leave it for you to judge where I was kidding and where I was not.

[msbrunnettemickey]

If you didn't read the book, why should you make the ending?

Well put my friend.

I guess you can't really relate the homeless with Bill Gates.
If you WERE homeless, what would you do?
I believe that you wouldn't try to kill yourself at first and try to find other reasons to. I think, if i was homeless i would probably go to my family begging for money, or if i have no family, i would just try to make new friends? :P

Anyways, killing yourself is not a very good reason. Like our history teacher says:
"WRITE TO GEORGE BUSH! HE WOULD ANSWER YOU FULL HEARTED!"

[hEaLiNgViSiOnAnGeLicMiX]

Anyways, killing yourself is not a very good reason. Like our history teacher says:
"WRITE TO GEORGE BUSH! HE WOULD ANSWER YOU FULL HEARTED!"

Uh, what?

Qreepy's post brought another point to my mind. Imagine this scenario.

You're on the road in your car, it's late. There's maybe only 3 or 4 cars ouside. The light goes green, and a pedestrian begins to make his way across the road. Suddenly, a drunk driver comes flying in and hits the pedestrian. This person is rushed to the hospital, and luckily doesn't die. Unfortunately, this person is now stuck in a coma(sp?) and when he will finally wake up is unknown.

This person, is still alive, but is not doing anything for society, nor is he/she capable. Does this person deserve to die? NO. Why? Because this fully capable-of-contributing person became 'worthless' as you say it, over an innocent situation. Said person never did anything wrong, he crossed the street at a green light, and a drunk hit him. This person's life is completely left in the hands of fate, and yet doctors still continue to help the person to recover.

Alot of homeless people are also hit with unfortunate events during their life. Divorce, being left by parents, parents with drinking and/or gambling problems. The list of possibilities continues. These people are homeless now, living on terribly filthy streets. They are too young to be able to contribute (legal working ages anyone?). So what do they do? If they have the least bit of class in them (For girls that is) they'll know better than to go become a prostitute/hooker. They would rather beg for money on the street, losing all self esteem that they could have possibly had before.

These people's lives were struck with events beyond their control. Why should they pay the price of death, for the fault of others?

[makaveli121212]

Re: RE: Re: Kill Yourself

Why should society have to support them? Sounds a bit unfair, if you ask me.

And another thing: sterile people have no purpose in society, either. If society rids itself of the sterile, that could help slightly, too. The only thing as that although they cannot contribute to the SIZE of society, they can still be effective by working in a job. I can accept that, so long as it is an extremely demeaning job. Like, working at a sperm bank. Ouch.

While we're at it, all peopole must LEGALLY produce children. All the ones that are defective ought be slaughtered.




I'll leave it for you to judge where I was kidding and where I was not.

Well, that brings me to another point. People that have genetic disorders should not be able to reproduce. Now these people can still cintribute to society, so it's unfair to kill them, but they should at least be sterilized.

To healingvision's point: I never said they don't have the right to live. Sure they do, judt like I do. I'm saying if you want to live support yourself, like I support myself. Why should I pay to keep people alive that have no use to me or society? Your point about showing gratitude to the elderly is all about morals. Morals are a figment of your imagination, the less you have the better off you are (not always true obviusly; a generlization). Quite frankly this isn't a moral issue anyway, and if it were the elderly would say, "wow, look at what jackasses we are taking everyones' money and just sitting here on our asses playing euchre all day." I say contribute to society, in one way or another, or at least show the potential to, and you can stay. I don't care what you've done in the past, it should be a product of the present and beyond.

[Cenright]

RE: Re: RE: Re: Kill Yourself

What about if what they give, keeps on giving? I'm going to drop a super-hypothecital extreme, just to fully prove my point.
If there was some guy who saved the world through some means, but now he is worthless to society, do we kill him? We all owe a debt to him that none of us, or our grandchildren can ever repay. In fact, he isn't useless. He becomes a role model to the population, not on his present deeds, but his past deeds. Although yes, I agree that someone should never say, "I did my duty, now I can mooch."

The same can be said for a religious person. "I have been the best person for over 70 years, now with all that under my belt, one or two mass murders shouldn't matter." We can all see that that doesn't work.

[QreepyBORIS]

RE: Re: RE: Re: Kill Yourself

Sterilization sounds like a fair comprimise, Maka.

And Karen, if they are in a coma or a vegetative state (lol Schiavo), WHY should they live? What good are they doing? I guess they are giving some hospital workers and nurses and doctors a little bit more work. But it really is not that necessary for them to have that extra bit of stress and workload, so off with the coma guy. Get him outta here. And it's not as if his family wants to see him in that shape, either. So, what good's he doing lying there, wasting money, and basically just being a burden? None. Doff him.


The homeless should all learn cheap instruments and make cheap little street bands. I willingly give money to people like that.

[alainbryden]

RE: Re: RE: Re: Kill Yourself

Why should society have to support them? Sounds a bit unfair, if you ask me.

Do not try to tell me that when you're 60, 70, 80 you'll be telling everyone "Don't take care of me, you owe me nothing."