No challenge in religion

[Double Down]

"Why do we insist on slapping evolution in the face? We divert resources from bettering society to taking care of those who cannot care for themselves. I feel that ultimately this holds the human race back."

It's not so much that we are slapping evolution in the face, but rather that we value all human lives, regardless of their contribution to our species. If we were to hold some mass genocide of mentally and physically challenged people, then it would raise a series of questions. First of all, where would we stop? At an IQ of 70? 80? Why not just take out the bottom half every 100 years?

It would bring up another issue. Why stop at those lacking of intelligence? Personally, I'd rather take out the a-holes before the stupid. And then where do we draw the line? People who talk in movie theaters? Bad drivers? Bad beat storytellers?

The fact remains that like it or not, all people, regardless of all of their faults, have a right to pursue a rich and happy life, and are not obligated in any way to give back to the species.

One final thought. It is incorrect to say that they can't give back. I mean, I know a certain wheelchair bound astrophysicist to whom we owe credit for much of what we currently know about our universe.
And of course, that's an extreme example, but...
there is also something that those less capable than us can offer. And I'm sure, Blackize, that you are aware of it. You benefit greatly from working with the Special Olympics. It's because it raises your level of compassion, sympathy, and understanding of those different from you. It has made you a more caring person, more tolerant and patient with people in your life, and more appreciative for what you have. These are qualities that in my opinion are greatly lacking right now in our species as a whole, and in my opinion are what is TRULY holding us back from evolving, not physically but spiritually, which I believe will be the next step of evolution for our species.


Spending a lot of money on those who will not be able to enjoy life in the same ways or for the same duration as us is not a waste. The quality of a life is not measured by how long it lasted, but rather if we connected with and appreciated the individual for the brief time that they were here. After all, we're all here for a quick blink anyhow.

(And I know you weren't suggesting in any way something so terrible as a mass suicide of retarded people. I was saying it to make a point)

[ QUOTE ]
The fact remains that like it or not, all people, regardless of all of their faults, have a right to pursue a rich and happy life, and are not obligated in any way to give back to the species.


[/ QUOTE ]

So the basis for moral obligation is that they are in our species and not intelligence? Most retarded people give nothing back to society and are only a burden (you mentioned Stephen Hawking who is wheelchair-bound but not mentally handicapped - big difference).

What is the difference between retarded people (or babies, vegetables, etc) and animals? A modern philosopher, I can't remember his name, said if we think it's okay to slaughter animals, it follows that it's equally okay to slaughter invalid human beings. The common denominator being that they lack intelligence. He meant of course to save animals, not kill humans.

In your statement above, how do you differentiate animals from unintelligent humans?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact remains that like it or not, all people, regardless of all of their faults, have a right to pursue a rich and happy life, and are not obligated in any way to give back to the species.


[/ QUOTE ]

So the basis for moral obligation is that they are in our species and not intelligence? Most retarded people give nothing back to society and are only a burden (you mentioned Stephen Hawking who is wheelchair-bound but not mentally handicapped - big difference).

What is the difference between retarded people (or babies, vegetables, etc) and animals? A modern philosopher, I can't remember his name, said if we think it's okay to slaughter animals, it follows that it's equally okay to slaughter invalid human beings. The common denominator being that they lack intelligence. He meant of course to save animals, not kill humans.

In your statement above, how do you differentiate animals from unintelligent humans?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think its Peter Singer.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
I think its Peter Singer.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's it. AKA Dr. Death

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think its Peter Singer.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's it. AKA Dr. Death

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, same guy that thinks killing an infant up to ten days old is OK. Yet he is a tenured professor at Princeton and chairs their ethics dept. What a sickening disgrace...

[ QUOTE ]
same guy that thinks killing an infant up to ten days old is OK.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you back this statement up with evidence?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
same guy that thinks killing an infant up to ten days old is OK.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you back this statement up with evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]


Google Peter Singer. I do appreciate his honesty in admitting that if we as a society permit abortion than we should permit infanticide as well.

Was a student of his many years ago. A great mind - very challenging. Ultimately he's very concerned with the relief of suffering.

From memory the time frame is a bit longer. Googling will probably earn you a large amount of alarmist clap-trap and quotes out of context. Better to read one of his books.

Hiya bigdaddydvo,

[ QUOTE ]

Yep, same guy that thinks killing an infant up to ten days old is OK. Yet he is a tenured professor at Princeton and chairs their ethics dept. What a sickening disgrace...

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess not as bad as the dude that condemns an entire species for the mistake of one couple. Or the one that promises torture of hell eternally for a simple mistake. I am talking abot the absolute love dude, by the way, as he is often characterised.

When will you guys at least admit the you hold totally contradictory beliefs. I won't hold it against you, won't ask you to change them, or not comply with them. I am only pre-empting what seems to be the norm, when you suddenly want everyone else to behave based on the same idiocy.

I use "idiocy" here not in a mocking way, by the way. First of there is nothing to mock. It does not exist. Secondly on another thread someone said that "intelligence is the ability to hold contracdictory thought simultaneously". I am not sure if that's intelligence but I am certain that the ability to hold two opposing thought simultaneously and NOT knowing to be doing so, can be characterised a lot more strongly and negatively than mere idiocy suggests.

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not so much that we are slapping evolution in the face, but rather that we value all human lives, regardless of their contribution to our species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Valuing human lives is slapping evolution in the face. It implies that our lives are more valuable than any other creature. Evolution dictates that the strong and those best able to adapt to change survive. By allowing the weak to survive we are diverting resources away from the strong and thus decreasing their chance of survival.

[ QUOTE ]
If we were to hold some mass genocide of mentally and physically challenged people, then it would raise a series of questions. First of all, where would we stop? At an IQ of 70? 80? Why not just take out the bottom half every 100 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I wouldn't advocate that we ever do this, but clearly IQ isn't the deciding factor. I have met many people with very low IQs who are capable of functioning in society, and many others who are not.

[ QUOTE ]
It would bring up another issue. Why stop at those lacking of intelligence? Personally, I'd rather take out the a-holes before the stupid. And then where do we draw the line? People who talk in movie theaters? Bad drivers? Bad beat storytellers?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just ridiculous. It doesn't follow any sort of logic and is just your opinion. People you find annoying are probably still adding much more to society than those who are just a burden.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact remains that like it or not, all people, regardless of all of their faults, have a right to pursue a rich and happy life, and are not obligated in any way to give back to the species.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this statement is that the people that I am talking about are not pursuing anything. They are having to be taken care of by volunteers, family, and the government.

Stephen Hawking is not mentally handicapped. I am speaking of those handicapped to the point that they can't function to take care of themselves.

While I have learned a lot from working with Special Olympics and have benefitted from it, I still believe that we as a society would be better off without those who cannot care for themselves.

Your thoughts on evolving spiritually are ridiculous. Unless you believe that we will become one with God or something along those lines this is impossible. And even if that is what you are talking about it is completely absurd and there is no evidence to even support that possibility.

[ QUOTE ]
Spending a lot of money on those who will not be able to enjoy life in the same ways or for the same duration as us is not a waste. The quality of a life is not measured by how long it lasted, but rather if we connected with and appreciated the individual for the brief time that they were here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Diverting resources to the weakest in a species invariably detracts from those available to the strong. While it may not be a "waste" it is certainly not good for the species as a whole.