[QUOTE=SuperElektrik;35723647]If we are going to exterminate people we should exterminate the people that are less fit to survive. That will leave us with a good number for our species, leave us with the strongest and over-population would not be a problem for millennia.[/QUOTE]
and what makes you think you aren't on that list
I don't think their is any reason mass murder can be justified, under any circumstances. Unless it was some sort of race of mutant creatures that were killing groups of people, I don't think wiping anything off the face of the earth can be good.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35740446]and what makes you think you aren't on that list[/QUOTE
Because I think I'm better than everyone else. Including you..... :P
[QUOTE=SuperElektrik;35759206]Because I think I'm better than everyone else. Including you..... :P[/QUOTE]
yeah but you're not.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35759761]yeah but you're not.[/QUOTE]
Evidence?
mass murder of fat/obese people is justified
There is already one going on. The murder of hundreds of thousands of unborn. Boom, I went there.
but seriously - does the OP think he is god or something? Who has the right to decide whether another group have the right to live or die.
[QUOTE=SuperElektrik;35760596]Evidence?[/QUOTE]
Evidence that you are?
That "I am better then you" isn't helping you.
mass murder IS justified and justifiable, anything is in the right circumstances
not for the reasons the op mentioned however, he is a moron
[QUOTE=Eltro102;35799034]mass murder IS justified and justifiable, anything is in the right circumstances
not for the reasons the op mentioned however, he is a moron[/QUOTE]
what? it's NEVER fucking justified.
[QUOTE=Eltro102;35799034]mass murder IS justified and justifiable, anything is in the right circumstances
not for the reasons the op mentioned however, he is a moron[/QUOTE]
Mass Murder (like murder) is never justified or justifiable.
The taking of a huge number of lives can't be justified by any religion, difference in ethnicity, difference in political views, or the prospect of economic or territorial gain.
I hate the many white supremacist movements that are in the US, but I could never justify the systematic killing of their men, women, and children. I hate everything they stand for, yet I have enough of a moral compass to know that their deaths will solve nothing.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35801113]what? it's NEVER fucking justified.[/QUOTE]
ok, lets say that you are the leader of a 2 towns, cities etc. You have to sacrifice one in some way (seal it off, deny it defense etc) to make sure the other survives. You are commiting mass murder, but it has to be done. If you did not do it, you would be sacrificing both, with double the number of people dead
What about cockroaches? That's surely OK. Killing humans like that isn't ok.
[editline]3rd May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Derpmonster;35670191]Did you see what Tamaru said? Week seems reasonable.
[B]EDIT*[/B]
Nevermind, I did not read who banned him. Sorry.
[editline]22nd April 2012[/editline]
Anything can be taken as a disability these days. For example I am considered disabled due to the fact I have dygraphia (Bad penmanship). So by doing that, they could kill anyone they pretty much wanted to.[/QUOTE]
If so, is Asthma a disability. I'm toast.
[QUOTE=Eltro102;35811081]ok, lets say that you are the leader of a 2 towns, cities etc. You have to sacrifice one in some way (seal it off, deny it defense etc) to make sure the other survives. You are commiting mass murder, but it has to be done. If you did not do it, you would be sacrificing both, with double the number of people dead[/QUOTE]
This will never happen lmao
[QUOTE=Eltro102;35811081]ok, lets say that you are the leader of a 2 towns, cities etc. You have to sacrifice one in some way (seal it off, deny it defense etc) to make sure the other survives. You are commiting mass murder, but it has to be done. If you did not do it, you would be sacrificing both, with double the number of people dead[/QUOTE]
Out of all the possible scenarios, some of them applicable to the real world, you picked that one? You could've made a much better point by mentioning the nuclear bombing of Japan and how it was meant to be a "lesser evil" then a full-on invasion.
[QUOTE=Eltro102;35811081]ok, lets say that you are the leader of a 2 towns, cities etc. You have to sacrifice one in some way (seal it off, deny it defense etc) to make sure the other survives. You are commiting mass murder, but it has to be done. If you did not do it, you would be sacrificing both, with double the number of people dead[/QUOTE]
when has this ever happened
[editline]4th May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;35813952]Out of all the possible scenarios, some of them applicable to the real world, you picked that one? You could've made a much better point by mentioning the nuclear bombing of Japan and how it was meant to be a "lesser evil" then a full-on invasion.[/QUOTE]
shit example, by the by.
japan was trying to surrender before the bombs dropped, and truman refused to listen because he wanted to impress the ussr with his new toy.
Basically, Japan said they would surrender with only one condition: That the Emperor remain in power so that he could reunify the already broken and battered Japan.
Shortly thereafter, the terms of the US' proposal for Japanese surrender demanded the ousting of the Emperor, knowing full well that they couldn't accept those terms.
Additionally, following the first bombing, the Japanese said they were discussing their surrender. The interpreter for the US interpreted a phrase that meant "we are in talks" as "fuck off, truman."
it was a bad example but you understand what I mean, lesser evil type exterminations are needed.
probably a better example: Extermination of all the future people who will murder, by killing them you are preventing more deaths, yet you are still depriving them of their life
[QUOTE=Eltro102;35823582]it was a bad example but you understand what I mean, lesser evil type exterminations are needed.
probably a better example: Extermination of all the future people who will murder, by killing them you are preventing more deaths, yet you are still depriving them of their life[/QUOTE]
when has THAT ever happened?
[editline]4th May 2012[/editline]
also that's illegal in just about every country in the world by the by
[QUOTE=Eltro102;35823582]it was a bad example but you understand what I mean, lesser evil type exterminations are needed.
probably a better example: Extermination of all the future people who will murder, by killing them you are preventing more deaths, yet you are still depriving them of their life[/QUOTE]
Again, you're just making shit up. That's such a bizarrely specific and vague point, just saying "Genocide is the only answer!" is stupid.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35819645]shit example, by the by.
japan was trying to surrender before the bombs dropped, and truman refused to listen because he wanted to impress the ussr with his new toy.
Basically, Japan said they would surrender with only one condition: That the Emperor remain in power so that he could reunify the already broken and battered Japan.
Shortly thereafter, the terms of the US' proposal for Japanese surrender demanded the ousting of the Emperor, knowing full well that they couldn't accept those terms.
Additionally, following the first bombing, the Japanese said they were discussing their surrender. The interpreter for the US interpreted a phrase that meant "we are in talks" as "fuck off, truman."[/QUOTE]
This is not true. The emperor never held any real power. The oligarchs and generals behind him told him what to say and how to say it. The emperor was used a a tool to easily control the masses. The emperor's word was law and so they told the emperor everything to say to the people and they would listen without question. These people had no intention of surrendering. You seem pretty knowledgeable on this subject, surely you have heard of the coup that was to take place should the emperor attempt to negotiate a surrender. And the way you describe the rejection of Japanese surrender terms is false because you worded it to seem like the U.S. rejected the terms strictly because they wanted the emperor to remain, as if that part was written in after they knew the Japanese people wanted the emperor to remain. The U.S. was asking for unconditional surrender from the start.
Anyway, this is entirely irrelevant and I agree that the OP is delusional and there is never any excuse for mass extermination.
Really the only time I could see it justified is if they wanted and were actively trying to do the same to you, and that there weren't really any non-combatants. I mean we freely exterminate diseases, we might exterminate other species, we however cannot eagerly exterminate each other because then society will collapse.
"mass extermination" will [U]probably[/U] never be able to be justified.
[QUOTE=madg23;35882290]"mass extermination" will [U]probably[/U] never be able to be justified.[/QUOTE]
we have a winner
[quote]- The violent. As in the Males (mostly) who like to get into punchups.
- People who are against reading and can't speak coherently (who have access to free education)
- The Racist/homophobic/very conservative who share their opinions very loudly. Most people see these groups as strange initialy, but we get over it. Id realy like to get society to a point where jokes concerning race and sexual orientation can be funny and unoffensive
- The People who can't change their minds, Even when their beliefs have been shown false or are proven to be highly illogical. [/quote]
I'd throw people in camps who want to throw other people in camps.
[QUOTE=Eltro102;35905200]we have a winner[/QUOTE]
No we don't.
hey guys I disagree with certain people we should kill them all.
no you can never justify this kind of thing, if you think you can you're fucking insane/eugenicist
Honestly, the only possible way you could even [b]attempt[/b] to justify a genocide (or something cleaner but equally heinous, such as eugenics and selective breeding) would be the genetic purity of a population or even population control.
It boils down to a single question: How much of a threat to our existence does overpopulation (and, in direct relation, the extreme stripping of our natural and artificial resources) represent as a whole? I personally agree with population control (I.E, one child per couple until the population is rendered manageable, then two children per couple to even the birth to death ratio), but genocide is never justifiable in my opinion.
Now, eugenics... it may sound horrible, but I'm still trying to make my mind up on eugenics. The elimination of genetic diseases and issues through gene therapy on a population scale is far too expensive, but denying someone their right to a child seems to cruel. However, at this point, the selective breeding of a population may be the only thing standing between us and the degeneration of human evolution.
Now, keep in mind that when I say that, I don't mean that racially or regionally at all, I mean that genetically. If a child is born with serious mental or physical issues, and we have the ability to predict that accurately before the conception of the child, should the parents still maintain the right to have said children?
I have more thinking to do, more research. The issue with population control is that a good majority of religions out there make children out to be the birthright of every woman, and that they should have them in double digits.
[editline]23rd May 2012[/editline]
Jesus, I apologize, but reading that back to myself makes me feel... horrible.
However, at the same time, I question whether or not extreme measures are necessary for the preservation of our species as a whole. Have we truly reached that point?
[QUOTE=ewitwins;36070707]Honestly, the only possible way you could even [b]attempt[/b] to justify a genocide (or something cleaner but equally heinous, such as eugenics and selective breeding) would be the genetic purity of a population or even population control.
It boils down to a single question: How much of a threat to our existence does overpopulation (and, in direct relation, the extreme stripping of our natural and artificial resources) represent as a whole? I personally agree with population control (I.E, one child per couple until the population is rendered manageable, then two children per couple to even the birth to death ratio), but genocide is never justifiable in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to argue with you (there's already a discussion over this anyway), but I will say that in order for the population to be perfectly maintained, an average of 2.1 children must be born per household. Consider that not everyone has a child before their death.
But a final comment, & more relevant to the OP: who would determine which traits are worthy of culling? For example, if someone is genetically prone to obesity should they be barred from breeding due to predicted cardiovascular issues? Isn't everyone's genetic programming flawed in some way?
[video=youtube;tacvR87FzBU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacvR87FzBU[/video]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating - read the rules sticky." - Megafan))[/highlight]
[editline]lol[/editline]
Sorry, I forgot this thread was in the debate section.
Never justified. what if next day the military comes in and kills you? would it be fair to you? sure there are assholes, but there's no ethnically right reason to mass murder them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.