Throughout our history there was always those that believed genocide, or perhaps an ethnic cleansing, was the one justifiable thing to ensure a perfect and pure world. Throughout our history we all know that the Jewish haven't exactly been popular. We all certainly know that religion has changed, which now follows the belief "If you can't kill 'em, exploit 'em."

So, if religion doesn't want thousands of people to die anymore, over stupid reasons( "Witches." sexuality, skin colour, background, and religion) then how can anyone still justify? Well, there are some ignorant people who think all Islamic people should be killed due to the twin towers incident. The WBC thinks all homosexuals should be killed, and of course their is the KKK, who blatantly ripped the name off from a Scottish group. So, does anyone think the world would be better off without some people? Without all the killers in the world? Without corrupt politicians? Or, do you assume this world is fine, and that no one should die, no matter the circumstances.

And in this topic, it's also worth questioning why people would want a world without a group of people.

My own particular view is quite warped, and obscure. I don't believe any group of people should die, nor should any group have their lives be discredited or compensated. However, I do find people that skin animals for profit are despicable, and anyone that wears another animal for fashion should be worn by a Fox. Basically put, I believe anyone that pays over $2000 to wear a killed animal are better off non existent. And what makes me believe such a savage, dark belief?

Simple, because they discredited the life of another creature. I my self try to see all living things as equal as possible, and I consider this a justice that's not tainted nor changed to fit or benefit rich people.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Mar 3 2009, 8:23 am by lSHaDoW-FoXl.

There will never be a perfect and pure world as the problem isn't 'a group of people'. The problem is 'Human'. It will never be solved by killing a group of people. The world is meant as it is meant to be, not how you want it to be. If so I would want all of the world to be my slaves, and me the God King.

I agree in numerous ways! I have a diverse group of friends, and it's kind've hard to imagine some people want them dead. Yet, the sad truth is yes, some people certainly do want them dead, and these people don't even know who my friends are. And of course, their are definitely people who want me dead. To Fix humanity would need to end it, however I my self being a human wouldn't want to test that.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 3 2009, 7:56 am by lSHaDoW-FoXl.

I advise editing your first post of your SD topic. Phrases like this:
exhibit poor grammatical construction and a lack of citation. (The quote is clearly dialect which I find acceptable because of the quotations, but the attitude or beliefs it promotes through its meaning may not be common knowledge.)

The "this" in the sentence is ambiguous, and the "stupid reasons" you reference should probably be listed.

This contains slander and a grammatical error. "their" is misused.

Also, when opening a new topic in SD you must present an opinion or argument:

I don't see how genocide is any worse than war. Both are just excuses to not admit that your group has faults.
In fact, genocide is a better form of destruction than war. Because than the lines of empathy are clearly drawn.
European settlers were clearly in the wrong when they killed most of the Native American population, and this will have to be remedied someday, because most of America still owes them a lot.
The atrocities in the cold war, however, will always be remembered differently by both sides of the issue, as both sides were responsible for wrongs. In fact, neither side can be justified in it's actions during a war, while in a genocide, one side can be deemed justified.

I had a discussion about something similar whilst waiting at Mr Dumpling. I had stated that, "the cure for HIV/AIDS is genocide. Kill them before they kill others." I did also further mention that I recognized that belief to be unethical.

To summarize genocide could be acceptable if the good outweighs the wrong. Greed, ignorance, intolerance and revenge are examples of a bad justification. Where as cures, worldwide safety and poverty are slightly justifiable.

Supposing that we believe the good to outweigh the wrong, in killing off a certain group of people. This assumes 2 things:
We have determined a value for human life.
We are confident that no member of the group we are killing will create anything that would unbalance the current scales.
So, if a member of the HIV/AIDS infected group happens to be driven to find a cure for AIDS, for personal reasons or otherwise, he could save millions of lives which we were about to dispose of, and increase the value of our society through his reasearch. Of course, we don't know what will happen, but I find it rather repulsive to err on the side of killing simply because it "appears" society will reap a benefit.

We would require many advancements in detection for that solution to even be possible. If we did that right now, people would not get themselves tested, and there might even be people vindictive enough to go out and have sex or even rape as many 'normal' people as they could as revenge upon society(one man has already done this actually).

Vrael, I think it very unlikely that a HIV victim will find the cure(that type of thing has never happened before in history as far as I know), so unlikely that I'm surprised you bothered to mention it. Also, we haven't determined a value for human life, even anything we've made all life equal. We had chosen to kill John because we want Susy and Jill to live. We assume that John is no more or no less important than Susy or Jill, but Susy AND Jill are more important than just John.

We need to establish some type of quarantine that victims actually want to be put into because it will be more beneficial than just hiding out and trying to remain normal for as long as possible before symptoms arise.

I mentioned an HIV victim finding the cure to HIV only as one of the myriad accomplishments that an infected person could contribute to society. Also, the value of human life of which I spoke was referring to the necessary condition to determine that "the good outweighs the wrong" from Shocko's ideas, and not that we have actually determined it yet. Just, if we were to make the determination to committ genocide for the good of some majority, we can infer that we have placed some value on the minority we are sacrificing, else the decision was made blindly.

Assuming John is no more or less important than Susy or Jill might be an ideal value, because then we can simplify our decisions to what is best for the majority, but I think no matter how hard we strive for equality, John will be, in our current times at least, more or less important than Susy or Jill. Maybe not in the general case, but if John's a brain surgeon, and Susy and Jill both happen to be prostitutes, it raises interesting questions.

I'm just going to ask a question, I don't want to really go throwing things out that I don't know are true, but, won't we all be very alike if we keep mixing races? It will become very difficult to differentiate from others. I bring this subject up because in this sense, we won't hate others. Right? There won't be anything to hate if we all look alike. But knowing the human mind, which I don't, we will do things to make us different. We are all humans, one of a kind. We are mentally superior to all other animals.

If John came in touch with Susy and Jill, gave them both HIV/AIDS, there would now be three people dying. Susy and Jill are prostitutes, so they're high in sexual activity. Now say, several other clients get it. There are 6 infected. Say one of them was cheating on his wife. She later gets it. She also gets pregnant, but now the baby has it. We have 8 people dying because John wasn't quarantined or killed. John may be a brain surgeon. Susy and Jill may be prostitutes. But 1 death preventing 7, is fair...

If we have a few thousand years or so, then yeah, the gene pools should mix a bit more. However, race is not the only reason to hate a group of people. If you ever get the chance, read The Lord of the Flies by William Golding. One of the major importances is, it shows how even in paradise a group of homogenous race, belief, social status, and nationality can come to bloodshed.

I was merely trying to emphasize the point that not all people are equal. In this particular scenario you have depicted, you've really shown the same thing, that they're not equal.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 5 2009, 8:05 am by Vrael.

I have the book in my shelf, I'll take a note of that.
Shocko, I can see how you want to get rid of the virus/infection, but killing people is not the way to go. You remind of of Adolf Hitler. We can't just go and gather up people, then kill them. If we were to kill the HIV hosts, that means that innocent people, like "John's" wife and their baby would have to be killed also.

Vrael it makes them equal. Regardless of profession or any individuality. Life is life. Everyone is special in their own way. But when everyone is special. Nobody is.

Blu, I'm not saying we should do it, it's an example of a genocide that could be justified. (Take lives to save lives.) Also, to correct you Blu, the wife and baby were not John's. If John had been killed, the wife and baby wouldn't need to be. Innocent people die so more innocent people don't have to. That's how it becomes justififed.

Have you ever watched the movie 'The Day Earth Stood Still'? Well, it's a super extended version of your logic but you'll get the idea how much it fails. Plus just killing AIDS/HIV patients won't solve the problem. You'd then have to get rid of all the animals in the world. Its like trying to get rid of dust in your house, but you'll never get rid of dust in your house. Because dust is everywhere, and anywhere, and even comes from you yourself.

And we all know the fact that you're not equal to the millions of people above you. Unless you accept the fact that any person's life is valuable beyond measure.

GJ Shocko, I believe you thwarted his scenario very well.

Why is this so hard people? We can never really know if Jill > Dan, so we assume that any SINGLE person's value or right to life is equal to any other SINGLE person's value or right to life. A truly just, fair, and noble society will value each individual equally. Now what comes with that is that is if 1 persons life means the death of 2 or more others, that 1 person must be put to death. The only way you can disagree with this is if you think there are some cases where you can judge that Jill > Dan + Mark. That's fine, but just be honest and admit that is what you are doing when you say 1 person can be just as valuable as 2 people combined.

How does it make them equal? If we're talking about social rights attributed by law, then I certainly agree. For the rest, brain surgeon != bum, astronaut != marine biologist, mentally retarded != genius. There are clear and obvious differences between people.

Well... profession-wise, yes, but what about impact-wise? A surgeon has just as much influence over people as a bum, an astronaut is equal in influence to a marine biologist and so on.

Well, it certainly varies from person to person, but in general I would say that a brain surgeon has a greater impact on society than a bum (well, positive impact that is.) A brain surgeon can save lives, but a bum just leeches tax dollars. I don't mean to limit this discussion to bums and brain surgeons though, I only use them to illustrate a constrast, and in fact, the contrast could be quite the opposite. If the brain surgeon happens to be a corrupt money grabbing kind of guy, and the bum happens to be the town clown that everyone loves and teaches many people valuable life lessons, then the bum might be worth more than the brain surgeon. It's really relative to the case.

All you're illustrating is how we can't value one person's life more than another's. Your value to society takes a back seat to your right to life. A doctor might have a more positive effect on more people, but everyone's right to life is equal.

The only place I can see you going from here is t try and successfully make the case that a person's right to life is actually dependent on their value to society.