Maybe. However, if you wanted the return of eugenics in society, euphanasia would be the obvious starting point - that's not saying you agree with eugenics.
Then if you're not concerned for the elderly and vulnerable in the rest of society then it's probably be better to keep it illegal, and you can use your free will to travel somewhere that has legalised euphanasia.
I'd like the idea of there being some sort of third party to oversee it. But still, if the patient says they want euphansia, who can say for sure whether the patient is making that choice freely?
It's a slippery slope argument I'm making I'd admit, but just that it may seem inconceivable now doesn't mean it would remain this way. A lot of things we accept as norm today would of been inconceivable 60/70 years ago for instance.
People's choices are easily influenced, especially when influenced by members of their own family. I worry about the moral pressure that may be applied on people to opt for euphanasia.
One case maybe, the next case maybe not. I fear where euphanasia would lead if it were to be legalised. The law could become so Liberal that euphanasia became a norm, and we lived in a society where we kill off the sick & elderly instead of caring for them
Time will debunk your "token Muslim" argument. It's plain to see exactly what is going in Muslim communities in the West if you have any persoanl experience of these communities whatsoever. In a myriad of ways, many Muslim's don't seek to integrate in the way that other immigrants do, and radicalism stems from this fact.
You should see some of the silly things the English protest over, and the police can't even give them a good old-fashioned beating. Sometimes I wish England was a little bit more like China.
China is innovative, but is it inventive? What I don't see from China's rise is the contribution of new ideas and designs that have fundamentally changed the world, like the internet, computers, trains, planes, or cars. Why hasn't China, given its ascension, created their equivalent of the car?
For the time being, it's the USA. China will overtake at some point, but I'd say China could fall even faster than it has risen under the strain of its teeming population and chronic pollution. The scale of social and environmental problems in China means their future is by no means a given(India is much the same).
I'd say we need banks of some form or other. I just think we need to lower our addiction to credit because this makes them too powerful, and it's power they don't work for in my opinion.
I was being a little tongue in cheek. Although I would actually like to see it happen.
I suppose I'd mean every person in the banks, or formerly of the banks, who gets rich solely from the exchanging of money and not through productive work. So not frontline workers whom provide customer service.
It will lower somewhat but I don't think it will become like the West in that respect. Infact, I don't see China shaping up like Western society at all. The danger, to me, would be in assuming that it's money that makes people(s)what they are - the Marxist(and common today)view on the world.
They've been armed with the science of the competition.
They are collectively natured - despite becoming more advanced and wealthy they lack the individualistic leanings of the West, so come with little of the inefficiencies that make life more pleasant, such as Democracy and Liberalism. Whilst this kind of society stifles original thought, that isn't a problem when you import foreign ideas and the foreigner is willing to give away his best asset.
The reasons for China's rise are cultural, social or even racial in there cause. In my opinion, a direct consequence of how they see life and the world in comparison and relation to the way people in the West do.
I had more in mind something along the lines of what the products of combustion are, or how many sides does a square have.
My opinion is that anything politically natured that we call fact, is not actually a fact in and of itself, but more an interpretation of an event or idea of which the conclusion to is presented as fact - basically politics, philosophy, religon etc lie in the realm of perception, and so have a strained relationship with facts.
I've also no idea what agenda/motivation there may be to this thread, but it seems logical to assume that there would be one on some level or other.
I do think of myself as biased too, but fundamentally no more so than anybody else. I feel that the label bias is an unfair degradation of another viewpoint, as all the bias in the world that matches closely to the bias of the individual would then surely be overlooked by that individual.
Neutrality as a starting point doesn't seem to get anybody, anywhere. I'm of the thinking that two views, often severely opposing views, should be fused together to form a third position - this position being a view that draws a connection between the seeming opposites. This is what I would call a true neutrality, a neutrality that avoids the tedium of indifference.
What is biased? What is not biased? How can anyone who expresses absolutely anything at all act without bias? The answer is they can't, as perception by definition is an individual's bias. Even that which we may call "neutral" is merely a reflection of mass perception - the status quo - so that too is bias.
To cite another view as bias you must first recognise the bias within your own view.
Preston, that's my hometown and I AM proud despite it being filled with Arabic peasants.
Just one of us can fight ten of them, and once the middle aged, middle of the road, middle class types stop protecting these arseholes, we'll drive them out.
The future has looked hopeless for the English many times before, and just like then we'll turn things around and be a far stronger people for it.
Oh well, so many men today can't hang a shelf or wire a plug that it's easy enough find a woman that still appreciates the manly man. Endless drivel about emotions, that's just pandering to women.
TrueBlue1986 Forum Posts (1,322)
RE: Euthanasia
Maybe. However, if you wanted the return of eugenics in society, euphanasia would be the obvious starting point - that's not saying you agree with eugenics.