Staredit Network

The idea of killing the weaker people is very old. The Spartans' society had it, and they had one of the most powerful military forces of the time. It may be effective, but is it moral and right ?

Do you support this idea ? Yes/no ? Why ?

I support killing the old, but we're not in a position where killing weak people would benefit us. If that were the case, I'd probably support it.

I say that if you're killing weak people, kill everyone else while you're at it.

Could someone explain how exactly would this be used?
Because now i don't really get the idea...

If that would be like "do 50 push-ups or die" that's a nonsense, maybe it was usefull at spartans' time, when having a tough army was very important, but now it wouldn't do much good, when there is no big army vs army conflict i mean would it matter how tough the soldiers are when terrorists strike?
It would demoralize the soldiers too, because they are fighting for their country, and how would they feel about their own leaders killing their friends, family just because they wouldn't fit to some "strength normatives"?

If killing the weaker means killing invalids, or very sick people who will spend the rest of their lives just lying in beds drinking medice, that is not right either, i mean that's the difference between Humans and animals, animals do live by the rule that "stronger survive", and the Human Civilization helps the weaker ones, so they could enjoy the life like other standart people too..

So i don't see any benefits that would be worth killing weak people, maybe because i understand sth wrong..



That's even worse. Would you really like your parents killed, when they reach a certain age? I'm sure I wouldn't..

Humanity back to apes, yay! -_-

Define "Weaker". Physically not as strong, of course not. But unable to move, using up resources, and you've got a case.

I don't support killing.

Killing is the way everyone gets stuff done, in the movies if their job doesnt work out properly, off wioth their head. and in military, awr is the answer! I dont really support killing either but when it comes to killing the weaker, why would you go after someone stronger. You normally lose! But it just makes it that much better when the underdog wins, I like winning as the underdog! When your the underdog you have nothing to lose and when you are more powerful and you ose, you lose a lot! Just like when the United States broke away from England and we beat em!

I agree with Demaris. That was completely stupid.

Weak people are usually the nerds/geeks, so we need them. I say no.

No. Eliminating them, or other groups of people we deem worthy of purging, will disrupt the balance of this world. Limiting or suppressing their numbers, yes, but not eliminating them completely.

I think killing people who have mental disabillities and prohibit them from really being able to do anything would work. Yeah, I know that's cruel, but they'd probably be better off dead.

This sort of reminds me of the Terry Schaivo stuff.

No, I do not support it. Then I would support the killing of myself, which I don't.

How about... No. Alot of people have mental disabillities and you want to kill them just because they think differently?

No one is better off dead. No one. Everyone deserves a right to live, and live the fullest. And being different from someone else doesn't take that right away.

When I say mental disabillities, I mean people who can barely function. They can't do anything by themselves, and with help, they can't really do anything anyway.

I would much rather have a program that nutured the weak so they are no longer weak than one which simply removed them.

Its basically nature
but we've decided through "more intelligent" thought that killing our kind is wrong
soooo it is imoral and wrong
but its basically how the world works anyways

Let's kill science and all thought, and go out to become physically stronger.

Because, you know, science and technology has no advantages whatsoever over brute strength.

I am against it. In a perspective of science, I despise killing off who may appear weak. Who then is to decide who is weak and who is strong? The government? Society? Everyone has their purpose, despite how little it may be. No one has the right to take another's life away just because they thought, "weakling." If that person was of any significance to anyone, then that person is not weak because that person is still creating memories for him/herself and the people they affect.

Maybe a hobo without any friends or relatives or even a pet rat. He still had a mother who gave birth to him. If she is alive, even more little has the right to kill him. If she's dead, then who is to say she's not watching over him? Who is to claim there is no religion?

Even the nearly-dead population. Killing them would be a WASTE! You'd think they're waste, period, but think about it:
Any body in any person could show some form of mutation or virus or even cure for something.

Here:
People who most would put in the "weak" catagory.

Mentally retarded - Scientifically, they could help with studies of mental retardation. Perhaps one day a mentally retarded child may have treatments provided by the volunteered study of another before him or her. Humanitarily, that child may be of important value to his or her family and the people who surround that person. The mental retard may even teach a few people to appreciate life and to volunteer help. And even if they affect one person to help them become better or feel better, then they are of significance.

Seniors - Seniors often hold knowledge more valuable than any materialistic and/or monetary goods. If not knowledge, they may have accumulated memories that may be useless to some, but priceless to others. They can also contribute to studies of aging and diseases.

Anyone "worthless" and "only a menace to society" (thugs, robbers, criminals, ect) - These people are of particular importance. The world is not perfect so not everyone will be "good". They could help us realize that parents need to teach their kids better and hope they don't screw up their kids. Of course, it's not always the parents fault, sometimes it's the kids themselves. But you can only do what you can. They are of many, many "uses". Just give it a thought.

Those marked "Evil" (Saddam, Hitler, even Bush) - those "evil" people may also be the reason a group of people gather for a common good and stand up and fight for themselves. Without them, would we really be better off? Without them, we might just fall victim to what we create without those "evil" men and women.


Anyhow, no matter how you think of it, we don't know everything and I highly doubt we ever will, but until then, there will be a use for everyone and everything.

I still don't see why they should be killed. Why exactly would you want them dead? They take to much space up on earth? There still human beings like you and I. No one on earth deserves death, no one.

The worst to do is to just Don't help them, why to kill?
I agree with Cruzo they don't take too much space, and about "using up resources", well atleast in my country most of the time the people's relatives pay for the treatment anyway...

So you're saying that if your mother had a heart attack, but couldn't get into a hospital because a person who couldn't move, talk, and was barely alive with no chance of recovery took up the last hospital bed, causing your mother to die, you wouldn't mind?

Oh comeon, i don't think that if I called a Hospital about a Heart attack, they would say, "sorry there are no beds available at the moment"..

Now if the there were really really too much people in a hospital to help my relative, yes i'd be really angry but i would blame the hospital for not having enough equipment, doctors, or sth else; or atleast government for not giving enough money to hospitals, so they can work more properly, but why would i blame another person who is treated in the hospital? What's the difference if it's a completely paralyzed old man or a guy who lost his leg or sth.. They both need treatment, and maybe people who want them alive..

If anyone wants to talk about resource, then let's fix America first.

I wouldn't blame anyone if my mother had a heartattack and there was some crisis that caused the hospitals to be full. I wouldn't blame the doctor, I wouldn't blame anyone cept that's just how it is sometimes in life. Of course I'd be pretty pissed for a while, but I'll just have to accept that it's just a part of life.

From a logical perspective, yes, it makes sense to kill the 'weaker' and 'unproductive' members of society to conserve resources... however, there's a point where compassion and humanity has to take priority over calculations.

I don't see why people will worry about resources. The world is soon to run out of them and were all going to be screwed. So why waste our times killing the weaker when we can put the time towards something more usefull. Like helping them get stronger.