| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DevilMayAsian
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 1380
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Smeddy24
Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Posts: 1778
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 5:41 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| RichardGHP wrote: | | Smeddy24 wrote: | | snake345 wrote: |
But Africans are worse off than the rest of the world, I would rather help them me. I think, Dave Grohl, feels the same as he gave a lot of money to help them  That's off topic but you get what I mean right? |
Killing a culture doesn't help it. |
Though I disagree with killing a culture completely off, think of the millions of children that, although they will not live, they wouldn't suffer through the absolute hell of the poorer regions of Africa. They can't suffer if they don't have the chance to. |
And the solution is delayed genocide? Really? That's the only way to do it? To just remove them from the Earth? It's not murder, but it's still killing off a people. That can't be justified, no matter how much anguish you're stopping.
If you want to give people the option to not have children and still have sex, do that. Don't spay them. They're not pets, it's not your decision. End of story.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
snake345
Joined: 11 Jul 2008
Posts: 122
Location: Behind you!
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Smeddy24 wrote: | | RichardGHP wrote: | | Smeddy24 wrote: | | snake345 wrote: |
But Africans are worse off than the rest of the world, I would rather help them me. I think, Dave Grohl, feels the same as he gave a lot of money to help them That's off topic but you get what I mean right? |
Killing a culture doesn't help it. |
Though I disagree with killing a culture completely off, think of the millions of children that, although they will not live, they wouldn't suffer through the absolute hell of the poorer regions of Africa. They can't suffer if they don't have the chance to. |
And the solution is delayed genocide? Really? That's the only way to do it? To just remove them from the Earth? It's not murder, but it's still killing off a people. That can't be justified, no matter how much anguish you're stopping.
If you want to give people the option to not have children and still have sex, do that. Don't spay them. They're not pets, it's not your decision. End of story. |
Actually, I was bringing this up because most mothers that I know of said that if they lived in a poor country where they suffered survival they would get steralized. It should be an option yes but I don't think they've been given it have they? Ofcoure they're not pets, they used to be when slavery was popular (I also think that's very bad). It's all about opinion I think.
_________________
Add me on xbox live ^^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
retop56
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 514
Location: Southern California
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I read this and kinda lol'd to be honest. Both of my parents came to California from Africa and had me and my older brother and sister. Not all African women are baby-making machines, and I don't think sterilizing them is cool.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RichardGHP
Joined: 01 May 2009
Posts: 2327
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Smeddy24 wrote: | | RichardGHP wrote: | | Smeddy24 wrote: | | snake345 wrote: |
But Africans are worse off than the rest of the world, I would rather help them me. I think, Dave Grohl, feels the same as he gave a lot of money to help them That's off topic but you get what I mean right? |
Killing a culture doesn't help it. |
Though I disagree with killing a culture completely off, think of the millions of children that, although they will not live, they wouldn't suffer through the absolute hell of the poorer regions of Africa. They can't suffer if they don't have the chance to. |
And the solution is delayed genocide? Really? That's the only way to do it? To just remove them from the Earth? It's not murder, but it's still killing off a people. That can't be justified, no matter how much anguish you're stopping.
If you want to give people the option to not have children and still have sex, do that. Don't spay them. They're not pets, it's not your decision. End of story. |
As I have stated, I am against sterilizing the women and the previous observations I put forth were completely third-party. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bballcenter7
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 1313
Location: in IN
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| snake345 wrote: | | Actually, I was bringing this up because most mothers that I know of said that if they lived in a poor country where they suffered survival they would get steralized. It should be an option yes but I don't think they've been given it have they? Ofcoure they're not pets, they used to be when slavery was popular (I also think that's very bad). It's all about opinion I think. |
| snake345 wrote: | | the people in the poor side of Africa should have their women steralised to stop them having children and making them suffer. |
Doesn't sound like much of an option to me.
Anyway, no, we should not steralize every poor person in Africa so that their unborn children don't have to suffer. I mean, why don't we just steralize every poor person everywhere to stop all of their children from suffering? And why don't we just steralize every person with weak genes and low IQs so their children don't have to suffer the pain of being sick and dumb. And why don't we just steralize every person who doesn't believe in God, so they can't have kids who would be damned to eternity in Hell. And why don't we just steralize everyone who does believe in God, so that their kids won't grow up brainwashed and uninformed? Why don't we just steralize everyone so that the planet doesn't have to suffer the plague of humanity anymore?
This is a horrible, horrible idea and I'm pretty appalled that it was brought up as a viable topic for discussion in your Geography class. And, stop trying to defend yourself by saying that you're only thinking of the unborn babies - if you truly cared about them you'd be helping the ones that are alive now so that when they have kids they won't be living in abject poverty. Don't say that you're saving the future children from suffering when all you're doing is damning them to non-existance - it doesn't work.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheeseball
Joined: 09 Mar 2008
Posts: 55
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is one of the sickest ideas I have ever seen on a forum. It is just inhumane. How could anyone propose this...
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
googleimage
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 1229
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Who the hell are we to decide whether or not a people are "suffering"?
- These people are poor.
- Therefore, let's kill them off and sell them the idea that it's for their own good.
Forgive me for using a standard of logic to point out how absurd that is.
_________________
Hey, Lindsay Lohan - "drink Canada Dry" is a slogan, not a dare! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RichardGHP
Joined: 01 May 2009
Posts: 2327
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| googleimage wrote: | | Who the hell are we to decide whether or not a people are "suffering"? |
Take one look at some of them and you can tell that they are suffering. It's easy enough to decide if people are suffering or not.
I agree with the rest of your post though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MisterMcLov1n
Joined: 09 Dec 2007
Posts: 1340
Location: Misty Mountains, Ohio
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheTrueSatanist
Joined: 16 Oct 2008
Posts: 588
Location: Rochdale, Manchester, U.K.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SO we should have sterilised all the peasants of the middle ages because they were poor.
Also, bballcenter, you forgot people with genetic diseases. The mods are always saying more Nazi
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ferretgod
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 276
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bballcenter summed it up pretty well. I personally wouldn't have brought the God thing into but I think power like the kind this thread is talking about, being able to sterilize people, should never be given to anybody or any leader or any organization. It's not for us to decide and to be honest, if this kind of proposal was on the table I doubt it would actually be about what they claim.
_________________
I couldn't resist lulz
"I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, because America gave him the White House based on the same credentials." ~Newt Gingrich
"To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt." - Thomas Jefferson
"What was wrong with communism wasn't aberrant leadership, it was communism" - William F. Buckley, Jr. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrummerLad
Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let's see now...so we decide the Africans are "suffering", so we neuter them, and eventually kill off the continent.
Then we decide "eh, the homeless are suffering, and heck, it worked with the Africans, let's do it here".
While this process isn't inherently "racist" (a term thrown around most likely due to the fact they're Africans), this is most definitely supremacist.
Honestly, you can lead a camel to water, but you can't force it to drink. That silly little Constitution we live by ensures the right to free will, and I feel as though we'd be hypocritical bastards if we were to say, you know, impose our will on others. Oh wait, that's never stopped us before...
Regardless: what's the difference between this and the Holocaust? Hitler figured the world would be a better place without Jews, and decided to take action. We decide "ya know, suffering Africans are REALLY not enjoying themselves, let's just kill them off instead of make an effort to help them". I realize that the latter example isn't bred out of hate, but it's still bred out of the general euphoria of ignorance that leads us to believe every issue in the world is so easily solved.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skysore
Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Smeddy24 wrote: | | sorasgoof wrote: | | Smeddy24 wrote: |
EDIT:
| sorasgoof wrote: | | snowyporpoise wrote: | | population control is a pretty controversial thing to discuss, but it must be brought up in the future. This may seem radical but a one child per couple law or something along the lines of that MUST be put forth or our resources will be gone, and we all die. |
Isn't China already doing this?
EDIT: I know this thread is about Africa, but I thought I'd bring up this point about China for discussion purposes, I guess. |
There's a big difference between population control and killing a race, which sterilization does. |
I believe snowyporpoise specifically said "population control," which is what I was commenting on. 
EDIT: He also mentioned the "one-child policy," which China also does. |
Yes, but a protracted genocide and population control are very different things, and, as abhorrent as the latter is, it's a huge slander to put it in the same category as forced sterilization.
I'd like to also criticize the racism/euro-centrism of sterilizing an entire continent. It's the humane thing for us to do? They're not dogs, they're people. They can make their own decisions, and "we" as non-Africans have no business coming in and performing invasive surgery on half the populace. |
no actually there is an ethical reason for doing this to control the world's population and the amounts of resources. If we are sterilizing then we are not killing the population moreover weakening an already dying civilization with a doomed culture.
I'm not saying I believe this but many would argue "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and with so many people who are not benefiting society, but rather destroying society and causing the loss of lives and the spread of disease, well they need to be contained, not killed, just limited.
I myself have known people who have went to africa in hopes of helping people. While in Africa some "A" students, credible, caring people have died trying to help those of a doomed culture. I myself think it is a waste of such caring people and there needs to be more focus on the greater issues such as what is happening in one's own country rather than fruitless endeavors in a wasteland of death.
I know I'm going to be flamed, but this is my opinion
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
googleimage
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 1229
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Skysore wrote: | no actually there is an ethical reason for doing this to control the world's population and the amounts of resources. If we are sterilizing then we are not killing the population moreover weakening an already dying civilization with a doomed culture.
I'm not saying I believe this but many would argue "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and with so many people who are not benefiting society, but rather destroying society and causing the loss of lives and the spread of disease, well they need to be contained, not killed, just limited.
I myself have known people who have went to africa in hopes of helping people. While in Africa some "A" students, credible, caring people have died trying to help those of a doomed culture. I myself think it is a waste of such caring people and there needs to be more focus on the greater issues such as what is happening in one's own country rather than fruitless endeavors in a wasteland of death.
I know I'm going to be flamed, but this is my opinion |
But that's why humanitarian efforts in Africa are so prevalent - because they have no resources, and they consume so little. If overpopulation and overconsumption are the biggest concerns, then the States would have to be up there with the top offenders. I'm guessing there isn't any sort of push for mass sterilization here in North America (although after catching a glimpse of "The Real Housewives of Dog Turds, Illinois", I'm beginning to see a bit of merit to the idea), but it's astonishing to me that anyone could have the balls to suggest that the earth's population would be perfectly sustainable if not for those greedy resource-hogs in freaking Sudan. There is nothing even remotely ethical about using another part of the world as a guinea pig for population control, and to present it as an ethical measure is nauseating to me.
_________________
Hey, Lindsay Lohan - "drink Canada Dry" is a slogan, not a dare! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Copyright © 2006-2024 ScoreHero, LLC
|
Powered by phpBB
|
![Inbox [ Login ]](templates/subSilver/images/icon_mini_message.gif){kind=icon}
Inbox [ Login ]
Search
Memberlist
Profile
Log in
