3 ms·

I don't want to sound rude or heartless, but, about "Let's exclude those who cannot learn enough to function in society. If anybody wants these people to starve

by totony 12y ago

I don't want to sound rude or heartless, but, about "Let's exclude those who cannot learn enough to function in society. If anybody wants these people to starve, I haven't met them", I am curious as to why one would choose to support them, if they serve no purpose to society?

sgift 12y ago
If we go down that line of thought let's skip waiting till they die and allow execution of people who serve no purpose to society. I know whole industries full of people who could be removed ... what a joy. Or not?!
- totony 12y ago
  I don't think that we have the right to play god on people's life. What I was saying is very different, I am saying that, as a society, it is peculiar that we would choose to support those people. Ignoring them is not the same as taking their life.
Hytosys 12y ago
I think to say that humans must serve a purpose in society based on their ability to make money is dangerously utilitarian. As it stands, I'd guess at least 20% of adults in America (shot in the dark) do not make any money and rely on others for food and shelter. These people are kept out of harm, and their safe mental state keeps other people out of harm. They can offer community service, familial or household care, and plenty of other things that do not profit them any cash. Most importantly, these people are spouses, parents, children, and grandchildren. They offer emotion and humility. I know it seems like I'm doing my best to assert your rudeness or heartlessness, but I'm just trying to raise the point that one's monetary value is not wholly representative of their value in society.
- totony 12y ago
  I wasn't asserting that money is the determining factor in asserting one's purpose. I was relating to the parent's point that some people cannot learn to function in society. These people couldn't offer things such as community service and some of them might be so separated from society from their handicap as to not have any one caring for them except the government agencies in charge of them.

by totony 12y ago

sgift 12y ago

If we go down that line of thought let's skip waiting till they die and allow execution of people who serve no purpose to society. I know whole industries full of people who could be removed ... what a joy. Or not?!

totony 12y ago
I don't think that we have the right to play god on people's life. What I was saying is very different, I am saying that, as a society, it is peculiar that we would choose to support those people. Ignoring them is not the same as taking their life.

Hytosys 12y ago

I think to say that humans must serve a purpose in society based on their ability to make money is dangerously utilitarian. As it stands, I'd guess at least 20% of adults in America (shot in the dark) do not make any money and rely on others for food and shelter. These people are kept out of harm, and their safe mental state keeps other people out of harm. They can offer community service, familial or household care, and plenty of other things that do not profit them any cash. Most importantly, these people are spouses, parents, children, and grandchildren. They offer emotion and humility. I know it seems like I'm doing my best to assert your rudeness or heartlessness, but I'm just trying to raise the point that one's monetary value is not wholly representative of their value in society.

totony 12y ago
I wasn't asserting that money is the determining factor in asserting one's purpose. I was relating to the parent's point that some people cannot learn to function in society. These people couldn't offer things such as community service and some of them might be so separated from society from their handicap as to not have any one caring for them except the government agencies in charge of them.