Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Free Wednesday evening? Come along to our safeguarding co-design session from 6-7:30PM. sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Culling the elderly

2

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Only if you call it manslaughter :p

    No chance :p but I can make the title relevant..

    May have a breather tonight and jump into the debate tomorrow :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The best argument against this nonsense I can think of is that it's something the Nazis implemented, although on a voluntary basis.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Clem, the downsides of care homes was one if the drivers behind the concept. Its a long way off for me, but currently think I'd far rather be shut down rather than drift towards a slow an undignified death in a care home.
    I'd fully support your right to make that choice. What I wouldn't support is your right to make that choice for someone else, most likely against their will.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The argument against it is that these are PEOPLE we are talking about. We can't look at a logical argument, because this is a human issue.

    Even on paper, they are people who have generally spend many years paying into the system, many of whom own their own homes, funded their own pensions and are now sometimes spending their life savings helping out the younger generations. We should be respecting them and helping them, not trying to off them!

    Not to mention that 72 isn't that old.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Imagine the collateral damage of such a policy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    The best argument against this nonsense I can think of is that it's something the Nazis implemented, although on a voluntary basis.

    Godwin's Law!!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And so it seems that this comes to pretty much the same conclusion I had in my head. While on paper it looks like a potentially great idea - it's really not because of some slightly intangible human compassion concept. Fortunately it's that that drives most of our policy decisions.

    It's interesting to see that I'm not the only person who'd like to have the choice of making a decision along these lines for myself. The main issue with that would be that it feels like currently it would come with all of the criticism as suicide.
  • Starry nightStarry night Incredible Poster Posts: 674
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    Godwin's Law!!

    LMAO. Good call.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    While on paper it looks like a potentially great idea - it's really not because of some slightly intangible human compassion concept

    Are you autistic?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Are you autistic?

    No, she's an engineer (though, some people might argue they're very similar). I know exactly where she's coming from.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    formal diagnosis as an engineer? ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i have surprised myself quite HOW offended I am by this thread. I think its completely outrageous
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    i have surprised myself quite HOW offended I am by this thread. I think its completely outrageous
    It's quite clear by now that Scary doesn't believe in it herself and is simply asking the question to make people think about why it's wrong.
    The only way you can still be offended after realising that is if you think that there are things people shouldn't even think about in any way, and I consider that to be an insult to our sentience.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's quite clear by now that Scary doesn't believe in it herself and is simply asking the question to make people think about why it's wrong.
    The only way you can still be offended after realising that is if you think that there are things people shouldn't even think about in any way, and I consider that to be an insult to our sentience.

    I think its particularly offensive because the elderly are already a disadvantaged powerless group in general, and its an issue that has been bothering me for quite a while, the way they are both treated and thought of. This thread and the unpopular opinions one, has just completely exaggerated this. I feel like the elderly are already dehumanised and thought of as worthless and just a burden, and its not that I dont think people should think about things, but I AM shocked that anyone thought it would be a decent appropriate debate.
    Its not as if its a debate on whether its ok to just murder people, and the rights and wrongs of indiscriminate murder, but the fact that the target of the debate are an already disadvantaged dehumanised group, just seems particularly callous and cold
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    and i dont think it is "quite clear" what scary monster thinks, considering she started the thread, and considering she thinks its only wrong because of some intangible human compassion.

    I am ok with people starting offensive threads, as long as i can call them on it
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    If no one wants to do it for real it's no more bad to think about than massively murdering every teenager who wears a hood because many of them are criminals or your own example of it being ok to kill anyone. If it remains a thinking exercise it doesn't matter how vulnerable a group is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think teenagers are still more priveliged members of society than the elderly, but id still think that was pretty bad, but it would always be a more hypothetical debate, because a teenager still has their whole life ahead of them

    The elderly thing is a more scary thought because it just shows the ultimate capitalist viewpoint that people are cattle, only worthy of putting down once their use as a worker is over. It IS different BECAUSE they are vulnerable, and the group making this "light hearted hypothetical" debate, are a group that ultimately have the power and are so much more priveleged.

    (sorry i cant spell privileged consistently)

    Id probably put it along the same lines of offensiveness as maybe going onto a mens web forum in saudi arabia and them having a hearty old hypotheitcal discussion about culling women, and then being all surprised if some onlookers got offended.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    If it was purely hypothetical then there wouldn't be any reason to be offended.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm with Suzie on this. To me, there's nothing to 'debate'. Either you are on the side of killing old people - or you're not.

    But why stop there? Autistic, disabled or mentally damaged children cost us a fortune .. for the rest of their lives, and some of them live pretty long lives too. Or youngsters who are paralysed after accidents. Let's cull the fucking lot! :thumb:

    It's just a silly thing to bring up as a 'debate'.

    Some of the greatest artists, scientists etc work right up until they day they die, well into their 80s and beyond, all still contributing to our society. If life is reduced to just a measure of 'costs', then one has a very poor level of human emapthy.

    There's a word for that. Sociopath.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i have surprised myself quite HOW offended I am by this thread. I think its completely outrageous

    I agree. some 'intangible human compassion' I still can't quite believe what I'm reading.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Intangible. Def: unable to be touched or grasped; not having physical presence

    Nothing wrong with decribing compassion that way. Its unquantifiable, unpredictable, given inexplicable weight.

    It mattters, but how and why?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, never been diagnosed formally as autistic or on any kind of spectrum although I am an engineer like Fiend says - and there are various theories knocking around that all engineers sit somewhere on the spectrum.

    I've clearly failed to express myself - when I said some kind of intangible human compassion, I wasn't knocking it. That intangible human compassion is what I think makes us all civilised human beings. I know the elderly are vulnerable, I know that they are sometimes regarded as an inefficient use of resources and I'm not genuinely proposing that we go ahead and do it.

    I do genuinely think that it makes for a really interesting discussion though. Suzy's outrage kind of makes that point. It's a truly horrific concept (I'd hope to everyone) but still, if you look at it in a completely cold blooded manner it can look like a great idea. The point has been made in recent discussions about putting down animals when they get to the point that they are suffering - and that's generally pretty well accepted. Apply a similar concept to people and we all instinctively know it's not a good idea. Yet if you look for logical rational reasons - there aren't many there.

    I think that's a good thing about people - it's what shows we're not robots.

    (So there's no need to worry - I'm not going to try and turn anyones granny off while they're sleeping).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If thats the question. Why is compassion important, and why cant we just do what the fuck we like with no thought to other peoples feelings, then at least thats not picking on one group of people and less horrific.

    I imagine that the OP probably takes some benefit herself from living in a civilised social society with inherent rights given at birth, and a fairly sure feeling that she isnt just going to be murdered for no reason and everyone to just srug and say "well why not"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    putting down animals that are suffering is a humane act. Putting down your happy go lucky bouncy 10 year old dog with nothing wrong with it - nasty.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think being able to ask "well, why not?" is very very important.

    Why shouldn't I run someone off the road for pissing me off? Why shouldn't I punch that stupid bitch blocking the aisle in tesco in the fucking ovary? Why shouldn't I?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    cos you wouldnt want them to do it to you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    Intangible. Def: unable to be touched or grasped; not having physical presence

    Nothing wrong with decribing compassion that way. Its unquantifiable, unpredictable, given inexplicable weight.

    It mattters, but how and why?

    That's kind of a positivist perspective though; acknowledging there are other ways of thinking or seeing things is an important part of getting to grips with these kinds of debates in being able to see a full picture.

    If anything its quite interesting in that it shows perhaps the limitations of STEM expertise (where largely philosophy is seldom touched on; my comp sci friends don't actually understand non-positivist approaches) when delving into the social sciences.

    Though I do think that suzy has done the same in having her view and not trying to step back and see where others are coming from, just from a different angle.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What if I was big enough that it wasn't an issue? Naturally, social intelligence leans towards fairness, naturally, we're social, cooperative, restrained. But why?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    well then thats a very very logical point of view and one that i try very hard with my autistic sons and the autistic child i look after to try and see. Its called theory of mind and empathy
    It sounds a bit crap to say JUST BECAUSE, but we live in a society. We all have to get along. We have social rules. We reap the benefits of our society and we live a very relaxed life fairly assured of our safety. We bring our children up to respect other peoples rights as much as their own, and we encourage them to understand the reason for it.
    Its not some obscure hard to work out moralistic version of right and wrong. Its the basic stuff that keeps us all safe
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, it is. And that's interesting.

    I like to wonder about stuff like this. Fuck wouldn't life be easier if... sort of thing. Sometimes brutal, sometime benign, sometimes funny, sometimes fucking horrific. But still. Engineers love the what if.
Sign In or Register to comment.