GENIUS FORUMS

However, he did advocate it earlier in the thread (probably in a joking manner).

OK, I'll check back and see if I can find this.

Edit:

Nat, nope, I can't find it. Please provide a quote.

David is just pointing out that it is not logical to spend resources on non-productive members of society, yet there he is, taking care of his mum anyway. Basically he's saying "yanno, this is not logical." It isn't, yet it is done anyway - therefore it is not pathological. It is neither logical, nor pathological....

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:Yeah. What's wrong with that? The fact that you use the terms "irrational" and "dream world" to describe such things doesn't automatically make them bad. Or maybe to you it does.

Like I said, if you value things such as truth, integrity, wisdom, honesty, and rationality, just about everything is wrong with it. It would go against everything one stands for. If I went to one of these events and discussed the matter at hand while remaining true to my character I would probably be heckled, attacked, and possibly even killed, due to me valuing the things I just mentioned.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:When you say "God" do you mean an anthropomorphic God?

No, I mean the infinite totality which is the creator of all things finite.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:I don't see masturbation as all that disturbing or disgusting.

The key word there was glorified masturbation.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:I imagine that we must just have very different outlooks on such things.

That goes without saying.

A little while ago, when I went in to mourn the death of Lao Tan,

LOL
Hypocritical arsewipe.

Nick Treklis wrote:

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:Yeah. What's wrong with that? The fact that you use the terms "irrational" and "dream world" to describe such things doesn't automatically make them bad. Or maybe to you it does.

Like I said, if you value things such as truth, integrity, wisdom, honesty, and rationality, just about everything is wrong with it. It would go against everything one stands for. If I went to one of these events and discussed the matter at hand while remaining true to my character I would probably be heckled, attacked, and possibly even killed, due to me valuing the things I just mentioned.

Just goes to show how irrational, violent, and hateful of truth the people are who glorify and willingly attend these events.

Here is the original thread, so anybody can look at the context of David's post about killing off old people:

viewtopic.php?t=2847&start=0

It seems that, oddly, barely anybody really noticed what David said, except Aaron Mathis, who had a brief exchange with David that went as follows:

DQ: There's a lot to be said for euthanasia and the enforced killing of old people...Perhaps a system in which people who reach 60 or 70 have to show that they are enlightened and wise, or else be put to death, should be put in place....

AM: Here it sounds like you are saying: "unbalanced people are throwing my world out of balance. By killing them off, we can tip the scale to a more ideal balance".

DQ: No, I'm simply arguing for a more efficient use of our resources.

AM: Ok, ok fair enough. Efficiency I suppose is significantly different than balance, although they are very closely related.

There is, David thinks, a "lot to be said" for it, and referred to this as an "argument" for the "more efficient use of...resources," which would seem to indicate that he thinks his argument was a good one.

Uni: Can you find in the authentic Buddhist, Zen, or Taoist traditions any text which advocates putting people to death? I don't think you can, at least not without twisting the meaning of something or resorting to wartime propaganda.

I think there are some - but not really what one would call authentic. Didn't the Japanase Zen dudes authenticate participation in slaughter in the 19th century. I don't recall the details.

Sher,

On page 1 of this thread, on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 12:00 pm, Dan said:

Well, I admit that did seem a bit over the top. David could have at least made it 80 or 90. But then he also has to consdier that he thinks those over 30 have just about worn out their ability to become wise so he could just as easily make it 40 - 50. I think there's some work to be done on that concept.

I take this to be humorously intended, although there is nothing funny about David's statement and joking about it is inappropriate at best and could be seen as a lesser indictment in its own right.

But again, Dan later referred to David's idea as "silly," which was a direct if lukewarm rebuke. I'm not trying to tar and feather Dan here, so you have nothing to worry about.

"Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!"

Nick,

Like I said, if you value things such as truth, integrity, wisdom, honesty, and rationality, just about everything is wrong with it. It would go against everything one stands for.

I don't see that at all. How does wanting to be around friends and family to help deal with the death of a loved one contrast with those values?

If I went to one of these events and discussed the matter at hand while remaining true to my character I would probably be heckled, attacked, and possibly even killed, due to me valuing the things I just mentioned.

What would you say or do to provoke such a reaction, and how would it it be reasonable if you knew beforehand that it would do so?

Like I said, if you value things such as truth, integrity, wisdom, honesty, and rationality, just about everything is wrong with it.

What I reckon people are valuing here is the same emotional concept that is behind societies love of "heroes", disposable masculinity. It is all about the fantasy of doing stuff for the greater good of the herd.

Donating one's body to science is a "greater good" scenario, and thus egotistical. In the here and the now of the ego, one is saying - "I can have a life after death, I can still have an impact"

Although I have the donor to science thing on my licence, I'm having second thoughts. Technology is moving faster than humans can cope with. While I do desire that people lived longer fruitfully, I do not desire more people. The old dualistic Catch 22 that in relevant to everything we do.

It seems that, oddly, barely anybody really noticed what David said, except Aaron Mathis, who had a brief exchange with David that went as follows:

I noticed it, but we've had this Killing Fields discussion a couple of times before, so why bother commenting on it. It is just David being overly "idealistic", in the spur of the moment.

Jamesh wrote:I noticed it, but we've had this Killing Fields discussion a couple of times before, so why bother commenting on it. It is just David being overly "idealistic", in the spur of the moment.

How comforting to know that is only something that David would put in place in his ideal world.

Though I must say I am very glad our real world is not his ideal one.

How is it "idealistic" to advocate the execution of a large portion of the human race? What sort of idealism is that? Does it come with a free swastika pin?

"Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom, Perfection, Senior Citizen-Killing."

Yeeee-haw! Time to get enlightened and kill me some widows!

Something tells me I will soon get accused of being womanly, egotistical, emotional, attached, etc. etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum and the remark of Quinn will be brushed off as a joke, an exaggeration for effect, a way to test the masculinity and "courage" of the audience, not a serious proposal, or some such.

How is it "idealistic" to advocate the execution of a large portion of the human race? What sort of idealism is that?

Subjective idealism. Truth is (supposedly) the only runner in David's life race, so anything that can improve the average level of truth for the future human race is ideal.

I support voluntary euthanasia myself. I also think that apart from pain relief people, say over 75, who require constant medical attention, should pay for it entirely rather than the community paying for it. One would see a change of societal opinion if this was to eat up an inheritance.

Something tells me I will soon get accused of being womanly, egotistical, emotional, attached, etc. etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum and the remark of Quinn will be brushed off as a joke, an exaggeration for effect, a way to test the masculinity and "courage" of the audience, not a serious proposal, or some such.

Definitely. We're not getting all bent out of shape over this because it's a monstrous, inexcusable remark. Nope nope, Officer Dope. Instead, we are reacting this way because we are delusional, worldly, egotistical, unconscious, etc. There's nothing wrong with what David said, as any Perfectly Enlightened Buddha (except the actual one) would agree. The fault is all ours, and we're accomplishing nothing but embarrassing ourselves in the eyes of all Lofty Sages with such a shameful display of "femininity."

Think that will about cover it?

Jamesh wrote:How is it "idealistic" to advocate the execution of a large portion of the human race? What sort of idealism is that?

Subjective idealism. Truth is (supposedly) the only runner in David's life race, so anything that can improve the average level of truth for the future human race is ideal.

I support voluntary euthanasia myself. I also think that apart from pain relief people, say over 75, who require constant medical attention, should pay for it entirely rather than the community paying for it. One would see a change of societal opinion if this was to eat up an inheritance.

Here in America people often do end up in financial ruin over medical bills. It does not change societal opinion.

Unidian wrote:Think that will about cover it?

Probably so. Let us now wait for the Enlightened One to bounce on in.

Nat,

I'm not trying to tar and feather Dan here, so you have nothing to worry about.

I always knew that, but I did wonder if other people reading your post got the wrong idea.

As long as Dan didn't explicitly say that killing people for the crime of having reached 60 should be considered, I'm ok with it. I understand that Dan and David are close, and the consequences thereof.

As an unrelated side note, my mom is 67, and works about twice as many hours as I do. She still feels that a great part of the burden of sustaining our family is on her. I hope that her life would be spared in David's idealistic society, as my baby niece would have a sort of rough life if my mom died in the next 10 years.

Nat,

I'm not obliged to operate within your parameters of what is or is not "decent". There's no objective standard for such things as you well know. I don't have to "distance" myself from ideas I think are totally unworkable (either morally or practically). The whole notion of me distancing myself from something David might say expresses a belief in some conceptual solidarity that has long since become a matter of myth and folklore - and more than a little tedium.

I simply didn't take it seriously. It's up to David to state whether he was serious or not and whether and why he thinks it is an ethical or workable notion. I don't think it is the latter and therefore can't be the former. I wouldn't be especially favourable to the idea that people should be killed off because they hadn't remained totally deluded all their life, so it would be a bit rich for me to turn around and advocate the opposite.

Well, it isn't unethical because it's unworkable. It's unethical because it's just mind-numbingly wrong on the face of it. I realize that isn't in the form of a valid argument, but you know what I mean.

I do, but at some point it needs to take the form of that valid argument. Sentiment does not justify anything in itself. Even ethics needs a rational basis.