StarGateWars Forums

Universe wrote:Personally.. well, what is it? You all know what I am going to say will be cruel, inhumane, but a definitive solution, right? Genetic diseases, there's an easy cure for them. Start with the worst, or the most renowned. HIV. 33 million dead, 15 million infected. Okay, so here's a hypothetical, we eliminate 20 million infected / suspected of being infected, and we have erased HIV from the human population.

(..)

In anticipation of emotional responses, if any: Do not worry. You are all quite safe. My voice changes about as much as Avengers' does.. and neither of us is likely to end up in a position of sufficient power to exercise our great ideas.

Apophis The Great wrote:

Universe wrote:Personally.. well, what is it? You all know what I am going to say will be cruel, inhumane, but a definitive solution, right? Genetic diseases, there's an easy cure for them. Start with the worst, or the most renowned. HIV. 33 million dead, 15 million infected. Okay, so here's a hypothetical, we eliminate 20 million infected / suspected of being infected, and we have erased HIV from the human population.

(..)

In anticipation of emotional responses, if any: Do not worry. You are all quite safe. My voice changes about as much as Avengers' does.. and neither of us is likely to end up in a position of sufficient power to exercise our great ideas.

Humanity gives itself the right to kill people when they killed other people, or did something as worse (well in some countries death penalty is over abused, not the subject though). We punish those who crossed the line by also protecting ourselves. Get rid off the rotten apples. The way to do it can be discussed. Trapping them for life, or executing them. These people being guilty of what they did. They intended to do it.

Now...talking about killing people because of what they carry on isn't right. Doing a genocide for that isn't right either at all, it's just barbarism if you ask me. (excepted if we were to find people who knew they had the disease and wanted to spread it as much as they can, those would deserve to be executed). If they don't use it as a "weapon" knowingly to hurt and contaminate other people, we can't really blame them to a level where we would decide to kill them.
Well...there would be more acceptable ways that wouldn't revive the former mistakes of the XX th century.

Get a more modern view for the Christian Church would be one alternative and much more acceptable solution. Convince them to stop saying that contraception is evil and unacceptable for a believer. If it can avoid the spreading of this plague, they must stop to antagonize something that isn't even against "nature". (Seriously, nobody is "killed" like with abortion or euthanasia).
That is pure nonsense and decreases religion's popularity much, which isn't good in the end. But well it's again not the subject!

Taking the problem on its roots, instead of murdering people because they had the misluck to be contaminated. Preferring prevention, instead of doing extermination. (There has always been diseases in this world, I don't see why getting rid of them completely thru violence is any form of positive thing. I might appear nasty, but with how population is growing on certain areas...such diseases do more or less, a sort of stop into the massive growth of people, what I said earlier would be a much more acceptable "stop". As a "stop" of growth with diseases is far from being the best way, we see people dieing, many of them being innocent, and that isn't cool). Much better image given, in this world and on the other, probably. After all, people contaminated by aids aren't only poor low educated people...now it's not good either to determine life's value from person skills/intelligence etc...but it's just to say.
We would get rid of plenty "useful" people by doing so. Not to mention we are civilized people...that wouldn't be civilized to act with mass killing. That would mean we don't have any value of people's life. (Imagine telling someone who is victim from a disease they will be killed for having it.) Now, why would punishing criminals would be different? They act against society/community and are a threat to others. But, they are guilty from their actions. Someone being a threat not his/her fault, we isolate them and treat them. We don't kill them. Foolish people being guilty of murders and other things, in my books, have no excuse for their acts. Double standards? Probably. Not really minding though.

There's a limit with acceptability and unacceptability regarding executions, crossing it and you likely lose credibility, because more you get away from it by crossing it, more you appear yourself as well as a threat to humanity, no matter what your intentions were in the start. Determining said limit varies upon people/cultures positions, but still that there are limits that most would agree with. Limits have to be drawn to prevent anarchy. Is there emotion with siding things as acceptable and unacceptable? Probably. Likely. Surely. But... aren't emotions, to some extent, when not abused, a positive parameter of humans? Therefore, the harbored flag of emotions possibly used against some parts of my arguments, would be countered by previous statement. There is a need for emotions. But, as I said, not in excess. Does as much damages as none.

Who knows, there might be people suffering from aids in this game/forums?

I promise you, (because the world leaders are right now doing exactly what you are saying) (...)

Universe wrote:
But don't you dare interfere, even hypothetically, with the quality of life for my progeny while preaching the gospel of all-togetherness.

Universe wrote::-k "Smoke pot and you won't get cancer."

Universe wrote: In anticipation of emotional responses, if any: Do not worry. You are all quite safe. My voice changes about as much as Avengers' does.. and neither of us is likely to end up in a position of sufficient power to exercise our great ideas.

Universe wrote:Explain to me how you would justify indirectly killing your own offspring (which is the most insane idea I have ever heard) by exposing them to the virus? You do this by not taking action where you should.
(...)
Then again, you probably have absolutely no consideration at all for future generations (of which you should hope many include your genetic material to serve as your own legacy to the human race), but are very considerate to the current population.

Apophis The Great wrote:Sacrifying my potential succession in a desperate and insignificant-by-size attempt to avoid the collapsing of humanity...that might be silly decision from me: win in quantity, but loss in quality (if I am an intelligent person, it could be a loss to see few less "smart people" in the future world).
But, there is a need of people deciding to do it. And since most people don't want to do so (Rightly or unrightly deciding so, is NOT my point)...some need to do the sacrifice!

Apophis the Great wrote:You didn't convince me to change my opinion on this subject. Not like I never thought of possible counter arguments to my position, which some appeared in your post. Counting pros and cons, I still prefer my opinion..

Soundwave wrote:

@ Avenger: I did, and it was not visited. I have since learned

Soundwave wrote:
@ Jim:

Apophis The Great wrote:Sacrifying my potential succession in a desperate and insignificant-by-size attempt to avoid the collapsing of humanity...that might be silly decision from me: win in quantity, but loss in quality (if I am an intelligent person, it could be a loss to see few less "smart people" in the future world).
But, there is a need of people deciding to do it. And since most people don't want to do so (Rightly or unrightly deciding so, is NOT my point)...some need to do the sacrifice!

Quantity over quality?! Damn that. The human race is degenerating (genetically, I will not include a moral judgment of that magnitude in this thread), mainly because the defective, disease-ridden part of the population is stimulated to reproduce at insane rates.. 'having children is their only source of income and a guarantee of care, for when they are old'. Insanity, I tell you. OMG yes! We can feed BILLIONS. Why do we even NEED billions of people. We have functioned properly for thousands of years with just over 200 million. Makes -with the current population- for about 6 billion redundant people. Imagine the chance for betterment of the human race we are having here!

Yes, quantity over quality, damn that. It's exactly what I meant there. Not contributing to it by sacrifying my potential offspring. Not participating in the growth of population. My children will not exist, and therefore not live the day when it will collapse.
EDIT: So yes, sort of "win" in quantity, but not more people in quantity, I meant a small victory for quantity parameter (which means for me, not adding more people). Few less people to be added on the list of population. I counted that as a win. Loss in quality, if my child(ren) were to be important people that was.

Edit: nevermind ><

If the cessation of the rapid breeding these degenerates do is impossible, or immoral, then the only alternative is to outbreed them. A superior subpopulation with a healthy growth rate will always prevail over degenerate rabbits.



Also:

Apophis the Great wrote:You didn't convince me to change my opinion on this subject. Not like I never thought of possible counter arguments to my position, which some appeared in your post. Counting pros and cons, I still prefer my opinion..

I do not need to convince you. In fact, I do not need to convince anyone. I will try, to an extent. However.. my main points, arguments and such will be available through other channels, more suited to reach a larger audience more quickly. Ha yes, online petitions for the win! Everyone loves the Cure for Almost Everything.