Reign_Cryogen

Works for me. Hand everyone a weapon. It'll sort out in the end, though we'd be back to square one.

Reign_Cryogen

Tell that to WinAce.

Oh, wait..

enoch007

I thought all humans were flawed.

Nialler

So you think we'd all have been better off without him? You thinbk that he'd have been better off had he never existed?

Be careful jumping on that grave.

JamesBannon

I think Reign was kidding (sort of).

Hazy Daisy

If your goal is to eliminate disparities in intelligence in the (misguided) hope of creating an egalitarian society, it's not enough to have a cut off point below which people are, ahem, "euthanized." You must decide on a certain narrow range of intelligence within which people are allowed to live/breed, and anyone either below or above that range is out of luck. Otherwise disparities will remain, the "curve" will just move a little to the right.

Just some food for thought.

Christina Mirabilis

Yes, please do.

Is your definition based on whether or not those that you consider flawed would be better off without having to live our lives, or just that the rest of you would be better off if we didn't come into existence? Who is it that you think has the knowledge, understanding and ability to make that determination?

Reign_Cryogen

No.

What I think - what you think - is immaterial. What WinAce thought, however.. is another animal entirely.

Now, here's the deal: We bring children into this world knowing damned well that life has a 100% fatality rate, historically speaking. Now, granted, the odds are heavily in favor, throughout most of the world, that you're going to live many years, however much of a blip that might be on the radar of all time. For most people, this is such a pervasively terrifying problem that we'll do almost anything to convince ourselves it doesn't exist. Enter, religion. But that's another conversation entirely, I won't take it further than the blanks you can fill in for yourself, naturally.

Anyway. The offspring we bring into this world don't get a choice in the matter. It's all thrust upon them. On the surface, does that not seem horribly unfair, in and of itself, given the big picture? Any we react almost violently to anyone who should disagree with how splendid this losing game is to experience. Again, another conversation for another time. Nihilism doth breathe on my shoes here.

But here's the thing (and my point, for that matter): In my time soldiering, I saw a great many people die very, very young. Some moreso than others. Some younger than even WinAce. The difference is that nearly all of them chose those circumstances. They chose to put themselves in peril. They might not have wished for death, but they certainly weren't trying very hard to avoid it by soldiering. The difference is that WinAce didn't choose.

Now, I haven't the first damned clue what his parents did or didn't know, and I mean this not as a passing of judgment, but suppose they did. What then? What, precisely, makes them any different from, say, me with my M-4 in my hands? Or, even more closely analogous, from Bush, sending oceans of 22-year-olds to go to a place where people are actively trying to put them under the dirt?

Is that not criminal?

That's all I was getting at.

ZeusTKP

quick note: I haven't been ignoring anyone, this is the first time I have a chance to post.

ZeusTKP

Not allow means to prevent in some fashion, but not sterilize.

Flawed is fuzzy, but basically anything that is clearly a disorder and that causes a person to be fully dependant on others to survive. However, it does not include all genetic diseases. Sickle cell anemia, as I understand it, actually helped people survive in areas where malaria was common. But a person with cickle cell anemia can have a full life and not be a burden on society.

Stupid people can be productive members of society.