Thread: Nerve-gas the middle east and africa.

I REALLY hope you're joking!

Originally posted by dudesuperior
I REALLY hope you're joking! *

Well I would't really approve of it.

But it's a possibility. I mean nerve-gas = ok. Not like anyone dies of cancer becouse of it ^_^

But wait a minute, according to one of my posts, I don't really think that life is important, so I shouldn't really care.......

Originally posted by dudesuperior
But wait a minute, according to one of my posts, I don't really think that life is important, so I shouldn't really care.......

Indeed. Didn't you vote for: "Yay Painfull deaths are cool! " did ya now?

Why do you care ^__^

Originally posted by dudesuperior
But wait a minute, according to one of my posts, I don't really think that life is important, so I shouldn't really care.......

Same here...although sometimes it takes an extra amount of effort to not care.

Originally posted by Neruo
Why do you care ^__^

I care because we get loads of imported goods from them at rock-bottom prices, helping our economy grow even more! (world trade sucks if your'e a poor country)

Originally posted by dudesuperior


I care because we get loads of imported goods from them at rock-bottom prices, helping our economy grow even more! (world trade sucks if your'e a poor country)

lololol good point.

Ok so lets not nerve-gas like mexico and any of the latin countries, they make good coffie. On the otherhand, if we nerve-gas africa and the middle east We could make huge fields for cotton and other good there

But that would be morraly incorrect

How about some kind of medium-strength nerve gas that allows them to continue menial labor, but stops them from being able to wield weapons?

Originally posted by mongreloctopus
How about some kind of medium-strength nerve gas that allows them to continue menial labor, but stops them from being able to wield weapons?

Yeah just make a drug that stops all emotions. That way they will not care about being enslaved so it will be all cool right?

Right?

Apparently the USA are developing a bomb that turns people gay. I'm not sure how this helps our situation however.

Originally posted by dudesuperior
Apparently the USA are developing a bomb that turns people gay. I'm not sure how this helps our situation however.

Gay men wear leather vest, not bomb laden ones.

More souls for bush er, satan.

Originally posted by dudesuperior
Apparently the USA are developing a bomb that turns people gay. I'm not sure how this helps our situation however.

Yeah true... But really that is just stupid. Being gay is a physical-neuro thing. Like it's in your brain, not in your mind. It's more then just chemicals. The actual brain-portions are different.

However I think they used bush as a test subject.

Originally posted by dudesuperior
Apparently the USA are developing a bomb that turns people gay. I'm not sure how this helps our situation however.

Of course... gay people's fingers are too wimpy to pull triggers, don't you know?

Originally posted by Neruo
Why not. Let's just start over, right? 90% of the next 10 generations are sure to live in shit anyway. So if we would just nerve-gas everyone there, and not destroy all the houses, animals and beautifull landscape, some new people would just have room to like... not kill each other for a change. And not starve to death.

Right?

Scary coincidence. I've been having similar debates with a fellow student for weeks now. Would it be beneficial for the developed human race if we painlessly killed everyone in developing countries. Reasons;
a) It would stop all their needless suffering (it will never stop otherwise).
B) It would release the 'ball and chain' that is dragging our society down, allowing us to concentrate on advancing our knowledge.
c) It would stop all possible confrontations with them in the future.

However there are also downsides;

a) We would lose our supply of raw materials that we desperately need to advance our society
B) People would argue that it is 'morally wrong' and they have a 'right to live'

My friend is a very 'life is a right' sort of person, and belives we should keep trying to bring the less developed countries up to our level, even if it doesn't work... which just doesn't make sense. This is a harsh, cruel world, and the 'right to live' is a human invention. Survival of the fittest all the way!

Edit: After some serious thought on this subject, I'm unlocking the thread for further discussion. I'd also like to apologize for my previous rudeness. We've had problems in the past dealing with similar subjects and things of this nature can get very touchy.

That said, please continue to keep it clean and calm (and from what I see so far, it looks like it has been).

Originally posted by Pensive Patrick+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pensive Patrick)</div>

Scary coincidence. I've been having similar debates with a fellow student for weeks now. I think it would be extremely beneficial for the developed human race if we painlessly killed everyone in developing countries. Reasons;
a) It would stop all their needless suffering (it will never stop otherwise).
B) It would release the 'ball and chain' that is dragging our society down, allowing us to concentrate on advancing our knowledge.
c) It would stop all possible confrontations with them in the future.

However there are also downsides;

a) We would lose our supply of raw materials that we desperately need to advance our society
B) People would argue that it is 'morally wrong' and they have a 'right to live'

My friend is a very 'life is a right' sort of person, and belives we should keep trying to bring the less developed countries up to our level, even if it doesn't work... which just doesn't make sense. This is a harsh, cruel world, and the 'right to live' is a human invention. Survival of the fittest all the way![/b]

How in the world do you think simple solutions like that work:

A) how does killing someone end their suffering?, do you actually know what goes on at this countries to actually imply what they sufer from isn't worth of their lives
B) how are they bringing your society down?, you are actually implying that first world countries are wasting aid on other countries, but at the same time braging about exploiding their resources
C) why are there going to be confrontations?, now, you are implying that if their lifes are worthy, in the future they would rebel; why? aren't they just trying to build up their culture?

Downsides?, seriously, do you actually consider what you are saying?

A) so, human life for you is less than material worth, and here you are saying how the world should be (...)
B) do you know what morality means? do you apreciate life? do you even think? or just talk out of yours?

<!--QuoteBegin-A Lost Soul
That said, please continue to keep it clean and calm (and from what I see so far, it looks like it has been).

I'm sorry, but how is saying that life is worth less than material: clean or decent?
I apologise for if I'm being rude, but this tipe of things shouldn't be even discussed

Originally posted by Sortilegio


I'm sorry, but how is saying that life is worth less than material: clean or decent?
I apologise for if I'm being rude, but this tipe of things shouldn't be even discussed

That's what made me lock the topic in the first place.

Currently, the fate of this thread is under discussion by the other moderators and I. Until we decide what to do with it, I'll keep it unlocked and here.

Originally posted by Sortilegio


I'm sorry, but how is saying that life is worth less than material: clean or decent?
I apologise for if I'm being rude, but this tipe of things shouldn't be even discussed

I don't think that's true. Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean that your view is necessarily correct. This topic is a very interesting philosophical question that I think many in the west have considered.

In terms of the western perspective, most of these people would be better off dead because the poor quality of life. But I think we would find that if these people really thought their lives were not worth living there would very high suicide rates. In fact, the opposite is true. The suicide rate in the US and and Europe as high and higher than most of the third world for which there is data (http://www.who.int/mental_health/pre.../en/index.html). I think the fact that these people, who have for the most part been launched into extreme poverty by European imperialism, are still persevering, and in some cases beginning to become "successful" by western standards (India, for instance with universities, computer science and being the recipients of many out-sourced jobs--or Thailand with some of the best health care in the world) is a sign that these people may one day run the world as the next super-power(s).

Wow the topic has been unlocked.. Thanks. I guess I do understand why some people get get touchy about this subject. But not like I really want to nerve-gas the middle-east and africa. It's just so that we (the world) have totally fucked up. We got rich at the expense of others.

And like a fresh start for the world would be nice perhaps. Like less fucked up. Maybe even just kill everyone but a few carefully selected people that are very kind, smart, don't kill the planet and stuff.

Anyhow, thx.

Originally posted by Pensive Patrick


Scary coincidence. I've been having similar debates with a fellow student for weeks now. I think it would be extremely beneficial for the developed human race if we painlessly killed everyone in developing countries. Reasons;
a) It would stop all their needless suffering (it will never stop otherwise).
B) It would release the 'ball and chain' that is dragging our society down, allowing us to concentrate on advancing our knowledge.
c) It would stop all possible confrontations with them in the future.

However there are also downsides;

a) We would lose our supply of raw materials that we desperately need to advance our society
B) People would argue that it is 'morally wrong' and they have a 'right to live'

My friend is a very 'life is a right' sort of person, and belives we should keep trying to bring the less developed countries up to our level, even if it doesn't work... which just doesn't make sense. This is a harsh, cruel world, and the 'right to live' is a human invention. Survival of the fittest all the way!

lol

You have some points I agree on. However, we kind of passed the survival of the fittest. I mean becouse of our technical inventions just about everyone can survive and have children. Allso, if the president really wanted, he would just nuke everyone in the world and go live in a shelter himself with 10000 hot woman. Our Society kind of interfears with the survival stuff.

Allso, I guess I wouldn't wanted to be nerve-gassed if I lived in africa... Kind of weird that hardly any people in africa kill themselves so it seems. While their life sucks way more then of those in america. That kill themselves by the dozen.

I don't think that's true. Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean that your view is necessarily correct. This topic is a very interesting philosophical question that I think many in the west have considered.[/b]

None the less this is a very touchy topic.
Considering it an ongoing, discussion is valid.
But do to the nature of this topic it will be under strict scrutany.

Originally posted by Neruo
And like a fresh start for the world would be nice perhaps. Like less fucked up. Maybe even just kill everyone but a few carefully selected people that are very kind, smart, don't kill the planet and stuff.

I'm know that's been the basic theme of more than one sci-fi or other fictional story. Certainly it's a common fantasy for a lot of people to one day wake up and find that most of the population is gone, except for a select few that (in the eyes of the fantasizer) are as good as they are -- often it's kids / teens that imagine all the adults disappear, whether by magic, disease, disaster, alien invasion, nuclear holocaust, or whatever. I believe the "disease" option is the basic idea behind the TV show "Tribes" (I've never watched the show myself).

The problem is that virtually everyone would think that they are one of the ones that should be preserved, while most of those around them should perish.

In any case, the idea of someone taking fate into their own hands and actually commiting mass murder / genocide is something that I think (hope? pray?) most would agree is morally reprehensible. People who think they are wise enough to play God in such a way, rarely (if ever) actually are.

OK, I see I've upset some people here. Sorry

I understand this is a volatile subject, and I won't push my points any further, so this won't turn into a flamewar.

I may have missed it since I just scanned the contents of this topic, but...

Are you advocating killing off ALL of humanity so that the monkeys can take over or are you talking about killing off all but a handful and trying to get a fresh start? You know kind of like Noah's ark?

According to old testiment accounting, the flood took place about 4-5K years ago. It took that amount of time to get us into our current state and that reset took place while man was pretty much untechnical. Is it incorrect to assume that we can mess the world up in a much shorter time?

Why not apply our energies to correcting the problems instead of just wiping the slate clean? Seems to me it would be much more effective.

Also, thank you everyone for trying to keep this topic from degenerating into a flame war. The moderators will continue to watch for controversial topics and have the authority to lock or move anything that gets out of hand.