|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:30 pm
Talon-chan I.Am But if your belief is, "The human race should end," then it would be kind of hypocritical to turn around and say, "but all war is wrong." I just don't see it that way. Saying you believe the human race should end does not mean you should be for it ending by any means available. The VHEMT (I think that's the acronym), which is the movement a lot of pro-choicers would claim to be a part of if they were for human extinction, is a voluntary human extinction movement. I just don't see the conflict in thinking both "humans hurt the world and the world would be better off without them," and "murder is wrong." To me saying that "if you're pro-extinction then you must also be pro-extinction-by-any-means-possible" (including war) makes as much sense as saying "if you're pro-life then you should be a vegan and anti-death penalty." The difference I see is, if you are Pro-Extinction, you believe that humans don't deserve to continue to exist. So why be picky about how they get offed? Whereas Pro-Life is about protecting defenseless human life. Which has nothing to do with veganism at all, and is only slightly related to death penalty. There's plenty of reason to say that killing someone to keep them from killing other people is okay, while killing someone just because you don't want to take care of them is not. But I don't see the reasoning behind "We want you, and all other humans, dead. But we don't want you to kill humans, even those who might deserve it." Actually, though, I can see quite easily why they would be against the current war: With Saddam in power there would have been many more innocent deaths in Iraq over the years, with Saddam killing everyone who looked at him slantwise, and he would have gotten stronger and stronger until he was able to kill even more people, thus bringing extinction that much closer.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:40 pm
The human race has been compared to a disease. Well, bacteria mutate and humans become more resourcful. The only way you could ever render humans extinct is to preform a world wide act of mass murder. There owuld need to be some one on ever air plane in the air and every ship on the water as well. Problem is, the human extinction activist are a minority and always will be. Self presurvation is one of the greatest instincts humans have in them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:54 pm
Pyrotechnic Oracle The human race has been compared to a disease. Well, bacteria mutate and humans become more resourcful. The only way you could ever render humans extinct is to preform a world wide act of mass murder. There owuld need to be some one on ever air plane in the air and every ship on the water as well. Problem is, the human extinction activist are a minority and always will be. Self presurvation is one of the greatest instincts humans have in them. *moans* don't give anyone any ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:59 pm
lymelady Pyrotechnic Oracle The human race has been compared to a disease. Well, bacteria mutate and humans become more resourcful. The only way you could ever render humans extinct is to preform a world wide act of mass murder. There owuld need to be some one on ever air plane in the air and every ship on the water as well. Problem is, the human extinction activist are a minority and always will be. Self presurvation is one of the greatest instincts humans have in them. *moans* don't give anyone any ideas. There are people out there already calling for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:49 pm
Like someone in this thread already said " If they're so bent on exterminating the population, why dont they start on themselves?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:02 pm
Talon-chan Ava R. Beware the Jabberwock There are some choicers who think that we SHOULD bring an end to our race, actually. o_O
The only way to make that even better is to tell me that at least some of them are also anti-war. Then I'll be able to have a really good laugh.Why? It's no more a conflict of interests than a pro-lifer being a non-vegan.
There's a huge difference between human life and animal life, so no, there's not really any conflict at all.
And I.Am's last post is pretty much what else I think about it. I just think there's an unique sort of irony behind it, and, also, I was very, very mad when I wrote this so I was a lot more cynical about it than I normally would have been.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:56 am
I.Am The difference I see is, if you are Pro-Extinction, you believe that humans don't deserve to continue to exist. So why be picky about how they get offed? Because it is possible to believe that humans have rights that ought not be violated and at the same time think they are a disgusting species. Is it possible to be racist and anti-murder? Sure. But if they believe that whites/blacks/asians/jews/arabs/whomever are inferior to whites/blacks/asians/jews/arabs/whomever then why be picky about whether or not someone ruthlessly murders them! See where I'm coming from? Believing a group of people are disgusting creatures doesn't mean you believe they have no rights that ought not be violated. Quote: But I don't see the reasoning behind "We want you, and all other humans, dead. But we don't want you to kill humans, even those who might deserve it." Well then that's a misunderstanding of their view (at least a view that the majority holds). They want the people who are alive now to not create any more life. They don't want the people alive now to be dead before their time, they don't want to murder them, they don't want them to be ruthlessly slaughtered for the sake of the planet (well maybe the extreme ones do, but we all know the majority is not defined by the extremes)... There's a difference between saying "I want to all humans dead right this instant" and "I want humans to stop being born." If pro-extinction people truly wanted all humans dead this instant... then it would be hypocritical to be anti-war and anti-murder. However the vast majority of pro-extinction people don't want all humans dead this instant. They want humans to stop breeding out of control. They want people to stop having children, not kill the children they already have. Quote: Actually, though, I can see quite easily why they would be against the current war: With Saddam in power there would have been many more innocent deaths in Iraq over the years, with Saddam killing everyone who looked at him slantwise, and he would have gotten stronger and stronger until he was able to kill even more people, thus bringing extinction that much closer. That's just being snarky. ;P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:09 pm
Talon-chan I.Am The difference I see is, if you are Pro-Extinction, you believe that humans don't deserve to continue to exist. So why be picky about how they get offed? Because it is possible to believe that humans have rights that ought not be violated and at the same time think they are a disgusting species. Is it possible to be racist and anti-murder? Sure. But if they believe that whites/blacks/asians/jews/arabs/whomever are inferior to whites/blacks/asians/jews/arabs/whomever then why be picky about whether or not someone ruthlessly murders them! See where I'm coming from? Believing a group of people are disgusting creatures doesn't mean you believe they have no rights that ought not be violated. The problem is, there's a difference between, "That group of people is inferior." and "That group of people should die." In one case, you simply dislike the person. I dislike quite a few people. In the other case, you want that person to die. I do not harbor such feelings towards anyone. Quote: Quote: But I don't see the reasoning behind "We want you, and all other humans, dead. But we don't want you to kill humans, even those who might deserve it." Well then that's a misunderstanding of their view (at least a view that the majority holds). They want the people who are alive now to not create any more life. They don't want the people alive now to be dead before their time, they don't want to murder them, they don't want them to be ruthlessly slaughtered for the sake of the planet (well maybe the extreme ones do, but we all know the majority is not defined by the extremes)... There's a difference between saying "I want to all humans dead right this instant" and "I want humans to stop being born." If pro-extinction people truly wanted all humans dead this instant... then it would be hypocritical to be anti-war and anti-murder. However the vast majority of pro-extinction people don't want all humans dead this instant. They want humans to stop breeding out of control. They want people to stop having children, not kill the children they already have. But why? If they want humans dead, why not let them die? I'm not saying that they should go out there and kill people. But if the ends you desire is "End of species" why dicker about the means, as long as you aren't the one "doing the deed"? Also, it seems to me that, if they want to keep people from having children, they should be Pro-Forced Sterilization, rather then wanting them to create children and then kill them. Quote: Quote: Actually, though, I can see quite easily why they would be against the current war: With Saddam in power there would have been many more innocent deaths in Iraq over the years, with Saddam killing everyone who looked at him slantwise, and he would have gotten stronger and stronger until he was able to kill even more people, thus bringing extinction that much closer. That's just being snarky. ;P Yes, but also a point. razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:12 pm
I.Am But why? If they want humans dead, why not let them die? I'm not saying that they should go out there and kill people. But if the ends you desire is "End of species" why dicker about the means, as long as you aren't the one "doing the deed"? Because the ends do not justify the means. I'm surprised you'd even ask that. It's pretty obvious that the ends do not justify the means in almost all circumstances. If the only way to save one man was to kill another and steal his organs (where both men are equally innocent of all crimes) I'd surely hope the ends (saving one man) do not justify the means (killing another). There are countless situations like this. To those who want human extinction the ends would just justify using any means possible. Quote: Also, it seems to me that, if they want to keep people from having children, they should be Pro-Forced Sterilization, rather then wanting them to create children and then kill them. I agree. They would have to be pro-mandatory-sterilization. Unless, again, they were of the belief that the movement should be wholely voluntary. If someone who thinks the world would be better without people and that people ought to move to that end on their own... then there's nothing wrong with believing that currently living people have the right to control their bodies... including reproductive choices, even if someone thinks the choice to have children is wrong. Again if the ends don't justify the means in all situations. If the ends (no children) can only be met through unjust means... then I don't see the conflict in believing that the means ought not be done. [qoute] Quote: Quote: Actually, though, I can see quite easily why they would be against the current war: With Saddam in power there would have been many more innocent deaths in Iraq over the years, with Saddam killing everyone who looked at him slantwise, and he would have gotten stronger and stronger until he was able to kill even more people, thus bringing extinction that much closer. That's just being snarky. ;P Yes, but also a point. razz A point that misrepresents what they actually believe in order to demonize them... especially considering the vast majority of them would believe murder is wrong... but a point none-the-less... and I'm sure somewhere out there there's a crazy radical extinction movement person who does believe what you said about sadam u.u;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:28 pm
Talon-chan I.Am But why? If they want humans dead, why not let them die? I'm not saying that they should go out there and kill people. But if the ends you desire is "End of species" why dicker about the means, as long as you aren't the one "doing the deed"? Because the ends do not justify the means. I'm surprised you'd even ask that. It's pretty obvious that the ends do not justify the means in almost all circumstances. If the only way to save one man was to kill another and steal his organs (where both men are equally innocent of all crimes) I'd surely hope the ends (saving one man) do not justify the means (killing another). There are countless situations like this. To those who want human extinction the ends would just justify using any means possible. Except that I don't understand that when the ends are -the end of human life itself-, do the means -really- matter that much? When the desire is the end of life, does it matter how life ends? Does it matter if they all die because a meteor struck, or because they died for an arguably misguided attempt to free a nation? And I can also understand, "We don't believe in killing people." But why argue if people are willing to kill each other for you? Both parties are at least somewhat willing; The US military wants to liberate Iraq, the Iraqi military wants to kill all the "white devil" Americans. So there's the "voluntary" for you. Why argue? Let them take care of your business for you; They think they are doing the right thing, humans are dying, hey! Everybody's happy. Quote: Quote: Also, it seems to me that, if they want to keep people from having children, they should be Pro-Forced Sterilization, rather then wanting them to create children and then kill them. I agree. They would have to be pro-mandatory-sterilization. Unless, again, they were of the belief that the movement should be wholely voluntary. If someone who thinks the world would be better without people and that people ought to move to that end on their own... then there's nothing wrong with believing that currently living people have the right to control their bodies... including reproductive choices, even if someone thinks the choice to have children is wrong. Again if the ends don't justify the means in all situations. If the ends (no children) can only be met through unjust means... then I don't see the conflict in believing that the means ought not be done. The problem is, I'm not able to get my mind around the idea of, "We want the human race to die, but we are very picky about the way it happens." I can kind of understand, "We want the human race to die, but we don't want to hurt the Earth or the other creatures on it," but I can't understand the idea that a war in the desert, involving very few animals indeed, and killing more humans, including some particularly bad humans, would be against company policy. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Actually, though, I can see quite easily why they would be against the current war: With Saddam in power there would have been many more innocent deaths in Iraq over the years, with Saddam killing everyone who looked at him slantwise, and he would have gotten stronger and stronger until he was able to kill even more people, thus bringing extinction that much closer. That's just being snarky. ;P Yes, but also a point. razz A point that misrepresents what they actually believe in order to demonize them... especially considering the vast majority of them would believe murder is wrong... but a point none-the-less... and I'm sure somewhere out there there's a crazy radical extinction movement person who does believe what you said about sadam u.u; No no, not demonize them. If their aim is the destruction of the species, then wouldn't that, logically, be a net "good" to them? Yes I was being snarky; But more so towards Anti-war folks then Pro-Extinctionists. razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:52 pm
I.Am Yes I was being snarky; But more so towards Anti-war folks then Pro-Extinctionists. razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:23 pm
Mcphee I.Am Yes I was being snarky; But more so towards Anti-war folks then Pro-Extinctionists. razz I said snarky, not hateful! gonk But it's because you're gay. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:28 pm
I.Am Mcphee I.Am Yes I was being snarky; But more so towards Anti-war folks then Pro-Extinctionists. razz I said snarky, not hateful! gonk But it's because you're gay. 3nodding
It's always the gay thing.
You republican catholics are all the same.
*slinks away, ashamedly*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:52 pm
Aurora Ruthven Beware the Jabberwock There are some choicers who think that we SHOULD bring an end to our race, actually. o_O AHM. Anti-Humanity Movement. Arggh, I feel like stabbing them in the a**, when they come and tell me that all human life has to be destroyed on this planet. Then I just tell them that maybe they should start immediately and go kill themselves. "Oh, really? Humanity is meaningless? Hrm, say what? Jump off a cliff? Oh, certainly, dear! You can go first, we'll follow!"
xd
Problem solved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:56 pm
Ava R. Beware the Jabberwock There are some choicers who think that we SHOULD bring an end to our race, actually. o_O
The only way to make that even better is to tell me that at least some of them are also anti-war. Then I'll be able to have a really good laugh.St. Teresa once said that abortion was the beginning of the trail of war. If you have absolutely no problem with bringing your own flesh and blood's life to a demise, then you have absolutely no problem doing so to anyone else on this planet.
I could not agree more. If there's nothing wrong with murdering your own kid, why the hell would you mind killing someone else you don't even know?
stare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
