Involuntary euthanasia is a system wide-open to corruption and exploitation.
You mean like government? Yet we still have that. Interesting.
I know your new world view advocates the 'survival of the fittest' mentality, but remember that we are not like other animals in many ways. Indeed, I can recall you suggesting that animals who are of no use to us should be disposed of, in order to free up resources for humans. But if humans loose the morality and compassion that sets us apart, what would give us that right?
What gives people the right to do anything? Proclamation.
I find you unhealthy. Would you care to sign up for the piolet program?
This is a very poor argument as it ignores various factors
a) Society - if the majority of society did find me unhealthy, and legally proposed my euthanasia then yes, I would have no choice
b) It's quite simple to objectively measure sickness
It also is an argument based on emotion; you attempt to frighten me in order to defeat my argument although, then, you are not using logic. Logically, in the interest of the survival of the human species, what good comes out of the weak and genetically unfit?
Lack of stamina is a clear sign of weakness and sub-standard genetic stock.
Stamina doesn't depend entirely on genetics, for one; and two I do not lack stamina at all.
And that Norsefire, is what you are advocating, whether you understand it or not.
'Course I understand it. But it's interesting reading this argument; it's based on emotion. You are attempting to get me to disagree with my original proposition on an emotional basis, and not a logical one. Logically, again, show me what the genetically unfit and sick contribute to the survival of the species. For many, it's quite literally nothing.
Thus why sustain them? Are you not a logical person? Your emotion is being counter productive; you are advocating that we sustain the unhealthy.
