I think you miss the point. Which is - these old/ill people create a huge industry for OTHER people to be able to have a job at, literally millions can survive out of that. Id we wouldn't spend money on their drugs, pharma would go out of bussiness, many people would lose jobs, nurses would loose jobs, health care professionals, a huge chain reaction. Just like in nature - someone took a shit, and someone ate it (flyes), for sme it's shit, for some it's gold. Idk how is that not related to survival. Have you seen how it is in India for ex, where noone pays for taking care of old/crippled? They just lie on the street and often die there. Just one of the examples.
Da Vinci, I didn't miss the point because that wasn't the point. I am the one who brought up the example of caring for the elderly. And the difference between you and me is that I concede, YOUR POINT, that some people profit, and therefore enhance their survival, caring for the elderly. I've conceded it over and over again. I conceded it in the very post you quoted. And what is your response? "You miss the point." And just repeat your point that I already have conceded over and over again.
And people wonder why I get frustrated. You make a point. I agree. You respond, "You miss the point."
Now, how do you respond to my point that even though some do profit caring for the elderly it is still a net lost to society? It costs us money to care for people who are no longer productive. What is your response? You just ignore it. I asked you a direct question: Is it a NET loss or a NET profit to society to care for the elderly, to care for those who are no longer productive? You will not address the issue because it does not comport with your belief system. You just reply that essentially some do profit and make their living. That is not an answer. And then you claim that I am missing the point. You give the example of India, as if you are saying that because we can't take care and save everybody that negates the people that we do save.
What's more important, the truth or what you want to believe?
I'll asked you again, a simple and direct question, and answer it directly like a man, do not answer by telling me that SOME profit, not everybody is saved, or I miss the point. Just answer the question directly like I answered yours.
Is it a NET PROFIT to society when we expend limited resources to care for the elderly, care for people who can no longer care for themselves, care for people who are no longer productive?
Be the honest man you claim to be, the honest man that you think you are, and just answer the question. It's a yes or no question. Just answer it directly and dispense with the obfuscation.
I believe that all livin organisms have the same rights by default. To kill, or to be killed. That's pretty much it. And the fact that animals and humans have different rights is simply due to the fact that we are stronger, we don't care much about other live beings, we are driven by our own interest in personal survival.
What kind of answer is that? "The right to be killed?" Being killed is a deprivation of your rights. Might as well say you have the right to get your ass kicked, you have the right to have your house burned down.
Either you don't understand what rights are and therefore can't possibly understand my question. Or you are lying.
I know you think you are a genuine person. I know you think you are well thought out? I know you think you question yourself and are willing to admit that you are wrong.
Are you wrong about your concept of rights or are you lying?
I've thtought long and hard back in the day and couldn't find any serious differences. They are living exactly the same existence as we do, just brain capacity differs, so the same actions and results manifest in different ways, but they are still the same.
Because someone thinks long and hard about a subject and couldn't find what they are looking for doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Some of the greatest minds that have ever existed have searched long and hard the origins of cosmic rays and particle accelerators all to no avail. It doesn't mean it's not there.
To say that animals are "living exactly the same existence as we do",
that I am living the "exact" same existence as a racoon or a toad is so preposterous. It's amazing that I am the only one on this thread that disagrees with you. But truth is not determined by a democratic process.
This is what G.K. Chesterton meant when he said, "When a man stops believing in God he doesn't believe in nothing, he believes in anything."
Just like a small kid who hasn't been indoctrinated "how to behave" yet, by a more intelligent human.
Nobody thinks they've been indoctrinated. Your beliefs come from you being educated, the rest of us, or maybe just me since I'm the only one to disagree with you, have been indoctrinated.
So since you have never come across by "yet" a more intelligent human, that would imply, and explain, that you are the most intelligent person you've ever come across in your life time.
No need to look far, take radical muslims, they are pretty much apes with clothes on. We are a little bit more intelligent and don't kill as openly as they does. BTW - I don't think being an animal is bad or something, I have no idea why is that negative. I just accept it like it is. Humans - sophisticated animals. Survival machines, just like any other, just more effective ones.
You commit the common logical fallacy of Illicit Conversion, e.g., Some P are Q, therefore all P are Q.
Some humans act like animals therefore all humans are animals.
When you equate humans and animals you don't elevate the status of animal but rather diminish what it is to be human. It cheapens human life. I've given you concrete example where humans act in ways that do not enhance their survival but do things out of non animal qualities such as empathy and compassion but those are just ignored or rationalize ("we save OUR soldiers" as if that is a coherent rebuttal. Saving a soldier and saving the elderly from disease is on the same moral sphere, as well as saving a wounded enemy which we also do. None of this enhances our survival).
I repeat a very important difference between man and animals, a difference you will continue to ignore because it does not comport with your world view and therefore means that you are more concerned with feeling good about yourself, that you know everything, that you have never met anybody more intelligent than yourself than what is the truth. And that is:
Animals do not have a moral sense. They do not think in terms of right and wrong. Their behavior is based purely on instinct. Even Jeffrey Dahmer knew he was doing wrong. He even said what he was doing was evil. Knowing right from wrong doesn't guarantee that you will always do right but, contrary to your all or nothing logic, it doesn't mean you will never do right.
Before you can do right or wrong you have to know and be aware of what is right and wrong. Animals cannot do anything morally right and wrong. Humans can. And everybody, recognizes it. Even you. (At least I think you do, I don't know anymore. Do you believe that humans can commit acts that are deemed right or deemed wrong?)
But the tide is on your side. As we continue to diminish and cheapen human life we are seeing the results of it today. We, as a people, are getting worse and worse. So you and your ideas are winning as proven here right now. I am the only one to question, challenge and disagree with you.
