Lower Taxes: Incinerate The Elderly

[MisterBishi]

For the first time, there are more over-60s than there are children under the age of 16 in the United Kingdom.

At the same time, the number of men and women aged 85 and older has grown more than fivefold over the past half-century, from about 200,000 in 1951 to 1.1 million in 2001.

Now, I'm pretty sure I don't have to explain the financial implications of this to anybody who still has a functioning brain (i.e. under the age of 65), so I'll continue with the other reasons that Euthanasia (or whatever it's called when the elderly are culled), should not just be legal, it should be fucking compulsory.

The elderly are like a huge grey sponge, dithering helplessly about in the ocean of the Government's coffers, clinging to the lifeboat of medical science, complaining about the price of the tea that they simply shouldn't be around to drink and hoping that an asshole like me doesn't kick them in the replacement hip, sending them falling to their death in the icy waters of reality.

The anchor chain of this boat is wrapped tightly around the throat of the once-great NHS, which, for some reason, is still obliged to pump them full of expensive drugs and other treatments, in order that they remain alive for long enough to get a new hip the following year, and so on, until they need full time care - at huge cost to the taxpayer.

Imagine being sick, and not having to join a huge waiting list for your treatment. A waiting list that is full to bursting of decrepit, senile beings that will go straight from the hospital bed to a regular old piss stained bed. Where they lie in boredom, with only embellished tales of their worthwhile years keeping them company, while the decent, young people of the world go out and work for a living, a help rather than a hindrance to the economy.

Now I'm not naive enough to imagine that many of you are open-minded enough to have got this far without your heart strings twanging like an osteoporosis riddled spine in a bitter wind, probably on account of your lovely grand-parents spoiling you with gifts of varying magnitude or some such. So I offer you this: The reduction in taxes and National Insurance afforded by the culling of all those of a pensionable age, would easily increase your financial well-being, so much so that you could buy whatever it is they treat you to yourself, and let's not forget, there's got to be something in their will for you, right?

So, in conclusion, anybody over the age of 65 has had their best years and should be fully prepared to die for the better financial welfare of the citizens of this country. Citizens that still have something worthwhile to contribute, other than the challenge to medical science to keep churning out Bob Hopes and fucking Queen Mum's.

Lets face it, most of them are not shy when it comes to telling us that they were prepared to die for their country 50 years ago, so they shouldn't take to much convincing that now is the right time to do so.

Hell, we could even incinerate them to create energy, I'm some kind of fucking genius.

[geggle]

Well I dunno...

I think since you are the person who is going to benefit from their demise, you should take the first step and just pop out and off all your elderly relatives.

Naturally, your folks, since they know they're gunna die, will make sure to blow all their remaining money and leave you the bill for burial.

Off you go then...

[scathing]

Originally posted by MisterBishi
I'll continue with the other reasons that Euthanasia (or whatever it's called when the elderly are culled

Not trying to be a word nazi, but since you asked (implicitly) the word you're after is pogrom (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pogrom).

Its phrased a bit negatively there, but it was probably written by fucking uni students anyway. You know, the kind that spend all their time between going to their arts lectures and drinking lattes to protest free trade, rather than actually getting a job and doing something useful with their lives.

[BlueBoy]

Never had a problem with the Logn's Run idea.

Euthanasia should be legal. Nobody has the right to keep someone locked up against their will. Why can't that be extrapolated to refer to life as well?

Old people could serve a great purpose once they've been topped. for instance, a few cremated oldies would make a great carbon filter for water supplies in 3rd world countries. Soylent Green might even be a good food supply.

I'm not saying bring in an age limit, maybe just give olds an option to bow out gracefully, as opposed to being plugged into 18 odd hoses transporting vital fluids in and out of them, 24 hours a day. A chance to be remembered as a real person rather than a blob of barely conscious flesh. I'll take that, thank you very much.

But then again, I can barely remember my grand parents, so how would I know what old people think.

[scathing]

Originally posted by BlueBoy
Euthanasia should be legal. Nobody has the right to keep someone locked up against their will.

Of course they do. What the fuck do you think a prison is?

[MisterBishi]

Originally posted by scathing
Not trying to be a word nazi, but since you asked (implicitly) the word you're after is pogrom (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pogrom).

I didn't know that word, but I do know that euthanasia is the 'assisted suicide' of those who are in a lot of pain or have an illness that is debilitating to the extent that the sufferer would rather be dead. For those reasons, I thought it was reasonable to draw parallels, albeit sarcastically, to old age.

[BlueBoy]

Originally posted by scathing
Of course they do. What the fuck do you think a prison is?

I should have been clearer.
There's a big difference between a prison and being old.
If you're in prison then there's a good chance you did something very, very bad. There is (as far as I'm aware) no law that says you can't be old.

[scathing]

Yeah, euthanasia is a bit "Do it yourself" (hence the suicide).

A pogrom is more "service with a smile".

Some old buggers might not want to die. Given that they're a drain on society, terminally diseased, and semi-functional, a pogrom might be a solution for those that don't want to do it at home.

[scathing]

Originally posted by BlueBoy
I should have been clearer.
There's a big difference between a prison and being old.

I didn't delete your first sentence, hence the confusion.

My reply was to "Nobody has the right to keep someone locked up against their will" with the assertion that somebody does have the right to keep other people locked up against their will.

[Scythe]

Can anyone say 'soilent green'? :(

[scathing]

Originally posted by BlueBoy
If you're in prison then there's a good chance you did something very, very bad. There is (as far as I'm aware) no law that says you can't be old.

Not yet, anyway. Hence the Bishmaster's assertion that there should be.

[geggle]

The difficulty I personally have with euthanesia is not that someone of sound mind might choose to take their own life, rather it is the fringe circumstances where someone of perhaps not quite as sound a mind might be influenced into appearing to agree to it.

Not every family situation is without conflict. Not every carer is a florence nightingale. It is not altogether unusual in such situations for people to hold a large amount or influence over their charges. I would want to be certain that it was at the very least extremely difficult for persons acting in "power of attorney" type situations to agree to termination of life.

Sure, euthanesia is a potential release to those with terminal illness with pain and suffering. I just don't want it to become the easy solution to an annoying psycho grandmother-in-law.

[BlueBoy]

Originally posted by scathing
I didn't delete your first sentence, hence the confusion.

My reply was to "Nobody has the right to keep someone locked up against their will" with the assertion that somebody does have the right to keep other people locked up against their will.

Replace "locked up" with "alive".
Better? :D

[BlueBoy]

Originally posted by Scythe
Can anyone say 'soilent green'? :(

I know I did! :)

[MisterBishi]

Originally posted by geggle
The difficulty I personally have with euthanesia is not that someone of sound mind might choose to take their own life, rather it is the fringe circumstances where someone of perhaps not quite as sound a mind might be influenced into appearing to agree to it.

Not every family situation is without conflict. Not every carer is a florence nightingale. It is not altogether unusual in such situations for people to hold a large amount or influence over their charges. I would want to be certain that it was at the very least extremely difficult for persons acting in "power of attorney" type situations to agree to termination of life.

Sure, euthanesia is a potential release to those with terminal illness with pain and suffering. I just don't want it to become the easy solution to an annoying psycho grandmother-in-law.

The euthanasia argument has gone on and on, even in these forums, my idea on the other hand, doesn't discriminate on the basis of a sound mind, if you're over 65, you get used as a battery.

[scathing]

Originally posted by geggle
The difficulty I personally have with euthanesia is not that someone of sound mind might choose to take their own life,

Indeed. However, it appears as if Bishi's assertion is that society should shed cancerous beings. When you get non-constructive living tissue, that just causes a drain on the rest of the organism, the solution is to perform a curetement.

If those people, who are dragging the nation's resources down, won't sacrifice themselves for the good of society then perhaps someone else should sacrifice them.

Its the same principle behind life imprisonment / execution. You take these counter-productive elements from society. If they can't be reformed, they're removed permanently. I doubt those people, sound mind or not, choose to be incarcerated for life or executed.

[Scythe]

Originally posted by BlueBoy
I know I did! :)

Fine then. :rolleyes:

Can anyone say 'that slimy black stuff they covered that baby in the pod with in "The Matrix"'.

Happy now? :p

Is it just me, or does there seem to be a recurring theme of cannibalism in hollywood? E.g the aforementioned movies, also Ravenous, and anything with a plane crashed on a mountain in the Andes? :(

[scathing]

Originally posted by MisterBishi
The euthanasia argument has gone on and on, even in these forums, my idea on the other hand, doesn't discriminate on the basis of a sound mind, if you're over 65, you get used as a battery.

I don't know how well human flesh burns, but I don't think it does it that well. You'd probably use more energy to get humans to combust than you'll gain from the process.

Unfortunately corpses don't make good fertiliser either. This is because apparently our bodies release a lot of toxins on decomposition, if I remember correctly.

However, if that's a by-product of the process of decomposition, we could always just feed bodies through a meat grinder and use it as pet food. Cannibals don't die, so maybe human meat just has to be served fresh.

[geggle]

Originally posted by scathing
Indeed. However, it appears as if Bishi's assertion is that society should shed cancerous beings. While I am sure the intent is to shed "cancerous beings", the described method is to shed "all beings over 65", which contains no assessment of the value of the beings in line for termination.

For those who consider that we would be able to design a system that would, over time, ensure the termination of only "cancerous beings", I can only assume that you also believe that our tax and welfare systems are perfect as well :-)

[scathing]

Originally posted by geggle
While I am sure the intent is to shed "cancerous beings", the described method is to shed "all beings over 65", which contains no assessment of the value of the beings in line for termination.

Well, he did grant dispensations to Bob Hope and the Queen Mum (and their ilk), so he addresses your concern.......

[MisterBishi]

Originally posted by geggle
While I am sure the intent is to shed "cancerous beings", the described method is to shed "all beings over 65", which contains no assessment of the value of the beings in line for termination.

Of course the value of beings in line for termination is assessed.

All Beings Over 65 = Cancerous Beings.

[Scythe]

If anybody is interested, there's a philosopher by the name of Peter Singer who's done a fair bit of writing on ethics, both animal and human, especially as it relates to euthanasia and the value of human life.

His stuff is pretty controversial, but basically he argues that the value of a life should be directly related to the capacity of that being (not necessarily a human being) to experience life, in both good and bad ways. Therefore, the life of an adult chimpanzee would be more valuable than that of a very severely retarded child, for example, since the chimp is more capable of interacting and living a full existence than a child who will almost certainly die in their first year of life.

I just thought i'd throw it out there. I do enough of philosophy at uni, so I'll leave it to you to consider how such a utilitarian system would be relevant to the elderly.

[utopian]

If we're going to dispose of the elderly for being "useless" members of society, we'll probably extend that to Down's Syndrome sufferers, paraplegics, those with muscular dystrophy and serious drug users.

Stephen Hawking is in a wheelchair, and while he's high maintenance, he's definitely one of the greater thinkers of recent times. Same with Paul Erdös, who used benzedrine to put in 19 hour days of work on mathematics.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting rid of useless sponges, but I don't think killing them all is the solution to it. I agree with assessing each "incapable" person's usefullness on an individual basis, but there are a lot of things that need to be considered. A 70 year old man might be hopelessly incontinent, but is wonderful with children and makes life easier for his family. You can't take a purely objective point of view.

Likewise, you can't base it solely on age. My grandfather is 76 and leads a very active life where he doesn't just sponge welfare money. He's always been a very forward person and is one of the best people I know. He doesn't give the impression of "stupid old bedwetter". Likewise, my grandmother is a wonderful woman who still contributes by writing music, poetry and prose. She may not be winning the Pulitzer Prize for any of it, but it's very good stuff. Neither of them are in a senior citizens home and they do not require assistance with anything. They make their rent payments on time and in full amounts. They don't do the whole "when I was a young'un" thing, nor do they shower their grandchildren in gifts. They have lived every moment of their life.

On the flipside, some of my friends have absolutely useless relatives who make life difficult for everyone and don't bother getting off their arses and going to the toilet before they do their business.

The first sign of senility is one forgetting his theorems. The second is forgetting to zip up, the third forgetting to zip down

- Stanislaw Ulam

[Bostonmess]

It's the method of termination that bothers me. I mean, I'm ok with incineration for getting rid of the corpses, but what about the process for ending their lives. I suggest we have an annual event where everyone over 65 (Logan's Run anyone?) has to do a grand national type course, they can use their Zimmerframes or three wheeled buggys if they need to. We televise it and have loads of "obstacles" such as mines, barbed wire, spike pits, machine gunners (apply now), cluster bombs, acid jumps etc.

We all get to gamble on the event and the winner get's to collect all the pensioners savings. If the Queen Mum was still alive she'd be a dead cert with her bionic hips hurdling over all those obstacles. Have you never seen her in full flight? Inspector Gadget was based on her. Fully extendable telescopic legs meaning she would only have a couple of strides to the finish line, wrinkled kevlar skin, the folds make it three times as effective at stopping bullets and most fearsome of all laser guided, silicon BooBies imobilizing crowds in their sticky globules, originally intended to be used for riot control, just in case the monarchy ever fell and she needed to get a job.

[Nandragon]

What of seniors still viable members of society. ones still contributing to the betterment of...? What of them?

[flounder]

So poor old Sir Alex Ferguson has only 3 or so years to live.
He had a bit to do with Granite City too.
Fucking Weird:confused:

[Bostonmess]

Originally posted by Nandragon
What of seniors still viable members of society. ones still contributing to the betterment of...? What of them?

Get rid, make room for the new blood. The new blood could actually prove their worthiness, by taking on the oldies in an American Gladiators type one on one competition. Instead of pugil sticks, it could be walking sticks against big fook off clubs with spikes in.

[MisterBishi]

Originally posted by flounder
So poor old Sir Alex Ferguson has only 3 or so years to live.
He had a bit to do with Granite City too.
Fucking Weird:confused:

Sir Alex Ferguson will be pardoned on account of his Knighthood.

As for those of you throwing around sentimental ideas of old people contributing to society, put a fucking sock in it.

They contribute jack shit, nothing but trouble. I can be great with children and write poetry at the weekend, while I relax after making a real contribution from Monday to Friday.

[kré]

perhaps we should process them into food along with the homeless?

[Bostonmess]

Yeah, after they've fallen in the flame grilled barbeque stake pit.

[beowulf437]

My grandfather continued to work into his 90's he retired 6 months before his death due to poor health. He had his own business so no one could force him to retire. There are many people given the choice would continue to work for years after manditory retire ages.

Better diets and medical care has increased the life expectancy of the entire population. In the US if you make it to 62 you have an average life expectancy of 20 more years (total average life expectancy figures include all deaths). It has only been in the last few years that retirement ages have climbed from the 62 year level. So people are finally able to work longer. It may be in the near future that retirement for other than health reasons is a thing of the past (I can't retire until I am 72 though my wife can retire at 69).

Voluntary birth control in the industrialized nations has reduced births to a point that not enough are being born to replace the ones that die. If you think the UK has a problem Japan is expected to have a population decline of 13 million in the next 20 years.

[utopian]

I think it's great that the old people will die off eventually. This will hopefully mean either tax cuts or better use of current tax money.

[Nandragon]

What about Albert Einstein, Mother Theresa, Gandy, Jack C. Hughston (father of sports medicine) now 80+years old and still doing reasearch and clinical diagnosises.

I'm sure many of you can think of others over the age of 60 that contributed greatly to the betterment of the world.

[Bostonmess]

Yup, and if there's more global warming and more extreme weather, they might get blown over and break a leg and die while collecting their pensions.

[MisterBishi]

Originally posted by Nandragon
contributed

Sorry nan, this past tense shit's not gonna slide, I haven't suggested for a second that these people haven't contributed, it's contributing that's important, and after 65, that pretty much stops in the most part.

Sure, you can pull random celebrity coffin-dodgers out of your ass all you like, but we can't be seen to have one rule for one and another for the rest, the agreed cut-off age would have to apply to all, appeals and such just add to evil bureaucracy, which costs a whole lot more than paraffin.

[utopian]

Read the thread, Nan. Seriously. Your questions have already been answered.

[Bostonmess]

Actually, thinking about it, I bet those burgers would be a bit chewy. Oh well we could always make upholstery, shoes, jackets and handbags (irony, they seem so fond of them) out of them.

[MisterBishi]

Originally posted by Bostonmess
Actually, thinking about it, I bet those burgers would be a bit chewy. Oh well we could always make upholstery, shoes, jackets and handbags (irony, they seem so fond of them) out of them.

We could just use them for pet food and glue, that we we don't have to kill so many cute horses. Yay!

[Bostonmess]

More irony. "I'm just going to feed Tiddles."

[flounder]

I don't think you are taking this matter seriously enough.

[MisterBishi]

Originally posted by flounder
I don't think you are taking this matter seriously enough.

I don't think anything is more serious than the idea that my country is being bled dry by people that don't put back.

The eldery are not alone in their lack of consideration, but it's already been proven that you can't discuss issues pertaining to illegal immigrants on the grounds that it's racist.

[flounder]

Originally posted by MisterBishi
I don't think anything is more serious than the idea that my country is being bled dry by people that don't put back.

The eldery are not alone in their lack of consideration, but it's already been proven that you can't discuss issues pertaining to illegal immigrants on the grounds that it's racist.

That wasn't my point.
You have an idea, a plan of sorts.
I have been waiting for the how to go about it. All the technical details. How many per day, a selection of random neighborhoods to target for the oldies, so as to not arouse suspicion of the master plan. Muhahaha. Get the show on the road and stop gabbling on about it like old women.

[Bostonmess]

Remove the cold weather payments and the some of the problem might sort itself out, also we could get rid of non slip tiles at the road crossings and remove those road signs of two old people with waking sticks.

Poison a load of batches of denture glue (polygrip?) and set the stairlifts to accelerate as they get to the top.

[Nandragon]

*yep, this is discussions*

OK CONTRIBUTING

I know of more than three old ppl that are still contributing to society. Paying more than their fair share back to the community.
One is currently testing new spinal procedures.
One still practicing medicine.
One may be your mother's mother. Does she not contribute?

But I see that ur argument is not that they contribute, but they are old and you don't want to pay. Did they not pay during their life time? did they not pay their taxes? What should we do to the ungreatful generation that no longer cares about anyone else but themselves.

That generation did not have the luxuries that we have today. And they did it for US.

[Fuzzy Dice]

Obviously, there are always exceptions to any rule - in this case, the statement that anyone over 65 is dead weight. But for a system such as the one proposed here to function adequately (adequate - because that is the best that government programs seem to manage *based on my own experience*) some sort of arbitrary standard must be set or you'd have endless debate over who should and who shouldn't be 'incinerated.'

Personally, I think that 65 is a little young for this sort of program - especially with the changes in retirement ages that beowulf mentioned. You'd have to up the age, at least by a decade for the standard. If you set up some sort of clause whereby competent elders could slip through, then it would be exploited by anyone who could, precedents would be established and the entire point of the system would be corrupted to the point of non-functionality. Certainly, there would be great debate over the system as it is conceived, but that's good - then once it's in place there should be no need to change anything (barring some great medical breakthrough eliminating or greatly reducing the effects of aging).

All-or-none. No exceptions. But I'd put money on the fact that your opinion of the system would degrade the closer you became to the age of termination.

[Kyle]

Originally posted by scathing
Not trying to be a word nazi, but since you asked (implicitly) the word you're after is pogrom (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pogrom).



Scathing, if that was a play on words than i commend you, it was beautiful....haha

[beowulf437]

A couple of questions.

These very same elderly paid for your schooling with their tax money so do you owe that back to them?

Of the money they paid in taxes. Do they deserve a portion of that back?

Even if they are collecting pensions, are they not still paying sales, excise, and property taxes?

What about the ones with private and/or corporate pensions, are they a burden on you too?

Your parents will be elderly some day, what about the money they spent to get you to 18?

[Chrissy]

Originally posted by MisterBishi
Sir Alex Ferguson will be pardoned on account of his Knighthood.

Originally posted by MisterBishi
Sure, you can pull random celebrity coffin-dodgers out of your ass all you like, but we can't be seen to have one rule for one and another for the rest, the agreed cut-off age would have to apply to all, appeals and such just add to evil bureaucracy, which costs a whole lot more than paraffin.

Hmm, is that a contradiction I see before me?

If you can't be consistent over a person you don't even know, how can you hope to be impartial when it comes to your own grandparents?

I see what you are trying to say in regard to this subject Bishi, but you can't possibly generalise to this extent.

[beowulf437]

To quote MisterBishi

it's contributing that's important

So under this logic all persons who have been unemployed for any lengthy period should also be euthanised because they are not contributing.

Then what about children? They soak up enormous amounts of tax dollars what with schooling and such. If we got rid of them just think of the tax dollars saved.

[Chrissy]

Originally posted by beowulf437


Then what about children? They soak up enormous amounts of tax dollars what with schooling and such. If we got rid of them just think of the tax dollars saved.

That's just silly!

Children have the potential to grow up into valuable human beings and contribute to society for far longer than they need money spending on them.

[beowulf437]

No worse than saying that people over a certain age have nothing to contribute, and that we owe them nothing.

I am not sure how it works in the UK but in the US many people have been forced to retire. Throughout their working lives a portion of their paychecks are taken for social security and medicare supposedly so they are cared for when they are old.

Now for my own family, one of my uncles (who retired 12 years ago at 66) spends his time teaching english as a second language. I have several uncles that still work full or part time jobs or do volunteer work. My father's mother retired at at 95 she live for a whole 5 years after that.

A manager at one of my offices was recently told she has to retire next year (she's 71), because she cannot accrue anymore benefits. She has a great deal of political pull though and instead will just go to working 20 hours a week (no more benefits).

The average person works for about 47 years, I think very few of them collect pensions for even half that time.

[ShadowNemesis]

The only thing I can see in this thread is the care, compassion and love for the elderly...........OR should I say the lack of it by a select few. Yes there are those who may not be contributing to things now, but did more than their fair share in the earlier years. I find it reprehensible that just because someone isn't doing what someone else thinks is useful, then they should lose their right to life.

[Bostonmess]

"But, my grandma's moustache scares the kids."

[ShadowNemesis]

Originally posted by Bostonmess
"But, my grandma's moustache scares the kids."

Well shave it off, or wax it:D

[Bostonmess]

"But, I want to put a pool table in her bedroom." ;)

[scathing]

Originally posted by beowulf437
Of the money they paid in taxes. Do they deserve a portion of that back?

Even if they are collecting pensions, are they not still paying sales, excise, and property taxes?

The money they paid in taxes etc went into the infrastructure of the society, which they used during their productive years. They got their money's worth. Yes, some helped pay for future generations, but that's how a growing society works. Those people are there to put in effort for that growth. They were willing to die in war over some abstract principle, how about the more tangible fact that they're draining society and doing just as much damage (though more slowly and less visibly) as any hostile foreign power? Actually, that foreign power is more likely to foster growth in that land (once hostilities, which are generally short term in comparison) whereas old people just die slowly and leave nothing.

Your baby teeth helped you eat until you got your adult teeth. All your old skin cells kept your body protected until they were shed from the outer layer. Did you save all your baby teeth and immortalise them, brushing them to ensure they didn't rot? Do you save all your shed skin? Do you "put back" into those cells that kept you alive in the past? Or would preserving all that dead weight just be a waste of time (and more than just a little loony)?

Actually, old fogeys are more than just dead weight. Dead weight just passively drains by adding a little more mass and inertia to a system. Old fogeys actually still tap from the resources of the host system (as well as being inertia) and thus actively drain from the health of society.



Yes, they're still paying tax afterwards. But where are they getting the money from? Tax. Their taxation doesn't add to the system, it just slightly reduces the drain. We can reduce that drain a shitload more by not having to pay them in the first place (both in pension and healthcare etc). Its like damming up an entire river and using its entire water supply, but then occasionally throwing a cup of water back into the riverbed. Whoop dee fucking doo.

[flounder]

Originally posted by MisterBishi
The reduction in taxes and National Insurance afforded by the culling of all those of a pensionable age, would easily increase your financial well-being, so much so that you could buy whatever it is they treat you to yourself, and let's not forget, there's got to be something in their will for you, right?

Hell, we could even incinerate them to create energy, I'm some kind of fucking genius.

What a completely fucked argument.
An argument I have heard 3 times a year for the last 20 years.
Always put forward as an answer by the young who thinks the world owes them a living. A shallow, vacuous veiwpoint promulgated by people with an inflated opinion of their self importance.
It is based entirely on material gain. Gee, that's always made the world a better place.
I on the other hand have a quite revolutionary plan. A fairer plan based firmly on common sense.
Not a fairytale story to keep all the pretentious wannabes stocked up with Cocaine & Champagne while they stroke each other to intellectual climax.
Anyone want to hear it?.
No mandatory death dates or anything bizarre like that.
I'm a fucking genius.

[ShadowNemesis]

Originally posted by Bostonmess
"But, I want to put a pool table in her bedroom." ;)

Move the pool table in, and pretend it's her bed. She just may surprise you and appreciate the firmness of it.:D

[MisterBishi]

Originally posted by flounder
What a completely fucked argument.
An argument I have heard 3 times a year for the last 20 years.
Always put forward as an answer by the young who thinks the world owes them a living. A shallow, vacuous veiwpoint promulgated by people with an inflated opinion of their own self importance.


I sense that you're a little nervous, pushing 60 maybe? Ok, here's the drill, I don't think for one minute that the world owes me a living, quite the opposite in fact. I was working before I left school and have done ever since, anybody saying they can't find a job is plain old vanilla-flavoured lazy.

No, if this was about me, I'd devise some dastardly scheme to get me out of it when I hit the ripe old age of 65, not that I'll probably need to on account of the fact that I'm pretty damn near certain to be knighted anyway..

The fact is, this demographic shift is bad news, and it's only going to get worse, there are not enough young to support the old, so the old have to go, it really is that simple.

Originally posted by flounder
Shit! it is based entirely on material gain. Gee, that's always made the world a better place.

Exactly!

Material gain is exactly what we need, it's what makes us happy. You know it, I know it, the damn over-65s know it; we just gotta go around acting like it doesn't because we're programmed to feed each other bullshit about how the world is.

Material gain is the reason behind everything we do, material gain and sex, and the over-65s fail on both counts.

[geggle]

Originally posted by MisterBishi
The fact is, this demographic shift is bad news, and it's only going to get worse, there are not enough young to support the old, so the old have to go, it really is that simple. Or the alternative is to produce more young.

So here's my counter proposal :)

Outlaw all birth control, anyone who doesn't have more than three offspring pays a fine every year after, oh, say 20.

Hey! With a platform like that, I reckon I could be in the running to be the next Pope! :D

[BlueBoy]

Originally posted by MisterBishi
...sex, and the over-65s...

Thanks for putting that picture in my head, Bishi. :eek: :D

[flounder]

Originally posted by MisterBishi
I sense that you're a little nervous, pushing 60 maybe? Ok, here's the drill, I don't think for one minute that the world owes me a living, quite the opposite in fact. I was working before I left school and have done ever since, anybody saying they can't find a job is plain old vanilla-flavoured lazy.

No, if this was about me, I'd devise some dastardly scheme to get me out of it when I hit the ripe old age of 65, not that I'll probably need to on account of the fact that I'm pretty damn near certain to be knighted anyway.

Material gain is the reason behind everything we do, material gain and sex, and the over-65s fail on both counts.

:cool:
Not nervous in the sense that if I answer your question I might incinerate myself. Not nervous at all.
I think you'll find that Knighthoods would be anachronistic by the time you've earnt one. Although knocking off half the Royal Family in one fell swoop would hardly endear you to them. I always used to look forward to the Duke & Duchess of Kent at Wimbledon. He looking like a fucking mutant wingnut, and her looking embarrassed.An odd couple I thought, eccentric.I always used to try to imagine them "doing it" and it was always yucky thoughts.
The material gains would be great though I agree. Crowns, estates, thrones,those big axes they used to chop your head off with, Iron Maiden, suits of armour. It would be really great fun. Your own restaurant in the tower of London. Wow!.
It seems a pity it all has to end so it's convenient for others.
I think Geggle is right.
This material Utopia you speak of and the searching for it has caused a slowdown in the birthrate in Australia at least.Think of it!
An increase in the birth-rate is caused by?.hehehe*giggles* =
More teenagers = less older people.
The teenagers will either kill them with cars, stabbings, driving them to an early grave with that 200dB doof-doof stuff coming out of a ricer as it sleazes its way down the road.Boring the absolute tits off them as they rabbit on how interesting they are.The old will lose the will to live.Their whole lives and it's come to this.They'll be droppin' off the twig in droves.I think this theory is sound.
The beauty of it is the sex we crave will be on tap, what a line!
"Love, the fate of the planet depends on us, we have to do it".
Fornicate or fossilise is the deal.
No two ways about it.


:p

[Fuzzy Dice]

heh, this is a fun thread. I hope to God no one is taking it seriously, and hell, my earlier post wasn't so much in support of it as simply exersizing the philosophical parts of my mind.

After a couple of ethics classes pertaining to biotechnology and medicine I like to be the shit disturber in the back of the class, raising the points that no one else wants to.

NO SHIT this is something that would be stupid beyond words to attempt to bring into effect. So what if right now there's an abundance of oldsters waiting to kick the bucket? Right after they boot off there'll be one hell of an economic jumpstart. But really? Using economics as justification for anything is like having sex with a shoe. It might feel warm and comfortable at first, but when you're done, you'll still have to stick your foot in it later.

Money as a reason seems to always lead to short term solutions. "Farmer-fixes" ie, bailing twine and duct tape. It'll work for a little while but then it'll just give way. You can't fix anything when there's personal profit and gain at stake, unfortunately, this is why nothing truly important seems to ever resolve.

Like you could ever justify euthanising people past a certain age. Have you ever been to a Mcdonalds at 6am? Who took your order? Who made your food? That's fucking right - it was an old woman. And it was the best damn Mcdonalds you ever had, wasn't it? You bet your ass it was.

If you want a philosophical discussion, then by all means, continue this thread. But if you're seriously protesting points made here? Garn git farcked. Eat some ass. Come back when you're less of a chode for brains.

[flounder]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Dice
Using economics as justification for anything is like having sex with a shoe. It might feel warm and comfortable at first, but when you're done, you'll still have to stick your foot in it later.


hehe:D
Although personally it's not quite a foot.:p

[dozer]

bring on our inheritance!

[Nandragon]

Originally posted by scathing
Yes, they're still paying tax afterwards. But where are they getting the money from? Tax. Their taxation doesn't add to the system, it just slightly reduces the drain. We can reduce that drain a shitload more by not having to pay them in the first place (both in pension and healthcare etc). Its like damming up an entire river and using its entire water supply, but then occasionally throwing a cup of water back into the riverbed. Whoop dee fucking doo.

Not here. I've paid in social security taxes since I was 14. Citizens get a statement every other year stating how much u've paid in and how much you could recieve. Granted it's not alot, however, retirement communities will take your social security check for room, board and meals. So no, it doesn't come from "our" taxes.
Mr. Bishi
Material gain is the reason behind everything we do, material gain and sex, and the over-65s fail on both counts.

Ahahahahahahahaha! Bishi is under the impression that sex stops at 65!!! Sorry dude, I know MANY men and women over 65 that are having great sex....ask Hugh Heffner!
PPl are living past the old age expectancy, hell in the 1800's YOU would have been old! My generation is expected to live into their 90's. How old will ur generation live to be? WTF do you think they invented Viagra! WONDERFUL DRUG!

[scathing]

Originally posted by Nandragon
Not here. I've paid in social security taxes since I was 14. Citizens get a statement every other year stating how much u've paid in and how much you could recieve. Granted it's not alot, however, retirement communities will take your social security check for room, board and meals. So no, it doesn't come from "our" taxes.

So you only get from social security what you put in? And once you've spent your "social security taxation", that's it? Not a cent more? That's not the system in other countries, hence what I said. Makes me wonder why the government bothers to tax it in the first place, rather than just having them put it into a private superannuation fund.

In some nations, regardless of how much you paid in tax during your life, you'll get a pension from the government. So basically after they've spent the "pension" portion of the tax they've paid (and not all their tax is used as pension, of course) they still get money.

[Nandragon]

No, they take out a % of every pay check. After you retire at 63 you get a monthly alotment till the day you die. then there is medicaid which will pay for certain health care needs. The gov't realizes that i will not be able to live on $900 a month by the time I retire, so IRA's, CD's and other retirement plans are encouraged. then there's always food stamps. the gov't put a limit on Csh benefits (TANF) you can only draw 2 yrs your ENTIRE life now. No more welfare cheats.

[Bostonmess]

Shush Nan. It's for the best. You'll see.

[beowulf437]

Nan if you were born after January 31, 1960 you cannot collect full social security until you are 71.

Right now social security takes in $5 billion more than it pays out and there is over $300 billion in unclaimed social security payments. Now what happens to this extra money is the federal goverment 'borrows' it to make up for budget short falls (a concept Johnson started to pay for the Vietnam war). They don't have to pay interest or have any set amount of time to pay it back. Since it is social security it doesn't appear on the federal budget.

What you recieve in social security payments is based on your lifetime contributions averaged over 20 years. If you live longer than that you beat the system. If you don't live that long, well to bad for you.

By the way why are we even talking about this anymore?

[Bostonmess]

Originally posted by beowulf437
By the way why are we even talking about this anymore?
We're not. It's been decided.

[Nandragon]

*puzzled*

did I miss something?

[Bostonmess]

All will be revealed. Not long now. Don't worry. Everythings going to be alright.

[BlueBoy]

I wait in anticipation! :cool:

[Nandragon]

me too!

I was just trying to be patient!Me too!


I was just trying to be patient!

[ShadowNemesis]

Okay, I guess I will wait as well........

[Bostonmess]

It's just a little prick. :eek: :D

[Nil8tor]

First I will say I have not read all of the post so I am not sure what all they say but I did skim through them. Well here is my opinion free of charge. First I agree the elderly do hinder our economical standing in the world. So without them we could be more financial stable I do believe. We would not have to worry about Medicare, Medicaid and all of those old people things that I pay for that I will never get because it will all be used up by the time I am 70. Next well I do remember reading about a society that did kill there old at a certain age because there life was considered full. They had a big party and gathering and the elder left happy to the other side. Plus if you knew when you were going to do (besides accidents) maybe people would do more in their lives and live their lives fuller. I know I would.

[ShadowNemesis]

Originally posted by Bostonmess
It's just a little prick. :eek: :D

That is what they all say;)

[MisterBishi]

I've decided that this is my personal favourite thread.

[Boobmeister]

I've said for many a year, shoot anyone over the age of 50. They have served their purpose to society and are no longer needed.

Would also save me the effort involved in punching the old cunts in the back of the head when they walk slow in front of me.