open discussion about personal conviction's

Feel76 wrote:Do personal convictions determine a personality?Surely, some convictions are not "acceptable". Does that mean some personalities are not acceptable.

Eric_Lee wrote:Not sure if this would be a conviction, but its somthing i'd change in the world if i could.

I dislike how we defy the natural laws of things, and keep the sickly and weak alive from a young age. The natural way of things is the survival of the fittest. If we followed this, the weak, and sickly that end up milking our governments of billions of dollars would die, and thus save us an abundance of money as a country, that we could then invest somewhere else. I am aware this goes against the common morals that people deserve to live if the means are there, but i still don't see how someone who is sick and weak from the day they're born to the day they die that contributes zero to society deserves to be kept alive using our money.
Anyone on life support should die, as they are supposed to. People with cronic illnesses, mental retardation, and other such illnesses that make them incapable of working and providing for themselves should be killed. If you cannot provide for yourself, you're supposed to die, this whole keeping the sickly alive for the peace of mind of their familys is just absurd, and is the reason our world econemy is failing, atleast i think so. Yes i'm aware of the whole bank thing and such, but think of how much extra money we would have if we took even half the people on life support right now off of it.. millions and millions of dollars. I suppose if you're family can provide for you, or a spouce or somthing, enough to cover what you would be putting in if you were working you'd get to live, but i highly doubt anyone would be willing to pay for someone else to live.. they'd rather just use everyone elses money to provide for it, and that right there is a fine example of how messed up that system is. Most people on life support and such are being paid for by the government, or some insurance agency or somthing.. not by the people directly, and if it ever came down to the people having to pay directly, i gaurentee, a lot of people would die.

There would have to be some sort of rule, that you get as much as you put it. Meaning, as a child, you're parents pay a tax for you that covers your health. When you turn 18, or 21, and start earning your own money, its kept track of, so that when you retire, you get that amount of money back for your health. It would be difficult to keep track of and such, but it would save so much money that we waste on people who would be dead if we had not interveined.

I'm aware this probably has many wholes in it, and such.. as i am terrible at relaying my thoughts in a complicated manner, but i think i got the general point across.

Ecco wrote:I have a personal conviction that everyone has the right to a reasonably amount of resources in order to live, have shelter, procreate. Those who have more resources should give their resources to those that are struggling. Simply everyone should have a right to well being, even if others have to accommodate them. eg. A struggling artist should be funded by the government in order for him/her to continue his ideal occupation.