• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Let the old die?

Let the old die?

  • Need more info

    Votes: 7 14.9%

  • Yes, let them die

    Votes: 3 6.4%

  • No, save as many lives as you can

    Votes: 37 78.7%
  • Total voters
    47
  • Poll closed .
swing_voter

swing_voter

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
13,042
Reaction score
8,463
Location
'Murica
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The virus kills old people. The obese and other at risk people die too, but most it's old people.

Okay this will sound horrible, but old people get social security and medicare. Having old people die in large numbers saves the government money. Not only that, the young who inherit old people's stuff are much more likely to spend it and that helps the economy.

I'm not for letting the old die, but maybe you are?

Old people vote. What would happen if they found out the president wants them dead while the CDC said to slow down to save more old people?
 
A doctor must do his/her very best to save every life. The Hippocratic Oath.

This isn't merely an aspiration. It is an uncompromising credo.
 
Letting old people die is cruel no matter what. The only time age should be used to make a life-and-death decision is when a premature fetus is unlikely to survive for an extended period without NICU technology.

If you want old people to die, your brain is messed up.
 
Last edited:
There is a regrettable belief common among certain young people... that old people are going to die soon anyway and so it doesn't matter so much. Which makes logical sense, sort of, if you were looking at it from a neutral perspective... but we've all got old people we care about, and we want to prolong their life as long as possible, as long as they're not suffering...
 
swing_voter said:
The virus kills old people. The obese and other at risk people die too, but most it's old people.

Okay this will sound horrible, but old people get social security and medicare. Having old people die in large numbers saves the government money. Not only that, the young who inherit old people's stuff are much more likely to spend it and that helps the economy.

I'm not for letting the old die, but maybe you are?

Old people vote. What would happen if they found out the president wants them dead while the CDC said to slow down to save more old people?
Click to expand...

I have really disturbing news for you, the old die. Their bodies are wearing out, their immune systems weakened and they eventually die. Cancer, strokes, heart disease, influenza, Alzheimer's, the list is endless. Are we shuttering the nation for all those deaths? NO!

The decision to put people out of work and make the government pay for all of it is going to have terrible long range consequences. Far more people will get the virus and be sick and recover than will die from it, like all viruses.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Letting old people die is cruel no matter what. The only time age should be used to make a life-and-death decision is when a premature fetus is unlikely to survive for an extended period without NICU technology.

If you want old people to die, your brain is messed up.
Click to expand...

Are you in favour of euthanasia?
 
swing_voter said:
The virus kills old people. The obese and other at risk people die too, but most it's old people.

Okay this will sound horrible, but old people get social security and medicare. Having old people die in large numbers saves the government money. Not only that, the young who inherit old people's stuff are much more likely to spend it and that helps the economy.

I'm not for letting the old die, but maybe you are?

Old people vote. What would happen if they found out the president wants them dead while the CDC said to slow down to save more old people?
Click to expand...

I accept that old people die. I think your use of "letting" leads you to the false assumption we really have a choice in the matter.
 
Marrybore said:
Are you in favor of euthanasia?
Click to expand...

Yes, in fact I wish euthanasia was legal for humans in all 50 states and DC - with certain restrictions, of course. The patient must have it in his/her living will and a written list of people to notify in advance but I would oppose a requirement for family approval or notifying specific people. That is what I want for patients who are gravely sick or disabled and suffering with less than a year to live because of their conditions.
 
swing_voter said:
The virus kills old people. The obese and other at risk people die too, but most it's old people.

Okay this will sound horrible, but old people get social security and medicare. Having old people die in large numbers saves the government money. Not only that, the young who inherit old people's stuff are much more likely to spend it and that helps the economy.

I'm not for letting the old die, but maybe you are?

Old people vote. What would happen if they found out the president wants them dead while the CDC said to slow down to save more old people?
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that the reason Trump’s polls crashed almost immediately after the Rally Around the Flag spike was due to the rising “throw momma from the train” narrative that’s taken hold among conservatives.

Also, old people vote. Like...really really dependably.
 
swing_voter said:
The virus kills old people. The obese and other at risk people die too, but most it's old people.

Okay this will sound horrible, but old people get social security and medicare. Having old people die in large numbers saves the government money. Not only that, the young who inherit old people's stuff are much more likely to spend it and that helps the economy.

I'm not for letting the old die, but maybe you are?

Old people vote. What would happen if they found out the president wants them dead while the CDC said to slow down to save more old people?
Click to expand...

For someone who states you're not for letting the old die you really make stupid statements.

Best wishes for your continuing life from an "old person".
 
swing_voter said:
The virus kills old people. The obese and other at risk people die too, but most it's old people.

Okay this will sound horrible, but old people get social security and medicare. Having old people die in large numbers saves the government money. Not only that, the young who inherit old people's stuff are much more likely to spend it and that helps the economy.

I'm not for letting the old die, but maybe you are?

Old people vote. What would happen if they found out the president wants them dead while the CDC said to slow down to save more old people?
Click to expand...

Bet you voted for trump and listen rush and sean
 
Integrityrespec said:
I have really disturbing news for you, the old die. Their bodies are wearing out, their immune systems weakened and they eventually die. Cancer, strokes, heart disease, influenza, Alzheimer's, the list is endless. Are we shuttering the nation for all those deaths? NO!

The decision to put people out of work and make the government pay for all of it is going to have terrible long range consequences. Far more people will get the virus and be sick and recover than will die from it, like all viruses.
Click to expand...

You didn't vote, come on, you can be the first to vote Yes.
 
Rogue Valley said:
A doctor must do his/her very best to save every life. The Hippocratic Oath.

This isn't merely an aspiration. It is an uncompromising credo.
Click to expand...

Thats not entirely true. I am a doctor. There are situations where saving a life would require placing the person on artificial life support permanently or causing unnecessary suffering for a terminally ill person. I think that rational adults should have the last word about the limits of what is done for them in order to keep them alive.
 
rickc said:
Bet you voted for trump and listen rush and sean
Click to expand...

I don't think you know who you are replying to. Then having voted for trump is highly unlikely, and listening to right wing mouth pieces is advised on selective circumstances, best to know what the other guys are saying. Besides it is fun watching them parrot the latest nonsense the second it is put out for the sheep to lap up.
 
Ethel2 said:
Thats not entirely true. I am a doctor. There are situations where saving a life would require placing the person on artificial life support permanently or causing unnecessary suffering for a terminally ill person. I think that rational adults should have the last word about the limits of what is done for them in order to keep them alive.
Click to expand...

True but that IS following your oath to do no harm.
Oh, thanks for your Service.
 
swing_voter said:
The virus kills old people. The obese and other at risk people die too, but most it's old people.

Okay this will sound horrible, but old people get social security and medicare. Having old people die in large numbers saves the government money. Not only that, the young who inherit old people's stuff are much more likely to spend it and that helps the economy.

I'm not for letting the old die, but maybe you are?

Old people vote. What would happen if they found out the president wants them dead while the CDC said to slow down to save more old people?
Click to expand...

For many people this is less about any desire to see the old and sick die prematurely from the new virus and more about permanently diminishing their standard of living and quality of life to a level that threatens their own existence. With 36 million new job losses that's a lot of people who are questioning how they will support their own personal and family's livelihood. Who knows the amount that will die prematurely from the poverty, depression, anxiety, desperation, fear, civil unrest, and increased crime and addiction that will occur as a result of dramatic economic decline and forced isolation?

Not saying I entirely agree with this position but it's not hard to see why people with little reserves are concerned. There comes a point where shutting down businesses for people who have less financial means can be catastrophic. This event, over time, has the potential to seriously affect substantially more people than the amount that becomes deleteriously infected.
 
Letting them die is a big voting opportunity for democrats.

Just because a person is dead doesn't mean he/she can't vote! (with a little assistance ;))
 
I believe this crisis should be managed in a way such that overall suffering is minimized. That's not especially easy to define and carry out obviously, but I can at least bookend it somewhat.

If one person has to lose their job to save one life, that's totally reasonable and we should do that. If a hundred people have to lose their jobs to save one life, that's unreasonable and we shouldn't do that. Somewhere in there is a reasonable balance point. Exactly where it is, I'm not sure.
 
SkyChief said:
Letting them die is a big voting opportunity for democrats.

Just because a person is dead doesn't mean he/she can't vote! (with a little assistance ;))
Click to expand...

Can you provide any hard evidence of widespread voter fraud in past elections or are you just talking out your ass?
 
swing_voter said:
The virus kills old people. The obese and other at risk people die too, but most it's old people.

Okay this will sound horrible, but old people get social security and medicare. Having old people die in large numbers saves the government money. Not only that, the young who inherit old people's stuff are much more likely to spend it and that helps the economy.

I'm not for letting the old die, but maybe you are?

Old people vote. What would happen if they found out the president wants them dead while the CDC said to slow down to save more old people?
Click to expand...

Why should it be the government's responsibility to determine who lives or dies? Isn't that the purpose of an advance directive so the individual can make that decision?

This looks more like the Cuomo strategy used in New York.
 
“What is justice? Who can we prosecute for those deaths? Nobody. Nobody. Mother nature? God? Where did this virus come from? People are going to die by this virus."

“Nobody was deprived of a bed or medical coverage in any way. And still people died. Still, people died. Older people, vulnerable people are going to die from this virus. That is going to happen despite whatever you do.”

I mean...its like the OP s literally channeling Cuomo.
 
Rogue Valley said:
A doctor must do his/her very best to save every life. The Hippocratic Oath.

This isn't merely an aspiration. It is an uncompromising credo.
Click to expand...

In a perfect world, yeah, but a doctor is in charge of an execution so some of them take their oath less seriously than others.
 
swing_voter said:
The virus kills old people. The obese and other at risk people die too, but most it's old people.

Okay this will sound horrible, but old people get social security and medicare. Having old people die in large numbers saves the government money. Not only that, the young who inherit old people's stuff are much more likely to spend it and that helps the economy.

I'm not for letting the old die, but maybe you are?

Old people vote. What would happen if they found out the president wants them dead while the CDC said to slow down to save more old people?
Click to expand...

Didn't democratic state governors from liberal states like New York and New Jersey (maybe others as well) cause thousand of deaths of residences in Nursing homes by forcing infected Wuhan virus patients into those Nursing homes?
Just who wanted them dead more?
Yes old people vote and so do the families of those dead people cause by callous governors.
 
grip said:
For many people this is less about any desire to see the old and sick die prematurely from the new virus and more about permanently diminishing their standard of living and quality of life to a level that threatens their own existence. With 36 million new job losses that's a lot of people who are questioning how they will support their own personal and family's livelihood. Who knows the amount that will die prematurely from the poverty, depression, anxiety, desperation, fear, civil unrest, and increased crime and addiction that will occur as a result of dramatic economic decline and forced isolation?

Not saying I entirely agree with this position but it's not hard to see why people with little reserves are concerned. There comes a point where shutting down businesses for people who have less financial means can be catastrophic. This event, over time, has the potential to seriously affect substantially more people than the amount that becomes deleteriously infected.
Click to expand...

This is where social programs should kick in but we cant have that now can we?
 
SkyChief said:
Letting them die is a big voting opportunity for democrats.

Just because a person is dead doesn't mean he/she can't vote! (with a little assistance ;))
Click to expand...

This is nonsense and requires a misunderstanding of how updating the voting rolls work. Its actually more beneficial for republicans for less people to vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom