I wonder where one draws the line. A LOT of people are weaker than me but should I not care if they were all killed?
There is nothing wrong with helping people who suffer from natural disasters, but these particular people really don't do much.... why help them?
I realize that the storm didn't have a personified purpose, as I wasn't being literal; but when nature's wrath kicks in and the worthless are affected, is is a waste of resources to give to those who are, by large, undeserving of a mayfly's time.
what we have here are three arguments,
1 A ugenics claim
2 A over population claim
3 A they saw it coming so they should have left (thus no pity)
4 (none of these are racial claims at all.)
I don't feel like Iconoclast and company really mean what they say. (I may be may be wrong) I think they just like to argue and often take the more unpopular or minority positions. Kind of like paying the socratic methods for moral questions.
see many issues like race or religion for example (which we are not talking about here) are fairly set in stone. You should not be racist. However many non-racist don:t really have a logical argument for why not. Now I can give a logical argument for whyt not as can pretty much anyone on
this board, but admittedly most people would resort to calling names just calling someone a racist and that is that. This is no better than simply saying you're anti-semitic every time someone even talks about Israel. Or it is like saying you are going to Hell anytime some one talks about a religion other than Christianity.
So, just saying that humanity is reason enough to save everyone for every reason, is not goos enough an answer for some people. Or maybe it is but they would still like to know why. Or maybe they know why and they just want to see if another person knows why. A kind of, are you doing the right thing for the right reason type of thing.
I have to go duty calls but when i get back I am going to go over these 3 arguments and show why they don't work. with Logical answers. And emotional.