Should the mentally disabled be allowed to stay in society?

[Escorian]

I have never seen a thread as stupid as this thread on any forum EVER.

You state they should be seperated because they require help and stuff like that? What about Deaf people or Blind people? They require help and get Disability for doing nothing. Seriously how can you even consider something as this? You state several times that it isn't cause your selfish then state that the major reason your for this is cause you have dealt with your sister and other disabled people. yeah..... this thread should have never existed and I am guessing you just felt like trolling.

[Othin]

Putting my own beliefs aside, I have to agree with this. I read the thread, and everybody was talking about inhumanity and junk. That's all subjective. If we were to redefine humanity, and dispose of all the mentally handicapped, the problem would be solved. Force abortions on all of those who would have the babies (I'm pretty sure people are already doing that willfully anyway) and we won't have to worry about it in the future.

Putting them in exile would be the same as killing them, just indirect. Might as well be straightforward.

As for the comparison to race, that's irrelevant, as the mind of the person is still completely there in all cases. Mentally handicapped people, are, well, handicapped, and bring down society. Should we not do our best to make society the most it can be?

Advocating eugenics and redefining humanity are more things Hitler did as part of removing people he didn't like. As I said earlier, if you can't realize the direct evils of this, then think about the precedent it would set and realize that it would have just as much potential for anyone else deemed undesirable to be "removed", and realize that this is just as insane as that.

I don't like using Hitler accusations and slippery slope arguments where they don't belong, but when this discussion has been built on what is essentially core Nazi policy from the start, it's warranted.

Some people choose to have abortions when their child will be disabled in some form or another, and that is their right. Some people choose not to, even knowing the costs. In those cases, on what basis can you demand to have the contents of their wombs forcibly inspected and tampered with?

Edited November 9, 2011 by Othin

[uguu]

I have never seen a thread as stupid as this thread on any forum EVER.

You state they should be seperated because they require help and stuff like that? What about Deaf people or Blind people? They require help and get Disability for doing nothing. Seriously how can you even consider something as this? You state several times that it isn't cause your selfish then state that the major reason your for this is cause you have dealt with your sister and other disabled people. yeah..... this thread should have never existed and I am guessing you just felt like trolling.

ha ha what the fuck

Not being able to see or hear is comparable to not being able to understand shit!!

It's selfish to not want to have to take care of another person for the rest of your (or, hopefully, their) life!!

shut up

[Othin]

ha ha what the fuck

Not being able to see or hear is comparable to not being able to understand shit!!

It's selfish to not want to have to take care of another person for the rest of your (or, hopefully, their) life!!

shut up

I would think a care for family would trump that.

Does it suck that he'll have to take care of his sister when he doesn't want to? Sure. It also sucks for his sister that she'll have to be cared for by someone who hates her so much. And while it's fine for him to dislike all this, suggesting that his sister and countless other people should be deprived of their rights for his sake is indeed selfish, although it appears he is leaving this perspective to some extent.

[Excellen Browning]

I know I sound horrible when I say this, but seriously, I want to bring up this sensitive topic because it's tearing me apart right now.

If I haven't assed about it enough, I currently live with my mentally disabled sister. She's about 20 (turning 21 this November). Let me describe her for you.

I could describe stuff that you don't care about. Stuff like "Oh! She likes animals!" or "She likes to tear boxes", but let's take a look at her from a standpoint that is actually relevant to the discussion at hand. She's rude, she's lazy, she's arrogant, she complains about everything not pertaining to her, she's gluttonous, and she expects that everyone treats her with the absolute utmost respect, even if she treats them like dirt. She spends her days going to an Adult School, going to work, getting fed breakfast at nice restraunts, occasionally working at entry level jobs, and the rest of it is pretty much a day-care center. They learn how to do stuff, like hygene and stuff, but for the most part, it's just an adult day-care center. You know those "entry level jobs" that I just said. She gets paid for those. That's right, she's pretty much garunteed a job because her chromosomes are screwed up. ALONG with that, our family gets money from the government because she is legally disabled and therefore qualifies for a disability check. For life. Which pretty much means that federal funds are being spent to give free money to a person who does nothing to society other then give idiots a thing to tease.

I want to make a distinction. I know that if I don't mention this, someone's going to mention "WELL PEOPLE WITH AUTISM ARE STILL SMART", and I don't deny that. I know a few autistic people, and I don't find anything much wrong with them. You know why? Because they're not horribly arrogant and expectant. They're not rude and slow-witted and psuedo-princesses. My argument is about those whom are just pretty much in the barrier between normal function and vegetable level.

Now, I speak from experience. I live with my sister, as I said earlier, who has William's Syndrome, and I had a friend of mine (She believed that we were boyfriend and girlfriend for most of elementary and middle school, causing me to get into assloads of trouble, as I'll explain later), and I know plenty more where that came from. I want to make sure that everyone knows that my claims are not made because I am ill informed of the mentally disabled. I want to make sure everyone knows that I'm not hating them because they're mentally disabled. I just dislike them because of their inherit personality traits and their disbenefit to society.

So now into my main argument. As I said earlier, these people are bringing nothing much to society. There's the stories about how someone overcame the syndromes and did something (generally not glorified if they were done by a person without the syndromes) special. But really, what do they bring into society? Now, you can say "WELL THERE'S A LOT OF DUMB PEOPLE IN THE WORLD TOO WHO AREN'T DISABLED, THAT DON'T DO ANYTHING", and to that, I say that at least most of them are capable of working a job. They have potential to be successful in something, and a good portion at least have a basic job (or a skill that can be used, even if just in the local community). But with the mentally disabled, they can't bring much. From an economic standpoint, they're negatives. Huge negatives. Are there other groups who act as negatives? Yes. But one problem at a time, and I feel it's high time that this problem be taken care of.

For instance, let's use Phineas and Ferb as an example. I feel they had a pretty decent representation of how I feel society treats the mentally disabled.

So Doofenschmirtz kinda sucked at his project and made some kind of disabled Perry clone. In summary, he pretty much stated that although he was pretty much useless, but he was just so damn cute or something (Which is how a lot of people view them. Kind of like pets, when the disabled do something that is "extraordinary" aka mildly impressive in non-disabled standards, it's "cute"). You want to know what happened? Perry the Disabled Platapus screwed everything up and pretty much broke the machine that was sure to destroy Perry the Platapus. So he lost. Kind of like how in my life, plenty of times, I've been denied opporotunities and chances because my sister wanted to do something or needed some kind of operation or something. I might not be in such a rush to get scholarships if it hadn't been for my sister and her incredibly expensive operations, for instance.

I know that my opinions are probably extremely different from the norm. Maybe I've just had bad experience. For instance, with my friend with the Down's Syndrome, she's seen as an amazing person to most, because she. . . ? ? ?. . . I guess it's because they just decided to glorify her or something. But most of them only see her on occasion. They haven't been sitting in the office in risk of suspension because the friend had screamed "I WAS WITH BRIAN NAKED IN THE SHOWER" during class, or a plethora of things other then that. Most of them haven't spent decades with a mentally disabled person living in their own home. Their lack of care, their lack of character, their lack of decent humanness, and then expecting nothing less then perfection out of all others. I don't speak from one example. I don't speak from two examples. I speak from many. So I want to ask you guys this. Should they be allowed to stay in society? What benefit do they bring? Obviously, I haven't found one, and I've had almost 17 years to figure it out. So should they be allowed?

. . . welp, here I go. My social credibility skyrockets downward but at least I feel accomplished in knowing that I've stood from the crowd and decided to have my opinions heard in the open.

Could you also realize you're jealous of the attention and care your sister gets, how easy she gets everything she wants and how she does nothing for it? And that is what makes up the entirety of your dislike of disabled people.

[Raven]

Should [mentally disabled people] be allowed to stay in society?

Yes. Every human being - fully healthy, or physically or mentally disabled to any degree of seriousness, has a right to life, and thus a right to "stay in society", whatever is meant by that.

You suggest we somehow get rid of every disabled person, and have only a mentally perfect population? There wouldn't be many people left in this world if that was to be done.

Aside from this, a mental disability is gained through no fault of anyone. It just happens - maybe as a result of an accident, physical assault, or maybe a birth defect. If mentally disabled people were not given support, they would almost certainly be shunned out of society and possibly left alone to die, when many mentally disabled people rely on such help to try to live a normal life as possible - to be given a chance at normal life that bastard fate tried to take from them. They may never be able to live a "normal" lifestyle, but it's reassuring to know that we are looking after them, not leaving them alone to injure themselves or others. Regardless of their personality traits, which is more than likely the result of the mental illness.

What benefit do they bring?

Here's another viewpoint: What benefit do you and I bring? We as individuals are so insignificant that even if we were to disappear without trace, the whole of civilisation would continue as normal without batting an eyelid. The mentally disabled community is a minority, but they raise awareness of the illnesses that we could have been born with but lucky enough not to, or could even receive in years to come as we become old, immobile and house-bound.

Just enjoy life and be grateful you are not in the situation your sister is in. Understand the situation she is in rather than condone it. It isn't nice that her personality has become affected by this mental illness, but you have to work around it because she sure as hell can't help it, I'm sure.

I'd write more but I'm deducting time from my essay writing to post here.

Edited November 9, 2011 by V-Raven

[Agro]

OP: I can definitely see why your sister would be a burden on you. I've always wondered about what it's like for families with disabled children. From a utilitarian standpoint, if they don't contribute, then they're just another mouth to feed in a world of limited supplies. Keeping them in society is only a burden to everyone around them, from family members to everyone in the country - through pensions and the like.

When you think about it, when you keep a dependent, mentally disabled person around, you're really destroying another life. Someone will always have to take care of that person - it's just a matter of whether they get paid or not. Nestling will pretty much have to sacrifice any semblance of a life in order to take care of his sister. Sure there are people who have gone through worse, but it doesn't take away his right to complain or to feel pissed off about it. Having someone with worse problems than yours doesn't make yours any better.

Could you also realize you're jealous of the attention and care your sister gets, how easy she gets everything she wants and how she does nothing for it? And that is what makes up the entirety of your dislike of disabled people.

Isn't that what the OP getting at? That other families are probably in the same or similar situations, hence most if not all disabled people are a burden on society?

Does it suck that he'll have to take care of his sister when he doesn't want to? Sure. It also sucks for his sister that she'll have to be cared for by someone who hates her so much. And while it's fine for him to dislike all this, suggesting that his sister and countless other people should be deprived of their rights for his sake is indeed selfish, although it appears he is leaving this perspective to some extent.

And suggesting that he should be deprived of his rights is downright stupid. Why should anyone have to sacrifice their own rights for someone else's? Are you saying that people who choose themselves over others are "selfish"? I don't think that's selfishness - that's self-preservation. Selfishness is when you don't need anything more for yourself, but desire more.

Just enjoy life and be grateful you are not in the situation your sister is in. Understand the situation she is in rather than condone it. It isn't nice that her personality has become affected by this mental illness, but you have to work around it because she sure as hell can't help it, I'm sure.

Her personality isn't "affected by her illness" - that is her personality.

I'm pretty sure by "stay in society" OP is talking about general society, and not civilisation. The impression that I got from it was that they all just be sent to a home or facility that specialises in taking care of them and so that they don't have to be looked after by people who are trying to live their own lives.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Agromono

[Raven]

Her personality isn't "affected by her illness" - that is her personality.

I don't disagree with this statement. However when I said what I did, I meant that the fact the person grew up being mentally disabled had allowed her to become, basically, a spoiled brat. And that is the fault of whoever had raised her.

[Shin]

My brother is severely autistic, but that's never stopped us from taking him places and getting him involved in the world around them. He doesn't see himself as different from the rest of the world, and we don't see him as autistic - he's who he is. He may have behaviours that are brought about by his autism, but he's still his own person. He's gotten me into quite some trouble, I've been confronted by an angry father of a child he slapped, but I wouldn't want a world without him. His dream is to become a bus driver. We're not certain if he can manage it, but it's something he aspires to.

Anyone with a disability should be allowed to live as independently as they can manage. I spent six months volunteering at a day centre for vulnerable adults, and they're all incredibly different. Some lived with family, others lived alone, some were in sheltered accommodation, it's all about giving them the freedom to do what they can. Some of them may have been unpleasant at time or selfish, but that wasn't all there was to them. None of them were/are able to work, but it doesn't mean that they're worthless and should be put away.

Plus, the assumption everyone with autism is smart isn't correct. Autism is almost always accompanied by some sort of learning difficulty. I volunteered, for over a year, at a playgroup for children with autism. Generally, most of them weren't good at sharing and had their own best interests at heart. However, by offering their families support and helping the children progress, there were some amazing changes. One girl who nobody would go near, out of fear of being bitten, would share lunch with their friends and give them hugs when saying good bye. Again, each of them have a full personality along with their autism, even those with virtually no understanding of language. None of them were the same. Whilst, at the end of the day, their behaviour will always be affected by autism, the right support can help prepare them for the future.

Just because somebody may not be as able as another doesn't mean they're worth less than everyone else. Nestling, rather than complain about how your sister's a burden and has it easy, you need to be there to support her. Her difficulties will restrict what she can do in life, you need to help her with them. Just like the others I've mention, she must have other defining traits other than being lazy and selfish. You just need to stop focusing on the negatives and look at her with a less critical attitude.

[Guest Goldie]

Here's a fun life a friend had lolz

For her entire teenage life she would be treated by all in her family as a lunatic, a potential murderer and so on - someone everyone should stay away from.

Even the me of that time, (who was a silly little child lolz) assumed it was true as she would dive into pools of anger often - swimming deep enough in that she once grabbed a knife ohohohoo! Everyone in the family hated her, and the family would tell others how crazy she is leading many others outside to hate her as well lolz

How it all really began is that her mother hated her, she hated her immensely for not liking her. It threatened her reputation, see? According to this mother.. she had her "childhood taken away from her" the day she met the father that helped birth most of this family. The father was abusive and manipulative, threatening her by using their own infants ohohohoo! She was 14 and he was 18 if memory serves correct!

Anyhoo! After leaving him, this mother spent her later years trying to "relive her childhood" and nothing should get in her way, even the 4-later 5 kids she had lolz! So, she manipulated the rest of the family onto her side - wanting them all to hate this one teenage daughter too heheheee!

There was an older brother who probably knew these were lies, however he himself was at the mercy of this mother hehehehehhee! An adult not having any methods of living on his own, furthermore - he in time started hating her too! She threatened his freedom, she witnessed and realized what was something he's been doing for a long time. First, she witnessed him sneaking into their little sister's room where he used a pair a scissors to snip her undergarments - which she then came in to stop. Moments after this, she thought of how many times she's witnessed him doing things she once did not understand, including attempts at herself during her childhood. Such as having her watch pornographic material with him alone, or how he'd close his room door when he had their little brother in there or when in the little brother's room heheheh! Or also how she noticed pubic hair in the diapers of her own son when she left the older brother to babysit. The mother of the family then learned of this, and chose to do nothing - instead to protect the older brother in return for him to protect her. This older sister then spent years trying to protect everyone from him and to get others to see the truth - the older brother joined in on the "she is crazy" parade hehehehee! He also manipulated all his friends and the little brother to his side - attacking her at certain times to seem like a protector to everyone else. He would use any situation for others to get the impression that she's insane, such as getting her to raise a knife at him. I witnessed this as well, it was after he tossed her by hair across their living room. She did not attack however - it was here the older brother (with his friends) said "see? she's crazy"

Lolz, also - every boyfriend the mother had through the years hated her as well, seeing her as crazy right away.

Is there a happy ending to this? In some ways I guess lolz

During a fight between the older sister(15) and her mother(31), the little brother(11 or 12 maybe, a little younger than me) came down and attacked the older sister with the line "don't hit my mom!" The older sister's son(about 1 year old) was in the middle seemingly trying to separate everyone from each other while crying heheh

It was at this time the older sister was taken away ohohohooo! Almost lost custody of her son, however instead placed in a shelter with him. And.. actually just realized, this story can go on for quite a few more paragraphs - guess I'll stop here lolz

However, the older sister will soon be 24 this month - she lives in her own home with her son along with a roommate. Has a job, etc. The father? Disappeared not long after the son was born, heheheh

This family had yet another younger brother, though he died a few years later due to illnesses caused by inbreeding

Hmm.. stopping here

Oohohohooo! Doesn't have much to do with the topic huh? In many ways I see it as having plenty to do with it lolz

Though misinterpretations occur often, we'll see hehehheee!

[Ring Wraith]

Advocating eugenics and redefining humanity are more things Hitler did as part of removing people he didn't like. As I said earlier, if you can't realize the direct evils of this, then think about the precedent it would set and realize that it would have just as much potential for anyone else deemed undesirable to be "removed", and realize that this is just as insane as that.

I don't like using Hitler accusations and slippery slope arguments where they don't belong, but when this discussion has been built on what is essentially core Nazi policy from the start, it's warranted.

Some people choose to have abortions when their child will be disabled in some form or another, and that is their right. Some people choose not to, even knowing the costs. In those cases, on what basis can you demand to have the contents of their wombs forcibly inspected and tampered with?

No, I don't see the evils in this. I see "Oh noes, Hitler did it! It's da worst!" That has no logic behind it though. We shake our fist at Hitler because he lost, but had he won, this is the world we would see and we would probably be okay with it.. So what's wrong with Hitler's method?

Because it's better then killing them while they're out of the womb, and it's the only way to prevent further disruption to society.

[Haze]

No, I don't see the evils in this. I see "Oh noes, Hitler did it! It's da worst!" That has no logic behind it though. We shake our fist at Hitler because he lost, but had he won, this is the world we would see and we would probably be okay with it.. So what's wrong with Hitler's method?

Because it's better then killing them while they're out of the womb, and it's the only way to prevent further disruption to society.

Actually Hitler can be used as a perfectly legitimate lesson in why state-controlled eugenics is a horrible idea. Who lives and who dies should not be in the palms of a few people way up at the top of government, ie. Hitler and the Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, disabled and god knows who else he attempted to cull for the "betterment of the human race". Forced abortions, forced euthenasia and segregation because the state says so? It's abhorrent.

Voluntary eugenics on the other hand I have mixed feelings about.

[Mikethfc]

No, I don't see the evils in this. I see "Oh noes, Hitler did it! It's da worst!" That has no logic behind it though. We shake our fist at Hitler because he lost, but had he won, this is the world we would see and we would probably be okay with it.. So what's wrong with Hitler's method?

Because it's better then killing them while they're out of the womb, and it's the only way to prevent further disruption to society.

Well for starters there's the huge breach of human rights involved, appointing somebody to choose who can or can't procreate, the absurdity of trying to assess somebody's contribution to society before they're even born especially when considering how we all pale to insignificance in the grand scheme of things, how this regressive policy would re-implement a definite hierachy despite the alleged democracy our presses bang on about or the biological impracticality like dyspraxia being a recessive allele and after those reasons there's a lot of the stuff that's already been said here.

Also at the bolded bit do you mean we would be fine with this happening or that we just wouldn't dare speak up about it because if you'd done enough reading into the subject to know of Bishop Galen you'd also know that euthnasia wasn't exactly well-received in the Third Reich either.

But I like that "Nazi policies are only bad because they lost" argument, it makes him seem like a Scooby Doo villain

I also like how black and white it has been with "mentally disabled" as in there's been very little acknowledgement in the varying severity of special needs even within the same condition.

Whatever happened to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

[Dr.Sholes]

Saying it would be to exile them as long as they aren't tortured is ridiculous. If they are exiled then they will obviously be tortured and there'd be no proof.

Also about eugenics, I'm against it. I don't think people should mess with it because they have no idea what they're doing, they just think they do. It would probably cause problems in the long term. Also the people would have no idea what they could be doing "experimentally" while they're doing this. You could argue that they have to tell you and you have to agree before they do experiments but think about this; the U.S. government used to put radiation throughout the subways "to see what would happen" and they didn't tell anyone. They probably still do stuff like this. :/

I'm going to be completely honest when I first saw the title of this my first thought was, "I will rip this guy a new asshole." Now, I'm trying to take your opinions and experience into account but I don't agree with this in any way.

[Rehab]

I wonder, to what point medical science has progressed in treating mentally disabled people, and whether anybody in the field is holding hope to "cure" their deficiencies. Like, once we know everything we can about how both their and our minds work, to what extent would we be comfortable or justified changing them?

[Momo]

Don't really feel like typing much, but Nestling, you come off as extremely frustrated and hopeless. If you don't want to take care of your sister, don't. You have no obligation to do so. Even if it makes you look like a dick, just wash your hands of the entire thing and walk away when the time comes.

As for the rest... The problem is more that she's greedy and an awful person, and that your parents are enabling this behavior. Lots of people are like this and it has nothing to do with her disability. You should be redirecting your hate at the care these people are given, and what gives us this result, not the victims themselves.

[Lord Raven]

No, I don't see the evils in this. I see "Oh noes, Hitler did it! It's da worst!" That has no logic behind it though. We shake our fist at Hitler because he lost, but had he won, this is the world we would see and we would probably be okay with it.. So what's wrong with Hitler's method?

Because it's better then killing them while they're out of the womb, and it's the only way to prevent further disruption to society.

Nobody is saying it's bad because Hitler did it, people are saying it's bad because Hitler's actions in reference to the Holocaust were absolutely atrocious. And his attitude was not unlike the attitude of the OP either (although Hitler was just a racist nutcase, whereas the OP just seemed to suggest exile [before calming down of course] but I have mentioned many times that it's an extreme example). It's referencing historical precedence; there is nobody who is saying "Hitler did it, so it's bad," they are stating something in history that happened to compare it to. Don't strawman every argument involving concentration camps and Hitler to "Hitler ate Sugar" because that's just dumb.

[Lux Aeterna]

Should they be allowed to stay in society?

And put them where? You're treating it like you can drop them in the bermuda triangle and leave them to their own affairs or something. You're saying they're trash. What the hell? All of this world is occupied, there's no place to "put" them, and to treat them like trash anyway is making you inhumane yourself!

If you say "no I don't want to put them somewhere else" then what? Segregate them? Oppress them? Or dare I say it: kill them? Are you going to honestly suggest it?

They are human. They have the same skin as us, the same hair, the same eyes... the only thing different is brain composition, maybe missing a chromosome. You treat them like they're animals. They're not. They think differently than us, not less or more (save for a few cases).

Treat them like any other human. Don't glorify them. Don't be prejudiced towards them. If they do something right or do something wrong, act like you would with any other person: praise and reward them or scold and punish them, respectively. Part of what accentuates the difference is because people treat them differently.

In short, yes they should be allowed to stay in society. Perfectly sane people have acted the same way. Both the clear-minded and mentally incapacitated are capable of varying degrees of goodness and base behavior. Stop thinking they're that different, because they're not.

[Othin]

No, I don't see the evils in this. I see "Oh noes, Hitler did it! It's da worst!" That has no logic behind it though. We shake our fist at Hitler because he lost, but had he won, this is the world we would see and we would probably be okay with it.. So what's wrong with Hitler's method?

Because it's better then killing them while they're out of the womb, and it's the only way to prevent further disruption to society.

If Hitler had won, it would be just like every other time someone violating human rights had come into power. Some people would be okay with his policies, and others would realize, this is not just, this violates peoples' rights. They would stand up against it, and being right, people would agree with them, and overthrow the Nazis. This is how injustices inevitably end.

And it is indeed an injustice. You have proposed, with no justification, denying mentally disabled people their rights as human beings nor for denying their family the right to have them as family (and for the mother to be essentially raped in the forced removal of what she wishes to become her child), nor a clear definition for how someone would be identified as so mentally disabled as to justify the denial of their humanity in the first place, especially before birth. These measures you propose are horrors that have no place in any civilized society.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Othin

[Agro]

Herp derp and forget his parents might actually be happy derp

Parents does not equal family.

[Esaka]

Well, OP I can relate to you to an extent. I have a younger cousin who does have the same problem as your sister. If I did have to deal with him daily... well... I'd probably make this topic (oh the shame)

But you bring up a good point, his sister will have to take care of him right now and essentially his parents go through everything just to take care of him right now, god damn it I would NEVER want that responsibility but while I do think it's wrong that they are forced to be taken care of by siblings once their parents die, saying they should be segregated is too far.

However, if you made up a topic about who should take care of the mentally disabled, you'd probably receive far less flames.

Treat them like any other human. Don't glorify them. Don't be prejudiced towards them. If they do something right or do something wrong, act like you would with any other person: praise and reward them or scold and punish them, respectively. Part of what accentuates the difference is because people treat them differently.

Trust me, we don't do that. Society is very judgmental, we praise it when they do anything minor no matter what and we tell ourselves that no matter what negative action they do they aren't at fault (I could reference how a while ago, a mentally disabled went up to kill his caretaker because he saw it on TV). Not saying that morally it's wrong, but that's how it is.

Edited November 9, 2011 by 3-13Archer

[Lux Aeterna]

Trust me, we don't do that. Society is very judgmental, we praise it when they do anything minor no matter what and we tell ourselves that no matter what negative action they do they aren't at fault (I could reference how a while ago, a mentally disabled went up to kill his caretaker because he saw it on TV). Not saying that morally it's wrong, but that's how it is.

It wasn't advice just to Nestling. It was advice to everyone. We ought not to do that because then they'll feel like opening a jar is a huge accomplishment. And then they'll start copying others to get awards. [/spongebob] I don't really interact with them in the first place, but that's just because I don't know any of them personally.

[Blademaster!]

Support eugenics and the problem fades into obscurity. Just because a guy named "Hitler" liked the idea doesn't mean its a bad idea. A guy named "Plato" also liked the idea.

I think it's completely irrelevent whether they contribute to society or not. I'm perfectly happy to support a bunch of drains on society, so long as we have the capacity to do so.

This. Eugenics potentially fixes the problem, and so long as it isn't a problem for a governing body to support them, then retards should be allowed to obtain some support to let them make the most out of the pitiful existence they already have. If a governing body can't feasibly supply such support, then no support should be given by the GB. Ideally, it should be the responsibility of the parent to take care of such children by themselves, since they choose to have the child, but everyone has the right to be happy.

Regardless, this is just another attempt on humanity's part to fight against survival of the fittest.

[Zanarkin]

Regardless, this is just another attempt on humanity's part to fight against survival of the fittest.

But thats because the situation allows it... Although i do agree with your point.

Anywho, the eugenics it should be done by the people who support it, the government should have no say in it (as in forcing someone get an abortion cause child will have <insert gentic disorder here>).

As for the topic at hand, i don't think they should be segregated honestly, they are segregated enough already. I think what Lux is right. there is no need to celebrate every little thing they do (in fact i just find that some sort of mocking and also because its going to make their behaviour worst) and neither accept their bad behaviour. Sure they may not understand or have learning capacity as other people, but that doesn't mean obnoxious behaviour should be tolerated. May be not treat them harsh about it, like you would on someone else, but rather tell them why its wrong and not to do it.

Trust me, we don't do that. Society is very judgmental, we praise it when they do anything minor no matter what and we tell ourselves that no matter what negative action they do they aren't at fault (I could reference how a while ago, a mentally disabled went up to kill his caretaker because he saw it on TV). Not saying that morally it's wrong, but that's how it is.

Because society can't change their mind and decide to treat mentally disabled a bit more like adults in their own right, instead of you know, children.

Edited November 10, 2011 by SlayerX

[Defeatist Elitist]

Actually Hitler can be used as a perfectly legitimate lesson in why state-controlled eugenics is a horrible idea. Who lives and who dies should not be in the palms of a few people way up at the top of government, ie. Hitler and the Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, disabled and god knows who else he attempted to cull for the "betterment of the human race". Forced abortions, forced euthenasia and segregation because the state says so? It's abhorrent.

Voluntary eugenics on the other hand I have mixed feelings about.

Well for starters there's the huge breach of human rights involved, appointing somebody to choose who can or can't procreate, the absurdity of trying to assess somebody's contribution to society before they're even born especially when considering how we all pale to insignificance in the grand scheme of things, how this regressive policy would re-implement a definite hierachy despite the alleged democracy our presses bang on about or the biological impracticality like dyspraxia being a recessive allele and after those reasons there's a lot of the stuff that's already been said here.

Also at the bolded bit do you mean we would be fine with this happening or that we just wouldn't dare speak up about it because if you'd done enough reading into the subject to know of Bishop Galen you'd also know that euthnasia wasn't exactly well-received in the Third Reich either.

But I like that "Nazi policies are only bad because they lost" argument, it makes him seem like a Scooby Doo villain

I also like how black and white it has been with "mentally disabled" as in there's been very little acknowledgement in the varying severity of special needs even within the same condition.

Whatever happened to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

I've got to give mad props to these two posts for summing things up rather well. I'd also like to point out that Hitler's version of eugenics was absolutely terribly executed. Putting aside the fact that forced eugenics is rather silly in the first place, the fact that he extended his eugenics campaign to various ethnic groups for what essentially amounts to no rational reason, and the extreme lengths he took to remove them from the population were absolutely batshit insane. "Yo I know what's going to be great for my nation's success! Killing millions of it own people!"

Anyway, I definitely agree that forced eugenics is morally unsound and just a bad idea in general (it's mostly pointless), though I think voluntary eugenics is completely okay so long as their is a guarantee of equal access for all.

This. Eugenics potentially fixes the problem, and so long as it isn't a problem for a governing body to support them, then retards should be allowed to obtain some support to let them make the most out of the pitiful existence they already have. If a governing body can't feasibly supply such support, then no support should be given by the GB. Ideally, it should be the responsibility of the parent to take care of such children by themselves, since they choose to have the child, but everyone has the right to be happy.

I disagree with the eugenics part of this argument, but the rest is mostly fine. I would like to clarify, however, that every single nation in the first world should be completely capable of supporting the mentally disabled with little trouble. Any inability to do so more likely represents flaws in policy or economic inneficiencies than overburdening due to the mentally disabled. Also, while I don't mind the word retard, I'd be careful slinging around phrases like "pitiful existence".

Regardless, this is just another attempt on humanity's part to fight against survival of the fittest.

I think this is a misrepresentation of evolution. First of all, survival of the fittest isn't even very accurate, though I suppose "survival of those most suited to their current environment" isn't quite so elegant. However, I will argue that our survival as a species is due almost entirely to our ability to form groups, work for mutual benefit, empathize, and care for the other members in our society. Us taking care of the mentally disabled is not fighting evolution, so much as it is an expression of many of the traits which make us so evolutionarily successful. I think it's a vast over simplification for us to say that keeping the mentally disabled (or anyone for that matter) around is somehow an attempt to fight natural selection (indeed, by it's nature natural selection is essentially impossible to fight, any conditions we add simply become part of the 'environment' anyway, so to speak).

Also, let's be honest, it's not like the severely mentally disabled reproduce that much anyway.