Haze Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 (edited) Can't doctors do a simple test? I read something somewhere about somebody who was having a baby with down syndrome, and considered an abortion. Psychologists aren't needed, doctors are needed. A bit of money to make the test simpler in the long run would be better Stop. Disregarding all the other problems with your arguments, that example is almost certainly completely invalid to this debate. The reason? I very much bloody doubt that when they considered the abortion they were thinking of the "betterment of the human race". Edited November 11, 2011 by Hazekitty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Also, I suggest you all read The Stand by Stephen King. One of the members of the Boulder Free Zone (Tom Cullen) is retarded in that book. The reason I suggest it is because it shows how a society is formed when starting with... well, it's not nothing but close to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Sholes Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Situation time! You discover plans of a terrorist group, who are planning on bombing a small town, and follow it up by nuking (their only nuke) New York City. You can stop the small town from destruction, but that would alert the terrorist group that you have discovered their plans, likely causing them to shift to nuking another large city, or you can foil the plot with the most destruction by letting the small town die. Obviously, it's better to stop the larger city from being destroyed. In the same way, you need to look at the majority of people negatively affected, namely society. Mentally disabled sucks money from people, and now with universal healthcare, that takes quite a chunk from the budget that could be used for the betterment of all of society. If that money was used for national security, we might save more lives than we kill. Alright, but one way destroys a group of people for being in that group. While the other destroys people indiscriminately. Figure the rest out for yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 (edited) Wraith, your argument can't be backed up in any way: The 'people' who you are perceiving in your made up 'society' are all mindless drones - as Haze said, people are not going to give a single flying cow pat about society when the life of their child is being considered. It's quite disturbing to even try to think about it. "Hey honey, let's abort our unborn down syndrome child for the sake of society. I'm sure it's for the best." It's just not gonna fucking happen. Ever. I don't give a shit about 'objectivenes', this situation you are putting forward is just fucked up. You should just stop with this right now. Edited November 11, 2011 by V-Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikethfc Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 You keep on mentioning the financial benefits to eugenics but not once have you shown that you have actually researched this figure or even considered Revan's point over how much the whole thing would cost. Or if it is for financial motivations why stop there, people on benefits, asylum seekers hell pretty much everybody from a Daily Mail/Express headlines who isn't Dianna or Maddie and then after that we can go for the children, those lazy little bastards don't pay any tax save VAT they don't earn their own income and are dependent upon the goodwill of others to survive, kill 'em all I says then perhaps after the consumer market has shrank perhaps it will become apparent that you can still benefit the economy even if you don't pay tax. Also I don't suppose you've heard of DSA I just thought it was worth mentioning that people with special needs can achieve something same as everybody else contrary to what's been implying. As an aside I wonder which page we'll get to when somebody brings up Shylock's speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defeatist Elitist Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Rationally argue against it? Rational arguments are objective. Those arguments are mostly emotional. I'm glad you think arguments that state that mentally disabled people are a significant drain on society are irrational, I generally agree. It does effect how much the government has though. My country is going more and more into debt. The negligible amount taken from everybody would be much better put towards getting out of debt than helping people who really don't care. But even from the government it is a tiny amount. I'm guessing from your location that you live in the United States, and really the only reason your country is going into debt is because you guys are basically incapable of maintaining a sane fiscal policy these days. It would be incredibly easy for the United States to balance its budget, so that argument is completely pointless. In addition, spending less on the mentally disabled would hardly make a dent in it either way. Certainly not in the long run, and short term is debatable. This is all guesswork though, and I'm no expert. How do you reckon this? You would literally have to genetically map every single baby born, and you still couldn't be particularly sure. You want to do it after their born? Enjoy waiting until they are at least 12, probably 18, because you literally cannot properly tell in a lot of cases before this. Sure with some people you can tell earlier, but in others you just can't. Just sit down for a while and think about how difficult it would be to properly find and eliminate all those whose mental faculties are too small to provide a net benefit to society. It's an absolutely absurd task, largely because of the number of decisions you have to make, and the fact that you cannot reliably make them early in life. Also, as Mikethfc mentioned, why stop at the mentally disabled? Why not just kill everyone who is not a net benefit to society? Fuck, if I could prove that McDonalds was a net detriment to society should we just kill everyone involved in it, or would forcing it to close down be enough? Of course, if we did that we would have plenty of unemployed people on benefits and you know, they're a net detriment to society so we should probably kill them too. What about fat people, they tend to cost more to take care of, do we kill them, or do we just force liposuction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Also, I suggest you all read The Stand by Stephen King. One of the members of the Boulder Free Zone (Tom Cullen) is retarded in that book. The reason I suggest it is because it shows how a society is formed when starting with... well, it's not nothing but close to. Was that the guy that wound up blowing everything to shit and back? Good points about the book: See what's quoted. Bad points: It gets rather. . .weird at times. I'm not sure how strict your parents are, but they might object to some of the stuff in there. Still an interesting read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 (edited) Was that the guy that wound up blowing everything to shit and back? Good points about the book: See what's quoted. Bad points: It gets rather. . .weird at times. I'm not sure how strict your parents are, but they might object to some of the stuff in there. Still an interesting read. The Stand is the one about the virus that wipes out the majority of Earth's population (99.6%) and the remaining survivors start creating new societies for themselves. One group settles in Boulder, the other in Las Vegas. As for what my parents would object to, pretty much nothing when it comes to books. Ever heard of Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides? My mom let me read her copy when I was in Grade 10. That would be... age 15. Edited November 11, 2011 by Kefka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Also, I suggest you all read The Stand by Stephen King. One of the members of the Boulder Free Zone (Tom Cullen) is retarded in that book. The reason I suggest it is because it shows how a society is formed when starting with... well, it's not nothing but close to. If you want to read books about IMO compelling retarded characters, The Sound and the Fury is another good one. Also, as Mikethfc mentioned, why stop at the mentally disabled? Why not just kill everyone who is not a net benefit to society? Fuck, if I could prove that McDonalds was a net detriment to society should we just kill everyone involved in it, or would forcing it to close down be enough? Of course, if we did that we would have plenty of unemployed people on benefits and you know, they're a net detriment to society so we should probably kill them too. What about fat people, they tend to cost more to take care of, do we kill them, or do we just force liposuction? Fuck it all, why don't we just destroy society, society is a net deficit to the world, probably causing a great deal of entropy or some shit, so for the sake of the world, which is larger than and therefore more important than society, we should just eugenicize the whole human race, right? WRONG! As an aside I wonder which page we'll get to when somebody brings up Shylock's speech. If you're implying that, as a disabled person, I'd be wronged enough by Nestling's suggestion to remove me from society that I'd seek to wrong him, then I'm afraid I have to disagree - I'd rather be wronged than wrong. But I'm not sure which of Shylock's speeches you're talking about, I'm assuming the "do we not revenge?" one because that seems to make the most sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowy_One Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 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. That describes most of the internet. Can you be more specific? All joking aside, no. I do not think that they should be pushed away from society. The reason why is simple too and doesn't even deal with genetics. Let's ignore the moral issues with shutting a group of people out because of their genetics that make them disabled(not that they don't matter, but there is a bigger point I want to make here). What's next? Red-headed children are viewed as less-desirable, should we outcast them as well due to a genetic factor? Do we shun midgets and dwarfs as well? What about people who may simply not be that smart (but are not disabled)? What about people who suffer from cultural issues or societal ones? Should we get rid of them as well? I'm not saying that those things will happen of necessity, or that the handicapped don't get some things that maybe they shouldn't. However, once you start slipping down a slope, it become very easy to tumble all the way. At the least it needs to be handled very, very, very, VERY carefully! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anouleth Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 I wonder how much arguing endlessly about the relative merits of fictional characters in obscure japanese SRPGs contributes to "society". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 I wonder how much arguing endlessly about the relative merits of fictional characters in obscure japanese SRPGs contributes to "society". Depends. How much do you enjoy it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikethfc Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 If you're implying that, as a disabled person, I'd be wronged enough by Nestling's suggestion to remove me from society that I'd seek to wrong him, then I'm afraid I have to disagree - I'd rather be wronged than wrong. But I'm not sure which of Shylock's speeches you're talking about, I'm assuming the "do we not revenge?" one because that seems to make the most sense. That speech but more the first half or the "hath not a Jew hands, eyes ears" bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.