Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
liquix
Member
+51|5627|Peoples Republic of Portland
I'm going to commit the slippery slope fallacy and say that if you euthanize anyone for any reason, why wouldn't you be able to do so to people who have say: one leg, white skin, a mole, curly hair, christian, etc. It's a dangerous thing to think one person is less than you are, sooner or later you will end up being the person who is worth less and then the tables will change.
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|5664|Northern California

^AgentHawk wrote:

Wow.  I have no words to describe how barbaric you sound.  And you say this with such ease and so methodically.  You've illustrated how people can become so desensitized to human life so as to casually discuss the killing of human beings...that, or you're 13 and haven't developed that part of your brain yet.  Do me a favor, go smack your mother and father and tell them to get started teaching you how to be part of the human race.
EMOTIONS SET ASIDE
Emotions set aside, "-Wow"

there.  now it complies.
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|5700|Portland, OR USA
recenter.

Let us redefine what is meant by mentally handicapped.  Are we talking severity, any shade whatsoever?  Every flavor, or certain afflictions?  More definition is required.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5578|North Carolina

CameronPoe wrote:

Nobody has to contribute anything to society. Fullstop. What's your point?
At the same time, society doesn't have to help you either.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5578|North Carolina

CameronPoe wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Personally I think society needs to take a serious look at stricter birth controls.  Given that the world is already overpopulated, shouldn't we maybe be thinking about restricting births of those with genetic problems?
I would agree with you in part but I would have trouble deciding who'd be for the chop. Simply because the only ones I would select for the chop are those whose quality of life is practically nil. For instance, people with Downs syndrome appear to have relatively full and happy lives, oblivous to their condition. Some would say they have it better than ordinary folk given their general disposition - as such I couldn't justify 'restricting' births of Downs syndrome sufferers.
Blissful ignorance is something that more than just retarded people have.  I think we can both come up with some examples, but I won't go there... 
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5578|North Carolina

Deadman wrote:

I don't see a problem with the mentally handicapped.  Usually they are supported by a family, they cost society nothing so it doesn't matter if they don't 'contribute' anything to society and more importantly, they are someones children!.
What do you contribute?
Look at criminals, repeat offenders, drug dealers, rapists, child abusers, thieves etc. They cost society a fortune, destroy peoples lives and are never mentally handicapped.

I know who'd I'd rather have in my neighborhood.
Actually, one could argue that retarded people cost society more than the usual amount through things like special education.  Then again, smokers and illegal immigrants have been proven to cost our healthcare system more than the average person as well.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5578|North Carolina

1927 wrote:

My fiancee works 12 hour shifts looking after 2 patients in their own residential home with severe disabilities, both are mentally handicapped.  Both are early 20's, one male one female, both have the mental ages of babies between 6 and 18 months.  The male probably has on ave 120 fits a day, the girl not so much.  My fiancee is one of the most lazy bitches I have ever met, in recent years changing jobs like I change my pants.  She must get great sence of achivement looking after these two "kids" including me she has another 4 at home.  Ive never known her to be so happy in her work, I can only imagine as to what these patients give back.

Ive had a short experience with them myself but get to listen to fiancee's experiences nightly.  From what I gather the two patients have all the sences that we do but the problem lies mostly with communication.  There emotions are like ours, they laugh, they cry.  The know happiness and very little anguish.  Unfortunatly they probably won't live for another 5 years as there illness's are that severe.

A new patient is to arrive soon, she is 18, she was ok until she was 5, she choked on something and the oxygen was cut off to the brain.  The reason these patients are in this home (which is in the middle of your average street) is the parents are now struggling to cope.  The goverment here wont fnd the parents at home anymore as the patients are 18, the goverment reckon they can get a job.  Thats the short of it, a offical will come out take a quick look and say "they cant work" and tick the relevant box.  Then what happens is they go to a home which is 95% payed for by the goverment, who take the money off us.

Today my finacee is taking them swimming and then to touch therapy.  To the two patients it will seem like christmas again, something so small and so little meaning so much.
Thanks for relating your experience, but note one important thing here.  You said the home is 95% paid for by the government.  Understandably, a lot of Americans don't like it when the government uses their money to pay for these kinds of things, which is why taxation is generally lower here than in the U.K.

Granted, this does bring us to an interesting point.  America is more religious than the U.K., yet it's government policies are decidedly less Christian than the U.K. if you think about it with respect to compassion.

I'm personally a secular Libertarian, but if I was actually religious, I'd probably be more inclined to support these kind of social programs.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5578|North Carolina

cailuc wrote:

I find this whole thread distasteful and offensive. 

I have been working with young people with learning disabilities for over fifteen years and currently manage a residential special school.  The term 'retarded' went out with the Ark and has not been used for years.  I have seen young people with severe difficulties progress, learn new skills and in some cases eventually get employment, thus contributing to society.

They have a disability which may mean that they may have difficulty learning, not that they can't learn.  As for debates on sterilisation etc, what gives you the right to pass such comments. 

Judging by some of the posts that have been made in this thread, there is a case that with hindsight, some posters parents should have been sterilised before their offspring had the chance to give their stereotyped and ill informed views.

Any society can be measured by how it treats those that are less fortunate than themselves.  Some of the people on this forum obviously live or belong in a 1930's fascist state.
I know where you're coming from, and most Americans probably agree with you.  I just personally have a Darwinist viewpoint.  I believe the freest societies promote competition and survival over compassion and tradition.  I have no problem with charities taking care of people with disabilities, but I do not see it as the government's duty except in cases like war injuries.  If you become bedridden while in the act of serving your country, then yes, the government should pay your way.

Otherwise, it belongs in the realm of charity.

Last edited by Turquoise (2006-10-17 17:42:13)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5578|North Carolina

Coolbeano wrote:

Well. First my background; I've known 6 mentally handicapped people in my life, one of which is my cousin.

I don't mean to be ignorant or anything, but unless they can contribute in some way to the society, or don't drag others down by demanding help, and can take care of themselves... or they can live up to the standards of others (by that I mean be, for lack of a better word, be 'cured') and not carry their load, then they shouldn't be around.

Evolution. Natural selection.

Mankind, with its gadgets and gizmos and technology have tried to avoid evolution. By simply 'alleviating' problems, we'll never permanently get rid of anything. Blind people should go, deaf may stay. Reason? Blind people cannot be made to see (at least not yet, if they can, fine) and they slow progress of others and cannot carry their own weight. Deaf people have hearing aids, so they can live a normal life with little penalty to themselves and others.

Sorry, but that's the way I see it.
In principle, I agree with you.  However, once again, there is nothing wrong with people choosing to take care of these people by their own volition.  Charity is a very admirable thing, but again, the government should stay out of it.
URE_DED
BF2s US Server Admin
+76|5792|inside the recesses of your...

Sgt.Scream.MDK wrote:

I cant comment on what the mentally handicapped contribute to society, but I can tell you there are plenty of mentally sound individuals that do not contribute to society.
Precisely.  That's the first thing that came to mind for me.

I think that is the real problem.  I've read countless papers and books on the dearth of genuine leadership in our society.  Too many of us are content to have decisions made for us. 

Kinda like retards ourselves, eh?
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5578|North Carolina

Pubic wrote:

Obviously, as a whole they cant contribute as much on average as the average person.

That said, they can contribute something.  And some of the worlds brainiest people are autistic...forces the brain to use different parts for different tasks, so they can sometimes come up with stuff that would take "normal" people years.

And, if someone in your family was handicapped, would you think differently?  (nobody in mine is, for the record)
Well, Stephen Hawking is probably the best example of a handicapped person that has contributed a massive amount to society.  I agree with you that many handicapped people can contribute something to society, and I have no problem with letting them attempt to do so.

With the thread topic originally being about only retarded people, my view is slightly different.  People can help these individuals as they like, but no one should be forced to fund this help (like through taxes being spent on it).
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5578|North Carolina

DoctorFruitloop wrote:

I have to admit I'm offended by this post.

Who are we to judge other people?

You're talking about abortions so that people with birth defects aren't born. Where do you draw the line?

Three generations of one part of my family have a genetic defect that leaves them susceptible to an aniarism. They have all suffered, they all work and contribute to the society as a whole. Should they have been aborted. Should the 1st generation have been "banned" from reproducing?

This entire conversation smacks of the philosophy of a certain Austrian dictator from WWII. Blond hair and blue eyes anyone?

Imagine someone telling Stephen Hawking's mother, "I'm sorry Mrs. Hawking but we have detected a genetic abnormality in your foetus. It could develop Motor Neuron Disease, we'll have to abort the pregnancy."
Once again, I'm glad you mentioned Stephen Hawking.  He is our generation's Einstein, without a doubt.

Nevertheless, gene therapy is our future.  Once it is perfected, there will be no need for abortions of those with severe defects.  When we reach the point that we can remove defects during the development period, this will be a non-issue.  Until then, we have cruder tools available (abortion for one).

I'm not saying anyone should have to be aborted, but the option should always be available if you have the cash.  The "morality" of the decision should be personal and without the government's interference.

Last edited by Turquoise (2006-10-17 17:57:56)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5578|North Carolina

Bubbalo wrote:

I just want to clear up my viewpoint:

I am not advocating harming people with disabilities.  Nor am I advocating, necessarily, abortion of foeti with deficiencies apparent (nor do I oppose it).  That is to say, I do not believe there should be any additional laws regarding it other than ensuring parents have full information regardless of their initial choice.

However I do feel that, given the amount of money that is spent attempting to combat diseases of all sorts, and the cost of care for disabled people, I feel that there should be some thought given to encouraging people with highly inheritable diseases to adopt or not have children.  I do not advocate an laws in relation to this, however.  In essence what I am saying is that society should look at encouraging voluntary, low grade eugenics, without ostracizing those unwilling to submit.
I fully agree.
PspRpg-7
-
+961|5871

Turquoise let's try not to quadruple post...eh?
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5578|North Carolina

Stingray24 wrote:

Personally, this whole thread sickens me.  Who are we to determine who is contributing enough to keep living?  We’re actually expending mental energy on considering killing people who we think don’t deserve to share the oxygen on earth?!?!?  Seriously, WTH?? This same mindset brought about abortion (killing babies) and will also bring about euthanasia (killing of elderly).  And it is all wrapped in the guise of the "good of society".  What a load of crap.
If you're against killing babies, you should also be against war.  Far more babies die from war than abortion -- and they're fully developed too.

Stingray24 wrote:

We do NOT have accurate technology to determine what kind of deformities and disorders a baby will have.  The docs thought my son could possibly have Down's before he was born, guess what?  He was PERFECTLY normal!!!  Under your idea, my wife could've chosen to kill him in utero because of a doctor's GUESS.  We need to stop playing around with human life like we know so much.  Even if we have the technology that theoretically could determine these disorders, the infant does not deserve to die.  Sure, they’ll need help through their lives, but they are no less human than you or I.  Wake up people.
We play with lives in far more ways than just abortion.  Many of these ways are considerably more disturbing than abortion as well.
liquix
Member
+51|5627|Peoples Republic of Portland
Sometimes if a person can change your heart, it's more important than if they can work or not. Besides, we have no right to choose for life or death for these people. If you believe in God, then you must believe they are that way for a reason. If you don't believe in god, like myself, you can use good judgement.
liquix
Member
+51|5627|Peoples Republic of Portland

Turquoise wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Personally, this whole thread sickens me.  Who are we to determine who is contributing enough to keep living?  We’re actually expending mental energy on considering killing people who we think don’t deserve to share the oxygen on earth?!?!?  Seriously, WTH?? This same mindset brought about abortion (killing babies) and will also bring about euthanasia (killing of elderly).  And it is all wrapped in the guise of the "good of society".  What a load of crap.
If you're against killing babies, you should also be against war.  Far more babies die from war than abortion -- and they're fully developed too.

Stingray24 wrote:

We do NOT have accurate technology to determine what kind of deformities and disorders a baby will have.  The docs thought my son could possibly have Down's before he was born, guess what?  He was PERFECTLY normal!!!  Under your idea, my wife could've chosen to kill him in utero because of a doctor's GUESS.  We need to stop playing around with human life like we know so much.  Even if we have the technology that theoretically could determine these disorders, the infant does not deserve to die.  Sure, they’ll need help through their lives, but they are no less human than you or I.  Wake up people.
We play with lives in far more ways than just abortion.  Many of these ways are considerably more disturbing than abortion as well.
I agree, I find it sad and ironic that many pro-lifers (not suggesting I want to kill babies by the thousands) are pro-war. Killing 650 thousand Iraqis is no big thing, but killing the fetus of a rape victim is a sin! "A culture of life." Indeed.
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|5734

DoctorFruitloop wrote:

The atrocities committed by the government under Hitler, with his knowledge, disagree with whatever twisted philosophies he might have had of combatting evil. Does it make it right to advocate combatting evil when your perception of what is evil is completley off the rails?
So you're saying it is wrong to combat evil?

There is an inherent problem with this discussion:  logically, anyone who is not fully productive ought be killed.  That is to say, if we do set aside all emotion, we ought kill anyone who cannot operate at 100% efficiency.  But society isn't governed purely by logic, is it?

Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-10-17 23:12:43)

twiistaaa
Member
+87|5841|mexico

motherdear wrote:

1. people that get a mental or handicap after the first day they got born should not be terminated and should get help from sociaty and get a benefit  from or taxes.
one thing, you do know that by sleeping with the wrong person you to can produce mentally or physically disabled children. maybe we should stop everyone from breeding to be on the safeside?

how about i ask you to deliver the child and snap its neck after you look into its eyes dad, u think you'd be up to it?
motherdear
Member
+25|5824|Denmark/Minnesota (depends)
motherdear wrote:

    1. people that get a mental or handicap after the first day they got born should not be terminated and should get help from sociaty and get a benefit  from or taxes.

one thing, you do know that by sleeping with the wrong person you to can produce mentally or physically disabled children. maybe we should stop everyone from breeding to be on the safeside?

how about i ask you to deliver the child and snap its neck after you look into its eyes dad, u think you'd be up to it?

i never wanted to be extreme or anything, i'm just saying that if we should abort kids and babies that are sevely mentally ill/handicapped then there must be some rules for it right?. i also said that i was open for suggestions and constructive info and that the rules ain't perfect and that they can be improved a lot and i know that but i wanted to start out somewhere.

by the way twiistaaa the germans could kill thousands of people without bothering and so can we I think it was wrong of the germans and that it was horrible what they did but people can get used to the thought of the babies being "terminated" but the ethic at the moment dosen't allow that so people feel discusted at the mere thought of it and i can understand them but i got another opinion. if the ss doctors could kill the jews without giving a damn then we can kill babies to the difference is that we would have a good reason for it and they hadn't.

i know this sounded babaric but i don't know any other way of saying it since it's such a hard subject, hitler was very wrong indeed in killing the jews and other people and it was horribly that he did it but it just shows that people can actually kill a baby with their bare hands (not that it should be done like that) but it is possibel after getting used to the thought.

by the way sorry if you guys felt i stepped over the line but it is my opinion and i don't want to get flamed by it i'm okay with critics but no need to blame me for the end of the world here.
DoctorFruitloop
Level 13 Wrongdoer
+515|5719|Doncaster, UK

Bubbalo wrote:

DoctorFruitloop wrote:

The atrocities committed by the government under Hitler, with his knowledge, disagree with whatever twisted philosophies he might have had of combating evil. Does it make it right to advocate combating evil when your perception of what is evil is completely off the rails?
So you're saying it is wrong to combat evil?

There is an inherent problem with this discussion:  logically, anyone who is not fully productive ought be killed.  That is to say, if we do set aside all emotion, we ought kill anyone who cannot operate at 100% efficiency.  But society isn't governed purely by logic, is it?
It's all dependent on the majority perspective. If I decide that the French are evil and I go around killing as many French as I can manage I daresay the majority will look upon my actions as being wrong.

How do you define "100% efficiency"? I'm typing on a keyboard to answer your questions but I know people who can type a lot faster than I am. We're the same species so I must be anywhere near their efficiency. Should I be killed?

Should the losing team in any sport be killed because they haven't operated at 100% efficiency for a human being?

Last edited by DoctorFruitloop (2006-10-18 01:48:06)

[JUK]semerkhet
Member
+3|5804
After reading some of this, i'm starting to lose all faith in the human race.  Talk of "genetic purification" and making sure people who aren't going to be 100% useful are genetically engineered out just sickens me.  Sounds very similar to another group of people from not so long ago that tried to "perfect" the human race through killing off the people that didn't quite fit in with thier view of perfection.   Now let me think, who were they..... (plese note sarcasm, not stupidity, in last line).
1927
The oldest chav in the world
+2,423|5846|Cardiff, Capital of Wales

^AgentHawk wrote:

1927 wrote:

Who the fuck gave you the given right to ask?
My own free will. The American Constitution.

Who the fuck gave you the given right to tell anyone they can't ask that question?

Moron
Listen; name calling is for school playground, serious debate's arn't.

Now which one do you want? Playground or would you like to be accepted by myself and others as an adult?

Free will, or as I put it Free Speech dosen't give you the right to ask sensitive questions which will cause offence.  Freedom of speech here in the Uk isn't what it used to be.

I dare you to ask the same questions asked in the original post substatuting Retards for a particular race.  Say it here in the Uk and you'll be put into jail, it's 2006 now.

Its not just my opinion Mr Hawk that the author shouldn't of asked the question, Im not the only one saying, "who the fuck are you to ask"?

I will only accept what you have said above to be true if you can perhaps copy n paste me something out of the American Consitution saying "you may ask any question regardless of any offence due to be caused" or words to that effect.

I won't end my reply to you with a petty name call as so happens here time after time.  However, I do look forwrd to a mature reply off you.
1927
The oldest chav in the world
+2,423|5846|Cardiff, Capital of Wales

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

how many of you have actually seen somebody lose their life in front of you before you could go on about "killing retards"  I consider myself extremely pragmatic, but this is really just sick thought. 


Hitler wanted to "euthanise" retards too...
Me, I kissed my Mum goodnight 55 weeks ago for the last time.  I wish that on nobody but unfortunatly it will happen sometime, if your lucky.

"Lucky?? wtf lucky??"

Yeah lucky, lucky because your with her rather than a terrible accident and the police tell you and lucky because you out live your parents.
Coolbeano
Level 13.5 BF2S Ninja Penguin Sensei
+378|5936

Turquoise wrote:

Coolbeano wrote:

Well. First my background; I've known 6 mentally handicapped people in my life, one of which is my cousin.

I don't mean to be ignorant or anything, but unless they can contribute in some way to the society, or don't drag others down by demanding help, and can take care of themselves... or they can live up to the standards of others (by that I mean be, for lack of a better word, be 'cured') and not carry their load, then they shouldn't be around.

Evolution. Natural selection.

Mankind, with its gadgets and gizmos and technology have tried to avoid evolution. By simply 'alleviating' problems, we'll never permanently get rid of anything. Blind people should go, deaf may stay. Reason? Blind people cannot be made to see (at least not yet, if they can, fine) and they slow progress of others and cannot carry their own weight. Deaf people have hearing aids, so they can live a normal life with little penalty to themselves and others.

Sorry, but that's the way I see it.
In principle, I agree with you.  However, once again, there is nothing wrong with people choosing to take care of these people by their own volition.  Charity is a very admirable thing, but again, the government should stay out of it.
Right, forgot about choice. Once again, if those choosing to help are choosing by their own free will, then let them do so, as long as, again, they do not bring the unwilling down.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2022 Jeff Minard