Amidst Backlash, Dawkins Doubles Down on Down Syndrome

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
183

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

…They should not be permitted to reproduce…

[/quote]

Who should do this non-permitting?
[/quote]

Ideally, their legal guardians, as the mentally disabled lack agency.[/quote]

But what do you determine this? You’re world would be an even scary place than the shithole we live in now. This has been tried you know.[/quote]

The United States in 2014 is a shithole? Perhaps rural Georgia qualifies. How would guardians individually prohibiting their mentally disabled legal charges from reproducing be scarier than the consequences of what amounts to a perpetual child having children of their own? [/quote]

While I agree with you that ideally it should not happen and a guardian/caretaker should do everything reasonable to assure that it doesn’t, I was under the impression that you were referring to legislating that it will not be allowed to happen.

I am totally in agreement, that personal responsibility should be taken prevent it, but I just believe that government would be overstepping its bounds in legislating whether or not someone can conceive, no matter the justification.
[/quote]

Do you know the difference between the ‘world’ and the United States? I wasn’t talking about the U.S., nor rural GA, nor do I live in rural GA. Consequentialism is an inherently evil ethic.[/quote]

My “world” implied that my stance would be implemented as national policy, which I haven’t advocated. What good could come of mental children having children of their own? No one has a right to get their dick wet. The procreation of mentally disabled individuals does nothing but to further burden the welfare state and poison the human gene pool. Rigid deontology is an inherently naive and weak ethic for the inherently naive and weak.[/quote]

No one has a right to tell who and whom to reproduce and not reproduce, Hitler.[/quote]

Again, comparing me to a megalomaniac mass murderer is hardly intellectually honest. I suppose the mentally disabled should have the right to purchase firearms and fly commercial airliners as well.
[/quote]

Just the social engineering part.

184

While what I am saying is harsh towards those with disabilities, and I probably took it to far with the rock mine comment, the welfare state is a problem with no easy solutions. You have a large portion of the population that has been reduced to the productive equivalency of a severely mentally handicapped individual because they make more for having babies to put on the system than they would for working. If anyone has a better plan than incentivizing behaviors that do not further the burden or punishing behaviors that do through revocation of benefits, given the current situation, I would like to hear it.

185

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Where in the constitution does it state that I have the right to get my dick wet and procreate? That right certainly isn’t natural…

[/quote]

Tsk, tsk, you misstepped, Bistro. The constitution doesn’t list all of our rights – only a few. The 9th Amendment makes this clear.

It doesn’t have to state anything in terms of rights. It only did because one political faction was worried a few of the especially sacred ones might eventually get overlooked or lost in future murkiness.

I “suggest” you do more study on the constitution, how we got it, and what it means and doesn’t mean. Have you ever even read the thing from start to finish, every word, without pause? Have you also studied it line by line? Have you read any of the Founder’s comments about it, especially Madison’s? Do you really have any business making a statement like, “Where in the constitution does it state that I have the right to…” if you want to even remotely appear to have an academic bone in your body on this subject?[/quote]

Correct. The Constitution’s main objective is to limit the power of government, not grant citizens specific rights. The Bill of Rights was the listing of citizen rights that shall not be infringed upon. That means mentally handicapped people can fuck, and I can own a gun.

186

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
While what I am saying is harsh towards those with disabilities, and I probably took it to far with the rock mine comment, the welfare state is a problem with no easy solutions. You have a large portion of the population that has been reduced to the productive equivalency of a severely mentally handicapped individual because they make more for having babies to put on the system than they would for working. If anyone has a better plan than incentivizing behaviors that do not further the burden or punishing behaviors that do through revocation of benefits, given the current situation, I would like to hear it. [/quote]

Let nature take it’s course and don’t fuck with it. There’s nothing to do. We don’t need to make a better quality of people. We’re just as fucked up as we have always been. We will continue to be fucked up.

187

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This is classic.

[/quote]

Thank you.

Slippery slope fallacy be damned. I’m not on board with this notion.

If a guardian personally chooses to not allow their kids to be free, that is on them. It isn’t the government’s place to be involved. [/quote]

So where a great intellectual toilet is flushing, but the turd keeps coming back out.[/quote]

Yes, you certainly clogged the intellectual toilet in the Syria discussion. [/quote]

How’s that whole Syria thing going? Oh, bad. But Assad does want to be our friend now.

188

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
While what I am saying is harsh towards those with disabilities, and I probably took it to far with the rock mine comment, the welfare state is a problem with no easy solutions. You have a large portion of the population that has been reduced to the productive equivalency of a severely mentally handicapped individual because they make more for having babies to put on the system than they would for working. If anyone has a better plan than incentivizing behaviors that do not further the burden or punishing behaviors that do through revocation of benefits, given the current situation, I would like to hear it. [/quote]

Let nature take it’s course and don’t fuck with it. There’s nothing to do. We don’t need to make a better quality of people. We’re just as fucked up as we have always been. We will continue to be fucked up. [/quote]

If you look at this country as a wagon, The contributors are the pullers and the non contributors are the riders. More and more people are getting back there to ride (much faster than nature is taking its course) and the riders keep having babies faster than the pullers. With the current direction all this is going the system will eventually break. So we can wait for the group that is pulling to eventually get so overburdened that the system breaks (as a puller I don’t like this) or we could “fuck with it” in such a way that it gets more people off the damn wagon.

189

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
While I agree with you that citizens should be able to live free of government micro-management, I believe that if you want accept the government’s handouts, you are acknowledging that you do not share that line of thinking.
[/quote]

Do social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, Obamacare, VA benefits, etc… count as government handouts? If the answer is yes (imo it is) shouldn’t the people via the government decide if you can reproduce?

[/quote]

Absolutely not. The answers to the problems of socialism cannot be more socialism and more incremental creep toward totalitarianism.
[/quote]

Yea, it’s just compounding the problem. Kind of like an innocent lie that morphs into a series of lies and a scandal. Once you screwed up, it’s better to fix it than continuing down the same path and delaying the inevitable.

190

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
While I agree with you that citizens should be able to live free of government micro-management, I believe that if you want accept the government’s handouts, you are acknowledging that you do not share that line of thinking.
[/quote]

Do social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, Obamacare, VA benefits, etc… count as government handouts? If the answer is yes (imo it is) shouldn’t the people via the government decide if you can reproduce?

[/quote]

Absolutely not. The answers to the problems of socialism cannot be more socialism and more incremental creep toward totalitarianism.
[/quote]

Exactly. Which is why handouts should not be predicated on a “reproduction clause”

191

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
While I agree with you that citizens should be able to live free of government micro-management, I believe that if you want accept the government’s handouts, you are acknowledging that you do not share that line of thinking.
[/quote]

Do social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, Obamacare, VA benefits, etc… count as government handouts? If the answer is yes (imo it is) shouldn’t the people via the government decide if you can reproduce?

[/quote]

Absolutely not. The answers to the problems of socialism cannot be more socialism and more incremental creep toward totalitarianism.
[/quote]

Exactly. Which is why handouts should not be predicated on a “reproduction clause”[/quote]

What about handouts that relate to reproduction?? Like those that pay single mothers to care for their children?? Why shouldn’t they have clauses that discourage further burdening the system, that way the handout doesn’t become an incentive to further burden the system??

192

For the record, my responses are all based on the way it is not the way I wish it was. Ideally I would want single mothers to get support through charity not government.

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
What about handouts that relate to reproduction?? Like those that pay single mothers to care for their children?? Why shouldn’t they have clauses that discourage further burdening the system, that way the handout doesn’t become an incentive to further burden the system??[/quote]

Because you are limiting the freedom of an entire group because there are a percentage of people abusing the system. In my opinion that gives the government to much (not that we aren’t already there) power over choice. Yes this is a few steps towards the extreme, but I believe politicians would be able to successfully attached a clause like this to other programs and eventually we would end up at an X number of child system similar to China. I don’t support that.

I am all for reforming the system, but I am not for the government mandating a lifestyle. Now if we can reform programs in an intelligent way that protect the children (which to me is the goal) then great. For example, maybe after two kids you lose X percentage of your expected social security benefit. That doesn’t solve the issue, there are still questions & holes, but it could be a starting point.

193

There will always be net takers. Always.

194

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
For the record, my responses are all based on the way it is not the way I wish it was. Ideally I would want single mothers to get support through charity not government.

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
What about handouts that relate to reproduction?? Like those that pay single mothers to care for their children?? Why shouldn’t they have clauses that discourage further burdening the system, that way the handout doesn’t become an incentive to further burden the system??[/quote]

Because you are limiting the freedom of an entire group because there are a percentage of people abusing the system. In my opinion that gives the government to much (not that we aren’t already there) power over choice. Yes this is a few steps towards the extreme, but I believe politicians would be able to successfully attached a clause like this to other programs and eventually we would end up at an X number of child system similar to China. I don’t support that.

I am all for reforming the system, but I am not for the government mandating a lifestyle. Now if we can reform programs in an intelligent way that protect the children (which to me is the goal) then great. For example, maybe after two kids you lose X percentage of your expected social security benefit. That doesn’t solve the issue, there are still questions & holes, but it could be a starting point. [/quote]

I still look at it as, the government isn’t forcing you to take the money. The government isn’t mandating it and the individual still has the choice over whether or not to invite the government into their life. If you don’t want that, and I don’t, then don’t ask for the money.

I guess in a way, I am more looking for ways to tear the system down so that it could be rebuilt to better serve the people it was meant to serve and not incentivize behaviors that negatively impact society.

I look at a reproduction clause no different than required drug testing or telling people that they have to actually used their food stamp money for food.

195

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
I look at a reproduction clause no different than required drug testing [/quote]

I would counter this with the fact that drugs are illegal while reproduction is currently not. I’m perfectly fine with requiring recipient to abide by the law.

In this case you are adding stipulations to what you can do with a specific handout (agree with you). A reproduction clause forces you to do or not do a specific thing in order to get a handout (don’t agree).

I may not be explaining myself well, but I see a big difference between the two.

What if the reproductive clause is used to add a “gun free household” clause to the food stamps program?

What if the reproductive clause is used to justify a “waiver your right to illegal search and seizure” clause in order to receive unemployment?

196

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
I still look at it as, the government isn’t forcing you to take the money. The government isn’t mandating it and the individual still has the choice over whether or not to invite the government into their life. If you don’t want that, and I don’t, then don’t ask for the money. [/quote]

I’m looking at it from the perspective that the majority of people on these programs don’t want to be on them and I won’t help take their freedom away because of a percentage of bad apples in the group.

For example, you’re a month pregnant and your husband dies suddenly. You are forced onto food stamps and you certainly can’t afford the child. Do we force this woman to have an abortion in order to keep her food stamps?

These situations, while unique, are a big part of the reason I wouldn’t support a reproduction clause. The same goes for a person that is mentally handicapped. Many hold part time jobs or even full time jobs. Many live in basically assisted living homes. Do we just lump them all together and take their freedom. Not to mention mental illness itself could be broadened pretty far. PTSD = mental illness. Suicidal = mental illness. Depressed = mental illness.

Do you really want to let the state get it’s foot into that reproductive door?

197

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
I still look at it as, the government isn’t forcing you to take the money. The government isn’t mandating it and the individual still has the choice over whether or not to invite the government into their life. If you don’t want that, and I don’t, then don’t ask for the money. [/quote]

I’m looking at it from the perspective that the majority of people on these programs don’t want to be on them and I won’t help take their freedom away because of a percentage of bad apples in the group.

For example, you’re a month pregnant and your husband dies suddenly. You are forced onto food stamps and you certainly can’t afford the child. Do we force this woman to have an abortion in order to keep her food stamps?

These situations, while unique, are a big part of the reason I wouldn’t support a reproduction clause. The same goes for a person that is mentally handicapped. Many hold part time jobs or even full time jobs. Many live in basically assisted living homes. Do we just lump them all together and take their freedom. Not to mention mental illness itself could be broadened pretty far. PTSD = mental illness. Suicidal = mental illness. Depressed = mental illness.

Do you really want to let the state get it’s foot into that reproductive door?

[/quote]

I have a lot of thoughts on each one of these but don’t have the time to address them right now. Will return to this tomorrow though.

198

It breaks down very simply. We all have ideas on how to make the world a better place, but we cannot control the actions of others. The moment we control the actions of others to make the world a better place, we made it a worse place.

199

[quote]pat wrote:
It breaks down very simply. We all have ideas on how to make the world a better place, but we cannot control the actions of others. The moment we control the actions of others to make the world a better place, we made it a worse place.[/quote]

Awesome libertarian sentiment.

200

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
It breaks down very simply. We all have ideas on how to make the world a better place, but we cannot control the actions of others. The moment we control the actions of others to make the world a better place, we made it a worse place.[/quote]

Awesome libertarian sentiment.[/quote]

You are essentially advocating statelessness and anarchy.