Amidst Backlash, Dawkins Doubles Down on Down Syndrome

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

In order to establish guilt the prosecution has to demonstrate “mens rea” - if someone is insane or mentally deficient they cannot be of a guilty mind.

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - “the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty”.

[/quote]

This is not true in this particular case. There are many crimes that require no mens rea - they are called strict liability crimes - and statutory rape is one of them. Sex with a minor is punishable regardless of the defendant’s mental state. [/quote]

My understanding is that statutory rape is a strict liability offence in some US states but not others. Also, strict liability still allows a defence of “Honest and Reasonable Mistake of Fact.” But regardless, in practice no one is going to prosecute two mentally handicapped teenagers with statutory rape.[/quote]

The best answer is probably that you need to look at each state’s law. But your understanding is pretty close in this post.

102

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I love to hear “atheists” contradict themselves by appealing to morality.[/quote]

Why must an action conform to deontology to be moral? Consequentialism would justify Darwin’s position.[/quote]

So would utilitarianism, and relativism. That’s how monsters justify their actions, by appealing to some intellectualism as a justification. In the real world, it’s just murder. [/quote]

The mentally handicapped have no “right” to engage in an inherently risky activity (sexual intercourse) whose possible consequences they cannot fully comprehend. They should not be permitted to reproduce. No one here is advocating euthanasia. In this case, the ends do justify the means.

104

[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.

106

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I love to hear “atheists” contradict themselves by appealing to morality.[/quote]

Why must an action conform to deontology to be moral? Consequentialism would justify Darwin’s position.[/quote]

So would utilitarianism, and relativism. That’s how monsters justify their actions, by appealing to some intellectualism as a justification. In the real world, it’s just murder. [/quote]

The mentally handicapped have no “right” to engage in an inherently risky activity (sexual intercourse) whose possible consequences they cannot fully comprehend. They should not be permitted to reproduce. No one here is advocating euthanasia. In this case, the ends do justify the means. [/quote]

Says who? Nazi Germany?

107

[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.

108

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I love to hear “atheists” contradict themselves by appealing to morality.[/quote]

Why must an action conform to deontology to be moral? Consequentialism would justify Darwin’s position.[/quote]

So would utilitarianism, and relativism. That’s how monsters justify their actions, by appealing to some intellectualism as a justification. In the real world, it’s just murder. [/quote]

The mentally handicapped have no “right” to engage in an inherently risky activity (sexual intercourse) whose possible consequences they cannot fully comprehend. They should not be permitted to reproduce. No one here is advocating euthanasia. In this case, the ends do justify the means. [/quote]

Says who? Nazi Germany?[/quote]

Says anyone whose ability to reason is greater than their ability to feel. I’m not advocating that the mentally handicapped be acquainted with Zyklon B, so your moralistic hysterics are uncalled for.

109

[quote]pushharder 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]

If you drew the line there you could get me to board your ship on this issue.

However, for some reason I doubt you’d draw that line and dare anyone to step over it.[/quote]

Surprising given my statist tendencies, I know. A top down approach would have a huge potential for abuse which would outweigh its potential benefits.

110

[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?

111

[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.

112

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I love to hear “atheists” contradict themselves by appealing to morality.[/quote]

Why must an action conform to deontology to be moral? Consequentialism would justify Darwin’s position.[/quote]

So would utilitarianism, and relativism. That’s how monsters justify their actions, by appealing to some intellectualism as a justification. In the real world, it’s just murder. [/quote]

The mentally handicapped have no “right” to engage in an inherently risky activity (sexual intercourse) whose possible consequences they cannot fully comprehend. They should not be permitted to reproduce. No one here is advocating euthanasia. In this case, the ends do justify the means. [/quote]

Says who? Nazi Germany?[/quote]

Says anyone whose ability to reason is greater than their ability to feel. I’m not advocating that the mentally handicapped be acquainted with Zyklon B, so your moralistic hysterics are uncalled for. [/quote]

Apparently not. It’s not getting any better. My moralistic hysterics are on point.

113

[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.

114

[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]

Rural Georgia can actually be a really great place to live.

115

[quote]DoubleDuce 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]

Rural Georgia can actually be a really great place to live.
[/quote]

It isn’t rural Texas.

116

[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]

Lol, the assumption WAS that government would be doing that, and to back peddle to the guardian is the only sound position that can be taken by anyone advocating reproduction, and consequently, sexual activity be controlled.

Because we all know, and it is obvious, this is purely mental masturbation and frivolous without government forcing the guardian to take that stance, and just suggesting the guardian take that stance is not even remotely close to the original position bismark took on this.

It’s nice to see a rational easing of his position, but I think we’re all fooling ourselves if we think that is the original one. Because that would be no change what-so-ever from the way it is now.

117

[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.

118

[quote]countingbeans 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]

Lol, the assumption WAS that government would be doing that, and to back peddle to the guardian is the only sound position that can be taken by anyone advocating reproduction, and consequently, sexual activity be controlled.

Because we all know, and it is obvious, this is purely mental masturbation and frivolous without government forcing the guardian to take that stance, and just suggesting the guardian take that stance is not even remotely close to the original position bismark took on this.

It’s nice to see a rational easing of his position, but I think we’re all fooling ourselves if we think that is the original one. Because that would be no change what-so-ever from the way it is now. [/quote]

There are steps the state could take short of a mandate from on high. Social welfare allocated for guardians of the mentally disabled could be made contingent on a reproduction clause. This would incentivize guardians to prevent irresponsible sexual activity. If the guardian did not wish to follow the clause, they would be fully responsible for the well being of the offspring of the mentally disabled individual in question.

119

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]countingbeans 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]

Lol, the assumption WAS that government would be doing that, and to back peddle to the guardian is the only sound position that can be taken by anyone advocating reproduction, and consequently, sexual activity be controlled.

Because we all know, and it is obvious, this is purely mental masturbation and frivolous without government forcing the guardian to take that stance, and just suggesting the guardian take that stance is not even remotely close to the original position bismark took on this.

It’s nice to see a rational easing of his position, but I think we’re all fooling ourselves if we think that is the original one. Because that would be no change what-so-ever from the way it is now. [/quote]

There are steps the state could take short of a mandate from on high. Social welfare allocated for guardians of the mentally disabled could be made contingent on a reproduction clause. This would incentivize guardians to prevent irresponsible sexual activity. If the guardian did not wish to follow the clause, they would be fully responsible for the well being of the offspring of the mentally disabled individual in question.[/quote]

I cant say as I am totally against that, because one can decide whether or not to accept the governments money, and if you accept the money you should have no qualms with interference. This is the primary reason why I believe there should be no question over whether or not welfare recipients are drug tested, food stamps only be allowed for the basic necessities, and more to the point, I believe that the government should only pay for one child per mother because I suppose accidents happen. In the event of a second child (this is where I haven’t decided yet) either stop payment altogether or give the mother the choice of sterilization with benefits extended to that second child or ceasation of funding altogether.

120

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]countingbeans 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]

Lol, the assumption WAS that government would be doing that, and to back peddle to the guardian is the only sound position that can be taken by anyone advocating reproduction, and consequently, sexual activity be controlled.

Because we all know, and it is obvious, this is purely mental masturbation and frivolous without government forcing the guardian to take that stance, and just suggesting the guardian take that stance is not even remotely close to the original position bismark took on this.

It’s nice to see a rational easing of his position, but I think we’re all fooling ourselves if we think that is the original one. Because that would be no change what-so-ever from the way it is now. [/quote]

There are steps the state could take short of a mandate from on high. Social welfare allocated for guardians of the mentally disabled could be made contingent on a reproduction clause. This would incentivize guardians to prevent irresponsible sexual activity. If the guardian did not wish to follow the clause, they would be fully responsible for the well being of the offspring of the mentally disabled individual in question.[/quote]

So… your solution is to expand the welfare state in order to potentially reduce the welfare state?

Um no. How about the government stays the fuck out of people’s bedrooms? I mean we have some fairly decent laws about it now, aren’t they good enough?

Just the general line you are walking here makes me sick to my stomach, so we’re never going to see eye to eye on this. But it’s nice to see you aren’t totally off in left field on it, just inching past short stop…