Amidst Backlash, Dawkins Doubles Down on Down Syndrome

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[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…
[/quote]

I mean this wouldn’t really be an added segment to the welfare state as the incentives for guardians of adults already exist and are used by many. Now I wouldn’t expand them, but advocating that they be stopped in the event that a lapse in responsibility results in a increased burden on the system is not such a bad thing (and the part I was referencing not disagreeing with)

122

This is classic.

We aren’t supposed to tell women what to do with their bodies (abortion), but the mentally handicapped, “should not be permitted to reproduce.”

[quote]Bismark wrote:
There are steps the state could take short of a mandate from on high. Social welfare allocated for guardians that are poor could be made contingent on a reproduction clause. [/quote]

[quote]Bismark wrote:
There are steps the state could take short of a mandate from on high. Social welfare allocated for guardians of the physically disabled could be made contingent on a reproduction clause. [/quote]

[quote]Bismark wrote:
There are steps the state could take short of a mandate from on high. Social welfare allocated for guardians of the clinically depressed or suicidal could be made contingent on a reproduction clause. [/quote]

[quote]Bismark wrote:
There are steps the state could take short of a mandate from on high. Social welfare allocated for guardians of felons could be made contingent on a reproduction clause. [/quote]

[quote]Bismark wrote:
There are steps the state could take short of a mandate from on high. Social welfare allocated for guardians of those that receive social security, medicare, or medicaid could be made contingent on a reproduction clause. [/quote]

Should I continue?

123

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

I mean this wouldn’t really be an added segment to the welfare state as the incentives for guardians of adults already exist and are used by many. Now I wouldn’t expand them, but advocating that they be stopped in the event that a lapse in responsibility results in a increased burden on the system is not such a bad thing (and the part I was referencing not disagreeing with)
[/quote]

Any additional regulation added to the plethora of lines of regulation related to the welfare state is an addition to the welfare state if only for the money spent writing the rule, implementation and administration. Even if net money out to people is the same in the end, this is another form, and another union laborer to administer and track it.

On top of the fact it is still the government saying “if you choose something we don’t like, in this case to allow you child the person freedom to have sex, and they happen to become pregnant because that is how nature works, and you don’t terminate the child that might not be mentally handicapped assuming your child is fertile in the first place, your funding is cut, because ‘mah social contract’.”

Dude, fuck that. No way. There are plenty of non-mentally handicapped people who make really shitty parents. We don’t need government feeling like they can start making that determination BEFORE people get pregnant. This isn’t 1984, this isn’t Huxley. We can bang who we want when we want, assuming they want to bang us back and are old enough. How is that not enough?

124

[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.

125

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

I mean this wouldn’t really be an added segment to the welfare state as the incentives for guardians of adults already exist and are used by many. Now I wouldn’t expand them, but advocating that they be stopped in the event that a lapse in responsibility results in a increased burden on the system is not such a bad thing (and the part I was referencing not disagreeing with)
[/quote]

Any additional regulation added to the plethora of lines of regulation related to the welfare state is an addition to the welfare state if only for the money spent writing the rule, implementation and administration. Even if net money out to people is the same in the end, this is another form, and another union laborer to administer and track it.

On top of the fact it is still the government saying “if you choose something we don’t like, in this case to allow you child the person freedom to have sex, and they happen to become pregnant because that is how nature works, and you don’t terminate the child that might not be mentally handicapped assuming your child is fertile in the first place, your funding is cut, because ‘mah social contract’.”

Dude, fuck that. No way. There are plenty of non-mentally handicapped people who make really shitty parents. We don’t need government feeling like they can start making that determination BEFORE people get pregnant. This isn’t 1984, this isn’t Huxley. We can bang who we want when we want, assuming they want to bang us back and are old enough. How is that not enough? [/quote]

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. You are inviting the government to micromanage your shit for you and are subject to whatever nutty regulation they want to attach to the money. All this, well that’s not fair, they are taking away my freedoms people should remember that the government didn’t take their freedoms, they were freely sold by freeloading citizens. Basically, since the current state of welfare doesn’t appear to be going anywhere, make those that accept it government “share-croppers” with all kinds of rules attached to keep them from increasing the burden and get a little something out of them.

Maybe eventually they will get tired of being modern day slaves and find something more productive to do with their abilities. Also, abortion should not be an option in my little system so conception would mean the consequences of a child would be felt, not birth.

126

[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.

127

[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.

128

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

I mean this wouldn’t really be an added segment to the welfare state as the incentives for guardians of adults already exist and are used by many. Now I wouldn’t expand them, but advocating that they be stopped in the event that a lapse in responsibility results in a increased burden on the system is not such a bad thing (and the part I was referencing not disagreeing with)
[/quote]

Any additional regulation added to the plethora of lines of regulation related to the welfare state is an addition to the welfare state if only for the money spent writing the rule, implementation and administration. Even if net money out to people is the same in the end, this is another form, and another union laborer to administer and track it.

On top of the fact it is still the government saying “if you choose something we don’t like, in this case to allow you child the person freedom to have sex, and they happen to become pregnant because that is how nature works, and you don’t terminate the child that might not be mentally handicapped assuming your child is fertile in the first place, your funding is cut, because ‘mah social contract’.”

Dude, fuck that. No way. There are plenty of non-mentally handicapped people who make really shitty parents. We don’t need government feeling like they can start making that determination BEFORE people get pregnant. This isn’t 1984, this isn’t Huxley. We can bang who we want when we want, assuming they want to bang us back and are old enough. How is that not enough? [/quote]

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. You are inviting the government to micromanage your shit for you and are subject to whatever nutty regulation they want to attach to the money. All this, well that’s not fair, they are taking away my freedoms people should remember that the government didn’t take their freedoms, they were freely sold by freeloading citizens. Basically, since the current state of welfare doesn’t appear to be going anywhere, make those that accept it government “share-croppers” with all kinds of rules attached to keep them from increasing the burden and get a little something out of them.

Maybe eventually they will get tired of being modern day slaves and find something more productive to do with their abilities. Also, abortion should not be an option in my little system so conception would mean the consequences of a child would be felt, not birth. [/quote]

This is different than some lazy shit who can’t work up the gumption to go down to the corner and shovel cow shit on a farmer’s crops for $8 an hour.

We’re talking about people who didn’t have a choice in the matter, born into the situation being held hostage and extorted by the government into doing the states bidding based solely on some fucking up notion of a “social contract” that supposedly would make the world a better place.

This isn’t Huxley. Some people are going to be born with “defects”, and those people are allowed to enjoy sexytime if they want it… I’m sorry this harsh reality gets in the way of the utopian society, but it is what it is.

129

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

I mean this wouldn’t really be an added segment to the welfare state as the incentives for guardians of adults already exist and are used by many. Now I wouldn’t expand them, but advocating that they be stopped in the event that a lapse in responsibility results in a increased burden on the system is not such a bad thing (and the part I was referencing not disagreeing with)
[/quote]

Any additional regulation added to the plethora of lines of regulation related to the welfare state is an addition to the welfare state if only for the money spent writing the rule, implementation and administration. Even if net money out to people is the same in the end, this is another form, and another union laborer to administer and track it.

On top of the fact it is still the government saying “if you choose something we don’t like, in this case to allow you child the person freedom to have sex, and they happen to become pregnant because that is how nature works, and you don’t terminate the child that might not be mentally handicapped assuming your child is fertile in the first place, your funding is cut, because ‘mah social contract’.”

Dude, fuck that. No way. There are plenty of non-mentally handicapped people who make really shitty parents. We don’t need government feeling like they can start making that determination BEFORE people get pregnant. This isn’t 1984, this isn’t Huxley. We can bang who we want when we want, assuming they want to bang us back and are old enough. How is that not enough? [/quote]

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. You are inviting the government to micromanage your shit for you and are subject to whatever nutty regulation they want to attach to the money. All this, well that’s not fair, they are taking away my freedoms people should remember that the government didn’t take their freedoms, they were freely sold by freeloading citizens. Basically, since the current state of welfare doesn’t appear to be going anywhere, make those that accept it government “share-croppers” with all kinds of rules attached to keep them from increasing the burden and get a little something out of them.

Maybe eventually they will get tired of being modern day slaves and find something more productive to do with their abilities. Also, abortion should not be an option in my little system so conception would mean the consequences of a child would be felt, not birth. [/quote]

This is different than some lazy shit who can’t work up the gumption to go down to the corner and shovel cow shit on a farmer’s crops for $8 an hour.

We’re talking about people who didn’t have a choice in the matter, born into the situation being held hostage and extorted by the government into doing the states bidding based solely on some fucking up notion of a “social contract” that supposedly would make the world a better place.

This isn’t Huxley. Some people are going to be born with “defects”, and those people are allowed to enjoy sexytime if they want it… I’m sorry this harsh reality gets in the way of the utopian society, but it is what it is.
[/quote]

That is correct, it isn’t Huxley. But do you trust the government to decide who is truly defective and who isn’t. I don’t. That’s why exceptions cant be made by the government. The severely disabled would then unfortunately get lumped in with the lazy as non-contributors. And since they cannot justify themselves by saying, well I paid that money in, so technically you aren’t giving me anything (social security), if non-contributors want money from the gov, they should have to jump through whatever hoops that are set before them.

Lots of hoops and creating a state of being that makes you a slave to the government if you accept welfare, would be the only way kill the welfare state. You aren’t actually taking anything away from anyone, just making it such a pain in the ass that working starts to look a lot better than sitting around.

130

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
We’re talking about people who didn’t have a choice in the matter, born into the situation being held hostage and extorted by the government into doing the states bidding based solely on some fucking up notion of a “social contract” that supposedly would make the world a better place.

This isn’t Huxley. Some people are going to be born with “defects”, and those people are allowed to enjoy sexytime if they want it… I’m sorry this harsh reality gets in the way of the utopian society, but it is what it is.
[/quote]

No one would be forcing them to take them money. The government wouldn’t be holding them hostage any more than a payday advance group is holding you or I hostage if we don’t take the money. You want to live your on life and do your own thing, fine, but the individual has to foot the bill. And in the instances where they cant (the disabled) that’s where charity would come in.

131

[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.

132

[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?

133

[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.

134

[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]

Those individuals do not lack agency. The mentally disabled, however, do. That is the crux of my argument.

135

[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]

I don’t consider social security (if applied correctly, which it currently is not) to be a handout. Same with medicare and definitely VA benefits. I understand short term unemployement but the rules effecting those that foot some of the bill for it are very poor and should be addressed. I also don’t consider it welfare, a handout in a sense, but not welfare. Medicaid, Obamacare, and the similar programs fall under the welfare tag.

The difference being I can justify receiving SS, medicare, and VA benefits not being handouts because that is money that was money that was put it (involuntarily) during your working life for the purpose of taking care of you when you are no longer able to work(VA benefits were earned by serving to protect your country). I know it doesn’t really work like that in practice but for many of the people receiving SS that is true.

136

[quote]Bismark wrote:
I suppose the mentally disabled should have the right to purchase firearms…
[/quote]

The key word is right. Yes they should have this right until the constitution is amended.

That doesn’t mean I want it to happen, but I also don’t want to live in a world that oppresses a segment of the population because of what might happen.

137

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

I mean this wouldn’t really be an added segment to the welfare state as the incentives for guardians of adults already exist and are used by many. Now I wouldn’t expand them, but advocating that they be stopped in the event that a lapse in responsibility results in a increased burden on the system is not such a bad thing (and the part I was referencing not disagreeing with)
[/quote]

Any additional regulation added to the plethora of lines of regulation related to the welfare state is an addition to the welfare state if only for the money spent writing the rule, implementation and administration. Even if net money out to people is the same in the end, this is another form, and another union laborer to administer and track it.

On top of the fact it is still the government saying “if you choose something we don’t like, in this case to allow you child the person freedom to have sex, and they happen to become pregnant because that is how nature works, and you don’t terminate the child that might not be mentally handicapped assuming your child is fertile in the first place, your funding is cut, because ‘mah social contract’.”

Dude, fuck that. No way. There are plenty of non-mentally handicapped people who make really shitty parents. We don’t need government feeling like they can start making that determination BEFORE people get pregnant. This isn’t 1984, this isn’t Huxley. We can bang who we want when we want, assuming they want to bang us back and are old enough. How is that not enough? [/quote]

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. You are inviting the government to micromanage your shit for you and are subject to whatever nutty regulation they want to attach to the money. All this, well that’s not fair, they are taking away my freedoms people should remember that the government didn’t take their freedoms, they were freely sold by freeloading citizens. Basically, since the current state of welfare doesn’t appear to be going anywhere, make those that accept it government “share-croppers” with all kinds of rules attached to keep them from increasing the burden and get a little something out of them.

Maybe eventually they will get tired of being modern day slaves and find something more productive to do with their abilities. Also, abortion should not be an option in my little system so conception would mean the consequences of a child would be felt, not birth. [/quote]

This is different than some lazy shit who can’t work up the gumption to go down to the corner and shovel cow shit on a farmer’s crops for $8 an hour.

We’re talking about people who didn’t have a choice in the matter, born into the situation being held hostage and extorted by the government into doing the states bidding based solely on some fucking up notion of a “social contract” that supposedly would make the world a better place.

This isn’t Huxley. Some people are going to be born with “defects”, and those people are allowed to enjoy sexytime if they want it… I’m sorry this harsh reality gets in the way of the utopian society, but it is what it is.
[/quote]

Would you be ok with young children having sex?

138

[quote]Bismark 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]

Those individuals do not lack agency. The mentally disabled, however, do. That is the crux of my argument.[/quote]

I wasn’t addressing your argument. I was addressing jbpick’s.

139

[quote]Bismark 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]

Those individuals do not lack agency. The mentally disabled, however, do. That is the crux of my argument.[/quote]

Lacking initiative to contribute and lacking agency should not be viewed through different lenses as the ultimate tax on the system is the same.

140

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
I suppose the mentally disabled should have the right to purchase firearms…
[/quote]

The key word is right. Yes they should have this right until the constitution is amended.

That doesn’t mean I want it to happen, but I also don’t want to live in a world that oppresses a segment of the population because of what might happen. [/quote]

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. Severely defected animals exist as pariahs, outside of the normal reproductive activities of their species, and for good reason.