Amidst Backlash, Dawkins Doubles Down on Down Syndrome

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

He’s taking mine and elaborating on it.

142

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
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.
[/quote]

For the record, I agree with you. However, not everyone will agree and it could be argued that if you receive a government handout (I mean I paid $1,200 into the Montgomery GI Bill and received over $100K in Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits) you are electing to give up your freedom of choice, in this case to have children. I’m not saying it will happen, but it’s the flip side to this discussion.

143

My whole argument can be summed up in short, if you want the government’s money (and if you are a non-contributer that’s who’s money it is) then you should have to jump through whatever hoops the government deems fit. In short, you are selling your ability to remain unmolested by big government. For the contributer, SS, medicare, VA benefits do not fall under “the government’s money”, but “the contributor’s money (or earnings in the case of VA benefits)” that was loaned to the government with the expectation of getting something in return when needed.

144

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I did not say you have a right to get your dick wet. I said you have a constitutional right to firearms?

I am not talking about other animals. Do you want out society to act like wild animals?

145

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

He’s taking mine and elaborating on it. [/quote]

Really?

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Lacking initiative to contribute and lacking agency should not be viewed through different lenses as the ultimate tax on the system is the same. [/quote]

146

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
My whole argument can be summed up in short, if you want the government’s money (and if you are a non-contributer that’s who’s money it is) then you should have to jump through whatever hoops the government deems fit. In short, you are selling your ability to remain unmolested by big government. For the contributer, SS, medicare, VA benefits do not fall under “the government’s money”, but “the contributor’s money (or earnings in the case of VA benefits)” that was loaned to the government with the expectation of getting something in return when needed. [/quote]

Again, I agree. I think you are playing with fire though.

147

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[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. [/quote]

I think we’re talking past each other here.

I don’t want the government making a determination, whether it is based on funding or not, about who can or can’t have kids.

Again, if the guardian says one thing then so be it. I don’t think it is appropriate for the government to make that choice, period.

I’m sort of lost on where you are going with your posts.

148

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Those who benefit from some form of social welfare (96% of Americans) can’t be categorically lumped into a lazy collective. The 1% are still entitled to social security, as are the elderly to Medicare, and veterans to VA benefits. The irresponsible but non disabled individual is morally responsible for the consequences of their actions. The mentally disabled, however, are not, because they lack moral agency.

149

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Would you be ok with young children having sex? [/quote]

This is a bullshit argument and it isn’t going to work.

young children =/= mentally disabled people.

150

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Where in the constitution does it state that I have the right to get my dick wet and procreate? [/quote]

Right next to where it says the government can tell people whether or not they can have sex.

151

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
My whole argument can be summed up in short, if you want the government’s money (and if you are a non-contributer that’s who’s money it is) then you should have to jump through whatever hoops the government deems fit. [/quote]

I think the mentally handicapped should have to work manual labor in rock mines to get government money then.

152

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Do you want out society to act like wild animals?

[/quote]

Yes, when it fits his narrative he’ll compare anything to try and make his point.

153

[quote]Bismark wrote:
The irresponsible but non disabled individual is morally responsible for the consequences of their actions. The mentally disabled, however, are not, because they lack moral agency.[/quote]

But your social contract deems we take care of all of the above…

154

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Would you be ok with young children having sex? [/quote]

This is a bullshit argument and it isn’t going to work.

young children =/= mentally disabled people. [/quote]

Children lack moral agency. While the mentally disabled may be sexually adults, they nevertheless still possess the minds of children. Ergo, they are no more suited to sexual activity than the children who are their intellectual equals.

155

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Where in the constitution does it state that I have the right to get my dick wet and procreate? [/quote]

Right next to where it says the government can tell people whether or not they can have sex.
[/quote]

Again, no one is advocating governmental oversight of the sex lives of its citizens.

156

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
The irresponsible but non disabled individual is morally responsible for the consequences of their actions. The mentally disabled, however, are not, because they lack moral agency.[/quote]

But your social contract deems we take care of all of the above…

[/quote]

Where have I ever stated the above sentiment? I subscribe to a Hobbesian social contract.

157

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Children lack moral agency. [/quote]

Bullshit. When you have kids you’ll understand.

They lack impulse control.

In some instances, not in all, and not in all respects. Just because YOU deem them unfit for participation in YOUR special little social utopia doesn’t mean they don’t have the same inherent right to freedom that the rest of us have, which, unfortunately for your eugenics programs, includes acting on the biological instinct to have sex.

Ergo, you are full of shit like I said. The reasons to prevent those under 18 from having sex (which happens never in the real world) are by and large much more complex than “they lack whatever bullshit academic phrase I need to attach to my shitty idea in order to try and gain traction.”

158

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
My whole argument can be summed up in short, if you want the government’s money (and if you are a non-contributer that’s who’s money it is) then you should have to jump through whatever hoops the government deems fit. In short, you are selling your ability to remain unmolested by big government. For the contributer, SS, medicare, VA benefits do not fall under “the government’s money”, but “the contributor’s money (or earnings in the case of VA benefits)” that was loaned to the government with the expectation of getting something in return when needed. [/quote]

Again, I agree. I think you are playing with fire though. [/quote]

This is my position as well.

159

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Where in the constitution does it state that I have the right to get my dick wet and procreate? [/quote]

Right next to where it says the government can tell people whether or not they can have sex.
[/quote]

Again, no one is advocating governmental oversight of the sex lives of its citizens.[/quote]

Bullshit. You said on the last page that government extorts them with funding.

That is oversight.

160

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Children lack moral agency. [/quote]

Bullshit. When you have kids you’ll understand.

They lack impulse control.

In some instances, not in all, and not in all respects. Just because YOU deem them unfit for participation in YOUR special little social utopia doesn’t mean they don’t have the same inherent right to freedom that the rest of us have, which, unfortunately for your eugenics programs, includes acting on the biological instinct to have sex.

Ergo, you are full of shit like I said. The reasons to prevent those under 18 from having sex (which happens never in the real world) are by and large much more complex than “they lack whatever bullshit academic phrase I need to attach to my shitty idea in order to try and gain traction.”

[/quote]

Children or those with limited mental capacities are not held to the same legal standards as mentally competent adults. Do you know why?

Pedophiles are biologically wired to have sexual relations with children. Why can’t they act upon their biological imperatives? Children lack moral agency, that’s why. Inherent, as in a natural right to freedom? No such thing exists. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and one of the most profound documents in human history, but if was nonetheless social constructed by men, not gods.

I am not advocating euthanasia or forced sterilization of the mentally disabled, nor do I believe that the state should intervene to prevent such activity. Legal guardians, however, have a moral imperative to both their charges and the society that they inhabit to curtail sexual activity amongst a strata of society that cannot make responsible decisions in that domain.