Severely retarded people

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Balder1, Feb 9, 2003.

Page 5 of 10
  1. Hapsburg

    Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,229
    I assumed that, since you agreed with him, you advocated the things he was.
    Sorry for the confusion.

    And, they are less sick if it's a 18-25 year old womsn, because women that wear skimpy clothing are practically asking for it to happen to them. They shouldn't make themselves into such an attractive target. Still,, though, rapists are sick to a big extent, no matter the age.

    "Okay, ma'am. You are not a whore...but you are wearing a whore's uniform, and that is some confusing shit."
    -Dave Chappelle.
     
    Hapsburg, Aug 29, 2005
    #81

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Cottontop3000

    Cottontop3000 Death Beckoned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    Where do you draw the line? Who are you to draw the line?
    In the u.s.a., who is the "State?" The people, supposedly.

    Who is the "state?" In the u.s.a.? The state is the "people." Who are the "people?" The people are the masses. The masses are the moms, dads, brothers, sisters, etc., etc. who apparently do the voting. Who's going to tell the masses that they have to take care of their own? Especially when they seem to be too ignorant to even think for themselves.
     
    Cottontop3000, Aug 29, 2005
    #82

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I'm sorry? Where do I draw the line in regards to the fact that if someone has a child, then they should be able to take care of it and if they can't then their extended family and friends should and in the event of that failing then the State (as in the Government/welfare system) should take up the slack? So tell me Cotton, who do you think should care for any child that is born?

    Heh! The "State" is usually deemed to be the Government Cotton. Think of the welfare system who give out the checks each month. Think of the State as the people you elect into office to do your bidding and who then see to the running of your town/state/country...

    You do not appear to be making any sense here Cotton. So are you somehow saying that the 'masses' should not take care of their own because no one has a right to tell them to do so? I think in most instances, the masses know that if they have a child, then they must care for it. And in most instances they do and if they have difficulties, then their families and friends do step in to help them. In many instances when the parent(s) fail to care for the child, the State will step in and see about placing the child with another family member (eg grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc) and if they aren't able to care for that child, then the State places that child into the foster system. That is pretty much how it goes Cotton. In that sense, the Government.. as in the people you elect.. and the Government departments are the ones to step in and tell "the people" that they must try to take care of their own.
     
    Bells, Aug 29, 2005
    #83

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Heh!

    No problems. Look I would never agree that the State should prevent or stop someone from having children. I don't think I could ever agree to the forced sterilisation of people. But if someone does have a child, then they should be held responsible for it. And if they are unable to do that, then their family and friends (extended circle of family I guess) should take up the slack of the parents and if that also fails, then... and only then.. should the State step in and help in the upbringing of that child and help care for that child.
     
    Bells, Aug 29, 2005
    #84
  8. Hapsburg

    Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,229
    Well, in communism, suppsoedly the Workers control everything.
    All Is Not As It Appears, Cottontop.

    The government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, however it wants, with no penalty under law because...they are the law. They are the government, and they do as they please behind your back.
     
    Hapsburg, Aug 29, 2005
    #85
  9. Cottontop3000

    Cottontop3000 Death Beckoned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    You have fallen into my little web, Bells, but because I have enjoyed you a "little" in the past, I am going to give you a chance to scamper on out with no serious harm done. I seriously don't want to hurt you, so please scamper out.
     
    Cottontop3000, Aug 29, 2005
    #86
  10. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Huh? :bugeye: What? Do you think you're some kind of daddy long legs spider with your little web?

    Cotton, to use your own words.. 'who are you' to think you can hurt me, or anyone else for that matter, on here? This is a forum Cotton. People discuss, debate and argue about things.

    If you don't like what is being said, then discuss the issue. Do not threaten me with 'hurt' because I've been here too long to take you seriously when you start saying such things. What are you going to do? Swear at me? Threaten me or something? LOL!

    If you don't think that the family of a child should be responsible for that child, then say so and then say why. Otherwise, take a walk, calm the hell down and get a grip..
     
    Bells, Aug 29, 2005
    #87
  11. Cottontop3000

    Cottontop3000 Death Beckoned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    You are good up until you use the word "should," three times.

    Here in america, as america is what I know by wrote, the "state" is "we, the people." You know, "in order to form a more perfect union" and all. The "state" is us. all of us. your immediate response to my critique is to say that I am childlike. that i don't know what a "state" is. web number 1.

    Appear is the key word. Fuck, I hate this shit. Are you so fucking warped that you would say that because this kid's parents don't want to take care of him/her, that you would blame the fucking kid for his parents' lack of interest? I don't think you are, so I will ask you, where do you draw the fucking line?

    What if they can't care for the child(ren)? What if they are Nigerian? Somali? Ethiopian? Sudanese? Rwandan? No fucking money? No fucking food? No help from "rich" nations? Are you trying to limit this discussion to fucking 1st world countries? Where the fuck does 1st vs. 3rd world nations come from? Are you trying to say that only "retarded" kids from developed countries are deserving of state-sponsored assistance, even then?

    SO what is your fucking point?

    Deluded bitch!!

    I see. moronic bitch.
     
    Cottontop3000, Aug 29, 2005
    #88
  12. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Did I say that one should blame the child? On the contrary. I think maybe you should reread what has been said and try again..

    What in the world are you on about? Did I limit this discussion? Did I actually say anywhere that only mentally disabled children from developed countries should receive help? I don't believe I did. So unless you're reading between lines that aren't there, you are on a different tangent to what is actually being discussed.

    I think the question should be what is your point Cotton. Because all you've managed to do so far as swear and abuse me for saying that the families should take care of their children and if they aren't able to do so, then help from the outside should be given. If you are unable to understand that, then that is your problem.

    Aren't you a lovely little specimen...

    Tell me, is this where you now tell me where you live so that I come there for you to beat me up? After all, that is your style if someone disagrees with you, is it not?
     
    Bells, Aug 29, 2005
    #89
  13. Cottontop3000

    Cottontop3000 Death Beckoned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    I understand you just fine. Notice what you just said? It only took me 2-3 posts to get you to come around to the right way of thinking.
    You know where to find me.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Cottontop3000, Aug 29, 2005
    #90
  14. stretched

    stretched a junkie's broken promise Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,244
    Yo Cotton,

    * I hear you. It seems whats missing in society today is a bit (actually a shitload) of good old fashioned "humanism". A bit of good old "giving a shit" for others less fortunate.
     
    stretched, Aug 29, 2005
    #91
  15. Baron Max

    Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    So if the people are so "less fortunate", then why are they bringing children into the world? Shouldn't they, too, show a little "humanism" for any possible children that they bred?

    Or does "give a shit" and "humanism" only work for those who are more fortunate and smart enough not to have children that they can't afford?

    Why should anyone take care of someone else's children?

    Baron Max
     
    Baron Max, Aug 29, 2005
    #92
  16. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Cotton, had you bothered to actually read what I had been saying all along, you'd have noticed that my statement had not actually changed and still hadn't after the 2-3 posts.. even in response to your psychopathic rantings.

    No thank you..
     
    Bells, Aug 30, 2005
    #93
  17. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    One reason could be that in most places where poverty is that severe, the religious charity organisations which work to help those people are telling them about the evilness of using contraception... Look at Africa as an example...

    If they can afford it and are educated enough, maybe yes. Who actually knows Baron. But would you feel comfortable living in a world that prevented people from having children based on their earning capacity? I know I wouldn't.

    Why shouldn't they? Ask that question to the people who have adopted children.

    I know that if something bad happened to my sister in law and her husband, that I'd gladly care for her children... just as she would care for ours if something happened to us. That would be the same for any children amongst our family and also our friends.. If someone in our family or within our circle of friends fell onto hard times or became ill, etc, and was unable to financially or physically take care of their children.. the rest us would pitch in and help them. People do do these things Baron, in most societies..
     
    Bells, Aug 30, 2005
    #94
  18. Russ723

    Russ723 Relatively Hairless Ape Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    158
    No amount of natural selection will eliminate congenital retardation. There will always be random mutation.
     
    Russ723, Aug 30, 2005
    #95
  19. stretched

    stretched a junkie's broken promise Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,244
    Quote Baron Max:
    "Why should anyone take care of someone else's children?"

    * Cause kids are cute! Besides I must have been, cos I was adopted.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    stretched, Sep 2, 2005
    #96
  20. stretched

    stretched a junkie's broken promise Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,244
    See Baron, Bells could have been my Mama!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    stretched, Sep 2, 2005
    #97
  21. Baron Max

    Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    They don't know that fucking causes another child? ...which they can't feed, cloth and house due to their poverty?

    Well I would! But notice the hypocricy ....we're sooooo against preventing those who can't afford children to have them, YET, as soon as they do, we cry and whine BECAUSE they can't take care of them!! And worse, we try to make it out as "our responsibilty" to help, when we're prevented from "helping" them NOT have the kid in the first place!

    Yes, in a society, there should be limits on child-bearing! Those limits should be the ability to care for the kids that they produce. If not, all we're doing is perpetuating (and increasing!) the very things that cause them not to be able to care for the kids.

    And perhaps they shouldn't!

    Baron Max
     
    Baron Max, Sep 2, 2005
    #98
  22. Cottontop3000

    Cottontop3000 Death Beckoned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    I'll keep this simple, from now on. When did you, Baron, if you did, have kids? How old were you? How much money did you (and your wife?) make at this time?

    So, Baron, are you going to decide, now, who can and can't have kids? Based solely on their income level?

    When did you have your kids? If you did? That's all I want to know right now from you big bad baron.

    Set some hard and firm rules for us then, baron. Who, exactly, should be "allowed" to have kids, and who, exactly, shouldn't be "allowed" to have kids? Give us some hard and fast rules.
     
    Cottontop3000, Sep 3, 2005
    #99
  23. Nysse

    Nysse God is dead Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    201
    I agree with Baron.

    And I think that if it can be established that a couple will not be able to care and provide for their child financially, because of a syndrome or deformity the child will have, then the couple should not be allowed to produce a child.

    Also, if a couple knows that either of them carry a Hereditary Disease, such as Hereditary Spastic Paraplegia, that will ultimately affect their child, then they should be prohibited from conceiving as well. It is harsh, but only fair for the child that will be affected.
     
    Nysse, Sep 3, 2005
    #100
Page 5 of 10

Share This Page