In the old days, families cared for the old people ...NOT the society.
And? Hey! Wait a minute.. Didn't you say your friends take care of their DS child? Ergo, the family are caring for their disabled child (and his family)... "NOT the society".
But you bring up an interesting contradiction. You don't think society should care for people with disabilities or deformities, instead arguing that money should go towards helping the "normal" people who might be sick or starving. What about the families of the sick and starving "normal" people Baron? Why can't they care for their "normal" sick and starving children? Or are you grasping at straws again. Looking for any little argument you can. Oh wait, here it is. Your utilitarian macro:
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual.
Yes. And then what? The many decided this little girl needed the operation. After all Baron, if we are unable to care and show compassion for one sick little girl, we've kind of gotten it wrong, haven't we? If we can simply say to that one little girl that she is worthless because she has deformities... how can we then say we care about the many little children out there? Are we to have a test to see who is "normal" to decide who gets the help?
But here is what niggles me with your little argument. You claim the family should care for their children, but here you now say the majority of sick children should get care instead of this one little girl. So which is it? Who should society help? Or should society simply do nothing and do as you say and only have family to help? Which goes against your utilitarian argument, does it not?
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual.
Again? Saying it is so does not make it so Baron.
If the family could care for the child for it's entire life, or set up a trust fund or other such means for monetary support, for it's entire life, it might be considered. But probably not.
So you think your friends should toss out their DS child with his family? Or kill them just in case, god forbid, your precious tax dollars might go to helping them? My, aren't you a caring individual?
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual.
x 2
Aww.. Baron, senility is setting in old son. You keep repeating yourself.
And we're running out of fresh, potable water.
You drink potty water?
Dude! You need to report your retirement home to the authorities immediately!
We're running out of oil and natural gas. We've polluted every part of the planet. We're running out of arable land. We're running out of places to put people. The polar ice caps are melting. Animals all over the world have been driven out of the natural habitats. .... and I could go on and on.
So you are advocating the mass slaughter of everyone with disabilities because you want the pollution to stop and you don't want to run out of gas for your car?
I know! If you want to help the environment and the animals out there, stop driving your car, stop clearing land and destroying the natural habitat. In short, stop being so greedy. Kind of "hippo-critical" for you to complain about land clearing and destruction of natural habitat when you are an architect who designs buildings that go on said cleared land.
At what point will the ideal of "individuality" cause disaster for everyone? ...when humans are standing shoulder to shoulder all over the planet? Will the individual still be so important?
You tell me. You're the one complaining that this one little girl is robbing you of gas and "potable" water. You're the one advocating the mass slaughter of children born with disabilities. And all for your own selfish reason.
