User Tag List

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9
Results 81 to 88 of 88

Thread: Moral dilemma: what should be done with the severe mentally retarded?2003 days old

  1. #81
    QBS Banned
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    2016-10-15 @ 03:25
    Join Date
    2016-05-06
    Posts
    372
    Gender
    Phenotype
    castizo

    Default

    they should be disposed of if they have no way to contribute,and no family that'll support them

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Posts
    All threads
       
     

  3. #82
    Established Member
    Forest skier Evi's Avatar
    Last Online
    2017-10-13 @ 10:12
    Join Date
    2009-10-26
    Posts
    2,806
    Gender
    Age
    34
    mtDNA
    T2d
    Phenotype
    Uralid-mixed

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kwestos View Post
    Modern architecture considers it basically a norm nowadays to include platforms, special lifts, exit ways etc in any projects. It is very dear, not only nominally, but also if you calculate how many people will use it. A building is going to be entered by people on wheelchairs maybe once a day or maybe once a month. One could say that it is extravagance.
    Actually this infrastructure is very beneficial for parents with child strollers. The platforms, lifts etc. are just as beneficial for wheel chaired persons, as for normal babies or toddlers in strollers. A building might be entered by disabled people maybe once a day, but it is usually entered like 20 times per day by parents with child strollers. So no, this infrastructure isn't extravagance at all. It is beneficial for both disabled and "normally abled" people.

    Stairs can be real pain in a&&

    Last edited by Evi; 2016-10-06 at 14:47.

  4. #83
    Wiki Editor
    Established Member
    Fimbulvetr's owner Simi's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2012-10-27
    Posts
    780
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1a1a*
    mtDNA
    U5a1b
    Metaethnos
    Corded Ware
    Ethnicity
    Swedish/Czech
    Politics
    Authoritarian

    Default

    In such cases, fathers should have complete jurisdiction over his own offspring, like the paterfamilias of ancient Rome. That includes everything from terminating pregnancy to sending retarded children away to be cared for by religious sororities and the like.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Simi For This Useful Post:

    Cromagnorse (2016-10-06)

  6. #84
    Wiki Editor
    Established Member
    Slayer of sacred cows Cromagnorse's Avatar
    Last Online
    2017-10-07 @ 19:29
    Join Date
    2013-12-12
    Posts
    889
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1a Z282+ M458+
    mtDNA
    H1
    Metaethnos
    Aryan
    Ethnicity
    Suebi/Swede, Goth/Geat
    Politics
    Pan-Aryanism
    Religion
    *Dyḗws Ph₂tḗr
    Viking Kalmar Union Holy Roman Empire Commonwealth Lithuania Grand Duchy Russia

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thetick View Post
    I just can't understand the "kill them mentality". There is such a wide degree of limitations who gets to decide who lives?
    I never understood this argument. Who gets to decide that a country is to go to war? Who gets to decide who gets sentenced to prison or execution? Who gets to decide that you have to finance someone else's welfare/healthcare etc. via taxes? Who gets to decide the restrictions on ingredients in food products?

    Ultimately, whoever is in power, whether they do it themselves or delegate such power to someone else. That's not even an opinion or a pro-statist statement, but a fact of life. I'm baffled by the fact that so many people seem unable to grasp that.
    Last edited by Cromagnorse; 2016-10-06 at 21:23.
    Johan Bure (1568–1652), of the Bure kinship, was a Swedish royal antiquarian, polymath, runologist and mystic.

    He at one point proposed that Sweden should replace its current latin alphabet with a revived form of the older, nobler, and more mystical Germanic runes. He also argued in favour of Gothicism, along with overall Swedish cultural separatism from Rome.



    Je ne suis pas Charlie. Cependant, je veux voir un nouveau Charles Martel

  7. #85
    Established Member
    Member / DNA Hobbyist thetick's Avatar
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 13:39
    Join Date
    2011-12-27
    Posts
    2,226
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1b-SRY 2627 - A7080
    mtDNA
    H5a1f
    Phenotype
    Archaic Nomenclature
    Politics
    Not a Fan
    GEDmatch
    M202348
    United States Germany Poland Poland Volhynia Switzerland Scotland

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cromagnorse View Post
    I never understood this argument. Who gets to decide that a country is to go to war? Who gets to decide who gets sentenced to prison or execution? Who gets to decide that you have to finance someone else's welfare/healthcare etc. via taxes? Who gets to decide the restrictions on ingredients in food products?

    Ultimately, whoever is in power, whether they do it themselves or delegate such power to someone else. That's not even an opinion or a pro-statist statement, but a fact of life. I'm baffled by the fact that so many people seem unable to grasp that.
    Well there're are solid answer for all your questions.
    In my country all the following apply.
    President decides to go to war, but he is supposed to get Congressional approval though not required.
    Each state has clearly defined laws about executing criminals.
    Congress makes the laws which created federal taxes. Congress also votes on the spending.
    The food manufactures can put anything they want in the food they sell as long as it is approved as acceptable for human consumption by the FDA.

    All of the above are very clear answers to your questions.

    So we are back to ...I just can't understand the "kill them mentality". There is such a wide degree of limitations who gets to decide who lives? Killing anyone outside the conviction of a serious felony (murder or treason) is considered cruel and unusual punishment and violates the right of life in the Constitution. No one or group can violate the Constitution which is interpreted by the Judicial System.

    This "balance" of power between President, Congress and the Judicial System is implemented to prevent any one these becoming the ultimate decision maker .. ie the one in power as you call it.
    Last edited by thetick; 2016-10-07 at 06:20.

  8. #86
    Wiki Editor
    Established Member
    Slayer of sacred cows Cromagnorse's Avatar
    Last Online
    2017-10-07 @ 19:29
    Join Date
    2013-12-12
    Posts
    889
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1a Z282+ M458+
    mtDNA
    H1
    Metaethnos
    Aryan
    Ethnicity
    Suebi/Swede, Goth/Geat
    Politics
    Pan-Aryanism
    Religion
    *Dyḗws Ph₂tḗr
    Viking Kalmar Union Holy Roman Empire Commonwealth Lithuania Grand Duchy Russia

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thetick View Post
    Well there're are solid answer for all your questions.
    In my country all the following apply.
    President decides to go to war, but he is supposed to get Congressional approval though not required.
    Each state has clearly defined laws about executing criminals.
    Congress makes the laws which created federal taxes. Congress also votes on the spending.
    The food manufactures can put anything they want in the food they sell as long as it is approved as acceptable for human consumption by the FDA.

    All of the above are very clear answers to your questions.

    So we are back to ...I just can't understand the "kill them mentality". There is such a wide degree of limitations who gets to decide who lives? Killing anyone outside the conviction of a serious felony (murder or treason) is considered cruel and unusual punishment and violates the right of life in the Constitution. No one or group can violate the Constitution which is interpreted by the Judicial System.

    This "balance" of power between President, Congress and the Judicial System is implemented to prevent any one these becoming the ultimate decision maker .. ie the one in power as you call it.
    The constitution is just a piece of paper. It is not a self-effective law of nature but rather a law of society, which means 1) that it has to be enforced and, more importantly in this case, 2) its interpretation is in fact (possible to) subject to change. Since fetuses are not considered to be protected by the constitutional right to life (as in the case of abortion), why would it be impossible to do the same to severe mental retards?

    This is what I meant by not understanding your argument: Politics is the art of the possible. If people don't agree with it, then the attitudes simply need to be socially engineered via the mass media, religious congregations etc.

    It's worth pointing out that this is already happening. Compare the values promoted in a modern day newspaper compared to one from 1910, 1930, 1960, 1980 etc.

    This is a fact, regardless of our opinions.

    That said, I am (for ideologically strategical reasons) not a fan of the "living constitution" school of thought since a modern interpretation of the constitution would make it reflect the modern society which I loathe.

    Nor am I a fan of government controlled eugenics programs. I'm more in favor of the pater familias system which Simi promoted in post #83, since it would force people to take responsibility, leading to improved character and a strengthened, non-complacent society as a result. Also, it would lead to risk diversification ("not putting all the eggs into the same basket"): If the pater familias makes a detrimental choice, it will only harm him and his family. If, on the other hand, a mandatory government eugenics program makes a mistake, it will forcibly harm all of society.
    Johan Bure (1568–1652), of the Bure kinship, was a Swedish royal antiquarian, polymath, runologist and mystic.

    He at one point proposed that Sweden should replace its current latin alphabet with a revived form of the older, nobler, and more mystical Germanic runes. He also argued in favour of Gothicism, along with overall Swedish cultural separatism from Rome.



    Je ne suis pas Charlie. Cependant, je veux voir un nouveau Charles Martel

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Cromagnorse For This Useful Post:

    Alexander (2016-10-07)

  10. #87
    Established Member
    Crossfaded
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2011-06-01
    Posts
    2,030
    Gender
    Race
    Australoid
    Ethnicity
    Moluccan/Ashkenazi
    Phenotype
    Quadracial
    Religion
    Fairness
    Indonesia Timor Leste Papua New Guinea Israel Star of David Samoa Romania

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Curiouscat View Post
    Just..No!

    If they are born to this world, our duty is to care for them as best as possible and try to make their lives as easy as possible.
    Agree and disagree.If a person harms others or shows a malicious personality with no signs of remorse or changeability,perhaps corrective measures may be the best resort.

  11. #88
    Established Member
    Nordic Queen Silk's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2016-10-21
    Posts
    2,259
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Age
    25
    Race
    Europid
    Phenotype
    Nordid
    Metaethnos
    Germanic
    Politics
    Far Right
    Canada Netherlands Netherlands Antilles Commonwealth United States Canada Weed Flag

    Default

    We have no right to decide whether they are worthy of life or not, and those who have obligations to the mentally handicapped are not freed from their responsibilities because, their child didn't turn out the way they may have wanted, any more than a religious parent has a right to forsake their minor offspring because they've become atheist. Past those obligations, any further assistance is charity. It is thus up to the person being charitable to question, whether they think their actions are making the world a better place. That's a personal question, and we have no right to judge another's charity. Furthermore, we all run the risk everyday of becoming "useless". An accident that's completely not our fault could render us handicapped, and incapable of even moving about and feeding ourselves. And inevitably, at a certain age, we will all be unable to work or function as well as we can. Should a euthanasia-based policy ever be implemented with us around, I am very sure most of us will go out screaming to be spared, even if we did not have the physical strength to resist.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2012-03-30, 01:33
  2. classify retarded looking finnish guy
    By amenoameno in forum Classification Requests
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 2012-01-11, 20:52
  3. ethical dilemma
    By Kwestos in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 2011-11-13, 00:30
  4. A dilemma for the last white preservationist
    By Excel in forum Race & Ethnicity in Society
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 2009-11-09, 12:29

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
<