Sum Deus Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Why must we keep alive the minds of those who are nothing more than shells? Vegetative individuals are more of an ethical weight on the back of America than an ethical balance! And while we are at it, why must the mentally retarded stay on this earth? They are a burden to society; we do not know how to treat them, and so we try to avoid them. Those few who live with and around them feel pity and shame. We will only reach a peaceful equilibrium, often called by the name "Utopia", if we correct these imbalances in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Peon Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Why must we keep alive the minds of those who are nothing more than shells? Vegetative individuals are more of an ethical weight on the back of America than an ethical balance! And while we are at it, why must the mentally retarded stay on this earth? They are a burden to society; we do not know how to treat them, and so we try to avoid them. Those few who live with and around them feel pity and shame. We will only reach a peaceful equilibrium, often called by the name "Utopia", if we correct these imbalances in the world. Because they have normal familys that love them, and most of that sounds like Nazism. There are other ways which are much more humane to deal with those issues then eradication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sum Deus Posted September 14, 2005 Author Share Posted September 14, 2005 Like what? Anything we do to help ease the burden of their existence only makes it harder to bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Peon Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Like what? Anything we do to help ease the burden of their existence only makes it harder to bear. Erm, may I suggest you spend a day with a family that has a mentally retarded in it? Then maybe you can obtain some empathy. You do understand down syndrome is a genetic misfire and not hereditary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commie_Pinko Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 If you can afford to take care of them, and they are happy, there's nothing to be concerned about. If they cannot, however, it's not unethical to let the person good or to Euthanize. There is no moral obligation to do something that's either not possible or too costly. To have a moral obligation implies a reasonable can. If the family cannot support the individual, it is not the duty of the state to take on totally useless wards who will ammount to little. This only applies to the severely retarded, as many retarded can entertain jobs and other activities. In such circumstances, the severely mentally retarded has a Duty to Die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sum Deus Posted September 14, 2005 Author Share Posted September 14, 2005 To change your perspective a little, my brother has been mentally retarded since birth. We have done all we could to facilitate his emergence into the real world, but anything we do only makes the problem worse. He is beginning to realize he is different, and is going into a state of constant depression. Pity is no excuse for love, and no one loves a retarded individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Peon Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 To change your perspective a little, my brother has been mentally retarded since birth. We have done all we could to facilitate his emergence into the real world, but anything we do only makes the problem worse. He is beginning to realize he is different, and is going into a state of constant depression. Pity is no excuse for love, and no one loves a retarded individual. Wrong. YOU dont love a retarded individual. Other familys do. It seems to me the issue is not the removal of an invalid, but the hatred that I am assuming you have for your younger brothers burden on your family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sum Deus Posted September 14, 2005 Author Share Posted September 14, 2005 Why must he cause stress to everyone around him? The world is better off in its entirety if he were not to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Peon Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Why must he cause stress to everyone around him? The world is better off in its entirety if he were not to exist. He doesnt "cause stress." You are stressed because of him. Thats the difference you need to realize. And I fail to see how the world would be better. In whos mind? I actually find mentally retarded people entertaining and fun to be around in measured doses, and they are strangers. If it were my little brother, I am sure I would love him, just like a love my dog who just ate my friggin lunch when I wasnt looking the other day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sum Deus Posted September 14, 2005 Author Share Posted September 14, 2005 ENTERTAINING? What hipocrites! You say that they are individuals and that they deserve to live and yet you equate them with a dog! "Entertaining... fun... small doses." Try LIVING with one at your side for years and then come back and argue my point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Peon Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 ENTERTAINING? What hipocrites! You say that they are individuals and that they deserve to live and yet you equate them with a dog! "Entertaining... fun... small doses." Try LIVING with one at your side for years and then come back and argue my point! Erm you are building assumptions based on a single word. Entertaining can encompass a large array of stimulations. I used my Dog as an example to show that although he is a pain in the ass most of the time, I still love him. By the way, I still dont know if you realize even if you killed all retarded people today, more would be born tomorrow. Its a genetic misfire not a hereditary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sum Deus Posted September 14, 2005 Author Share Posted September 14, 2005 They are not suited for this world. Taking the feeding tube out of good ol' Terri was a step in the right direction! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Peon Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 They are not suited for this world. Taking the feeding tube out of good ol' Terri was a step in the right direction! Perhaps not alone, but with our aid they can be suited for the world, if by suited you mean having the ability to survive. And you avoided my previous post. However, in regards to people with severe brain damage who are clearly vegetables with no chance of recovery, I do think that death is the humane thing to do. But not to semi-sentient mental retards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sum Deus Posted September 14, 2005 Author Share Posted September 14, 2005 Your previous post states that mentally retarded individuals will still be produced by the people even if all the ones living now were removed. This is true, however, it must be like weeding a garden; everyone knows that even though they pull out all the weeds one day, more will grow back soon. It will just be an ongoing job. There is nothing wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Peon Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Your previous post states that mentally retarded individuals will still be produced by the people even if all the ones living now were removed. This is true, however, it must be like weeding a garden; everyone knows that even though they pull out all the weeds one day, more will grow back soon. It will just be an ongoing job. There is nothing wrong with that. Let me put it this way then. If you came to euthenize my little retarded brother (just an example, I do not have a retarded person in my family), you would do it over my dead body. So now you are faced with a dilemma, now you must kill a perfectly able, perfectly sentient member of the species to get to an invalid one. What now? What if my whole family and all my friends support me? Kill them all too just to kill that one individual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sum Deus Posted September 14, 2005 Author Share Posted September 14, 2005 That's utterly and completely ridiculous. If this becomes law, and you stand in the government's way, you get punished. If you don't like the law, you move out of the country. It's as simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Peon Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 That's utterly and completely ridiculous. If this becomes law, and you stand in the government's way, you get punished. If you don't like the law, you move out of the country. It's as simple as that. No its not as simple as that. Reread my post and you will realize the complexity of it. I wont be punished, I would be dead. I realize perception is reality, and I have soiled my soul by trying to understand your point of view, but I only see anger and hatred for wanting this. I dont see with our current biological makeup how this would ever become law anyhow. Not unless we evolved alot of our emotional makeup out of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sum Deus Posted September 14, 2005 Author Share Posted September 14, 2005 "Alot" is not a word. "Not unless we evolved alot of or emotional makeup out of us" is horribly mangled and should not even be allowed to be called a sentence. Please remember that improper spelling and grammar lowers one's credibility drastically, especially on message boards such as this. In regards to your post; it is a simple as that. If you don't want to pay taxes and you say, "You're going through me if you want to get to my money," the government will swiftly but firmly move you aside and take the money that they need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Peon Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 "Alot" is not a word."Not unless we evolved alot of or emotional makeup out of us" is horribly mangled and should not even be allowed to be called a sentence. Please remember that improper spelling and grammar lowers one's credibility drastically' date=' especially on message boards such as this. In regards to your post; it is a simple as that. If you don't want to pay taxes and you say, "You're going through me if you want to get to my money," the government will swiftly but firmly move you aside and take the money that they need.[/quote'] The "Ad-Hominem" Fallacy: this is also known as "attacking the messenger, not the message". One of the most common forms of the ad-hominem fallacy in online debates is to poke fun at someone's spelling errors and then conclude that the person's points are wrong. You also inserted a Strawman Fallacy. Well good luck with your euthenasia plan. Maybe some other forumers can support your view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commie_Pinko Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I don't like his plan either =D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sum Deus Posted September 14, 2005 Author Share Posted September 14, 2005 Ok, I see the Ad-Hominem, and I am sorry; my temper was getting a little out of control. As for the strawman fallacy, I see how my analogy could be interpreted as such, although I think it is basically the same position as your proposed one, no easier to knock down. If the government enforced my idea as law, and you said, "You're not removing my little brother until you go through me and my family," they would simply move you safely out of the way and get the job done. That is how the government functions. There is no denying that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 ever considered what they Do for us? Why they make most people feel uncomfortable when around these souls? the teach us something, something we don`t like to admit or realise in the comfort of our own existance, they teach about our own mortality, of how things could have been so different had such and such an incident not occured, how tenuos and fragile our comfortable reality is. "There for the grace God, go I" people don`t like being hit in the face with a large reality stick, easier to sweep it under the carpet and pretend it didn`t happen (or isn`t happening). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 You can't have a quick fix to such a complicated issue, and you are in no position to judge how sentinent a retarded person is, unless you can see the world through their eyes. The fact you noticed your brother has become depressed surely shows he holds a level of emotion and cognition. I can't fully relate with your position, and I understand it must be hard work, but I'm shocked you have this attitude towards the handicapped, especially a member of your family. My Mum used to teach a class of children with varying disabilities who I had the pleasure to spend the day with, and they were a delight to be with...and as YT2095 has stated it's a humbling and I feel needed experience. I realise the debate is concentrating on the mentally challenged, but I'm wondering, if you personally dictated who has the right to live...going by (from what I've read) face value, where would someone like Stephen Hawking be now ? If anyone, (and I don't really believe this, but have thought about it) deserves eradication, it's the people who are perfectly fit and able to provide for society, and just can't be bothered and would rather feed off society. However I believe everyone has a right to live as you can never truly know what potential they have, and I feel there is a lesson to be learnt from any individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 i have a friend who is retarded and have been friends with him since before i can remember. are you saying that i should just stand aside so someone could murder him? i should just let somebody, who has probably never met him, decide that he should be killed because "he is a burden"? This does sound a lot like the "social cleansing" of the nazi's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Your previous post states that mentally retarded individuals will still be produced by the people even if all the ones living now were removed. This is true, however, it must be like weeding a garden; everyone knows that even though they pull out all the weeds one day, more will grow back soon. It will just be an ongoing job. There is nothing wrong with that.Who's to judge the level of retardation that needs to be cleansed? Shall we let you play God, Sum Deus? Everyone from your brother down needs to go. Anyone with less retardation need to be exterminated? How much less? Will you set up some sort of test? I realize that I'm using a slippery slope fallacy here, but in this case I see validation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now