Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 95 of 95
  1. #81  
    @FrozenCode.

    Do you have pets? (I'm certain you don't have kids).

    With your theory of money sucking parasites, shouldn't ALL kids be put down? I mean diapers and formula are expensive. Not to mention missed productivity at work when they are sick and you take them to the Dr.? (what the heck were your and my parents thinking). How about the cost to tax payers for the school systems. Sure some kids leave school and better the world, but most will get a 9-5 that will disappear anyway in your cynical world. Then they can collect unemployment (blood sucking jerks). maybe they'll become so depressed that they will be unable to work and collect Medicare and get food stamps, maybe some disabilitiy benefits. We should go down to the unemployment center and kill everyone in line, we'll call it a prevenitive measure.
    Let's just stop all births right now, things will be right as rain in 75 years or so when humanity stops.
    BTW did I understand you right that if you ever became a burden on society you would off your self? If so don't collect Social Security ever.

    QUICK POLL:
    How many people think I should kill my autistic son because he has cost taxpayers money?

    I know there is 1 for and 1 againist right now.
    Nik<hr>M100 --->M125 --->M500 --->Treo300 --->Sprint-Treo600 --->Sprint-Treo650
    <hr>
    Rom 8:31 <'><
    <marquee bgcolor=red width=150 height=5>
    1 in 150 babies born today will have some form of Autism
    </marquee>
    Unlocking Autism Mission Trips to Honduras My Space
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by FrozenCode
    And there will be no deleting of FrozenCode, thank you very much

    I do believe the opposite of your post (if I had not already made it clear ). I very much support the idea of purging those who do not return a "profit". They are the kind of people who, regardless of their effort, are more a burden on the shoulders of taxpayers etc. than "a blessing from God". Everything else in this world is motivated by money, this case should be no different.
    Sounds like a believe held by Hitler too:

    The Nazis claimed that the social and economic problems that Germany experienced in the 1920s and early 1930s were due in part to the weakening of the population created by an unfair burden.

    Nazi propaganda in the form of posters, news-reels and cinema films portrayed disabled people as "useless eaters" and people who had "lives unworthy of living". The propaganda stressed the high cost of supporting disabled people, and suggested that there was something unhealthy or even unnatural about society paying for this. One famous Nazi propaganda film, Ich Klage An (I Accuse), told the story of a doctor who killed his disabled wife. The film put forward an argument for "mercy killings". Other propaganda, including poster campaigns, portrayed disabled people as freaks.

    excerpt from...Germany and the Camp System by Dr. Doris Bergen
    The "Euthanasia" Program

    During the following year, 1939, Nazi authorities began deadly attacks on one of their major targets: people considered handicapped. Rather than sending them to concentration camps where they would have to be housed and fed along with people who were being held and then sometimes released, disabled people were taken from hospitals and other institutions and sent to designated locations for "special treatment." That "special treatment" was killing. In just a few years, with the cooperation of scores of doctors, social workers, hospital administrators, and others, Nazi officials organized and carried out the murder of at least 70,000 Germans deemed "unfit for life." To the extent possible, the authorities tried to hide these killings from the rest of the population, so that family members would not protest.
    Of couse maybe none of that really happened, maybe it's a hoax.
    Last edited by leardvr; 08/05/2006 at 02:00 PM. Reason: added emphsis
    Nik<hr>M100 --->M125 --->M500 --->Treo300 --->Sprint-Treo600 --->Sprint-Treo650
    <hr>
    Rom 8:31 <'><
    <marquee bgcolor=red width=150 height=5>
    1 in 150 babies born today will have some form of Autism
    </marquee>
    Unlocking Autism Mission Trips to Honduras My Space
  3. #83  
    I believe my post also said caring for an infant is different because that care is reciprocated in the adult's old age and is not suported he government. If you think my ideas parallel Hitler's ideology that's fine. I am, however, entitled to my own opinion. It is at your discretion to disregard it. I did not tell you to shoot your son. I am providing support as to why these babies should be screened out, to prevent the need for you to shoot your son. They are two different things.


  4. #84  
    Also:

    School stimulates the economy in the long run. Autism doesn't. Diapers and baby supplies create jobs. Autism creates jobs but in the end since these kids can't hold down a real job, cancels itself out and possibly goes in the red with you 100k quote.


  5. #85  
    And if I remember correctly, Hitler was one of the greatest dictators of all time along with Mussolini, Franco, and Stalin.


  6. #86  
    Frozencode,

    I think your argument fails even on a purely pragmatic level. Look at it this way: it has been said that smooth seas do not make skilled sailors and that what doesn't kill us can only make us stronger. Quaint sayings, but they hold a lot of truth. What you're advocating is not fighting the adversity of diseases, and gaining all of the benefits that go along with it, but killing the diseased. What that will lead to is laziness and complacency at best, ambivalence and intolerance at worst.

    Further, human progress is built on human accomplishments. And human accomplishments are not only the product of healthy people. Your definition would seem to discount from the list of human accomplishments people like Einstein who may have had Aspergers Syndrome, Isaac Newton who had epilepsy and possibly the same form of autism as Einstein, Stephen Hawkins who has ALS. That's not to mention people who have contributed greatly to the pleasure of being human like Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, and many others. In the case of many of these people, their contribution to society was not in spite of their disabilities but because of them. The problem with "screening out" people with genetic tendencies for disability is that you don't know who will be a "burden on shoulders of the taxpayers" and who will be the one to push our understanding of this world to the next level.

    I think its clear that I'm not advocating the idea that human worth is based on one's ability to contribute to society. I'm just trying to show that even by that definition the argument for anything even remotely like eugenics fails.
  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by FrozenCode
    I did not tell you to shoot your son.
    .......this conversation took place on page two (posts 30 and 31)

    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    So it would be okay to euthanize an autistic child of, say, five years old if it had become evident that the parents couldn't afford to care for him/her?
    Quote Originally Posted by FrozenCode
    yes
    So I can surmise that if at some point I can't afford my son I should kill him. Let me ask this. If you or I fail to prepare for retirement or our pension/401k fail and our kids didn't plan on having to care for us should they kill us? We benefited society at one point but no longer. You've already said you think you should die, but is it fair to your kids to make that decision. Assuming you aren't able to for any given reason. I would argue that the love you give/gave your kids deems you worthy of a life that plays itself out. I can't answer what is or isn't a quality of live that is worth living, neither can you.

    Quote Originally Posted by FrozenCode
    School stimulates the economy in the long run.

    Schools stimulate the economy. OK, they create jobs and generally raise property values. But aren't they dependent on tax dollars to operate? So it's a big circle. If the argument is that the graduates are what stimulates the economy it would have to be shown to me how the sum total of, say the City of Columbus', graduates have given back more then they received in tax dollars to the greater good. I'd bet, if that study could be done it would hold true that in most public schools that more is spent in 12 years per student then they give back. Sure good schools in good areas might have graduates that become successful. But I haven't had to pay income taxes in 9 years (lots of deductions and adjustment). I graduated 15 years ago. And those other 6 years I maybe paid a sum total of $3000 in taxes. I use income tax because everyone one of us, drop out or not, (in OH at least) pay sales tax. I do own a home, but it was built 120 years ago, and my property taxes are less then the expenditure of just 1 of my kids. I have 5, so I am therefore a leach on the system. With luck maybe 2 of my kids will be very successful and be able to offset the care their brother receives now. So please give me an argument as to how schools are, in the grand scheme of things in the black and not a burden to society. Right now I feel they are a price we must shoulder. That study has been done, and a lack of an education is more costly than the education itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForzenCode
    Diapers and baby supplies create jobs. Autism creates jobs but in the end since these kids can't hold down a real job, cancels itself out and possibly goes in the red with you 100k quote
    I'll give that baby products create jobs somewhere. I'd say none of the manufacturing jobs are in the US. Yes we do get retail job creation and everything from shipping to marketing that goes along with that. But don't long term care facilities create good paying jobs too? Nurses', Drs, contractors, drug manufactures, on and on. All of which is paid for by tax payers. So what if the patient doesn't contribute, if it weren't for him none of the other tax payers would have a jobs.


    Quote Originally Posted by FrozenCode
    And if I remember correctly, Hitler was one of the greatest dictators of all time along with Mussolini, Franco, and Stalin.
    Your right Hitler was a great (I understand you said dictator) leader. His fault (IMO) was his believes. You can make a good/bad leader argument for anyone I suppose; Bin Laden, Keneddy, Clinton, Bush, Mandela, Saddam, Christ, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Kahn...............it never stops. I simply pointed out a view point you may or may not have known. You will never hear from me that you are not entitled to your opinion. The 1st amendment gives rights to the speaker not the listener. I'm not protected from being insulted. I will gladly stand up with you and die for that right.

    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    human accomplishments are not only the product of healthy people. Your definition would seem to discount from the list of human accomplishments people like Einstein who may have had Aspergers Syndrome, Isaac Newton who had epilepsy and possibly the same form of autism as Einstein, Stephen Hawkins who has ALS. That's not to mention people who have contributed greatly to the pleasure of being human like Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, and many others. In the case of many of these people, their contribution to society was not in spite of their disabilities but because of them. The problem with "screening out" people with genetic tendencies for disability is that you don't know who will be a "burden on shoulders of the taxpayers" and who will be the one to push our understanding of this world to the next level.
    Dang, I wish I had said that. Thank you.
    Last edited by leardvr; 08/06/2006 at 07:27 AM. Reason: spelling
    Nik<hr>M100 --->M125 --->M500 --->Treo300 --->Sprint-Treo600 --->Sprint-Treo650
    <hr>
    Rom 8:31 <'><
    <marquee bgcolor=red width=150 height=5>
    1 in 150 babies born today will have some form of Autism
    </marquee>
    Unlocking Autism Mission Trips to Honduras My Space
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Frozencode,

    I think your argument fails even on a purely pragmatic level. Look at it this way: it has been said that smooth seas do not make skilled sailors and that what doesn't kill us can only make us stronger. Quaint sayings, but they hold a lot of truth. What you're advocating is not fighting the adversity of diseases, and gaining all of the benefits that go along with it, but killing the diseased. What that will lead to is laziness and complacency at best, ambivalence and intolerance at worst.

    Further, human progress is built on human accomplishments. And human accomplishments are not only the product of healthy people. Your definition would seem to discount from the list of human accomplishments people like Einstein who may have had Aspergers Syndrome, Isaac Newton who had epilepsy and possibly the same form of autism as Einstein, Stephen Hawkins who has ALS. That's not to mention people who have contributed greatly to the pleasure of being human like Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, and many others. In the case of many of these people, their contribution to society was not in spite of their disabilities but because of them. The problem with "screening out" people with genetic tendencies for disability is that you don't know who will be a "burden on shoulders of the taxpayers" and who will be the one to push our understanding of this world to the next level.

    I think its clear that I'm not advocating the idea that human worth is based on one's ability to contribute to society. I'm just trying to show that even by that definition the argument for anything even remotely like eugenics fails.

    I'm glad you pointed that out. My argument is then flawed, as you have said. However, I still stand by screening out the embryos. My apparently, Hitler-ish view of killing the disabled would most likely need to be amended with a twenty year "trial period". However, I will leave that theory for now and respond only to questions and comments as it exists now. I know I'm kind of changing my arguement here, but I still stand by my ideology. Screening out embryo's with autism is, to my knowledge, still the parents' decision. If they screen out the embryo, they get a health child who grows up and gets a job. If they don't they get a child who could potentially cost a lot of money and be a burden on society. He would get made fun of in elementary school, get beat up in middle school, and maybe even drop out of high school. Or, as hoovs pointed out, he could grow up to be the next Einstein. I wonder though, what are the chances that a new Einstein could be born? I can't even remember a similar figure in the past fifty years (say Dean Kamen and I will hunt you down and beat you with a potato). I'd argue that it would be extremely rare for that kind of a turn out. Therefore, screening out the child is certainly more justified than letting him or her live.

    Quote Originally Posted by leardvr
    .......this conversation took place on page two (posts 30 and 31)
    I stand corrected.

    Quote Originally Posted by leardvr
    So I can surmise that if at some point I can't afford my son I should kill him. Let me ask this. If you or I fail to prepare for retirement or our pension/401k fail and our kids didn't plan on having to care for us should they kill us? We benefited society at one point but no longer.
    If you no longer benefit society, and need government assistance, then yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by leardvr
    You've already said you think you should die, but is it fair to your kids to make that decision. Assuming you aren't able to for any given reason. I would argue that the love you give/gave your kids deems you worthy of a life that plays itself out.
    The kids wouldn't make that decision, unless either I or they are paying entirely for my care, it's time to pull the plug. No decision making involved. Like I said before, love isn't a resource, money is. And the resources they would be using to keep me alive, could be used for someone else who can actually afford it.

    Quote Originally Posted by leardvr
    Schools stimulate the economy. OK, they create jobs and generally raise property values. But aren't they dependent on tax dollars to operate? So it's a big circle. If the argument is that the graduates are what stimulates the economy it would have to be shown to me how the sum total of, say the City of Columbus', graduates have given back more then they received in tax dollars to the greater good. I'd bet, if that study could be done it would hold true that in most public schools that more is spent in 12 years per student then they give back. Sure good schools in good areas might have graduates that become successful.
    You're right, it would require a lot more research. And since I'm too lazy to do it myself, I'll give you that point. However my immediate response would be that students could either go to a private school, or we could merge schools which do not break even.

    Quote Originally Posted by leardvr
    I graduated 15 years ago. And those other 6 years I maybe paid a sum total of $3000 in taxes. I use income tax because everyone one of us, drop out or not, (in OH at least) pay sales tax. I do own a home, but it was built 120 years ago, and my property taxes are less then the expenditure of just 1 of my kids. I have 5, so I am therefore a leach on the system. With luck maybe 2 of my kids will be very successful and be able to offset the care their brother receives now. So please give me an argument as to how schools are, in the grand scheme of things in the black and not a burden to society. Right now I feel they are a price we must shoulder. That study has been done, and a lack of an education is more costly than the education itself.
    How can you live like that. Knowing that other people are paying for you. People like you cause taxes for the rest of us to go up. In a way you're more than a leach on the system. You're a parasite. I can't say I have any respect for that. I'm sure it's very nice to hold on to your money instead of giving it to the government, but if I were you, I'd figure out a way to give back. The government provides you with the best service of all, a free country. Perhaps you would like to live in North Korea, I would certainly expect you to not want to pay then. If it wasn't for the taxes we pay, we wouldn't get these services back. Then everyone would be living in my kind of society, and you've already said you didn't like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by leardvr
    I'll give that baby products create jobs somewhere. I'd say none of the manufacturing jobs are in the US. Yes we do get retail job creation and everything from shipping to marketing that goes along with that. But don't long term care facilities create good paying jobs too? Nurses', Drs, contractors, drug manufactures, on and on. All of which is paid for by tax payers. So what if the patient doesn't contribute, if it weren't for him none of the other tax payers would have a jobs.
    The people who work at these long term facilities supported by the government could also work in tax payer owned private facilities. The patient however, cannot afford the private facilities, that's their problem, perhaps if they worked harder earlier on, they would be able to.

    Quote Originally Posted by leardvr
    Your right Hitler was a great (I understand you said dictator) leader. His fault (IMO) was his believes. You can make a good/bad leader argument for anyone I suppose; Bin Laden, Keneddy, Clinton, Bush, Mandela, Saddam, Christ, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Kahn...............it never stops. I simply pointed out a view point you may or may not have known. You will never hear from me that you are not entitled to your opinion. The 1st amendment gives rights to the speaker not the listener. I'm not protected from being insulted. I will gladly stand up with you and die for that right.
    Sorry, I did not mean to make a big deal out of the "I'm entitled to my opinion" comment, it was just meant to be a small disclaimer. As for the insulted bit, you do have the option to disregard it and move on. It's not that just because I posted it, you HAVE to read it and respond to it. I am sorry if you found my views to be insulting. I just have very clear cut ways on how things should work...


  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by FrozenCode
    He would get made fun of in elementary school, get beat up in middle school...
    Wait! That's, like, 50% of the population!
  10. #90  
    I wouldn't know


  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by FrozenCode
    Dean Kamen
    Well you brought it up.......kidding, wasn't he on Coast 2 Coast?


    Quote Originally Posted by FrozenCode
    How can you live like that. Knowing that other people are paying for you. People like you cause taxes for the rest of us to go up. In a way you're more than a leach on the system. You're a parasite. I can't say I have any respect for that. I'm sure it's very nice to hold on to your money instead of giving it to the government, but if I were you, I'd figure out a way to give back. The government provides you with the best service of all, a free country. Perhaps you would like to live in North Korea, I would certainly expect you to not want to pay then. If it wasn't for the taxes we pay, we wouldn't get these services back. Then everyone would be living in my kind of society, and you've already said you didn't like that.

    I should say I do pay taxes throughout the year via my paycheck and property taxes, but the federal gov't must like me because they keep giving it back to me.
    I didn't set up the system. I make $63000/yr. I own a home and get the interest as a write off, my wife is in school the interest is a write off, my kids are a write off, (not sure I really understand that part of the system), my donations every year are a write off, and my sons medical expenses which I pay for are a write off, (the state paid for 1yrs worth of therapy before pulling the plug on everyone with autism in my state, the waiting list to get him covered is YEARS long. But every year in April they send my a letter that says, "check here and we'll take your son for you, you'll never have to spend a dime again." I paraphrased I keep checking 'no', I like my son.
    Anyway I do an itemized deduction and they give me all my money back and then some every year. Now the years I did pay in my wife and I combined were making about $20000/yr and I paid taxes, but not now?????
    I gladly live in the system and play by their rules, I take full advantage of those rules but I don't brake them.


    Hey wait I got beat up in middle school and they still make fun of me waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
    Nik<hr>M100 --->M125 --->M500 --->Treo300 --->Sprint-Treo600 --->Sprint-Treo650
    <hr>
    Rom 8:31 <'><
    <marquee bgcolor=red width=150 height=5>
    1 in 150 babies born today will have some form of Autism
    </marquee>
    Unlocking Autism Mission Trips to Honduras My Space
  12. #92  
    Argh, I hate tax law.


  13.    #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by FrozenCode
    ...Or, as hoovs pointed out, he could grow up to be the next Einstein. I wonder though, what are the chances that a new Einstein could be born? I can't even remember a similar figure in the past fifty years...
    Perhaps they were aborted or "screened out"

    Yes, ideologies, when acted upon, have consequences.
  14. #94  
    I think what FrozenCode misunderstands, and what no-one else has said, is the real basis of our compassionate system is "Do onto others as you would have done to you". 99% of us have a desire to live and experience, independent of any justification. No-one "deserves" to live, if a comet destoys the Earth tomorrow , no-one will mourne our passing.

    However, due to simple evolutionary pressure, most living things want to continue living, and reproducing. Social animals have discovered they can achieve their common goal better if they work together. Hence society was born, and its only real aim is to help us live and reproduce, and achieve our innate desires.

    The compassionate part comes in due to the fact we recognize that out position in society could change in an instant, when we could find outselves at the mercy and in need of the support of our compatriots. We help others not because we feel sorry for them, but becuase we would like to be treated similarly if we were in the same situation. In people who do appear to act completely selflessly, its just that these motivations are deeply subsconscious, and are expressed some-what irrationally. The underlying rationale is still implace.

    So in summary, we help the poor, because if som disaster struck we ourselves could be poor and in need of help, and we hope we would be treated the same way. Its basic Game Theory, tit-for-tat.

    Some people extend this to rediculous degrees, and feel if we become a uncaring society who kills embroys, we may kill them when they are lying defenseless in hospital, hence euthinasia and abortion is often linked. Religion has very little to do with it, expect it codifies this behaviour to an extent.

    What counteracts these kind of feelings is a disconnect from the society which supports people. If you feel so confident in your own abilities that you feel you will never need the help of others then you may very well feel you do not need to help others in return. You would then be qualified to run Enron.

    Also if you feel something that happens could never happen to you, or you dont feel any filial feelings towards the other group, you may also have no empathy for them.

    Also when resources get contraint we can suddenly become a whole lot more calculating in who exactly deserves our support e.g. In times of plenty we can easily support free riders (e.g. The long term unemployed) but in a poor economy we may very well cut their benifits and target them specifically.

    Society, a bit like an insurance fund, needs to pay out most of the time, no matter how muc you pay in, but it also needs a mechanism to fight cheaters who are truly taking advantage of the system.

    Regarding the autistic child - at the moment society is rich enough to afford supporting your child, but if autism remains rare (ie its not a communal problem) and there is a long term depression, dont be surprised if society quietly kills of your son by providing sub-standard care and refusing to pay for special expensive procedures. In the past and present, in less rich societies, this is exactly what happened, all the way up to expecting the ill and sick to walk into the wilderness to die or explcitly leaving them behind.

    So, whether the embroys are human or not as nothing to do with it. Some people feel the same way about kittens. Its about the abortionists not turning around and killing the pro-life protesters. This in any case is what they really fear deep inside.

    Surur
  15.    #95  
    I've always seen "do unto others as you would have done to you" as a guideline, not a motive.

    I suppose that is a key difference in stricly evolutionary thinking, versus a thinking that acknowledges a Creator. In the context of a Creator, I treat others in line with my understanding of the Creator's purpose, as opposed to treating others in a manner that increases the odds that I will receive similar treatment were the roles reversed.
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions