"Your idea of "starting somewhere" assumes that discriminating against disabled people and committing the widespread murder of selected groups is going to change the world for the better, or at least be a good start."
First of all, it's only murder if it's against the law so saying that under a legal eugenics program I'm murdering people doesn't make a lot of sense, so either you're trying to appeal to emotions or I'm being overly analytical.
41 comments
@#1742457:
Given the sort of defence the US surveillance, kidnapping, and torture programs are putting forward, the NSA would probably hire him.
We humans have evolved our brains to a point where we can build societies and essentially cheat natural selection.
That's the point dimwit, natural selection is not a literal you can live you can not process. It's a clusterfuck of nature, and whatever comes out alive the other side can breed. We no longer need to participate in said clusterfuck, unless the walking dead happens in real life. (Because everybody is secretly hoping for that TBH)
OP, I hope someday it's you/a family member/a friend who winds up disabled, so you can see how awful what you're saying really is. Because as I recall, people saying "These killings are legal so it's cool" is what got 10 million people slaughtered in the not-so-distant past.
...Basically, fuck you with an unlubricated saguaro cactus, is what I'm saying. DIAF.
"Your idea of "starting somewhere" assumes that discriminating against disabled people and committing the widespread murder of selected groups is going to change the world for the better, or at least be a good start."
You know who else thought that way?
First of all, murder is murder, regardless of whether it's legally sanctioned or not. The only thing that the law has to say about it is how severely a murderer should be punished, if at all.
Secondly, you're trying (and failing) to put technicalities and wordplay ahead of the welfare of others. Congratulations! You're entering the company of some of the world's most infamous war criminals. To get an idea of the company that you're going to keep, do some reading up on the folks responsible for the Holocaust, the massacre at My Lai, and the atrocities of Unit 731.
You're joining the illustrious ranks of people who should have known better. The people who committed some of the biggest atrocities in recent history, and who didn't even have the basic humanity to give a shit. They just did what they were told to do. Like puppets.
Here's a phrase you should commit to memory, Diogenes: "I was only following orders."
Murder: A special case of theft, where you rob a person of all (s)he has, all (s)he is, and all (s)he will ever have, and you have no way of giving it back.
Is that clear enough for you, asshole?
I don't give a crap about bureaucracies, or the law du jour. You murder someone I care about, and I know * you did it beyond a shadow of a doubt, and they won't find enough of you to identify. That's justice, courtesy of your nearest pig farm.
* and I don't mean, I believe I know. Proof positive.
it's only murder if it's against the law
No, it's only murder if you're killing an actual human being, not a nine-week old fetus that's using another's internal organs to remain alive.
@1742450"Technically he is defending the holocaust and the Spanish Inquisition which were 'legal' in their respective countries."
Too bad for this nutcase the Holocaust, at least, actually wasn't legal. Hitler made a lot of "emergency" decrees while he was in power, but none of them actually legalized the systematic murder or any of the other horrible things they did.
Then again, this was a guy who thought the Jews somehow had anything to do with World War I going badly for his country and was so far off in his own little world that he ignored his commanders' expert advice the whole way through, kept giving orders to battalions that had been completely wiped out months prior, had nine or so projects competing to create atomic bombs for the Nazis (thus ensuring they'd be spending more time sabotaging one another than actually making some fucking bombs) and then constrained them all to ideologically-correct "German physics" because ideas that were actually workable were "tainted" by association with Jewish scientists, and even had people thinking up V2 variants that could attack his own fucking allies even after declaring war on the US simply because we declared war on those exact same allies of his. Justifying murder with some fundie-esque "it's not illegal if I don't like the victims" isn't too much of a stretch.
Holy shit, is this guy actually trying to say that something like fucking Aktion T4 is good? Goddamn, man, what the fuck is wrong with you?
A legal eugenics program?
Shit, and here I was thinking that these people thought humans weren't animals.
I dislike any attempt to reduce the prevalence of my disabled alleles as much as the next disability-rights activist, but before you call this guy a Nazi, here's the rest of the quote:
"Anyway that's not important because I don't think we should murder people with down syndrome or any people with disabilities. The only eugenics that I approve of in practice is the non-discouragement of the abortion of fetuses with severe genetic (or epigenetic) disorders."
I dislike this sort of "grassroots eugenics" too, but more because of the results than because of the methods. There's nothing inherently wrong with ending a pregnancy, but trying to get the "right" baby, where "right" is defined as "no disabilities, not even the ones that people with the disability approve of" is fairly wrong regardless of the methods.
The author of this post doesn't want to kill me. False alarm, guys.
it's only murder if it's against the law
Technically true. Murder is a legal description and if it's legal, it doesn't qualify. This is one reason why abortion isn't murder.
I'm being overly analytical
No, you're being a sociopathic nutjob.
Technically true, but if that's the best defense you can muster, well...
You're not wrong, Diogenes, you're just an asshole.
@ JeanP
True, but between Skinner v Oklahoma and various rulings on the rights of the handicapped, it's virtually impossible to carry out the OP's idea of forced sterilizations, and modern court would not hesitate to overturn Buck if asked to do so.
@pyro
TL;DR: Go ahead and eradicate lazy eye without having to fear the disapproval of some internet commenter.
If people with lazy eye see it as something that they'd rather be rid of and not as an important part of themselves, I see nothing wrong with eradicating it through methods that are ethically permissible for other purposes. If it would be acceptable to offer supplements that prevented [disability x] in developing fetuses to pregnant women, then I believe that it would be acceptable to abort fetuses because they had [disability x]. I just don't think the former would be acceptable for some values of x.
@TheReasonator
Abortion for disabilities will soon be a moot issue. Gene therapy will fix a lot of disabilities in the near future, including Down's Syndrome.
Thanks so much for the link: It made my day, because I really like the idea of being able to treat these sorts of disabilities when a potential treatment user is old enough to give informed consent! If this works, we could still have disabled people exist, but people who didn't want to have autism or Down's or whatnot wouldn't have to, so everyone wins. :)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
