/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6395551
well maybe you should stop enabling them, geez

because people love them and aren't able to care for them themselves?
why do you work there OP?

Because Nazi Germany stained eugenics for at least a hundred years

It was actually pretty popular in the western world until the damned Nazis started doing it

>>6395575
>>6395578
I USED to work there.

>>6395551
You want to be the one to pull the trigger?

Because once you start killing the retarded it becomes justifiable to kill people with other problems.
First it's the retarded, then it's the paraplegic, then it's the blind, then it's the ones who just have a bad cough. Where will it end?
No, it's easier to just say that compassion and care should be universal, no matter how fucked up a person may be. Our entire civilization is based on this simple idea.

>>6395583
Intravenous injection is just like giving a flu shot, friendo

>>6395585
But my slippery slope
>Once you kill the death row inmates it becomes justifiable to kill other people who don't meet society's standards
I guess maybe that's better as an argument against the death penalty

>>6395585
Slippery slope

>>6395585
>muh slippery slope

>>6395591
>>6395592
To be fair, most niggers are clinically retarded, so his write.

>>6395589
>>6395591
>>6395592

>>6395581

>in the western world

No, many nations experienced large backlash against implementation of eugenics

It lost popularity in the US following the great depression.

It was essentially believed that, in a market economy, those inheriting the most desirable traits would also be the most well-off.

Well, when the great depression hit, many of the former industrialists and businessmen that were in the upper classes that were the greatest proponents of eugenics but had lost everything realized they'd become targets as well. It lost its support base following that.

>>6395585
What?
You don't think free for all would be fun?
Like the old west?

>>6395592

except sometimes actions do constitute a slippery slope.

if we make exceptions regarding the basic rights of certain individuals with regard to expedient convenience, those in power do risk setting a precedent for flaunting legal standards whenever they become inconvenient.

this puts our minorities at risk, especially?

"slippery slope" isn't ALWAYS a fallacy.

as far as budget goes, helping the severely retarded is not a great burden on our nation. they're a negligibly small portion of our population.

>>6395610
>"slippery slope" isn't ALWAYS a fallacy.
No, slippery slope is always a fallacy unless you give an argument or mechanism for why A inevitably leads to B

>>6395610

Well yeah but the route that poster went down lead to the common cold. C'mon. I think OP means people who can't even process thoughts really and are just sacks of suffering flesh piles.

Because society not keeping them alive would potentially cause those peoples' families to become enraged at society having an overall negative effect, outweighing any benefits accrued by letting them die.

As long as they can't breed, no problemo!

What's that? A thread about ethics?

This is why we need a /phil/osophy board.

What gives a person the right to take the life of another human being?

Everyone is entitled to their lives. You could argue that maybe they dont want to live but thats a whole other can of worms,

I dont think a society that practises extermination like that can call itself a just society.

>>6395963
'rights' are just a shortcut for 'things we've agreed everyone should have', they are not set in stone and can be changed

>>6395591
>>6395592
>>6395595
"Slippery Slope" is not a formal logical fallacy, it is a bad argumentative technique if you do not back it up with evidence of why one action would cause more similar actions.

>>6395619
>unless you give an argument or mechanism for why A inevitably leads to B

What do you think the post you are replying to is trying to do?

Because you'd be even worse than Hitler oy vey

>>6395963
>severely handicapped offer zero benefit to society as a whole and are essentially a drain on resources that could be allocated to the public that can actually offer services and progress to said society

>letting the literally good for nothing handicapped drain resources and take away from others
>just

inb4
>muh feelings or muh human rights

>>6395963
>What gives a person the right to take the life of another human being?
What give a vegetable person the right to be a burden on the life of another human being and why do doctors have to divert undue resources for cases that obviously have no hope for an independent life with a reasonable quality of life?

>>6395969
>oy vey

It's got nothing to do with Jews, shithead. It's Christfags who won't abort braindead fetuses or euthanize braindead adults.

You realize most normal people are FAR more dangerous and detrimental to society than the mentally retarded right?

Mentally retarded people do not beat people to a bloody pulp just because they're weaker

>>6395551

Why would you want to die?

>>6395551
something about empathy
and morals

>>6396058

Sounds like you have unrelated issues to work through. I'm sorry you were/are bullied.

>>6396231
>something about empathy
>and morals

Just to play devil's advocate, one might argue that empathy for a person who lacks the mental ability to even eat might be misplaced. Like, how much of the mental faculties have to be gone before it's no longer a person?

Why don't we just give people choices. I mean aren't we able to screen for a myriad of diseases and disabilities before birth?

This is why abortion should legal. People should have the choice to toss out their retarded useless future child who won't contribute anything to society and use up valuable resources. If you want to keep it more power to you

>>6395947
/ph/ would be enough

Please don't

My mother was actually born retarded and her family loves her

Please don't

>>6396261
Should I wonder how you were even conceived? Surely someone developmentally disabled enough to merit the term cannot give consent...

>>6395597
>talks about people being retarded
>"his write"

top kek

>>6396236

THIS is why we need a /phi/losophy board.

>>6396058
Yea, they beat people to a bloody pulp because they don't understand their own strength and can't control basic emotions.

>>6395551

why do we only care when the cute animals are killed?

>>6396292

That too.

mfw people discussing formal logical fallacies on a science board

>>6395585
if i were severely retarded and incurable it would be an act of compassion for someone to kill me painlessly.

>>6395551
>>6395585
>>6395598
>>6395614
>>6395942
>>6395963
>>6396058 >Actually false. I've seen this happen.

Short answer to everyone's question: Guilt. One of the few things the separates us into a different group than other animals, is guilt. Most people experience this feeling at some point in their life, especially in religious driven communities and regions.

This guilt, be it personal, consensual, inherited, or imposed, is what allows these non-functioning dead-ends to survive. Well then, please keep in mind also that the large number of people that are not burdened by any feelings of guilt are usually rich, and make money off of the housing, needs, and care of these individuals. That's right, people get rich from taking care of the person who has had the mentality of a 1 or 2 year old for 50 years, or the person who is so damaged that they will never be able to contribute anything to their social peers. Then again, I guess that is unfair...they do provide jobs for the people that care for them, and vast riches for those that own the facilities that house them...but I am 99% certain that those who get rich from the care of those people are the same ones encouraging your pro-life guilt.

Ultimately, there is a reason countless species eat their own young, and infinite reasons that the earth is not over-ran by any one particular species (although we are well on our way to ruining that status quo.) But please, keep letting rich people getting richer guilt you in to keeping people who have no ability to traditionally enjoy their lives alive by any means possible. There is a strange hypocrisy here...let me see, what is it?

Ohh yes! Alright then, so you hunt animals. Obviously they don't have the sentience or promise that a human being does, correct? Obviously, they can do little to increase the value of the earth, or further their own species through evolution (we ARE the master species, right?) So animals are expendable, for food, clothing,

>>6395551

I don't think we should keep humans in that kind of state alive, nor do I think they should be considered a person. With the exception of acquired retardation (car accident, etc.) no retarded (or severely disabled) human should ever even be born, they should be aborted once found out about in utero. The time, money, and emotional investment spent on useless, painful lives is ridiculous. How we would go about this in a non-discriminatory corruption-free way I have no idea.

>>6397438
etc.

So, animals are essentially worthless, because they don't provide money of their own ability to the economy, only by the value of their death.

On the other hand, the entire time that you keep a severely handicapped individual alive, you profit UNTIL their death.

Animals eat, shit, sleep, and fuck (until they pass out, and fuck or eat more...) They have their own agenda, and biological needs, that often they can provide for themselves. What needs do that extreme level of handicapped need? Not food, but a chemical slushy through a feeding tube. Not fresh air, but bottled air delivered 24 hours a day though an apparatus. Not a fresh bed of leaves daily, but a CNA or an LPN flipping their body every two hours so they don't develop pressure ulcers or sores that will eventually destroy their bodies and take their lives (almost, as if FUCKING NATURE realizes that these people SHOULD and WOULD die, if left alone.)

Guilt, and Greed.

That is why these people live

>>6397438
>Obviously they don't have the sentience or promise that a human being does, correct? Obviously, they can do little to increase the value of the earth, or further their own species through evolution (we ARE the master species, right?)

What the fuck are you talking about.

Honestly, if someone wants to pay to keep them alive, let them.

They aren't anymore a drain than useless dogs such as chihuahuas or house cats. Think of the retarded as a human house pet. Completely useless yet kept around cause someone loves them.


We need /phil/.

>>6395551
2edgy4me

>>6397454
>We need /phil/.
If only to keep the retards out of /sci/.

>>6397452
see part two, posted 13 minutes before you, dingus egg.

Matthew 25:40 ""The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'"

>>6397833
Guilt.

Why does god need someone to live if they can't even breath on their own, or eat the nutrition required to sustain them?

>>6398223
If they were created in god's image, does that mean god can not breath on its own or eat the nutrition required to sustain it?

Why would you deprive someone the joy of suffering?
Make them live long lives so that they can truly enjoy the pain of life. This is the only ethical option there is.

>>6398229
Are you one of the functionally retard people to which this entire post is referring?

>>6398243
To be honest, most of these people can't even function enough to suffer. Many of them show only basic brain activity.

>>6395551
Because your privileged ass' opinion is worthless. Go be edgy somewhere else.

How many retards "accidentally" died while you were there?

>>6395551
>Why don't we kill the severely retarded?
Who gets to decide what the definition of 'severely retarded' is? What are the mitigating factors?
Why kill them? What have they done to deserve a punishment that we otherwise only reserve for violent criminals like serial killers?
What about the 'slippery slope': If you can declare one sub-group of people as 'worthless' and deserving of death, then it sets a precedent and makes it easier to define other sub-groups and declare them likewise 'unfit to live' and then kill them, too.

Finally: People like you always assume that YOU aren't going to be one of the people who are sentenced to die for $REASONS.

>>6395599
>You don't think free for all would be fun?
Fun for who?
>yet another idiot who assumes he wouldn't be one of the ones sentenced to death
Think again, newfriend.

>>6395551
Don't kill them. Just leave them to support themselves.

>>6395591
>>6395592
>>6395589
>>6395610
>>6395967
I think you should try reading this, you might find it helpful when posting in future!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

>>6397438
>non-functioning dead ends
>guilt
You're almost there. Showing compassion is psychologically helpful to both parties. Have you ever seen a retarded boy in his late-teens early twenties get so excited about the snow that he laughs and runs around, arms outstretched, with tears in his eyes?

It's cathartic.

The retarded have a role to fill in our society.

>>6395963
This is the real answer, without appealing to emotions.

http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey-archives/1998/11/09/1998-massey-lectures-becoming-human/

Anyway, I just send people this talk whenever this comes up.

>>6398397
>Why kill them? What have they done to deserve a punishment that we otherwise only reserve for violent criminals like serial killers?
Because they will never be anything but a drain on society's resources. If we stop taking care of them and giving them food they will die. Violent criminals will not.

>What about the 'slippery slope':
You just admitted that one was a logical fallacy

>Finally: People like you always assume that YOU aren't going to be one of the people who are sentenced to die for $REASONS.
If I am ever so severely brain damaged that I am severely retarded and only capable of sitting there puking and shitting myself I sincerely hope someone will put me out of my misery.

Your first point is a valid criticism though.

Pigs are just as mentally capable as a mentally disabled individual but look how we treat them. Read this essay by Peter Singer http://ethik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_ethik_wiss_dialog/Singer__P._2009._Speciesism_and_Moral_Status_44245648.pdf

>>6398478
>list of fallacies
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9

Look I can do it too!

>>6398507

Well, a man's gotta eat. Meat production isn't pretty for sure, but I don't know if it would be feasible to require humane standards for those animals without driving the costs too high. Maybe if we got everyone to eat insects and plants.

In relation to the thread, like someone said, life is a basic human right and if the overall cost isn't that huge then there's probably better areas to save from. It's a part of humanity to help people who can't help themselves, and these people wouldn't even be able to stand up to themselves if they were persecuted.

Also, /sci/ is slow enough as it is, I think /phil/ fits here nicely. If it is ever created it will probably be a contender for most pretentious board, not through any fault of philosophy but because of the types of people who would like to like philosophy.

>>6395963
>Everyone is entitled to their lives.
Everyone is entitled to their lives, but they have no special clause above others. Retarded people would not survive without having us normal and superior beings care for them, and thus in nature they would die out and their lives are forfeit. Just because they have a right to life, doesn't mean it should be preserved. But their ability to preserve their lives should be maintained, and people too stupid or disabled to do that can't so they shouldn't live.

>>6398514
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Just posting it again as a helpful reminder that maaaaaaybe you should give it a once-over. You know, a cursory glace. Might be better than what you're doing right now.