Amirite? And because addiction makes them BAD PEOPLE it is totally okay to manipulate them on life issues the same way McDonald's tries to get me to supersize. HOW BOUT NO.
Right? Which is the point of the article and the reaction of sane people to the idea. (And sterilizing the disabled is something that definitely went on HERE, but do people know history? Hell naw.) Sterilizing vulnerable minorities is NEVER AN ETHICAL IDEA. Jesus H. Christ.
i find i cannot engage with these people any more as i now default to persuasive things like "YAY! (BECAUSE COERCED STERILISATION OF DESPISED VULNERABLE GROUPS HAS ALWAYS WORKED OUT *SO WELL*! UNLESS YOU HAVE READ ANY HISTORY EVER BUT HEY THAT STUFF IS DEPRESSING LET'S GET TO THE IRREVERSIBLE OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT UNDER DUBIOUS CONSENT SITUATIONS WOOOOHOOOO.)"
I have one person supporting me in the thread itself, so that's nice. :D
And even the reversible birth control skeeves me in this case because FUCK EDUCATION. LETS JUST GIVE THESE CRACK HOS 200 BUCKS AND AN IUD WHO CARES WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM THINK OF THE HYPOTHETICAL CHILDREN.
have the people who come up with these notions never even considered - oh, that FOR EXAMPLE there are also issues with medical ethics, of the kind where a doctor ought to be working for their patient's best interests and health? THEIR PATIENT, the one in front of them, no matter what problems they have, no matter what laws they may or may not have broken. they are NOT supposed to work in the interests of manipulative social darwinian engineering.
la la la i may also hate social darwinists for getting ick in my evolutionary theory. *hates*
What are you talking about drug addicts are a faceless monolith of weak-willed people, not actual individuals with health problems and depression and families or, you know, rights to safety and respect like Us, The Working Men. If biasing the results makes them stop muddying our gene pool than so be it!
I'm not traumatized or anything (I've seen worse on and off the interweb) but I don't get people, Kanz. This is the same sort of person who doesn't give cash to panhandlers because they think they'll just buy booze, and yet giving $200 to a crack addict for a tubal ligation is a good idea? I can maybe see incentives for non-permanent birth control, but not cash and not when people are interrogating the problem from the wrong perspective! D:
Comments 21
Reply
Reply
Reply
Who decides how compromised is compromised enough?
That's always the question to ask. And SHOCKINGLY with this type the answer is always um... me? Nope! WRONG ANSWER.
Social-Darwinism = the grossness.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
i find i cannot engage with these people any more as i now default to persuasive things like "YAY! (BECAUSE COERCED STERILISATION OF DESPISED VULNERABLE GROUPS HAS ALWAYS WORKED OUT *SO WELL*! UNLESS YOU HAVE READ ANY HISTORY EVER BUT HEY THAT STUFF IS DEPRESSING LET'S GET TO THE IRREVERSIBLE OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT UNDER DUBIOUS CONSENT SITUATIONS WOOOOHOOOO.)"
Reply
And even the reversible birth control skeeves me in this case because FUCK EDUCATION. LETS JUST GIVE THESE CRACK HOS 200 BUCKS AND AN IUD WHO CARES WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM THINK OF THE HYPOTHETICAL CHILDREN.
I just. Nooooo. No.
Reply
la la la i may also hate social darwinists for getting ick in my evolutionary theory. *hates*
Reply
*gag*
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment