Retardation - a possible solution?

[Mazdak]

I wanted to make a thread on this topic because it has deeply troubled me since i take a bus home from High School, i have to sit next to retarded people nearly every day. Now, my belief has been this (and i know how much everyone is going to think of me as some satanistic dog sacrificer):
Retarded persons who are already born should be taken caere of like they always have HOWEVER, if it is known that a baby is going to be born retarded, the mother should be forced to have an abortion. with so many starving people in the world who are not retarded, why allow (for lack of a better term) useless peopleto be born to add to the demand for food, shelter, and clothing. I am not saying Kill everyone who is retarded. i am saying we can end retardation by simply stopping retards from being born.

I know the response i am going to get is going to make me out to be a nazi, so at least try to keep arguments against this logical, not just "Mazdak you are a sick fuck and should die" kind of argument.

Thank you

[Ymir]

Mazdak I agree with you. Many people, including the parents of the retarded child, may not like it though.

[man in the red suit]

I also agree with you, I don't think you're a nazi/ Just as long as you don't sympathize killing retards who have already been born. You must prevent them from being born NOT kill them. Abortion is NOT murder. Now we can all be acused of being nazis. The haters are gonna come down hard (haters being: malte, nateddi, fires of history, guerillaradio, etc...etc) but I still agree with what you said full heartedly. There are too many problems already in the world today to create more problems. I have no idea as to why a parent would want a retarded child in the first place. It just doesn't make sense to me.

[Mazdak]

Phew, now i gfeel better knowing i am not alone in my belief here

[red senator]

Ok, I don't agree.

At what level of retardation should a child be killed. Remember, there are many retarded people who live and survive on their own, at the same time contibutiing to society.

If by "retards" you meant poeple who will live their life with the brain of a new born baby, then i dont know how to deal with them. I think if the parents want to keep them, then parents shold be able to have them.

Besides, where is the line to be drawn? If you are slightly retarded, you can live, but if you are really handicapped, you should die? Then what happens when it escalates to taking an IQ test to be able to live (in other words, systematically killing all the stupid people).

You said dont call you a nazi, but I cant help it. You propose an idea of wiping out a group of people, partly because you think the "superior" people are worth more than a handicapped person, and then say "don't call me a nazi (pioneers in the area of eradicating unwanted people). Isn't that it? "Regular" people are better than retarded ones, and therefore the retards deserve to die?

(Edited by red senator at 7:43 pm on June 23, 2002)

[man in the red suit]

I personally, mean the ones who are completely non-functional. Like the people with muscular dystrophy and retardation. The ones who are just a bit on stupid side, have every right to live. I don't mean we should kill every would-be Forest Gump, no. just those who cannot function or contribute to society.

[Mazdak]

I say the same as man in red suit. if they can live on their own and contribute to society or were born fine and along the line became retardED(i dont know what to call it, it does happen) And are you saying that a regular person is the same as a retarded person(severley)? I dont think so, even though it isnt their fault, they aren't exactly the kind of people eligible to be professors or doctors are they? It isnt based on race in any way, so how can you compare a fully functional person with a person who can;'t speak and drools among other things??!

[Borincano]

How are we suppose to determine, before birth, (Not even 8 months into the pregnancy, but before the fetus is considered more than a cell.) a person who is going to be extremely retarded, to the point he/she can't contribute to society?

[libereco]

well i think we should do the same thing to stupid people, they don't contribute anything to society either.

How about we start with some of the Euthanasia (nazi-style) folks.

[Mazdak]

you fool, u miss the whole point. Euthanasia kills stupid people, not abortion j/k.

But Euthanasia is fine too. (as long as the person is suffering and dying)

[RedCeltic]

At the end of the day, I think it's up to the mother to decide what she want's to do. I think a woman's right to choose should not only mean her right to have an abortion, but her right not to have one. Should it be permited? Yes. Should it be required? No.

[Ian]

That is ludicrous shit.
Killing people because they are disadvantaged physically, sounds pretty bourgeois to me! Just because they cannot work physically doesn't mean they are not useful in all other fields of work eg. Stephen Hawking a victim of a debilitating disease called Muscular Distrophy that basically is the degeneration of muscles into jelly has done alot in extending physics to the general population by writing physics books in everyday language.
A few years ago a few grades above me in school there was two boys, one with Muscular Distrophy (and a live expectancy of 18), one with an ailment which made him short (and a life expectancy of 30) and when I heard of both of their conditions I was upset because they were both happy, creative people who could do everything and able bodied person could and were just as smart.
I mean, hell, I got asthma, Ché had asthma, I'm allergic to all kinds of shit, how long until your 'purification' of the population targets me!?
Well I don't want to live in your shitty master race so fucking kill me you gutless pieces of shit who support killing fully conscious (yet not fully able to express it) humans, morons.

[Supermodel]

Ian Rocks, you rock!!!

Che had disabilitating asthma, there have been great leaders and fighters with diabetes, polio, bi-polar disorder, manic depression, bad eyesight, bad breath and dandruff.

I have several friends with disabled children and they love and provide very well for them.

I strongly believe in a COUPLE's right to an abortion for their own reasons (people get pregnant, not women), and believe it or not a benign form of euthenasia exists in almost every hospital for the most deformed of children, an issue that's best left alone, if you know what I mean.

Look at my signature line.

[PunkRawker677]

I spent a year of my life volunteering daily at a School for the Mentally Handicapped. Those people are some of the greatest people i have ever met. No matter how physically or mentally disabled they are, they always have a bright outlook towards the future. Who the hell are you to determine who is born and who is not born?? Mentally handicapped people may be a burden on some people, but to others they are just another diverse type of people who make this world a better place.

[Menshevik]

Mazdak, Killing people because they are retarded is rediculous. Even people who you would think can't contribute anything, can be the some of the greatest human beings out there. Haven't you ever heard the story of Christy Brown? He had severe cerebral palsy and was thought to be completely handicapped. But he managed to create amazing works of art (using his left foot) and taught himself to speak. People like that still have the ability to touch others with just their presence, and that should never be overlooked.

[Mazdak]

HAHAHA!! Stephen Hawking isn't retardded. He is a genius. He can converse with you. can you converse witha down syndrome person(severe case)??I dont think so. I knew everyone would have such a soft weak recdtion, just like on Lenin's killing peopel thread. There is no point to having a person who is only going to suffer in the world.

[Felicia]

Killing people because of a disability is ridiculous, I'm a volunteer at many places but one of them involves people with physical and mental disabilities, most of them living very successful and fulfilling lives. There is one lady in my community who was born from severely mentally challenged parents and she is considered a mathematical genius!! Killing physically/mentally disabled people would be robbing their children the right to live. That of which no one should have control over. But I do believe that it is up to the mother and father of a child that is to be born severely challenged to make the decision whether to abort, not society.

[Mazdak]

Ok, but then why do we have to deal with them if we dont want too? I dont like the idea of sitting next to someone who is drooling and mumbling and picking his /her nose. Could we at least have somekinda separate transportation service for them?? like school buses?? ( and now i know i am going to be labeled a "final solution" master race monster). And i know not all retarded people are like that, but there are many who are.

[suffianr]

Who are we to decide who lives or dies? Everyone who is born is apparently here for a reason, and until they figure out what the fuck they're supposed to do with their lives, just leave them alone, for fuck's sake!

Retarded ppl, cretins, morons, idiot-savants, peadophiles, geniuses & intellectuals, racists, fascists, the disabled, the crippled, the abusers and the abused, well, everyone is a sum of the parts that makes up the whole. You can't have perfect ppl in this world.

Everything needs to be balanced out, there must be good and bad, beautiful and ugly, blah, blah, blah...It's called Equillibrium, a state of balance. There must always be oppposing forces, ideas, thoughts etc.

Adolf Hitler thought the Aryan race signified the apex of humanity, the best of mankind. He was wrong, there is no absolute perfection in this world, and unless you plan on advocating Hitler, please rethink what you have said so far...

[Borincano]

I understand people's arguements that those who don't contribute to the society should not be allowed to live...they would just be a waste of 'resources.' Still, I don't see how you can identify extreme mental retardation to the point they can't really survive on their own before birth, and those who don't want to kill those already born retarded just don't have much of an arguement because of that.

Those who are retarded should be made to survive on their own if they can and those who were born should be allowed to live. That's my opinion.

[Valkyrie]

The quality of one's life is always quantitive to the persons who possess it. Themselves, relatives, friends, etc.

Stephen Hawkings has Amyotropic Lateral Sclerosis, (ALS), Lou Gherigs disease.

[Valkyrie]

Likewise, I should say also, that the quantity (ie. measure) of one's life is also qualitive to those who possess it.

[marxistdisciple]

I hate the term retardation, in america it is meant to mean people with learning disablities/mental health problems which are severe. It is often used to describe less inteligent people, as an insult or to discriminate against people. When you say retarded, what do you actually mean? All people with mental health problems? Stupid people? I have met autistic kids before who you would probably describe as retarded. This is mainly due to ignorance about these conditions, as autistic children often show measures of extreme creativity surpassing the ability of "normal" healthy people. You can't tell how "useful" someone is going to be to society until they live their life, there is no way of possibly knowing. And yes, it is what the nazi's did. If a person is discriminated against before they are born, what else would you call it?
Parents already know if their children are going to have birth defects, and have the choice to have an abortion or not. Leave the choice to them, not people completely ignorant to learning disabilities/mental health.

[Menshevik]

This is sick. . . Mazdak, you obviously haven't a clue. This statement negates anything else you might say: "why do we have to deal with them if we dont want too? I dont like the idea of sitting next to someone who is drooling and mumbling and picking his /her nose. Could we at least have somekinda separate transportation service for them??"

You need to grow up and stop acting like an elitist little shit.

[Mazdak]

I knew i was going to get these stupid replies, so MEnshevik? you are telling me that you enjoy sitting next to people who will drool on you and throw drity tissues at you. Elitist! I just want normal people. Not some aryan shit. I never said i did. But i am saying there is valuable moeny and time being spent on those who are completely useless(not the genius Stephen Hawkings kind) just as there is money spent on prisoners who are mass murderers. Why should we sustain mass murderers? They should be sent to work in labor camps all day and given as small a ratiion as possible and as little water as possilbe. Look at Andrea Yates!! She murdered five children and wasnt killed. I could go out right now and kill like 20 ppl and not get sentenced to death!! taht is utterly preposterous!!

But that is not the subject of the post. YOur arguments against mine make sense but keeping beings who are not themselves ever going to be as happy as the normals, is worse than death

[timbaly]

If you don't want to kill retards, I hope you will agree with me that bed ridden people who are completley brain dead but have a functioning heart should be killed.

[man in the red suit]

yes, I agree, providing that they are completely brain dead as you mentioned.

[man in the red suit]

may I bring to your attentin at the moment that we are talking about abortions not executions. Just thought you should know. And I kind of changed my mind. I still think it should be a right for the mother to choose.......but eh.....discouraged. I think that forcing a descision is not right.

And we are NOT talking about the mentally handicapped. We are talking about the one situation where you have a person who is a complete vegetable. I am not talking about the mentally chalenged, no. They are good people. And I'm not even tlaking about the vegies who are presently alive being killed. I think that they should be cared for like all other people. This is kind of a touchy topic so I won't go into complete detail ofmy opinions. But I just wanted to bring to attention of the republicans here, that we are talking about abortions and NOT murders. That is all I had to say.

[Borincano]

man in the red suit,

Yet, I will write the question again, for the fourth time, how will we determine someone will be a "veggie" before they are born?

[Mazdak]

Well, seeing the response here, howabout Euthanasia, here wwe have a poor doctor who is living in prison for practicing it. I think it is fine. Why not let a suffering person die if he/she wants to?? instead of pain and misery,they get the death of death row inmates(lethal injections). You are all hypocrites if you do not agree that euthanasia should be legallized because that is the ultimate choice, :choosing when to die, while abortion is choosing not to grant another life. If you support abortion, u should support this.

[Valkyrie]

Well, let's include your parents and grandparents then too when they're old and feeble and drooling and pissing thier pants. Can't forget them, huh?

[Menshevik]

Paris, I bet he's more than willing to kill his grandparents.

This really does disgust me. I don't think anyone is in a position to put a price on human life--no one is the master of another man's life.

[Valkyrie]

Yeah, I think you're right Menshevik.

I've always thought though, that a good portion of the people here would make mighty fine fascist dictators.
:(

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Borincano on 5:52 am on June 27, 2002
man in the red suit,

Yet, I will write the question again, for the fourth time, how will we determine someone will be a "veggie" before they are born?


good question. I'm sure they have a way. i kind of changed my mind anyway. I believe in Euthanasia and I also believe that SOME births should be prevented. I am only talking about a small percentage. I still think that there should be a right to choose yet I also believe that these kind of births should be prevented.

And I would not kill my sickly grandparents, because they are already dead. Even if they were alive, I would not kill them. THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN BORN! are you listening to a word we are saying? we are not talking about killing. We are talking about abortions.

[man in the red suit]

please disregard my last post. I forgot about Mazdak's post on Euthanasia.

Yes, I would kill my granparents personally. But only if that is what they wanted. I am not talking about anyone I don't feel is fit to live. I am talking about those who DO NOT WANT to live. That is all I'm trying to say.

[Ian]

Cheers, Paris
Thanks for correcting me, I was just guessing he had Muscular Distrophy

[Anonymous]

mazdak: SHUT THE FUCK UP! Killing people cause they are retarded? Thats stupid!!!!! Avoiding hunger? theres plenty of food the capitalists gov. want them all for them thats what causes hunger!!! just because a men/womenm is retarded he/she is a HUMAN BEING! What separets us from The anciant people is that we have compassion! in the past there was thre need to kill the retards cause there was no space for them! but not today! killing retards just because they are retards? THATS FUCKING BULSHIT! and if you dont want to see retarded people on the bus GO ON FOOT! YOU LAZY MOTHERFUCKER! your thoughs are equal to the nazis thoughs! they didnt wanted to kill jews! they wanted to stop them from reproduce! to anhialete them like you want to do with retards! Retards are uman beings! and somethimes they represent what is more beautiful in the human race. LOVE they are full of love and they dont know hate! Maby you should learn something with them! NAZI SCUM!!!

[Mazdak]

Well, i am not going to react at all negatively ot the last post, but yes, i would not hesitate to kill any person if they asked for it(sincerely) and signed a paper. I would hope they would do the same for me!!! Hey, walking on foot takes to long. And seeing retarded folk, of course they have to love, it is one of the few things they can do!! They are shown plenty of kindness and I NEVER SAID KILL ANY. Oh, and not having the ability to show hate isnt exactly a good thing. It is nout of pity that i wish to see that those who are severly retarded should not be born. NOT BE BORN, nothing about execution or nazi experimentation.

Oh, and going on foot is something i have tried, but walking for 2 hours isnt that fun, especially in the rain.

[Anonymous]

Preventing them from be born? thats killing as well! you problem is called Racism! Avoiding people from be born just because they are retarded is fucking nazi!!!!!! The abort decision should be decided by the parents not some asshole that jusnt dont want to see retards!!!!

and if you dont want to go on foot buy a car!!!!

[Lardlad95]

that is some real bullshit. Preventing them from being born?

You also wanna create a race of super humans who have blonde hair and blue eyes and eliminate all race but the white race?

Ooooh, and how about we kill old people...sounds like fun don't it


you moron. Whats next are you gonna check every woman's baby before she gives birth to make sure its a desirable child?

What you suggested is boderline nazi

[Valkyrie]

Death penalty ban for low-IQ inmates
By Caroline Overington
June 22 2002





The Supreme Court of the United States has banned the execution of criminals who are mentally retarded, saying such punishment is "cruel and unusual" and therefore unconstitutional.

The ruling potentially affects as many as one-third of the 3700 people on death row, since the term "mentally retarded" is generally accepted in the US to mean people with an IQ lower than 70. (The average IQ is 100.)

It also means that people with a low IQ who "commit an exquisite torture killing" will automatically escape the death penalty, while the "average murderer in a hold-up gone wrong" will not, according to a judge who dissented.

The decision was a stunning reversal for the court, which declared as recently as 1989 that the capital punishment of mentally retarded offenders was constitutional.

However, Justice John Paul Stevens, speaking for the majority in the 6-3 decision, said that "much has changed since then".


In 1989, only two states banned the execution of low-IQ prisoners, while another 14 states did not permit any executions. Today, 18 states ban it, while 12 ban the death penalty altogether.

Justice Stevens said it was "not so much the number of these states that is significant, but the consistency of the direction of change". He said retarded people "frequently know the difference between right and wrong" but often cannot "understand and process information, communicate, learn from experience, control impulses".

They are more likely to be wrongly executed, as they have a "lesser ability to give their counsel meaningful assistance, are typically poor witnesses, and their demeanour may create an unwarranted impression of lack of remorse for their crimes".

The decision was celebrated across the US by groups that oppose capital punishment, including the American Bar Association and Human Rights Watch, and most religious orders.

However, it was derided by three of the nine Supreme Court judges, one of whom described its justification as implausible, feeble and arrogant.

"Seldom has an opinion of this court rested so obviously upon nothing but the personal views of its members," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who argued that juries should decide who should be sentenced to death.

"The fact that juries continue to sentence mentally retarded offenders to death for extreme crimes shows that society's moral outrage sometimes demands (such) executions," Justice Scalia said.

Capital punishment is broadly supported in the US. President George Bush supports the death penalty. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who was also in dissent, said he believed the decision was "seriously mistaken" and that the majority had been swayed by "opinion polls and international observers" whose views were "not relevant".

"There is no basis for saying that the death penalty is never appropriate retribution, no matter how heinous the crime," the Chief Justice said. During the hearing, he argued that if Osama bin Laden were captured tomorrow in the US and later declared retarded, Americans would want the ban lifted.

Hundreds of people on death row are now expected to apply to have their sentence commuted to life in prison, on the grounds that they are retarded.

Evidence of the number of lives at stake can be found in North Carolina, which banned the execution of the retarded in 2001. Since then, 46 of 222 people on death row have asked for their cases to be reviewed. The Death Penalty Information Centre estimates that one-third of death-row inmates have a low IQ. The number of executions has dropped from a peak of 98 in 1999, to 66 in 2001, and 20 so far this year.

[Mazdak]

Lardlad and anarchist-m call me whatever you please, i dont even care if you call me a nai anymore, but that last post said it all.

Hey anarchist, how come you seem so against abortion??? SO we can abort regular children, we cant abort retarded ones?? that makes sense. It is like allowing incest. SO i could purposely fail an iq test and then kill 100 people and eat them and say i am retarded. How come someone can do things like that and then say "insane," and never feel the pain of forced labor??
ALTHOUGH IT is a shame that such a law might actually prevent stupid people from being killed even if they are mass murderers, at least people dont support it.

and how come if anyone says anything about killing or exectuioin or abortion right away there is an outcry of "nazi" and facist!! it is completely stupid and shows how soft we all are

[marxistdisciple]

Mazdak, do you actually know anything at all about mental health or learning disablities?

Define retardation.

I presume it is decided with people far more knowledgable in the area than you are. I hate that generalised term, it doesn't mean anything.


Maybe we should abort all people with dyslexia? They are harder to teach, yeah that makes sense.

Euthanasia is a different matter. People should be allowed to have assisted suicide if they are going to die, or spend the rest of their life in great pain.

[Mazdak]

Well at least we have reached common gorunds there

I cannot define retarded, i am afraid. But for a law like this to be passed, this would first have to be defined of course. I am saying IN THE FUTURE, when things like this can be determined, then it is ok.

And Anarchist, instead of "a possilbe solution", to please you it should be renamed a "final solution." I still deny these accusations, i do not collaborate with nazis and am not a nazi.

[Lardlad95]

I have nothing against abortion especially incases of rape of incest

[j]

Mazdak,

Before you spout shit, know what you are talking about!!!!

Mentally Retarded or MR as it is called in my line of work is generally a legal term meaning someone with a low IQ (usually around 70 but there is a margin of error). Cerabal Palsy (You know, the one that drools on you on the bus) is not MR. Learning Disabilities such as dyslexia are not MR.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to determine the IQ (how the legal world defines MR) before birth. In fact, you can not determine IQ until a child develops. IQ tests are not neccessarily accurate for children, either. One could even question (as I do) the validity of IQ tests.

So it would be IMPOSSIBLE to abort fetuses because of their IQ--they do not have one yet!!!!!!!!!

If you don't like the guy drooling on you, neither do I. Ya know what, I don't like people that smell, either. You know what really bugs me? Dickheads in business suits who talk about the "war on terror."

There are people you don't like EVERYWHERE. Wake up ya dumbass!!!!

[Ian]

whoever supports the shit put forward by numerous people in the first few posts of this thread is fucked

[RedCeltic]

I see nothing wrong with a woman having an abortion. Even, if she decides to have one because her child may be born mentaly handicaped.

However, (correct me if I'm wrong) it seems to me, that you wish to force women to get an abortion if the child might be born Mentally Retarded. It should be her choice, just as... euthinasia should be legal, provided that the subject has agreed to it.

[Mazdak]

ok..... Than you can just call me fucked ian rocks.

But cant we at least agree that people like that (what J described) aren't "enjoying" life. What is their existance for??? Nothing in the long run. I will not argue about this anymore. as far as argument goes, u won

[j]

"Aren't enjoying life?" What does that mean? Who judges what enjoyment of life is?

This is an ridiculous argument. But forced abortions are a practice of an oppressive government, therefore you the people are not free.

j

[Mazdak]

blah! governments need to have more control, when people have too much freedom ba dthings happen, people are too stupid to govern themselves as individuals. If you wnat to call it oppressive, then go ahead.

[mcleodstickle]

ok, well as far as it goes:
Killing retarded people (before or after birth) is a completely stupid idea... if its before brith, how do we know if they are going to "enjoy" life or not, how do we know excatly HOW retarded they are going to be... how can we tell a mother/father "You cant have this baby, they are going to be retarded.... this will waste our resources.
The thing that wastes resources, is using ground for crops, for feeding animals, that are fed up to make fat cattle; "good" meat, for the western society.
Mazdak and anyone else that agreed with this... who would decide where to draw the line? as many other ppl sed, y not start killing everyone u hate... , u are getting to far into nazi territory here.
Abortion Should be the COUPLES choice, not just the womans... and society should NOT decide one whether u keep your baby or not
Euthanasia Is the persons choice... if they consent to it, and have thought things through, and also have spoken to loved ones, then it is ok. Because obviously it is the loved ones they are affecting really, they areny going to have to deal wiith the grief after they are dead are they??
And as for your last post... the government should not have more control... as i sed earlier, u cant tell ppl that they cant have their baby.... or u cant tell someone they have to kill their mother/father/loved one. it has to be the peoples choice

(Edited by mcleodstickle at 1:31 am on July 6, 2002)

[man in the red suit]

this is a pretty morbid subject to talk about. Let's forget about it all together.

[sypher]

I agree with this only if the persons retardation is so severe that they couldn't work. If they don't have the ability to earn a living for themselves then I think they would only be a burden to everyone else.

I hope I didn't sound to cold but, I fear I did

[Valkyrie]

Believe me... You did!

[Mazdak]

I thought we werern't going to deal with this post anymore. Well, feel free to continue then....

[Moskitto]

Who are we to decide who lives or dies? Everyone who is born is apparently here for a reason, and until they figure out what the fuck they're supposed to do with their lives, just leave them alone, for fuck's sake!

I think everyone has a mission, the whole point is to find out what that mission is.

[boadicea88]

Ya can call me fucked, too.

[boadicea88]

Quote: from Ian Rocks on 8:15 pm on July 2, 2002
whoever supports the shit put forward by numerous people in the first few posts of this thread is fucked


Oops. Then I'm fucked.

[Mazdak]

Excellent, at least i have some support here too.

[Lefty]

this is really difficult. the way i think this should be handled is they should be killed if they want to (euthenasia) or if they cant agree to, in any way. someone please prove me wrong, i feel horrible after writing that. I think moskitto is pretty much right in his post though.

[stick person]

This is for the adolescent euthanasia enthusiasts:

What horrible little children you are, perfect recruits for the neo-Nazis. What's next, T-1 chambers for mass execution just to spare you the embarassment of sitting next to someone who is different from you? Maybe you should try talking to disabled people as you would anyone else, gearing your conversation to what ever level is necessary to communicate. That's what adults do with you.

[Nic8]

I did not tead the whole thread, so ignore this if it has already been said.

Didn't Hitler order the death of everybody who was physically and mentally didabled?

[Mazdak]

AH!!
WE NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT ORDERING ANYONES DEATH.

Euthanasia, is for people who are suffering and WANT to die.

the other idea was ABORTION, not that we wait for the child to be born and then kill it. How many times do i have to write this before you UNDERSTAND!!!

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Nic8 on 2:43 pm on July 31, 2002
I did not tead the whole thread, so ignore this if it has already been said.

Didn't Hitler order the death of everybody who was physically and mentally didabled?


next time read the whole thread, buddy.

(Edited by man in the red suit at 1:35 am on Aug. 1, 2002)

[PunkRawker677]

Lay off on Nic8. He apologized in advance and clearly said he didnt read the whole thread:

"I did not tead the whole thread, so ignore this if it has already been said.

Didn't Hitler order the death of everybody who was physically and mentally didabled? "

[honest intellectual]

Whether or not someone is a burden on the state is not the issue, human life in itself is worth something (that's mt opinion at least). I think disabled people can and do enjoy life, and by "preventing their birth", you stop that from ever happening, you stop a whole human life from ever happening.

[stick person]

Quote: from Mazdak on 9:27 pm on July 31, 2002
AH!!
WE NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT ORDERING ANYONES DEATH.

Euthanasia, is for people who are suffering and WANT to die.

the other idea was ABORTION, not that we wait for the child to be born and then kill it. How many times do i have to write this before you UNDERSTAND!!!


BS, Mazdak. You started off whining about having to sit next to people with mental retardation, people you dehumanize by calling them "retards." Then it's off to claiming that people like that should never be allowed to be born. Man in the Red Suit wants to kill people with muscular dystrophy too, which he seems to think makes a person completely dysfunctional, and you agreed with him that they should be killed.

You make it perfectly clear that your main issue is nothing other than that you are embarrassed and uncomfortable about having to sometimes sit next to disable people. You make it clear that, because of your squeamishness, you want to use the power of the state to force women to have abortions on the unfounded assumption that disability can be diagnosed in the womb. Try re-reading this topic from the beginning; see what you have been advocating.

[Ymir]

Killing babies is a more controversial issue than I thought!

[honest intellectual]

Quote: from stick person on 5:44 am on July 31, 2002
This is for the adolescent euthanasia enthusiasts:

What horrible little children you are, perfect recruits for the neo-Nazis. What's next, T-1 chambers for mass execution just to spare you the embarassment of sitting next to someone who is different from you? Maybe you should try talking to disabled people as you would anyone else, gearing your conversation to what ever level is necessary to communicate. That's what adults do with you.

Erm, no, just euthanasia.

[Mazdak]

Quote: from stick person on 2:35 am on Aug. 2, 2002

Quote: from Mazdak on 9:27 pm on July 31, 2002
AH!!
WE NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT ORDERING ANYONES DEATH.


AHHHHH AHHHH!!

I said ABORTIONS We both did. MITRS help me. Why the hell cant you read?!
Euthanasia, is for people who are suffering and WANT to die.

the other idea was ABORTION, not that we wait for the child to be born and then kill it. How many times do i have to write this before you UNDERSTAND!!!


BS, Mazdak. You started off whining about having to sit next to people with mental retardation, people you dehumanize by calling them "retards." Then it's off to claiming that people like that should never be allowed to be born. Man in the Red Suit wants to kill people with muscular dystrophy too, which he seems to think makes a person completely dysfunctional, and you agreed with him that they should be killed.

You make it perfectly clear that your main issue is nothing other than that you are embarrassed and uncomfortable about having to sometimes sit next to disable people. You make it clear that, because of your squeamishness, you want to use the power of the state to force women to have abortions on the unfounded assumption that disability can be diagnosed in the womb. Try re-reading this topic from the beginning; see what you have been advocating.

[man in the red suit]

ok I am back to get myself into more shit.

First of all let us take a vote.

Is anyone apposd to either Euthanasia or Abortions?

we will procede from there but first let us find this out.

[man in the red suit]

oh yeah I almost forgot. If you object to either abortions or Euthanasia, please state your reson why.
If you do not object, a simple "yes" will do.

[Mazdak]

HAh! no answer

[boadicea88]

No objections.

[man in the red suit]

ok, I would like to hear a few more responses but since nobody is answering I will move on to the next part.

HYPOTHETICALLY: if there was an irefutable way of determening that a child would be born a complete vegetable(paralyzed and incapable of thinking) AND you are normally OPPOSED to abortions, would you still be opposed to obortions in this particualr case??

IF YOU ARE PRO CHOICE, I would like you to look at this from a right wing, religious fanatic's perspective, think real hard, and give an answer.

So think...If you were "pro life" (I don't think this is a proper term to use) would you possibly change your mind in this particular case?

try to stay with me on this one.

(Edited by man in the red suit at 8:36 am on Aug. 6, 2002)

[boadicea88]

Oh yes.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from boadicea88 on 3:46 am on Aug. 8, 2002
Oh yes.

you mean yes, you would change your mind in this particular case, correct?

It is hard to try to interpret what a republicans view would be on such a circumstance. I personally had a republican teacher in high school who told me that he would change his mind when I asked him this question.

therefore, I am making a theory that nobody in their right mind, could be opposed to abortions in the case where there was irefutable proof that the child would be born incapable of functioning in any way, shape or form.

If you understand this, you will see that what Mazdak is proposing is not actually a bad idea at all. try not to look at it as fascism. I know it is easy to do so. But what good comes from draining the community with a non-functioning being. You also must understand that Retardation is not the proper term to use. Retarded people do NOT drain the comunity. I do not want to speak for Mazdak, but if I am correct, I would say that he made a mistake in using the term "retardation." All we are trying to do is provent the births of people who cannot think or move. Surely nobody would welcome being born this way. And on another related topic, we are not talking about mass genocide. We are not Hitlers, regardless of what the proposal mentioned in this thread, sounds like. In the unusual and unlikely situation that we were to take power, we would not even think about killing those who are already living.

It is very hard to open up a thread about such a morbid topic but I am sure it is a question that has brewed in all of our minds from one time or another. Give your honest opinions. Don't simply snap at us because you think it is the morally correct thing to do. That is all

[PunkRawker677]

I'm not opposed to Euthanasia because i believe people should be able to chose wether they die or not. I had no say in abortion, because i am not a woman and i will never be faced with that. This is why i am pro-choice, because i believe decisions such as that must come from each individual, not a generalized opinion.

In your scenario MITRS, in the mind set of an anti-abortion fanatic, i would think that they still would not change their minds due to stubborness, and religous morals. I, on the other hand, would. As i stated before, i have no problem with retarded people but it is a form of suffering to some extent and would not want to bring a human into the world who is definitly going to be severly handicapped.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from PunkRawker677 on 6:46 am on Aug. 9, 2002

In your scenario MITRS, in the mind set of an anti-abortion fanatic, i would think that they still would not change their minds due to stubborness, and religous morals. I, on the other hand, would. As i stated before, i have no problem with retarded people but it is a form of suffering to some extent and would not want to bring a human into the world who is definitly going to be severly handicapped.

ok excellent. thank you. Yes, some "pro-life" people will probably remain stubborn and not change their minds. but on the other hand, there are republicans who only support the republican parties for other reasons than their "pro-life" ideals. These. people. like my stupid teacher, as I mentioned, might change their minds.

I just wanted to say that for some reason.

And of course, we are not supporting the prevention of the births of these people for the community. there is also the more important reason, mentioned by the punk, that no person would want to be born like that, it is a burden on the person and the families of the person himself.

With that said, I think most of you will see Mazdak's point. Now does anyone have anything to say regarding that or Euthanasia?

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from PunkRawker677 on 6:46 am on Aug. 9, 2002

In your scenario MITRS, in the mind set of an anti-abortion fanatic, i would think that they still would not change their minds due to stubborness, and religous morals. I, on the other hand, would. As i stated before, i have no problem with retarded people but it is a form of suffering to some extent and would not want to bring a human into the world who is definitly going to be severly handicapped.

ok excellent. thank you. Yes, some "pro-life" people will probably remain stubborn and not change their minds. but on the other hand, there are republicans who only support the republican parties for other reasons than their "pro-life" ideals. These. people. like my stupid teacher, as I mentioned, might change their minds.

I just wanted to say that for some reason.

And of course, we are not supporting the prevention of the births of these people for the community. there is also the more important reason, mentioned by the punk, that no person would want to be born like that, it is a burden on the person and the families of the person himself.

With that said, I think most of you will see Mazdak's point. Now does anyone have anything to say regarding that or Euthanasia?

[Mazdak]

you got me out of a tough situation, i think.... Thank you

[man in the red suit]

sure.. no problem. This is a touchy topic for one person to deal with.

[Sammi]

When I was in the sixth grade I walked into my homeroom at school, A group of boys from my class had brought one of the handicapped children from another class and were taken turns beating him for amusement. I took him back to his class, After giving each boy a thrashing of course, and as I was walking him back all I could think was it was better not to be born than to have to suffer that pain and humiliation and not even realising it.

[Pinko]

This is a tricky subject to tackle. I agree, it is better for the gene pool if these types of mental handicap are eradicated. But once you introdue such measures like aborting mentally deficient fetuses then you start a ball rolling that cannot be stopped.

The way to address the problem is to instill a sense of social ethics into children at a very early age. Give them a strong sense of social responsibility and they would not want to breed if the risks of producing a mentally deficient offspring are high. Likewise, they would chose to abort a mentally defective fetus, rather than having the abortion forced upon them.
Even this though, is tending toward the uber-mench thinking of the nazis. It is s system that can easily be modified or abused at a later date.

My thinking is this. Having children is not a right, it is something that should be granted to those who can prove themselves capable of looking after that child and are capable of bringing it up responsibly. This thinking leads to child licenses. If you want a child, the prospective parents take a parenting exam, which assess their ability to rear a child.

But again this system is easily abused by a changing society. In a capitalist society it would lend itself to allowing the rich to breed as success in such societies is measured by wealth. In a communist society, where the welfare of society is the prime concern, the testing would look at the psychological makeup of the parents and their ability not to be deficient parents. As long as the state remains true to marxist communism and does not become a totalitarien regime, then the system should work.

[canikickit]

This thinking leads to child licenses. If you want a child, the prospective parents take a parenting exam, which assess their ability to rear a child.

This idea is okay in theory. But I don't think anyone would want to sit a test, or recieve permission to have a child.

Actually fuck that shit. Nobody controls me, I'd never do that bollocks. People having handicapped children is not motivation enough for me to succumb to control from some schmuck that doesn't know me. It would be great if people showed more responsibility and all that but I'd rather have my own freedom , and handicapped people than oppression.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from canikickit on 12:47 am on Sep. 1, 2002

This thinking leads to child licenses. If you want a child, the prospective parents take a parenting exam, which assess their ability to rear a child.

This idea is okay in theory. But I don't think anyone would want to sit a test, or recieve permission to have a child.

Actually fuck that shit. Nobody controls me, I'd never do that bollocks. People having handicapped children is not motivation enough for me to succumb to control from some schmuck that doesn't know me. It would be great if people showed more responsibility and all that but I'd rather have my own freedom , and handicapped people than oppression.


I think "oppression is nescesary for people who make remarks like that.

[boadicea88]

I agree.

[Anonymous]

Oh god nto another stupid post like this one!

in this one i wont insult you like i did in the first post i saw with this stupid theory

1-killing retarded people jsut becasue they are retarded, becasue they make us pityfull, and becasue they consume food and water and they dont produce nothing, well the typical primitive theory, sonce they dont produce they should be anhileated

2-the last person i remmeber that defended the extermination of the retardeds was hitler,

3-dont come saying "we dont want to kill any retarded person, we just want to prevent them from be born!" bulshit, hitler dint want the jews to be killed, he wanted to prevent them to reproduce, just like you want to do with the retarded people!

4-shouldnt be this opsion made by the parents of the child?

5-although retarded they are human beoings, and maby more humans than anyother, since they cant hate, they only know love, killing a retarded is equal tahn kiling a "normal" human,

6-is that a socialist theory? arent we all suposed to be all equal? then explain to me the reason you want to kill them!

7-i know many retarded people, and i like them, they showe me love, and i give them love in return! maby you should spend more time with retarded people! amby you would learn something!

8-this theory is fucking fascist (not to mention nazi!) and i totaly disagree with it!

9-now taht we are talking about kiling retarded people why dont we kill sick peoiple? and old people? they are consuming food and awter too! they arent producing nothing either!

Ok i leave the rest with you guys! just hope that you never have a retarded son, so you never have to have some love in return!

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from the anarchist on 1:48 am on Sep. 1, 2002
Oh god nto another stupid post like this one!

in this one i wont insult you like i did in the first post i saw with this stupid theory

1-killing retarded people jsut becasue they are retarded, becasue they make us pityfull, and becasue they consume food and water and they dont produce nothing, well the typical primitive theory, sonce they dont produce they should be anhileated

2-the last person i remmeber that defended the extermination of the retardeds was hitler,

3-dont come saying "we dont want to kill any retarded person, we just want to prevent them from be born!" bulshit, hitler dint want the jews to be killed, he wanted to prevent them to reproduce, just like you want to do with the retarded people!

4-shouldnt be this opsion made by the parents of the child?

5-although retarded they are human beoings, and maby more humans than anyother, since they cant hate, they only know love, killing a retarded is equal tahn kiling a "normal" human,

6-is that a socialist theory? arent we all suposed to be all equal? then explain to me the reason you want to kill them!

7-i know many retarded people, and i like them, they showe me love, and i give them love in return! maby you should spend more time with retarded people! amby you would learn something!

8-this theory is fucking fascist (not to mention nazi!) and i totaly disagree with it!

9-now taht we are talking about kiling retarded people why dont we kill sick peoiple? and old people? they are consuming food and awter too! they arent producing nothing either!

Ok i leave the rest with you guys! just hope that you never have a retarded son, so you never have to have some love in return!




you just always fail to see things from our point of view don't you?

we are not killing retards, we do not even want to prevent them from being born. We are talking about preventing the births of vegies. honest to god, some people pay absolutely no attention to anything.

Hitler prevented births by killing people. that is not our plan. I don't feel like going through all of the same analogiesd over again. you will never understand us because you just simply don't want to understand.

Look at the posts from before if you care. Then you can yack about bullshit all you want.

[Anonymous]

"I wanted to make a thread on this topic because it has deeply troubled me since i take a bus home from High School, i have to sit next to retarded people nearly every day. Now, my belief has been this (and i know how much everyone is going to think of me as some satanistic dog sacrificer):
Retarded persons who are already born should be taken caere of like they always have HOWEVER, if it is known that a baby is going to be born retarded, the mother should be forced to have an abortion. with so many starving people in the world who are not retarded, why allow (for lack of a better term) useless peopleto be born to add to the demand for food, shelter, and clothing. I am not saying Kill everyone who is retarded. i am saying we can end retardation by simply stopping retards from being born."

Point 1- he especifily said that the mother of the babie should be forced to abort

Point 2- Kiling/aborting, the same efect with both things! aborting is kiling! no mathar what you say it kills, by aborting you are preventing a life from be born, thats kiling for me!

Point 3- "with so many starving people in the world who are not retarded, why allow (for lack of a better term) useless peopleto be born to add to the demand for food, shelter, and clothing. "- well the old people and the sick people do the same, should they be erradicated too? check the stats and see whats the how many retardeds exist in one country (i think the average is 10% and handicaps are inclueded) and then see how many dont work to produce anything that we can wear, eat or drink (here the rpecentage goes berserk! some countrys dont even produce anything usefull!)

Point 4 - to fight the hunger in the world? pardontme? do you know how many food is wasted by an average citzien?

Point 5- not that i dont see your point of view, i used to think like that i used to think (yes abortin is the way!) but now i changed my viewpoint on that! soo i know exatly what you mean, i just cant acept it now!

Point 6- lets think that we follow that theory and there are no retards, what have we won with that? did the hunger people eat? No! Did our society improved? No!
did we become more perfect and more human becasue we refused the gift of life to some people just because they are retarded? No!

Point 7- under your point of view the retardeds are inferioir beings! and soo they do not deserve to live! dont you understand taht retarded are equal to us? they are one of us! although they have problems they are human beings! they have feelings!


and hereby i beg for your humanity! please do not refuse the gift of life to someone because he or she is diferent! do not refuse the gift of life to any child! Do not kill just for they diferences! What sort of Monsters will we be if we kill our own children? if we prevenbt them for be born! wich is in my opinion the worse fate we can give to a human being! please i beg you! do not prevent them from be born just because they are diferent!

[man in the red suit]

so basically you are a republican, therefore there is no reason to argue. I have discovered the basis of our disagreement

anarchist: abortion=killing

MITRS: abortion=preventing life(not killing)

this is something we will never agree on.

I don't think abortions are killing. If I took an apricot pit out of the ground and stopped an apricot tree from growing, would you call it murder? no. If I went to the supermarket, bought a bunch of eggs and then went home and smashed them all, would that be killing. Of course not

by taking a stupid embryo out of the womb, you are simply preventing a birth, it is not killing. embryos are not people, they are sperms and eggs. It's like pancake batter before it is a pancake. It is not murder or killing or genocide whatever you wish to call it. It is simply taking steps to prevent what some are not ready for.

Now, seeing that I probably have not convinced you the slightest bit, I will stop arguing with you as I can see this is going nowhere fast.

[boadicea88]

Good comeback, MITRS.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from boadicea88 on 5:06 am on Sep. 1, 2002
Good comeback, MITRS.

thanks dude

[boadicea88]

Dudette ;) You're welcome.

[Anonymous]

are you possibly comparing vegetebles with human beings?
Well as far as i am concerned the embryo is going to become a human being the supermarket egg wount!,
How can preventing life be much diferent from kiling? oh yea it takes all the work of actually kiling the persone!

"embryos are not people,"
Yet they will become people, they are alredy developing to become people, and you cant actually say it is just sperm since it alredy started the cycle of life

well about the

anarchist: abortion=killing

MITRS: abortion=preventing life(not killing)

yes we have diferent point of views (thank god!) btu you refered to me as republican, yes the republicans are conservatives, yet i do not disaprove abortio becasue i think it isnt conservative, i disaprove it becasue it prevenmts one the gift of life, i disaprove it because it kills, and then it says it jsut "prevented one life!" , but dont get me wrong, there are some types of abortions that i aprove (like when the mother and the baby are in jeopardy!) but only in those kind of cases!

Say whatever you want, but i worshipe teh womens fertilyty, i love the cycle of life! i cant see abortions (yes i saw abortions and believe me they are ruthless, barbaric, inhuman!) and i cant stand teh idea that one more life has ended without it began! and thats what pains me most! A republican? NO! A life lover? YES!

[boadicea88]

Now it's my turn to mangle a quote:
Something like "2 million miracles is enough."
Saw that on a bumper sticker.
Think it sums it up quite nicely.

[Mazdak]

Anarchist, your arguments sound like those of a Christian Fundamentalist.

Ok, i don't have much time, buit here we go:
If you don't want to prevent seriously disabled children from being born, howabout chhildren who will be born HIV positive?

[Mazdak]

Point 1- he especifily said that the mother of the babie should be forced to abort




Anarchist, who else is going to have the abortion, the father?

[man in the red suit]

excellent quote. I like the humour in that.

anyway. I will now tryp out the near 12 paragraph essay I tried ot write before but could not post because of a glitch in my computer

here goes

to the anarchist:

there is one large drawback in which keeps us from reashing the same solution. Abortions are the cornerstone for this argument.

Let me start by answering, yes, I will compare humans to vegetables. Have you ever seen "one flew over the cuckoo's nest"? surely you must watch movies? remember what they did to Jack Nicholsan at the end of the movie? do you recall how they fried his brains out. the once lively thrivng Jack Nicholson was walking around like a zombie, completely oblivious to every thing around him. Basically he wasn't even living, he was a vegetable. We are speakling out against alowing children to be born like this if there was such a possibility.

Now do you honestly support paying your tax dollars towards physically supoorting someone who cannot contribute anything to society and even hurts society around hijm by having people who must take care of him 24 hours a day.

Let me stop and ask you to imagine another scenario, Imagine that A rapist murderer named Joe Smoe is sentenced to life imprisonment without execution. You should be happy to know now that your tax dollars will go to help pay for Joe's lunchs, Joe's cleaning, and even the exercise equipment for the Joe's 1 hour of fun time.
Not only do your tax dollars only effect him directly but everyone around you as well. When Joe gets lonely and decides to give his inmate, little Jimmy, some butt loving, you will get to pay your tax dollars to help pay for little Jimmy's ass stitching surgery.

It is not exactly the same thing but it comes close. If you let a complete vegetable live, you are paying for the caretakers who come to his house and feed him and clean the shit out of his bed pan. This seems utterly pointless to me. this individual/vegetable is not enjoying any benefit that life has to offer. he is probably in a weel chair, his mind does not compute anything or make any logical descisions, basically that would be like taking care of George W. Bush. It's bad enough he's in ofice.

so think about it. Can you really support letting veggies be born? We are not proposing to kill the veggies already in existence even if you think we are blood thirsty stalinists who like to kill. No, we need to prevent these births in order to help everyone around us.

But the basis of our argument is abortions. If you were pro choice you would see things our way. But as you do not, there is a large red flag above your head that explains to me that you automatically and instinctively oppose our views.

You say you are not a conformist, but frankly I see no other term to describe you. you sound just like a conformist republican saying nonsense like, "I value life"

I don't mean to insult or offend you, I am just trying to figure you out as much you are trying to figure us out.

Neither of us have the wrong view-point. You may consider what we feel to be right as being wrong and that is acceptable. BUT..... before you call us murderers and nazis, walk a mile in our shoes.

[Mazdak]

Excelllent arguments by MITRS

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Mazdak on 5:43 pm on Sep. 1, 2002
Excelllent arguments by MITRS

why thank you very much, comrade :)

[Anonymous]

hhuuummm

"Now do you honestly support paying your tax dollars towards physically supoorting someone who cannot contribute anything to society and even hurts society around hijm by having people who must take care of him 24 hours a day."

Yes i do suport the idea


"Let me stop and ask you to imagine another scenario, Imagine that A rapist murderer named Joe Smoe is sentenced to life imprisonment without execution. You should be happy to know now that your tax dollars will go to help pay for Joe's lunchs, Joe's cleaning, and even the exercise equipment for the Joe's 1 hour of fun time.
Not only do your tax dollars only effect him directly but everyone around you as well. When Joe gets lonely and decides to give his inmate, little Jimmy, some butt loving, you will get to pay your tax dollars to help pay for little Jimmy's ass stitching surgery."

Now your dodgin the mather, i was talking about babies and now you talk about sereal killers


"so think about it. Can you really support letting veggies be born? We are not proposing to kill the veggies already in existence even if you think we are blood thirsty stalinists who like to kill. No, we need to prevent these births in order to help everyone around us."


Yes i suport, vegetabls for you, human beings with problems form me!



"Neither of us have the wrong view-point. You may consider what we feel to be right as being wrong and that is acceptable. BUT..... before you call us murderers and nazis, walk a mile in our shoes."

I never said you were nazis (although i said in the first post like this one but thats ecause i got really pissed) yet i call abortion kiling yes i do, maby the problem here


"But the basis of our argument is abortions. If you were pro choice you would see things our way. But as you do not, there is a large red flag above your head that explains to me that you automatically and instinctively oppose our views."

Oh good now i am blind! whats more i am fanatic too? because i value life? because i do not want to extenguish a diferent kind of human beings? Arent we suposed to help each other? Oh but on your view point retards arent people! soo who has a big red flag above his head? me that refuses to acept abortion becuase it ends a life without it is even began? or you that simply refuse the idea that retards are people too?


"You say you are not a conformist, but frankly I see no other term to describe you. you sound just like a conformist republican saying nonsense like, "I value life" "

There us a diferencem i am a liberal, yet your freedom stops when other people freedom begins, and that line oid life, you7r freedom stops where the retarded freedom begins! aborting is no opcion, is desesperation!

[man in the red suit]

I don't even see why I should answer your posts.

we are not talking about retards. We are talking about vegetables. please realize the difference.

second, we never said that they are not people, I said they they would not even want to live if they were given the choice. Did Jack Nicholson want to live as a veggie in "one flew over the cuckoo's nest" ? no, he told his friend to kill him which he did.

the serial killer analogy is a very good one however you fail to recognize the relevance.

Serial killers and veggies both need support used by tax dollars. therefore they are one in the same.

unless you can agree on pro-choice, we will not be able to help each other see each other's views and there is really no point in us arguing.

[boadicea88]

Quote: from Mazdak on 9:43 am on Sep. 1, 2002
Excelllent arguments by MITRS


Amen. He deserves an award.

(Edited by boadicea88 at 1:42 pm on Sep. 1, 2002)

[canikickit]

Quote: from man in the red suit on 1:14 am on Sep. 1, 2002

I think "oppression is nescesary for people who make remarks like that.

What, people who value their own freedom more than the freedom of the state to judge what is right for others?

[Anonymous]

second, we never said that they are not people, I said they they would not even want to live if they were given the choice. Did Jack Nicholson want to live as a veggie in "one flew over the cuckoo's nest" ? no, he told his friend to kill him which he did.
I supose "one flew over the cuckoo´s nest" is a movie, and in that case you cant possibly compare real life to movies, but i cant talk much about this since i have no clue what you are talking about here!



the serial killer analogy is a very good one however you fail to recognize the relevance.

Serial killers and veggies both need support used by tax dollars. therefore they are one in the same.
I have nothing against sereal killers death raw! although it would be ore wise to study them so we can deal with possible "copies" of old sereal killers!

juist one litle question, what does pro-choice mean anyway? (my bad english beats me always!)

I stay with the same ideal i started, no inocent life, retarded, vegetable or not should be anhielated by the fact they are wasting resources! Now to sereal killers and stuff the same doesnt aply! In that i agree with you!

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from the anarchist on 9:52 pm on Sep. 1, 2002

second, we never said that they are not people, I said they they would not even want to live if they were given the choice. Did Jack Nicholson want to live as a veggie in "one flew over the cuckoo's nest" ? no, he told his friend to kill him which he did.
I supose "one flew over the cuckoo´s nest" is a movie, and in that case you cant possibly compare real life to movies, but i cant talk much about this since i have no clue what you are talking about here!



the serial killer analogy is a very good one however you fail to recognize the relevance.

Serial killers and veggies both need support used by tax dollars. therefore they are one in the same.
I have nothing against sereal killers death raw! although it would be ore wise to study them so we can deal with possible "copies" of old sereal killers!

juist one litle question, what does pro-choice mean anyway? (my bad english beats me always!)

I stay with the same ideal i started, no inocent life, retarded, vegetable or not should be anhielated by the fact they are wasting resources! Now to sereal killers and stuff the same doesnt aply! In that i agree with you!


is english not your first language?

pro choice means you support a women't right to chose whether or not she wants an abortion

One flew over the Cuckoo's nest a good movie and very true to life. So that's all I have to say

[Anonymous]

No i am actually portuguese, and english and portuguese are two very diferent languages, even the phrase construction is diferentm, everything is diferetn in portuguese so sometimes its a bit hard to understand what you guys are talking about

about the pro-choice stuff, yes but do not forget that its not about theyr life, its about other peoples life, although theyr son they dont have the right to take his life! Women manecipation is a good think, women should (and in some countrys have) the same rights the mens have, but abortion isnt jsut about hteyr life, its about other people life too!

[Anonymous]

No i am actually portuguese, and english and portuguese are two very diferent languages, even the phrase construction is diferentm, everything is diferetn in portuguese so sometimes its a bit hard to understand what you guys are talking about

about the pro-choice stuff, yes but do not forget that its not about theyr life, its about other peoples life, although theyr son they dont have the right to take his life! Women manecipation is a good think, women should (and in some countrys have) the same rights the mens have, but abortion isnt jsut about hteyr life, its about other people life too!

About the film, i never saw it soo i cant say nothing about it!

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from the anarchist on 11:32 pm on Sep. 1, 2002
No i am actually portuguese, and english and portuguese are two very diferent languages, even the phrase construction is diferentm, everything is diferetn in portuguese so sometimes its a bit hard to understand what you guys are talking about

about the pro-choice stuff, yes but do not forget that its not about theyr life, its about other peoples life, although theyr son they dont have the right to take his life! Women manecipation is a good think, women should (and in some countrys have) the same rights the mens have, but abortion isnt jsut about hteyr life, its about other people life too!

About the film, i never saw it soo i cant say nothing about it!

alright you don't need to explain to me about the portugese language. I am sure they are very different.

About movies. they are often times very true to life and have important themes that can be applied to modern social issues like this one.

go watch the movie and we'll argue more.

[EricDHobo]

How far along in a pregnancy can one detect if the baby is retarded or not. if it's far along than that really wouldn't be fair to the mother because she had to this thing around in her body with out getting any child. Mothers usually wouldn't care if their kid was retarded or not. There shlould just be a birth control law. If it can be detected early enogh that it hasn't made the mother work or anything than just go ahead and have an abortion.

[man in the red suit]

If someone says retardation again I am just going to snap. For Christ's sake we corrected ourselves. We are NOT talking about retards.

[Anonymous]

you must be joking! the post name is retardation and you say you werent talking about reatrds? sorry but i didnt read the whole post (Fuck 10 pages is too much for me!!) but i was expecificly talking about reatards on my replys!

[canikickit]

This debate is retarded. It should have been aborted long ago.
I doubt you can know a child's mental state while they are in the womb. Some disabilities only become obvious after a few months. If their is a physical disability in the womb, there is no reason to abort.

The idea of forcing anyone to do anything is retarded.
Except in specific cases.

[Mazdak]

Except in specific cases? Huh? If you care so much about the individuals rights? Then how come they can be forced at all?

I dont mind this thread continuing. I was speaking hypothetically. Annd certain things can be found while the child is still in the womb.

[canikickit]

What can be found out?


Except in specific cases? Huh? If you care so much about the individuals rights? Then how come they can be forced at all?

What does all this mean?
I don't really think it should be aborted that was ironic humour.

(Edited by canikickit at 10:08 pm on Sep. 12, 2002)

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from the anarchist on 9:09 pm on Sep. 12, 2002
you must be joking! the post name is retardation and you say you werent talking about reatrds? sorry but i didnt read the whole post (Fuck 10 pages is too much for me!!) but i was expecificly talking about reatards on my replys!



haha we corrected ourselves somewhere in the pages. We are talking about vegetables. We are basically talking about people who casnnot function at all, period.

(Edited by man in the red suit at 5:50 pm on Sep. 14, 2002)

[man in the red suit]

Can- try listening for once in your life. We are discussing a hypothetical situation like Mazdak suggested. In other words. If there were a possible way to determine a mental and physical handicap in a fetus-embryo thing in the womb, would you or would you not consider forcing an abortion. Now in your case, no you would not. You and many others here interpret this as fascism. Me, Mazdak, and possibly, Boadicea, think otherwise. Neither of us are wrong in that respect. We both have very different views and opinions. If you don't believe that anyone should be forced to do something against their will then that is your opinion. You obviously have a more libertarian viewpoint than we do. Now this may be perfectly ok however if you wish to convince us to seeing things from your perspective then you must learn use more logical arguments. That is all.

[LeninCCCP]

Retards can work in society if they have something to offer if not they are wasting precious air and food.

[Cobra]

"Retards can work in society if they have something to offer if not they are wasting precious air and food."
-LenninCCP

MITRS and Mazdak are not talking about retards! They are talking about vegtables (braindeads). Read the previous 12 pages before you post.

This topic has changed a lot from what it was originaly. I doubt if the people on Mazdaks' bus are vegtables. The issue of abortion in general is an important one, and is one that can not be ignored. It is best for us leftist to intellagently discuss these matters.

As for the issue of killing vegtables (braindeads, not physicly disfunctionals) when they are in their embryo form:

I think it is important for all of us to try to prentend what would be like to live life as a vegtable. Life can be tough and at times confusing for even the most intellagent people. For a vegatable, multiply those factors by 100...no, make that 1,000. What a Terrable Existance! Would you want to be alive if you were a vegtable? Of course not!

The right thing to do is to put these people (braindead vegtables) out of their misory before they are even born. There is no reason for them to suffer.

[Illiterate Artist]

Do keep in mind that there is a multitude of useless people in the world that aren't mentally hadicapped and are just taking up space. And in many cases being rather conter productive. These people are this way by choice. The mentally hadicapped didn't choose to be that way.

[Mazdak]

Illiterate artist, the difference is, the people who are useless by choice have the CHOICE, they can work, braindeads cant under any circumstances.

And I already said many times counterproductivity would not be tolerated. I am authoritarian remember? You don't work voluntarily, then you work forced. Retards can't be forced to work, they dont have the ability.

[Discourse of Method]

Im not saying that there isn't a problem with world population that causes a good chunk of the world to starve, but a lot of women, to my understanding, have a hard time giving up a child that she has carried for five months or whatever. Also, some women only get one chance to have a baby. Im not sure Im making any point, but peoples actions are controlled by their emotions, basically. Therefore, I cant imagine a world that would find aborting of all known-retards acceptable. Theres the pope and shit you know. I find abortion acceptable because of these problems in world hunger and crap but it should be avoided. what the fuck that means? I dont know.

[Mazdak]

Who said the pope or religion at all would be around? They would be a thing of the past. Emotions? Why should emotions be part of anything? If a woman was to have a retarded baby, and not abort it, it would be selfishness. She would be forced, whether some religious idiot likes it or not.

[Iepilei]

humanity is not a machine for production of the state. you may be authoritarian in your beliefs - but the hell if anything as such will be successful in the real world.

[Mazdak]

Of course not, they are allowed social lives, but certain things, retardation, and drugs/prostitution are counterproductive. They serve no purpose. They are useless and don't have any function that is positive.

People have their social lives, but not if their social lives are threatening other people.

[Iepilei]

so you'd fuck people over for a bad roll of the dice?

I agree that if a serious disability is detected soon enough it should be a choice to abort, but nothing as such should be forced upon anyone.

[Mazdak]

That is where we differ. If you are going to FORCE a revolution, why not FORCE the changes needed to achieve communism? So if you are FORCING all this, what is the problem with forcing abortions.

In the world, i see one of two choices for human kind:
either a huge war of extermination where we lose huge amounts of people

Or mass sterilization, limiting the nunmber of children per couple and forcing abortion in certain cases.

Althought the second one is obviously preferable,one of the two is necessary. The population of humans iis about 4 billion to many, so we need to "thin out" the herd.

[Blasphemy]

mazdak, i find the whole concept sickening. of course, abortion is not murder because the woman has the right to do as she's pleased with her own body, but you're suggesting that the state will do as it pleases with the woman's body, not the woman herself. you can't interfere in an individual's life because you claim he is unproductive. life isn't about being productive. the world is not a factory where you fire those who do not contribute to it. you do not have the right to deny parents of their child because you don't want him around.
everybody deserves to live, and you can't set standards for that. the state is not god, and shouldn't strive to be one. you can't force people to do certain things because you decided it's for the best. people should decide for themselves, and if they want to have a retarded child, nobody has the right to say anything.

[Mazdak]

It isn't about being productive. Braindead severly retarded people aren't only unproductive, they are COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. They serve no purpose other then to drain state resources to sustain them when they are too limited to make this worth their time. It is greedy and unfair to have children knowing their lives will be nothing but languishing and suffering, even if they don't know it. Can a blind person appreciate sight?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 12:43 am on Oct. 27, 2002
It isn't about being productive. Braindead severly retarded people aren't only unproductive, they are COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. They serve no purpose other then to drain state resources to sustain them when they are too limited to make this worth their time. It is greedy and unfair to have children knowing their lives will be nothing but languishing and suffering, even if they don't know it. Can a blind person appreciate sight?


You are totally right..let me go shoot Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles even though both are brilliant muscicians just because they are blind

..........jackass

[Blasphemy]

Quote: from Mazdak on 1:43 am on Oct. 27, 2002
It isn't about being productive. Braindead severly retarded people aren't only unproductive, they are COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. They serve no purpose other then to drain state resources to sustain them when they are too limited to make this worth their time. It is greedy and unfair to have children knowing their lives will be nothing but languishing and suffering, even if they don't know it. Can a blind person appreciate sight?


the world isn't a factory, the people aren't workers, and the state isn't the manager. you got it all wrong! you don't kill people because they are counterproductive. you can't take someone's life because you feel they are stealing your resources. we do not live to produce and to be productive. we live because we were granted our lives, and the state was not the one to grant them to us. what right does it have to take it away?

[Mazdak]

Lardlad, when did i say blind people should not be allowed to live? REad the fucking post.

Blasphemy it isn't just their counterproductiveness and drain on resources, it is the fact that their lives will be almost totally useless both to them and to the state. They can't enjoy life when they are vegetables.

[Cassius Clay]

My dear Mazdak. I'm going to have to disagree with you here, although I reccomend that the people who do disagree with him read the posts before responding. Not once has Mazdak claimed that blind people should be shot or any of the other accusations in this thread.

So why do I disagree with you Mazdak. Simple where do you draw the line? This policy could easily be taken advantage of by alot of people who suddenly determine that their relative has become 'Braindead' when infact they aren't. It may seem as if this couldn't happen but it does now and it would if your idea was put into practice.

Another point is that who determines whether the life is worth it or not? Certainly it shouldn't be the government. But the parents of the child, and anyway the Braindead person may infact be more happy and content with their life then any of us are.

Besides George W Bush is Braindead and he's done pretty well so far.

[Blasphemy]

Quote: from Mazdak on 4:32 pm on Oct. 27, 2002
Lardlad, when did i say blind people should not be allowed to live? REad the fucking post.

Blasphemy it isn't just their counterproductiveness and drain on resources, it is the fact that their lives will be almost totally useless both to them and to the state. They can't enjoy life when they are vegetables.


oh, i get it. the state is actually saving them from some long and useless life.

mazdak, my friend, you are not jesus. you weren't put on this world to save people from boredom or anything else. the parents have a choice, and only them. if they want to raise an autistic child or a retarded child, no one has the right to say anything. you're not the messiah who saves people, and neither is the state.

also, the people are not suppose to serve the state. the state isn't some divine entity that all must faithfully serve.

[Mazdak]

CC- The same argument can be used for prostitution and drugs which almost everyone here want legalized. they say marijuana should be legalized. but where do you draw the line there?

The situation i was referring to was a hypothetical one. You draw the line simply. The person is going to be born disabled so severly their lives will be nothing more than sleeping, why should they live. Why should they be forced to live in a shell?

Blasphemy, I never said i was put in the world to do anything, the STATE was. Why should parents OWN their children? The state has the right to say something because the state is the one who is supporting the child.

[Frosty]

The state should do this, the state should do that...my anarchist blood is almost freezing.

I especially don't approve of a state that makes itself the Lord of all life. That's why i'm not a stalinist i presume...

It should be up to the parents.
They should be able to hear all arguments for and against before deciding for an abortion.
All cases are unique, too.

[Iepilei]

as said, humans are not machines for use of the state. we are a free and individual people who must be allowed our freedoms and our rights for decisions. the state has no right in claiming who belongs to who and neither do the parents.

advocation of the erradication of family - what a hideous concept. next you'll be pushing towards the eradication of emotion, or sensory pleasure... step by step creating the brave new fascist world you're fighting to thwart.

[Mazdak]

The abolishen of the family would be one of the greatest steps to true equality! How can you say anything else about it? People would look at you for who you are, not for who your family. If some stranger killed someone in front of you, you would surely testify agaist them in court, but the chances of you testifying are far less if the person is your father or brother.

Humans aren't machines. True, but that is no excuse for laziness and counterproductivity.

Emotions? I didnt say anything about emotions. You can keep your emotions and such but still, we should work like termites in a termite mound. Only instead of working for the queen and king, it is for the benefit of the colony. Everything for the colony. People are not more important than the state(state=colony). Effeciancy should be an extremely high priority.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 4:23 pm on Oct. 27, 2002
CC- The same argument can be used for prostitution and drugs which almost everyone here want legalized. they say marijuana should be legalized. but where do you draw the line there?

The situation i was referring to was a hypothetical one. You draw the line simply. The person is going to be born disabled so severly their lives will be nothing more than sleeping, why should they live. Why should they be forced to live in a shell?

Blasphemy, I never said i was put in the world to do anything, the STATE was. Why should parents OWN their children? The state has the right to say something because the state is the one who is supporting the child.



reffering to teh original post...you said they can't appreciate sight...so what good are they? They can't behold your magnificient society

second the state isn't supporting the child

if the paren't works to earn money, then teh parent supports teh child

but hey I guess you know best

though you aren't fixing the problem cuz under your system teh state would OWN the child

also it's a person's offspring which mean it is their responsibility

don't seperae children from their parents

because your cold heartless ass will corrupt them

children need their parents

its' their paren'ts job to discipline them and love them

all you and your state could ever do is discipline them

[Iepilei]

people see others for who they are in modern society. granted, it's in a jumbled mix with family ties and capital in modern society but it's still existant.

abolishment of the family would do nothing to fix equality. all it does is give a run at totalitarianism - an idealist concept, as humans cannot operate as such. we're going to have social circles, groups of varying respect for individuals - and in a society where the classes are abolished it will be BY FAR easier to establish contact and respect seeing how someone works.

[Mazdak]

You can know who your family is and have contact with them.. but it will be abolished. The concept. You would look at a sibling as another person. not a sibling but a fellow human. Nothing more. Maybe a friend, but not a brother/sister.

I already explained how it helps keep equality

Lardlad- I nevver once said anything about killing blind people, stop putting words in my mouth.

If familyis abolished, the state is supporting the parents. Or do you think parents should OWN the child? no, the child is not property, so it is supported by ther state and educated and nourished. The parents do nothing but have the child.

The rest of your post is filled with hilarious grammar"cuz teh peeple woodnt liek yoo"

Stalinsoldiers grammar.


Blah blah blah cold and heartless, blah blah blah. One can't be so emotional if one wants to rule effectivly and efficiently. I seriously doubt Vlad the Impaler gave two shits about any of the people he had killed. And don't tell me he wasnt an effecient leader.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 1:58 am on Oct. 29, 2002
You can know who your family is and have contact with them.. but it will be abolished. The concept. You would look at a sibling as another person. not a sibling but a fellow human. Nothing more. Maybe a friend, but not a brother/sister.

I already explained how it helps keep equality

Lardlad- I nevver once said anything about killing blind people, stop putting words in my mouth.

If familyis abolished, the state is supporting the parents. Or do you think parents should OWN the child? no, the child is not property, so it is supported by ther state and educated and nourished. The parents do nothing but have the child.

The rest of your post is filled with hilarious grammar"cuz teh peeple woodnt liek yoo"

Stalinsoldiers grammar.


Blah blah blah cold and heartless, blah blah blah. One can't be so emotional if one wants to rule effectivly and efficiently. I seriously doubt Vlad the Impaler gave two shits about any of the people he had killed. And don't tell me he wasnt an effecient leader.


Look I like my parents, and I would rather them raise me than anyone linked to you

and I'm sure most children would agree

parents dont own children, they raise them

you have no right to take them away

We don't want to be your mindless slaves

[Mazdak]

"when you have no expectations you have no dissapointments"

Sure now you like the idea of a parent raising you, but if that whole idea is just alien to you. What you don't know can't hurt you. It seems cruel but all for the benefit of posterity no?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 9:25 pm on Oct. 29, 2002
"when you have no expectations you have no dissapointments"

Sure now you like the idea of a parent raising you, but if that whole idea is just alien to you. What you don't know can't hurt you. It seems cruel but all for the benefit of posterity no?


In this case doesn't justify the means in this case.

But can you say that you would offer love to these children like their parents would?

THeir mother gave birth to them, their father helped them be brought into this world.....


So once they are born you gonna just take it from it's mother?

The parents have more rights to keep the hildren than your evil state

[Mazdak]

lol, "evil" state. AS TS said, people should run the state like an ant colony. Ants don't value individuals. They value the colony. they sacrifice everything for the colony. Who cares which one is more convinient? It is effeciency that counts, not hurt feelings here and there.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 12:33 am on Oct. 30, 2002
lol, "evil" state. AS TS said, people should run the state like an ant colony. Ants don't value individuals. They value the colony. they sacrifice everything for the colony. Who cares which one is more convinient? It is effeciency that counts, not hurt feelings here and there.


SO then Stalin was a faceless individual who did everything for the good of the colony? Do you think he didn't have it better than other people?

Are you a faceless individual? Do you have an opinion?

Mazdak you aren't allowed an opinion because you are just a faceless idividual

thinking doesn't benefiet the colony so stop thinking, just do what you are told

because you can't be a unique individual..you and Stormin Norman, and Glamgirl

you all think alike they are you you are tehm

you have no differences yoiu believe the same as them and you have the same intrests

since glamgirl likes malls and nailpolish you like nailpolish also

[Mazdak]

Individuality and individualISM are two different things. Sure you can do this, but you must remember that the colony is always more important. In the long run, the state is the most important. One's loyalty must be zealous. Of course, things get better after reforms and such. Then the heavy handed dictatorship would end. This would be a temporary measure, like war communism, only lasting much longer, at least 50 years to a century.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 2:30 am on Oct. 30, 2002
Individuality and individualISM are two different things. Sure you can do this, but you must remember that the colony is always more important. In the long run, the state is the most important. One's loyalty must be zealous. Of course, things get better after reforms and such. Then the heavy handed dictatorship would end. This would be a temporary measure, like war communism, only lasting much longer, at least 50 years to a century.

individuality-1 a : total character peculiar to and distinguishing an individual from others b : PERSONALITY

individualism-1 a (1) : a doctrine that the interests of the individual are or ought to be ethically paramount; also : conduct guided by such a doctrine

paramount: superior to all others : SUPREME
synonym see DOMINANT

to be an individual your individuality must be paramount

If they aren't then they are held back and you aren't an individual

If the state is paramount then teh indidvidual is lost

you can't say you can be an individual but then advocate teh state being at the forefront

because if it is then guess what people can't be indidvidual.

HTey serve the interest of the state and the state has no interest in personal intrest

it has intrest in what is best for it's self

To be completely state oriented the needs of any individual must be over looked

which means that the state can't provide for any personal needs of an individual.

Which means if your society has a higher population of men than women (such as China) then women cannot be given feminine hygine products because the majority doesn't need them.

The individual is no more, teh state has no need for uniqueness because the state is not unique

the state remains the same

with out indidvidualism in some form progression ends

and human existance stagnates

[timbaly]

I agree with Mazdak on the idea that retards should not be allowed to be born into society. Just as Mazdak said, retards should not be consuming the needs of non-retarded humans if there isn't enough for both retarded and non-retards. If there is enough to go around to all humans including retards, then I have no problem with it.
I also agree with him on abolishing family as we know it. I've been thnking about this for some time. Mazdak used an excellent example of how family influences decisions and emotions. I know people who wouldn't even think of reporting crimes on family members even if they wittnessed it first hand. To better ensure that this won't happen "family" units should be rotated. Because even if a person isn't a blood relative of another, they would stick up for them even when they know it's wrong since they've lived with them for there entire life. It would be just like an adopted child not knowing he was adopted or not carring about the adoption(I mean a person without that "betrayed feeling after finding out they were adopted) in our present society. Therefore the people should not be kept in the same groups for over a certain period of time. I haven't thought of how long it should be, but I'd say no more than 6 months to a year.

(Edited by timbaly at 10:49 pm on Oct. 30, 2002)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from timbaly on 3:36 am on Oct. 30, 2002
I agree with Mazdak on the idea that retards should not be allowed to be born into society. Just as Mazdak said, retards should not be consuming the needs of non-retarded humans if there isn't enough for both retarded and non-retards. If there is enough to go around to all humans including retards, then I have no problem with it.
I also agree with him on abolishing family as we know it. I've been thnking about this for some time. Mazdak used an excellent example of how family influences decisions and emotions. I know people who wouldn't even think of reporting crimes on family members even if they wittnessed it first hand. To better ensure that this won't happen "family" units should be rotated. Because even if a person isn't a blood relative of another, they would stick up for them even when they know it's wrong since they've lived with them for there entire life. It would be just like an adopted child not knowing he was adopted or not carring about the adoption(I mean a person without that "betrayed feeling after finding out they were adopted) in our present society. Therefore the people should not be kept in the same groups for over a certain period of time. I haven't thought of how long it should be, but I'd say no more than 6 months to a year.

(Edited by timbaly at 10:49 pm on Oct. 30, 2002)


But if the state controls the child they wont think for themselves either

atleast with paren'ts they have a better chance for that

Mazdak would just brainwash them

plus no one can offer a child love like a family

children need love

maybe you two weren't loved as children and that is sad but don't ruin it for everyone else

[Mazdak]

The child will think for itself, but it will simply be raised atheist and in an ideal manner.

Brainwashing is raising the child and indoctrinating him/her with religion and other things like this.

[Mazdak]

Lardlad, i will use your own arguments against you.

Who are you to say what a child needs?

[timbaly]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 4:46 pm on Oct. 31, 2002
But if the state controls the child they wont think for themselves either

atleast with paren'ts they have a better chance for that

Mazdak would just brainwash them

plus no one can offer a child love like a family

children need love

maybe you two weren't loved as children and that is sad but don't ruin it for everyone else

How would the state be in control of these children?
The children will be able to think for themselves even better in this system. The children will be exposed to many diffrent people and there many different opinions and viewpoints on things. If the kids lived with the same family all their life, their opinion would most likley be very similar to the parents, since they won't have the same first hand expierences with different opinions as if they lived in the system i described. So now that the children have had many different expierences with people their opinion is now most likley to be their very own. They would be far from brainwashed.

Why wouldn't there be love? People would learn to love other people not just because they are family, but because they are all humans. There would still be love and nurturing. The adult members would still have to care for the children.

As for the last comment, I was loved as a child but ever since i was 10 I began to think that even though my parents loved me why wouldn't my neighbors do the same. I think this is how i started to develop this opinion. I hardley think that I am ruining it for anyone.

As for your comment on Mazdak brainwashing them, that is a comment he will deal with. I don't know his intentions.

[Cobra]

You are exatly right timbaly. Once the family is abolished all adults would be a childs parents, and all children would a parents children.

It is very stupid to say that only the birthgivers of a child can love that child. I know many people who were adopted and love their "fake" parents as much as somone loves "real" parents. Society as a whole would benifit tremendisly if the family was abolished.

Parents often try and make children think exacly like them. This hinders new ideas. They teach children to beleive in false gods and accept the corruption and exploitation in the system. It isn't until children are teenagers some are able to discovery the flaws in what their parents have taught them. The sad fact is that many children never reach this enlightment. They just follow what there parents taught them just as their parents before them.

With the family is abolished children will be able to form ideas from the time they are born. Older members of the society would be able to guide them. Think how great it will be when all old people will treat all children as if they were their own children. They would care for each other and cooperate without conflicts. The family must be abolished in order to create a better society.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 2:02 am on Oct. 31, 2002
The child will think for itself, but it will simply be raised atheist and in an ideal manner.

Brainwashing is raising the child and indoctrinating him/her with religion and other things like this.


What if the child doesn't want to be atheist? Isn't that imposing and indoctrinating also?

What if the child thnks for it's self and it believe god lives in a rock he found at a pond and he can give a somewhat logical explanation for why he believes this

or what if hte child finds a book on old religions and hthinks that Jainism makes a hell alot of sense to them?

But no you will force them to be atheist

your ideas are hypocritical.


Also Are you saying children don't need love? That they should never feel needed and have people who are happy thet they are there? Not for any special purpose but because they are them? An Individual?

People need love, not just children

Even adopted children get love, but what Mazdak proposes doesn't even allow for that

[Mazdak]

I would not be controlling them, as i said, i would simply be educating them to become productive. UIseful to society. The State would be their parent.

For example, when stalin's son was captured by the germans, they offered stalin a trade. His son for a high ranking german officer who was a prisoner.

Stalin, because he saw all the people equally, refused. He saw his son's life as valuable as all the other soldiers, since he viewed all of them as his "son" so to speak. The same happened to Khrushchevs son. He was executed for helping the axis, just as any other traitor when the soviets took back their POWs. Because of the equality. No one is worth more than another, not even stalin's own son. Now, how many men would do sucha thing?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from timbaly on 2:05 am on Oct. 31, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 4:46 pm on Oct. 31, 2002
But if the state controls the child they wont think for themselves either

atleast with paren'ts they have a better chance for that

Mazdak would just brainwash them

plus no one can offer a child love like a family

children need love

maybe you two weren't loved as children and that is sad but don't ruin it for everyone else

How would the state be in control of these children?
The children will be able to think for themselves even better in this system. The children will be exposed to many diffrent people and there many different opinions and viewpoints on things. If the kids lived with the same family all their life, their opinion would most likley be very similar to the parents, since they won't have the same first hand expierences with different opinions as if they lived in the system i described. So now that the children have had many different expierences with people their opinion is now most likley to be their very own. They would be far from brainwashed.

Why wouldn't there be love? People would learn to love other people not just because they are family, but because they are all humans. There would still be love and nurturing. The adult members would still have to care for the children.

As for the last comment, I was loved as a child but ever since i was 10 I began to think that even though my parents loved me why wouldn't my neighbors do the same. I think this is how i started to develop this opinion. I hardley think that I am ruining it for anyone.

As for your comment on Mazdak brainwashing them, that is a comment he will deal with. I don't know his intentions.



Think about it. They wont be able to be openminded in this system. Mazdak wants them all atheist.

How the fuck is that exposed to other cultures and points of veiw?

All mazdak is doing is taking the bad things he claims against fmaily and collectivising them.

I was raised by my parents and my ideas differ from their but they support my decisions

my dad is a fuckin republican but he doesn't care that I'm a socialist he doesn't force anything on me.

You must have been around the wrong families

my family is very openminded.

People choose for themselves if you accept what you are told you are ignorant it isn't your parents fualt that you never questioned things.

When you turn 18 you are free to do what you want, if you choose to remain the same that is a choice.

Why are mothers of newborns given their baby for ten minutes before they are taken away to be washed?

So the two can bond

you have a bond with your mother and birth parents. its natural.

Even animals in the wild recognize their mother.

if you have a loving mother there is no possible way anyone can love you the same.

Even though a neighbor you have may love you they don't have that special bond

and tell me what are going to do, just rip the newborn from the mother's hands?

Whats the point of having children if you aren't allowed to raise them?

To benefiet the state? So your child cna be a slave?

[Lardlad95]

Productive? The Us is teh richest country on earth. The majority of US citizans are Christians, not atheist.

If you were raising them atheist to be productive thats bullshit.

if religion and productivity went hand and hadn you would choose christianaity.

Second Stalin was a moron and a horrible father

It is a parents job to protect their offsrping

it's true in nature it's true here.

My child comes before the state.

To the state i am worthless fuck the state

[Mazdak]

1. You said it yourself it is something of wild animals. WE are supposedly higher than that. And ant grubs are taking care of with love and affection(sort of). Collectivising is important. It is the key. Why expose a child to something when he/she is so young and impressionable. Why not do it when they can become objective. Let them see when they are 18?

I can't write more now, so as usual, i will write more on this later.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Cobra on 2:40 am on Oct. 31, 2002
You are exatly right timbaly. Once the family is abolished all adults would be a childs parents, and all children would a parents children.

It is very stupid to say that only the birthgivers of a child can love that child. I know many people who were adopted and love their "fake" parents as much as somone loves "real" parents. Society as a whole would benifit tremendisly if the family was abolished.

Parents often try and make children think exacly like them. This hinders new ideas. They teach children to beleive in false gods and accept the corruption and exploitation in the system. It isn't until children are teenagers some are able to discovery the flaws in what their parents have taught them. The sad fact is that many children never reach this enlightment. They just follow what there parents taught them just as their parents before them.

With the family is abolished children will be able to form ideas from the time they are born. Older members of the society would be able to guide them. Think how great it will be when all old people will treat all children as if they were their own children. They would care for each other and cooperate without conflicts. The family must be abolished in order to create a better society.



No offense but seriously that concept is moronic.

Children need to be raised by someone, 400 people can't raise a child.

Having collective raising is a waste of money.

Those adopted children are their children so they love them

in collective raising you have no parent, you have a teacher, a teacher can't love like a parent becuase they have no bond.

collective raising would hinder new thought also

especially if it is strict atheist it's just as bad as a strict christian

you guys are forcing children to be atheist...now is that fair?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Cobra on 2:40 am on Oct. 31, 2002
You are exatly right timbaly. Once the family is abolished all adults would be a childs parents, and all children would a parents children.

It is very stupid to say that only the birthgivers of a child can love that child. I know many people who were adopted and love their "fake" parents as much as somone loves "real" parents. Society as a whole would benifit tremendisly if the family was abolished.

Parents often try and make children think exacly like them. This hinders new ideas. They teach children to beleive in false gods and accept the corruption and exploitation in the system. It isn't until children are teenagers some are able to discovery the flaws in what their parents have taught them. The sad fact is that many children never reach this enlightment. They just follow what there parents taught them just as their parents before them.

With the family is abolished children will be able to form ideas from the time they are born. Older members of the society would be able to guide them. Think how great it will be when all old people will treat all children as if they were their own children. They would care for each other and cooperate without conflicts. The family must be abolished in order to create a better society.



No offense but seriously that concept is moronic.

Children need to be raised by someone, 400 people can't raise a child.

Having collective raising is a waste of money.

Those adopted children are their children so they love them

in collective raising you have no parent, you have a teacher, a teacher can't love like a parent becuase they have no bond.

collective raising would hinder new thought also

especially if it is strict atheist it's just as bad as a strict christian

you guys are forcing children to be atheist...now is that fair?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 3:43 am on Oct. 31, 2002
1. You said it yourself it is something of wild animals. WE are supposedly higher than that. And ant grubs are taking care of with love and affection(sort of). Collectivising is important. It is the key. Why expose a child to something when he/she is so young and impressionable. Why not do it when they can become objective. Let them see when they are 18?

I can't write more now, so as usual, i will write more on this later.


collectivism is something ants and bees do and they are less inttlegent than pigs who are wild animals.


you are exposing them to your point of veiw when they are young and impressionable...so really your being a hypocrite

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 3:43 am on Oct. 31, 2002
1. You said it yourself it is something of wild animals. WE are supposedly higher than that. And ant grubs are taking care of with love and affection(sort of). Collectivising is important. It is the key. Why expose a child to something when he/she is so young and impressionable. Why not do it when they can become objective. Let them see when they are 18?

I can't write more now, so as usual, i will write more on this later.


collectivism is something ants and bees do and they are less inttlegent than pigs who are wild animals.


you are exposing them to your point of veiw when they are young and impressionable...so really your being a hypocrite

[Cobra]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 3:48 am on Oct. 31, 2002




No offense but seriously that concept is moronic.

Children need to be raised by someone, 400 people can't raise a child.

Having collective raising is a waste of money.

Those adopted children are their children so they love them

in collective raising you have no parent, you have a teacher, a teacher can't love like a parent becuase they have no bond.

collective raising would hinder new thought also

especially if it is strict atheist it's just as bad as a strict christian

you guys are forcing children to be atheist...now is that fair?


1. If children that are adopted can love their foster parents then why can't they love other people who are not their real parents.

2. 400 people can raise a child better than 1 person. Think about it. 400>1 = more care for that child

3. Collective raising is not wasteful. Each person helps to raise that child to the best of their ability. This eliminates having children raised by 1 or 2 people who are weak in many areas. The strengths of the many covers those weaknesses, making it less wasteful than family-style raising.

4. Collective raising does not hinder new thought. Lardlad95 may have been lucky enough to have parents that encouraged him to think on his own, but the vast majority of parents do not. By being influenced by many people and not just 1 or 2 people the childs' mind would be much less limited. This would make it easyer for that child to think freely.

5. The purpose of all Religion was to hold the elite in power. Religion makes it hard for people to think freely. Next time you find a religous person, go ask them, "is that what you think, or is that what your god thinks?"

6. This is not "moronic", it is a much better system than the one we have now.

The family needs to be abolished; to say otherwise is quite foolish.

[Mazdak]

Ants less intelligent than pigs? LOL, lardlad, what is stronger the pig, or the collective minds of thousnads.. millions of ants all working together for the common good. Also if you consider ants have a higher social level than most mammals ewven though they are anatomically relativly primitive. Would you rather be a wild pig, whose ability to socialize is limited, or a bee/ant/termite/wasp where you will literally be living in a form of primitive commune. You make it sound as though ants are ineffecient lardlad.

[Mazdak]

Ah, lardlad shows his true colors, "My son comes before the state,"

You greedy fuck. So you would put the well being of one brat over the well being of all the people in the state. And you call yourself leftist.

Stalin was a busy man, he was as good as a father can be when you have a job like his. Like i said, look at how he put the state before his personal life. He liked his son, but he also viewed his son just as he would any other soldier. So he did what a true leader should in the situation.

"Stalin was a moron."

Thats your opinion... odd how a man who you claim is a moron also is a man you claim killed 20-50 million people yet kept the loyalty of his people. You are contradicting yourself. He can't be both a moron and an "evil genius" at once.

Christianity... productive?? Instead of wasting money on churches and priests, money would go to more important things. It is useless to society. I don't want the states abortion clinics to be blown up and any problems to happen when euthanasia is legalized. Christianity, like all other religions would be surpressed.

Atheism is the most productive... no holidays, no days of worship, no fanatics with bombs strapped to them hoping for a bunch of virgins, and no creationists.

(Edited by Mazdak at 3:17 pm on Oct. 31, 2002)

[Panamarisen]

I´ve red the WHOLE thread, so far...

1) The "State" is brought up by individuals. If individuals, each one of them, are not happy, free people, does this kind of State should go on? Ants don´t care for their individuals, they only care for the entire colony because that´s their biological way of being, that´s just a method to preserve GENETICALLY the specie; humans don´t need to behave as ants do to preserve themselves.

2) "Productive" people, "useful" people..., what´s that all about? To be productive for a concept (the "State") instead of doing it for real people, in any case? For sure we are all in this world for more than being "productive".

3) There is a biological, unique, absolute natural relationship between parents -specially the mother- and child. It´s VERY important to understand that it doesn´t mean that parents OWN their children -please, re-read Erich Fromm-, and that the child should be part of a community, and feel nourished by it (as natives/aborigens all over the world do), but don´t ever think some power (i.e., the "State") must "take care" of him, and dictate what should be done about him.

4) It´s not the point that you agree or not with abortion in such cases as to-be-vegetable people... Can anyone of us actually determine WHEN the embryo or the fetus is an individual, not just "some part" of the mother? It´s all not as simple as it may look...!

5) Anything that leads us to a "rational" (???) way of doing things, not considering biology, psyche, emotions, experience, etc., as part of the human being, is poisonus for Humanity, and will finally be put aside (luckilly)!


HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

[Mazdak]

on your fourth point.... in my opinion, until the baby is out of the mother, it isnt human. But i know that is pretty extreme so i will say the first 6 months.

That is how long. And you value human life to highly.

Your 1st point- same regurgitated argument. Sure individuals wouldnt be happy, but individuals only make up a small portion of the state. Enlightened officials govern it. Their opinion means more.

Humans DO need to behave more like (especially termites, as they are one of the most advanced social insects. they expand their colonies methodically and, despite being one of the most primitive insects in the world, almost rival humans in their social level(as compared with their capabilites). They have a perfect level of order. Their society... is literally perfection. Probably more effeciant than human society. Termites rarely fight (like ants, wasps, and bees do). Males and females are both workers and can be at any level on the termite social ladder. (A king and a queen termite, rather than just a queen).

the hive mentality is far more important than anything else. How can you truly be communist if you value one life over another?

[Panamarisen]

-"Hive mentallity"... It makes me remember me the film "The Fly"! The idea is to value the life of ALL individuals, not just of some of them (for instance, the ones in the power).
-"Enlightned" officials DON´T EXIST in this society. Besides, individuals are ALL of us, not only some of us.
-When the human being is actually a human being? WHO ever knows, as I just said? Guess it´s not a question of opinions.

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

[Valkyrie]

hahaha! Mazdak! "You value human life too highly." hahaha! Classic! First you talk about the red-breasted Robin: How sad his life ended so abruptly, so meaningless, the bird represents the microcosm of all life in its futility as noone will remember the average human being unless given over to fame.

Now, you go on to say that ants are ingenius working soldiers for the collective. hahaha. Yes, true, as a kid my friend had one of those ant farms and they do pretty much work day and night digging trenches for some unforeseen war apparently. Anyhow... the point is the ants will come out in a team to reclaim the fallen and smooshed body of their comrade having been trampled underfoot, HOWEVER, (and that;'s a big however) if you drop a piece of food near them while they are enroute to delivering this comrade to the ant morgue, they will drop the poor victims body and go fetch the crumbs....... any big pieces will be carried on their backs,(less the fallen comrade) back to the commune where they will all fight over it since there is never enough to go around. Thus, you think like an ant with the regard to life. Which explains why you raise cockroaches -- as the only living thing that will survive nuclear war, when it's all said and done at the end, someone will remember you're name. hahahha!!

Ahh, just busting your ass again! I think someday you will fervently reject Stalinism as the disease that it is. I'm sure of it!!!

(Edited by Paris at 8:21 pm on Oct. 31, 2002)

[timbaly]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 10:30 pm on Oct. 31, 2002



Think about it. They wont be able to be openminded in this system. Mazdak wants them all atheist.

How the fuck is that exposed to other cultures and points of veiw?

All mazdak is doing is taking the bad things he claims against fmaily and collectivising them.

I was raised by my parents and my ideas differ from their but they support my decisions

my dad is a fuckin republican but he doesn't care that I'm a socialist he doesn't force anything on me.

You must have been around the wrong families

my family is very openminded.

People choose for themselves if you accept what you are told you are ignorant it isn't your parents fualt that you never questioned things.

When you turn 18 you are free to do what you want, if you choose to remain the same that is a choice.

Why are mothers of newborns given their baby for ten minutes before they are taken away to be washed?

So the two can bond

you have a bond with your mother and birth parents. its natural.

Even animals in the wild recognize their mother.

if you have a loving mother there is no possible way anyone can love you the same.

Even though a neighbor you have may love you they don't have that special bond

and tell me what are going to do, just rip the newborn from the mother's hands?

Whats the point of having children if you aren't allowed to raise them?

To benefiet the state? So your child cna be a slave?


First off my comment about agreeing with mazdak might be misleading, I can't speak for him and I don't know his intentions. So will you please stop acting like I am collaberating with him

My system will make them more open minded to different points of view because they will be living with many different people who don't see things eye to eye.

I'm currently being thrown off my computer so I will answer the rest afterwards

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 3:06 pm on Oct. 31, 2002
Ants less intelligent than pigs? LOL, lardlad, what is stronger the pig, or the collective minds of thousnads.. millions of ants all working together for the common good. Also if you consider ants have a higher social level than most mammals ewven though they are anatomically relativly primitive. Would you rather be a wild pig, whose ability to socialize is limited, or a bee/ant/termite/wasp where you will literally be living in a form of primitive commune. You make it sound as though ants are ineffecient lardlad.



i would rather be a pig then a mindless slave, ants have no freedom

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 3:10 pm on Oct. 31, 2002
Ah, lardlad shows his true colors, "My son comes before the state,"

You greedy fuck. So you would put the well being of one brat over the well being of all the people in the state. And you call yourself leftist.

Stalin was a busy man, he was as good as a father can be when you have a job like his. Like i said, look at how he put the state before his personal life. He liked his son, but he also viewed his son just as he would any other soldier. So he did what a true leader should in the situation.

"Stalin was a moron."

Thats your opinion... odd how a man who you claim is a moron also is a man you claim killed 20-50 million people yet kept the loyalty of his people. You are contradicting yourself. He can't be both a moron and an "evil genius" at once.

Christianity... productive?? Instead of wasting money on churches and priests, money would go to more important things. It is useless to society. I don't want the states abortion clinics to be blown up and any problems to happen when euthanasia is legalized. Christianity, like all other religions would be surpressed.

Atheism is the most productive... no holidays, no days of worship, no fanatics with bombs strapped to them hoping for a bunch of virgins, and no creationists.

(Edited by Mazdak at 3:17 pm on Oct. 31, 2002)


No jackass I mean if it came down to serving the state and my son i would choose my son

if it was the death of those under the state I would sacrafice my son, or my self in my son's place.

He didn't have loyalty he had fear

That isn't the same thing.

people didn't try to get rid of him because they liked him, they didn't because they were afraid of being executed.

A good leader has loyalty, a bad ruler terrifies his people.

Also can you tell me that the US, a contry with a high concentration of christians, isn't the richest country on earth.

People wont agree with this, the majority of the world has chosen, they don't want to be atheist.

Your ant colony is filled with mindless slaves

Do you like slavery mazdak?

Do you want to have no opinion what so ever and have no name? Only a number

and do you want to see your mother shot dead because she can no longer serve the state?

From what you say, it looks like you love slavery.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from timbaly on 10:47 pm on Oct. 31, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 10:30 pm on Oct. 31, 2002



Think about it. They wont be able to be openminded in this system. Mazdak wants them all atheist.

How the fuck is that exposed to other cultures and points of veiw?

All mazdak is doing is taking the bad things he claims against fmaily and collectivising them.

I was raised by my parents and my ideas differ from their but they support my decisions

my dad is a fuckin republican but he doesn't care that I'm a socialist he doesn't force anything on me.

You must have been around the wrong families

my family is very openminded.

People choose for themselves if you accept what you are told you are ignorant it isn't your parents fualt that you never questioned things.

When you turn 18 you are free to do what you want, if you choose to remain the same that is a choice.

Why are mothers of newborns given their baby for ten minutes before they are taken away to be washed?

So the two can bond

you have a bond with your mother and birth parents. its natural.

Even animals in the wild recognize their mother.

if you have a loving mother there is no possible way anyone can love you the same.

Even though a neighbor you have may love you they don't have that special bond

and tell me what are going to do, just rip the newborn from the mother's hands?

Whats the point of having children if you aren't allowed to raise them?

To benefiet the state? So your child cna be a slave?


First off my comment about agreeing with mazdak might be misleading, I can't speak for him and I don't know his intentions. So will you please stop acting like I am collaberating with him

My system will make them more open minded to different points of view because they will be living with many different people who don't see things eye to eye.

I'm currently being thrown off my computer so I will answer the rest afterwards


I apologize...however it makes no sense taking a newborn from it's mother

Why would people have children if they can't raise them?


It would be different if the paren't still raised teh chiuld but was in a more communal setting, but stealing the child is wrong

[timbaly]

Ok Lardlad i will now answer your other questions and andres Gs' who asked me some on this topic earlier.(sorry andres I got thrown off the net before I could answer your questions, my mom threw me off because I left the light of the house off, making it seem that nobody was home, so no trick-or-treaters came and my mom bought a lot of candy for them)

I wouldn't just take the baby from its mother the second it is birthed, the biological parents will raise the kid for a year. I would like this period to be longer, but then people would get too attached to the kid. I also don't want the kid to be too attached to the parents. I would also want to have the child live with their parents when they are older, but I don't see it as a high priority. I would also like to know what the childs reaction would be if they knew that they were living with the people who birthed them. I am hopping that they would just see the birth parents as equal to all the other parents, which I believe is the way they should see it. However I don't know how everyone would react to knowing. If they are accustomed to the system I'm hoping that they will see nothing special in it.
I also don't have the entire system in my head to explain to you. It still has its kinks, but maybe sometime soon I will be able to expalin it in its entirety.

As for you and your parents having different ideas, that is a great thing it shows that you can think for yourself. (I'm not trying to say that people with the same opinions as their parents don't think for themselves, because some do but others don't. I also must say that people with different opinions then parents might not be able to really think for themselves but they just might want to be different)I also have different ideas then my parents. However, we are rare cases. Most parents want their kids to see what they see and it isn't their fault, because their parents did the same. Many people try to stamp out the thoughts of their kids if they don't agree with them. I bet if some kids criticized the Bush campaign their parents would be up in arms.
I really don't like the way that paragraph came out but I think you understand what I'm trying to say.
I also know that you must know of many families are F-A - R from open minded.

About mothers having special bonds lets just say that after a mother gave birth she passed out due to the shock of giving birth. Now lets say the doctors switched her baby with another persons. So now the mother and live together for their lives without knowing of the incident. Do you think that because the child is not biologically hers that they will not have a bond? I believe that the bond is more of a concious thing than fact. Do you really believe that the mother in my scenario can not love the child as much as the biological one?

The point of having having children will be to raise children, why must the child be biologically yours?

This does not make the child a slave it will make them better thinkers, now it will be easier for them to take all perspectives in account. Maybe you meant something else by slave, if so post it.

I hardly see this as stealing the child, its just a knew concept. It might seem like steeling but thats nly because people are not used to it. I think this can all come together, but the transistional stage, like all transitional stages, will be hard.

(Edited by timbaly at 8:00 pm on Nov. 1, 2002)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from timbaly on 12:55 am on Nov. 1, 2002
Ok Lardlad i will now answer your other questions and andres Gs' who asked me some on this topic earlier.(sorry andres I got thrown off the net before I could answer your questions, my mom threw me off because I left the light of the house off, making it seem that nobody was home, so no trick-or-treaters came and my mom bought a lot of candy for them)

I wouldn't just take the baby from its mother the second it is birthed, the biological parents will raise the kid for a year. I would like this period to be longer, but then people would get too attached to the kid. I also don't want the kid to be too attached to the parents. I would also want to have the child live with their parents when they are older, but I don't see it as a high priority. I would also like to know what the childs reaction would be if they knew that they were living with the people who birthed them. I am hopping that they would just see the birth parents as equal to all the other parents, which I believe is the way they should see it. However I don't know how everyone would react to knowing. If they are accustomed to the system I'm hoping that they will see nothing special in it.
I also don't have the entire system in my head to explain to you. It still has its kinks, but maybe sometime soon I will be able to expalin it in its entirety.

As for you and your parents having different ideas, that is a great thing it shows that you can think for yourself. (I'm not trying to say that people with the same opinions as their parents don't think for themselves, because some do but others don't. I also must say that people with different opinions then parents might not be able to really think for themselves but they just might want to be different)I also have different ideas then my parents. However, we are rare cases. Most parents want their kids to see what they see and it isn't their fault, because their parents did the same. Many people try to stamp out the thoughts of their kids if they don't agree with them. I bet if some kids criticized the Bush campaign their parents would be up in arms.
I really don't like the way that paragraph came out but I think you understand what I'm trying to say.
I also know that you must know of many families are F-A - R from open minded.

About mothers having special bonds lets just say that after a mother gave birth she passed out due to the shock of giving birth. Now lets say the doctors switched her baby with another persons. So now the mother and live together for their lives without knowing of the incident. Do you think that because the child is not biologically hers that they will not have a bond? I believe that the bond is more of a concious thing than fact. Do you really believe that the mother in my scenario can not love the child as much as the biological one?

The point of having having children will be to raise children, why must the child be biologically yours?

This does not make the child a slave it will make them better thinkers, now it will be easier for them to take all perspectives in account. Maybe you meant something else by slave, if so post it.

I hardly see this as stealing the child, its just a knew concept. It might seem like steeling but thats nly because people are not used to it. I think this can all come together, but the transistional stage, like all transitional stages, will be hard.

(Edited by timbaly at 8:00 pm on Nov. 1, 2002)


You do a great job of saying what will happen to the child but you have yet to adress the feelins of the parent

If you have your own child for a year and suddenly some guy just comes up to you and rips your son out of your arms are you gonna be happy?

Your concept is totally illogical. That is your childm not the states, you brought it into the world, not the state, it is your responsibility, not the states.

A year is long enough to get attached you act as if parents treat their children as furniture and don't miss them until they are gone because the place doesn't look the same without them.

Children aren't material, you get attactched very fast, why do you think people are devastated when their child dies either when they are born all the way up to the child is grown and beyond

That love is practicaly there from when yo know you are having a child

Then to take a child away and replace it with somone elses? You can't replace a child, you can love the new child but it wont be the same.

The point of having a child is to raise it, not someone elses. If that were the case why not designate a number of women to just lay there, get fucked and give birth

Are you taking these ideas from the fuckin Giver?

It makes little or no sense.

There is nothing compared to having a child,not even adopting one.

Thats not to say you can't love an adopted child but...it's just not the same?


Do you have children? I doubt you do, because when you do you wont be saying the same thing.


by the way how do you garuantee that the foster parents wont impose beliefs on the children

[Cobra]

I can't speak for timbaly, but there are things that I want to point out reguarding Lardlads' last statement...



Why do need women to give birth to children?

Eggs and sperm can be implanted into wombs of cows. Cows can give birth to chidren. There is no reason to use women for this task.

As for the mother having to bond with the child, thats bullshit. How will the mother bond if she has never even seen the child. Thats like saying women bond with their eggs when they are having a period.

And foster parents prove that children can love any adult, not just their mother and father.

Also, your point about a foster parent imposing beleifs on a child is irrelevent. When the family is abolished, beleifs will by imposed on the child by many people, it is up to the child to decide on what ones to follow, as well as forming their Own beleifs.

This is not stealing the child. That is like saying that the state steals sperm from men when they take the sperm test, or steal eggs from women when they take the egg test.

Your arguments are irrelevent. The child is born from the cow! Not the woman! The child does not have any ties to it's mother, or father for that matter.

Stop babbling nonsense and say something useful!

[Libertarius]

My god, Mazdak, what a backwards way of thinking about it. I would fully support your idea, but you think they should be killed just because of the way they were born, and they can't contribute to society. Maybe severely handicapped people (wheelchair-bound, unable to talk, move, etc.) should be put to sleep simply so their misery ends, but not because they were born the wrong way!

[Iepilei]

family is a institution. it promotes growth, social interaction, and allows for the development of a natural human being... social and caring.

you cannot manufacture humans - it's sick, and frankly you'd sound like a freaking fascist if you actually believed such nonsensical jabber. Families help us establish unity with society and community.

If anything is needed, it's the implementation of more emphasis on extended families. In our modern society, the elderly are thrown to the way-side. Forced to live in poverty or in isolated nursing homes. They've the highest suicide rate of any of the age groupings.

Let me guess, murder the old people too? Yeah, that's a real thing to look forward to in your golden years - hell your whole life. You work your rear off for the state, giving them your life and blood, and what do you get? Et tu, Brute?

Families should be emphasised and cherished. They make you who you are, and they make you unique. They give you the interests and skills that make you a useful person in society. Not only that - growing up in a supporting family (one who has no worries of bills or poverty) allows for increased brain development and focus.

Families benefit.

[Panamarisen]

I agree with Iepilei and Lardlard statements. Besides:

Women got the faculty of giving birth. It´s not they are in this world JUST TO give birth. And, yes, THERE IS a very special bond between mother and child (even between father and child, in a different way), during pregnacy, while giving birth and YEARS after. The child NEEDS the mother not only for direct nourishment, but very significatively from a PSYCHIC point of view. Children growing up with the mother´s love, kisses and caressing do it in a much more equilibrated way -mentally speaking- than those who don´t have the opportunity to grow like this.
This doesn´t mean at all that the child shouldn´t be in contact with other people, specially from the same community. At the contrary, it´s very important and enrichening for him so he will be able to deal with people properly as a grown up.
As long as the child is loved, cared for and respected as an individual, his intelligence and emotions will develop as to have his own opinions and points of view, which many times will thus be different from his parents´.

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Cobra on 3:52 am on Nov. 1, 2002
I can't speak for timbaly, but there are things that I want to point out reguarding Lardlads' last statement...



Why do need women to give birth to children?

Eggs and sperm can be implanted into wombs of cows. Cows can give birth to chidren. There is no reason to use women for this task.

As for the mother having to bond with the child, thats bullshit. How will the mother bond if she has never even seen the child. Thats like saying women bond with their eggs when they are having a period.

And foster parents prove that children can love any adult, not just their mother and father.

Also, your point about a foster parent imposing beleifs on a child is irrelevent. When the family is abolished, beleifs will by imposed on the child by many people, it is up to the child to decide on what ones to follow, as well as forming their Own beleifs.

This is not stealing the child. That is like saying that the state steals sperm from men when they take the sperm test, or steal eggs from women when they take the egg test.

Your arguments are irrelevent. The child is born from the cow! Not the woman! The child does not have any ties to it's mother, or father for that matter.

Stop babbling nonsense and say something useful!



That has got to be the stupidest muthafuckin post on this entire forum in the history of this forum.

Cows? What the hell? That doesn't even make sense

why would put sperm and eggs in cows? Thats just retarded. I mean Go back and look at what you just said.

The mother bonds with teh child when they find out they are pregnant because they realize that they wil bring a new life into the world.

I'm babbling? Your fuckin talking about inseminating a cow with a human fetus and shit.

Thats teh most moronic thing I have ever heard.

Also if many people impose their beliefs on the child the child will become confused

one person tells them one thing is true then another tells them the opposite

you can't do that to a five year old, maybe ten and up but not to a little child.

Cows....you had better be joking.

[Mazdak]

Quote: from Libertarius on 5:01 am on Nov. 1, 2002
My god, Mazdak, what a backwards way of thinking about it. I would fully support your idea, but you think they should be killed just because of the way they were born, and they can't contribute to society. Maybe severely handicapped people (wheelchair-bound, unable to talk, move, etc.) should be put to sleep simply so their misery ends, but not because they were born the wrong way!


Ok, i will read the rest of this mindless drivel later, however this post caught my eye.

Can you read man? Where did i say i wanted to kill people in this thread? Abortions are not executions. For the 4000th time they are not executions. Thank you.

[Frosty]

Mazdak.
Why is it so that "non-productive" people are not allowed in your society?
Is it because else it would never be able to work?
I mean, if it is necessary to prevent the birth of "retards" and disabled people to keep your little fascist show going, isn't that a sign of a seriously disabled system?

Who said you were not fascists? A few points:
*Fascism hails the state as superior to the individual.
Well, that's what you're saying straight, Mazdak. But can you please tell me who the state is? I seriously doubt that it really is the people. In your "utopia", the people are the slaves of some abstract state with some psychopat on top. You.
*Fascism hates everyone deemed as "weak" or "abnormal". This includes "retards", handicapped, gays, jews, blacks, communists and dissidents. It wants a society of one race, one goal, world rule and complete dicipline.
In your case, you want a society of ants. Noone are allowed to critize you, because then they are inproductive counter-revolutionaries bound for the gulags. "Different" people, in this case retards, are not allowed to be born because they are "counter-productive". Where will it end?

"Why do need women to give birth to children?

Eggs and sperm can be implanted into wombs of cows. Cows can give birth to chidren. There is no reason to use women for this task."
So now, women are not allowed to be born either, because they are "useless"?


HUMAN SOCIETY IS NO FUCKING FACTORY!

[Cobra]

Larlad: What difference does it make if the child comes from the womb of a mother or the womb of a cow. The end result is the same. The only difference is that the woman whose eggs are used does not have to go thru the pain and suffering of having to give birth to the child. And besides, the sperm and eggs can be tested and how compatible they are with each other before the embryo is impanted into the cow. This would would bring an end to genetic flaws like poor vision, baldness, and allergies. Also, new traits could be implanted into the egg to give the child immunities to diseases, and make them stronger and more intelligent. This child would be far better than any that are conceived thru traditional means.

Frosty: Who said women are useless. I never said this. Thats like saying men are useless because men don't get pregnant. For woman to be considered equals to men women should not be pregnent. By women being pregnant, they might think that they own the child since they had to suffer so much for it to be born. Children only need 3 things to be born: A sperm, An Egg, And a womb (a cow womb works well).

(Edited by Cobra at 8:45 pm on Nov. 1, 2002)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Cobra on 8:06 pm on Nov. 1, 2002
Larlad: What difference does it make if the child comes from the womb of a mother or the womb of a cow. The end result is the same. The only difference is that the woman whose eggs are used does not have to go thru the pain and suffering of having to give birth to the child. And besides, the sperm and eggs can be tested and how compatible they are with each other before the embryo is impanted into the cow. This would would bring an end to genetic flaws like poor vision, baldness, and allergies. Also, new traits could be implanted into the egg to give the child immunities to diseases, and make them stronger and more intelligent. This child would be far better than any that are conceived thru traditional means.

Frosty: Who said women are useless. I never said this. Thats like saying men are useless because men don't get pregnant. For woman to be considered equals to men women should not be pregnent. By women being pregnant, they might think that they own the child since they had to suffer so much for it to be born. Children only need 3 things to be born: A sperm, An Egg, And a womb (a cow womb works well).

(Edited by Cobra at 8:45 pm on Nov. 1, 2002)


Pan and suffering? What about the joys of parent hood and the excitment of bringing a new life into the world?

And it sounds to me like you want to do some Hitler type shit and breed a race of super humans

[Cobra]

Hitler-type shit? Do you even know anything about Hitler?

Hitler made the "Aryan Race" up. There is no such thing as the Aryan race. Hitler was a fucking idoit. He up stuff about how the Germans were desendents of the the "Superior Aryan race" and the shitheads beleived him. There never was a superior race. All that stuff was just made up. All human beings are almost exactly the same geneticly.

What I said has nothing to do with Hitler. I was just saying that with our current technology genetic flaws can be a thing of the past. There is no reason that people should be born with bad vision, bad hearing, allergies, chemical imbalances ect. Children can be born without these problems. Why not take this a step further. We can geneticly enhance children to far surpass anything we ever dreamed of. And what is wrong with breeding a race of superhumans?

Imagine if you are a superhuman. You abilities far surpass those of your ancesters. You can run as fast as a cheetah. Your mind is even more sharp than the greatest philosophers who ever lived. You are stronger than the most powerful machine. Your lifespan would be increased tremendously. Would you regret this? Of course not! You would be proud that your abilities are so great. You would be able to accomplish far more than you ever could if you were born into a traditional body. Think of all the things you would be able to acheive!

The human race must be enhanced so we can reach our greatest potential.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Cobra on 9:47 pm on Nov. 1, 2002
Hitler-type shit? Do you even know anything about Hitler?

Hitler made the "Aryan Race" up. There is no such thing as the Aryan race. Hitler was a fucking idoit. He up stuff about how the Germans were desendents of the the "Superior Aryan race" and the shitheads beleived him. There never was a superior race. All that stuff was just made up. All human beings are almost exactly the same geneticly.

What I said has nothing to do with Hitler. I was just saying that with our current technology genetic flaws can be a thing of the past. There is no reason that people should be born with bad vision, bad hearing, allergies, chemical imbalances ect. Children can be born without these problems. Why not take this a step further. We can geneticly enhance children to far surpass anything we ever dreamed of. And what is wrong with breeding a race of superhumans?

Imagine if you are a superhuman. You abilities far surpass those of your ancesters. You can run as fast as a cheetah. Your mind is even more sharp than the greatest philosophers who ever lived. You are stronger than the most powerful machine. Your lifespan would be increased tremendously. Would you regret this? Of course not! You would be proud that your abilities are so great. You would be able to accomplish far more than you ever could if you were born into a traditional body. Think of all the things you would be able to acheive!

The human race must be enhanced so we can reach our greatest potential.


greatest potential should be determined mentally not physically

and I said some hitler "type shit"

the whole super race thing, I never said you were like hitler

[timbaly]

Lardlad I knew you would mention the fact that I am taking the child away from the mother at one, but another child will be given to her at the age of the child being given to another family. I said I would make the age higher but the children would get attached. I really have no choice in that matter if I want the rest of the plan to suceed. Now as for the parnets feelings, because they will have gone through the same system as the children I would hope to think that they will just see it as normal. Under this system every child is everyones child, the child is everyones responsibility. Also I did say the transition to this sytem will be hard, as all trasitions are. The feelings of turning capitalism into socialism won't be well recieved, but if people listen they will relize its a benefit I see this the same way. I see your points they all make perfect sense but I see my idea as much more benefical to the human race.

About The Giver, no I'm not. It just seems like it because I didn't explain it all. I don't want to kill twins or bannish colors. I don't want to censor history or murder the elderly. While we're on the subject, what did you get from the ending? How did you interpet it? I also forget how the children were born in that book. I just remember some women who had a certain job to do it, but how did they?

This how I see it.
You are born, raised by your biological mother until 1.
Then you are rotated into another family who has rotated their child into another unit, the new child will be the same age as the one rotated. This process continues as a rotation takes place every year until 5. Then the rotation will be every 6 months until age 16 or 18. (I'm not sure yet) Then the peolpe from 18 to when they decide to marrie will live single and find out who they will marrie it won't be assigned they will choose. After they marrie they can either have a kid or be childless. Then they become the parents in the system.
Thats all I have so far. I do think gays should be involved, but how will they have a kid? Maybe if someone has more than one kid or twins gays will be able to raise kids. Divorce is also a possibility I would allow single parents to raise children because it opens up a different perspective. She or he can educate the children about the hardships and maybe the mistakes in the relationship. I also don't believe that there should be religions, but it would be incredibly hard to get rid of them. If there were no religions then the younger kids wouldn't get confused since you wouldn't talk about politics with them. The reason I would rotate kids at a young age is solely to prevent attachment.

I'm not sure what you meant by your last comment about foster parents, so can you explain

[timbaly]

I also must make it clear that I believe that my system would be better than the current one, however I would not go out and fight for it my entire life. I think it has benefits but if socialism wotks out to its fullest potential most people if not all would have similar if not the same opinions. They would all believe in the advancement of humans and most likley believe in anarchy as the end product. The biggest problem I see in the way things are now is that the family members are put before the other people, I believe my system would change that.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from timbaly on 12:45 am on Nov. 2, 2002
Lardlad I knew you would mention the fact that I am taking the child away from the mother at one, but another child will be given to her at the age of the child being given to another family. I said I would make the age higher but the children would get attached. I really have no choice in that matter if I want the rest of the plan to suceed. Now as for the parnets feelings, because they will have gone through the same system as the children I would hope to think that they will just see it as normal. Under this system every child is everyones child, the child is everyones responsibility. Also I did say the transition to this sytem will be hard, as all trasitions are. The feelings of turning capitalism into socialism won't be well recieved, but if people listen they will relize its a benefit I see this the same way. I see your points they all make perfect sense but I see my idea as much more benefical to the human race.

About The Giver, no I'm not. It just seems like it because I didn't explain it all. I don't want to kill twins or bannish colors. I don't want to censor history or murder the elderly. While we're on the subject, what did you get from the ending? How did you interpet it? I also forget how the children were born in that book. I just remember some women who had a certain job to do it, but how did they?

This how I see it.
You are born, raised by your biological mother until 1.
Then you are rotated into another family who has rotated their child into another unit, the new child will be the same age as the one rotated. This process continues as a rotation takes place every year until 5. Then the rotation will be every 6 months until age 16 or 18. (I'm not sure yet) Then the peolpe from 18 to when they decide to marrie will live single and find out who they will marrie it won't be assigned they will choose. After they marrie they can either have a kid or be childless. Then they become the parents in the system.
Thats all I have so far. I do think gays should be involved, but how will they have a kid? Maybe if someone has more than one kid or twins gays will be able to raise kids. Divorce is also a possibility I would allow single parents to raise children because it opens up a different perspective. She or he can educate the children about the hardships and maybe the mistakes in the relationship. I also don't believe that there should be religions, but it would be incredibly hard to get rid of them. If there were no religions then the younger kids wouldn't get confused since you wouldn't talk about politics with them. The reason I would rotate kids at a young age is solely to prevent attachment.

I'm not sure what you meant by your last comment about foster parents, so can you explain


I can think of atleast two things wrong with your system

1. That system of being shifted around every year is gonna fuck teh child up mentally, being told different things every year

2. No one, and I mean no one will except this unless you destroy records of how things used to be ala the Giver

and I don't remember the ending to it

but the women were impregnated and gave birth and never got to see there children all they did was give birth


And I have other thngs to say but I'm tired of typing this

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from timbaly on 1:47 am on Nov. 2, 2002
I also must make it clear that I believe that my system would be better than the current one, however I would not go out and fight for it my entire life. I think it has benefits but if socialism wotks out to its fullest potential most people if not all would have similar if not the same opinions. They would all believe in the advancement of humans and most likley believe in anarchy as the end product. The biggest problem I see in the way things are now is that the family members are put before the other people, I believe my system would change that.


You will naturally put people who you know over people you don't know

does'nt matter if it's in teh family

not saying those feelings will be dominant and take over but tehy are instinctive

[Iepilei]

this stuff is the reason people try using novels like "Brave New World" against communistic ideas.

lets not have a right winged-capitalist, fascist state, yet a left winged-socialist one??

I have news for you. I don't let my appropriations of my labour take the best of me. The objects in which I own do not dictate my life in a capitalist system.

I am the people.
I have created the state.
The state is mine.

I will not allow a creation of man hold domination over my life. I will work to support the state, and I will contribute to ensure it's survival. But I will not give my life away - or my children away for it.

(Edited by Iepilei at 6:29 am on Nov. 2, 2002)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Iepilei on 6:25 am on Nov. 2, 2002
this stuff is the reason people try using novels like "Brave New World" against communistic ideas.

lets not have a right winged-capitalist, fascist state, yet a left winged-socialist one??

I have news for you. I don't let my appropriations of my labour take the best of me. The objects in which I own do not dictate my life in a capitalist system.

I am the people.
I have created the state.
The state is mine.

I will not allow a creation of man hold domination over my life. I will work to support the state, and I will contribute to ensure it's survival. But I will not give my life away - or my children away for it.

(Edited by Iepilei at 6:29 am on Nov. 2, 2002)


well said comrade

[Libertarius]

Sorry Mazdak, I was reading others' interpretation of your statement, not yours. I agree that abortion is not execution, but mental/physical defects most of the time cannot be detected by ultrasound/CT scans. Birth defects will continue to happen, and then what?

I'm flattered that you would distinguish my post from this other 'drivel' :)

[Frosty]

Cobra
Hitler made the "Aryan Race" up. There is no such thing as the Aryan race. Hitler was a fucking idoit. He up stuff about how the Germans were desendents of the the "Superior Aryan race" and the shitheads beleived
him. There never was a superior race. All that stuff was just made up. All human beings are almost exactly the same geneticly.

I totally agree.

Why not take this a step further. We can geneticly enhance children to far surpass anything we ever dreamed of. And what is wrong with breeding a race of superhumans?

Do we know the consequences from playing god like this? I am very reluctant to fidgeting with genes and dna, things we don't yet have full knowledge of. If we do it wrong, the consequences far surpass that of some little a-bomb.

Imagine if you are a superhuman. You abilities far surpass those of your ancesters. You can run as fast as a cheetah. Your mind is even more sharp than the greatest philosophers who ever lived. You are stronger than the most powerful machine. Your lifespan would be increased tremendously. Would you regret this? Of course not! You would be proud that your abilities are so great. You would be able to accomplish far more than you ever could if you were born into a traditional body. Think of all the things you would be able to acheive!

What's the point with being a superhuman, when all your life is about being a slave of the state?

The human race must be enhanced so we can reach our greatest potential.

This contradicts logic.

[Mazdak]

Iepelie- they arent YOUR children. They are children
the People's children.


Liberatarius- i was speaking hypothetically. If it was possible i meant.

[Cobra]

Re:Frosty

"The consequences far surpass that of some little a-bomb"

You must be thinking of Akira. Akira was nothing more than Capitalist propaganda. There has never been any evidence that shows that geneticly enhancing humans has any harmful effects.

"whats the point of being Superhuman if all, when all your life your a slave to the state"

Thats what Revolution is for. I doubt if a large group of superhumans would have much trouble taking out their vastly inferior rulers.

Our new race of Supercommies could take over the world easily. Breeding this new race is the only way we will be able to defeat the capitalist and have a communist world. It is our only option.

(Edited by Cobra at 1:25 am on Nov. 4, 2002)

[timbaly]

Lardlad, I remeber the birth mothers in the giver but HOW did they get impregnated? Thats what I can't remember.

[Frosty]

You must be thinking of Akira. Akira was nothing more than Capitalist propaganda. There has never been any evidence that shows that geneticly enhancing humans has any harmful effects.

I have never heard of something "Akira". And whythe hell would capitalists make propaganda against something they can make money on?

Just because we don't yet have "evidence" yet doesn't mean it is safe.

Thats what Revolution is for. I doubt if a large group of superhumans would have much trouble taking out their vastly inferior rulers.

Our new race of Supercommies could take over the world easily. Breeding this new race is the only way we will be able to defeat the capitalist and have a communist world. It is our only option.

Are you serious?
Well, you don't believe in a revolution without superduperhumans. Great.
Just remember, the cappies will probably also have a supergreathuman army.

the fact that I am taking the child away from the mother at one, but another child will be given to her at the age of the child being given to another family.

Point is?

A child needs to feel safe. It won't necessarily be painless for it to be separated from its "parents".

[Mazdak]

Frosty- mare you saying the child is going to feel more safe with 2 adults and a few siblings rather than a huge number of adults and huge number of other children. collectivization is the key. This way, you can train the children as the new communist youth. They are the future, and the state would take care of it.

Superhuman..... ok, this is something i wont get into as it sounds like we are debating comic book characters.

and no one responded, the children are the PEOPLE'S Children, the COLLECTIVE'S children.

[Iepilei]

isn't collectivisation what schools are for?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 1:17 am on Nov. 7, 2002
Frosty- mare you saying the child is going to feel more safe with 2 adults and a few siblings rather than a huge number of adults and huge number of other children. collectivization is the key. This way, you can train the children as the new communist youth. They are the future, and the state would take care of it.

Superhuman..... ok, this is something i wont get into as it sounds like we are debating comic book characters.

and no one responded, the children are the PEOPLE'S Children, the COLLECTIVE'S children.




The more people around the child, hte higher chance of pedophillia

so did the collective people give birth to the child?

[Cobra]

I don't think anyone understood my point. I was trying to take what Mazdak said to a higher level using logic. I'll show you:

Mazdak:
1. Retards are inferior to Humans*.
Therefore:
a. Retards should never be born
b. Humans* should replace retards as the dominant race

Cobra:
2. Humans* are inferior to "genetically enhanced humans"
Therefore:
a. Humans* should never be born
b. "Genetically enhanced humans" should replace humans* as the dominent race

*Humans that have not been genetically enhanced

If you agree with 1, then you would logically agree with 2. If you agree with 2, then you would logically agree with 1.

If you don't agree with 1, then you logically don't agree with 2. If you don't agree with 2, then you logically don't agree with 1.

I agree with 1, therefore I agree with 2. 2 is what I created by taking 1 to a higher level. I agree with 2 100%. 2 is the future.

1 and 2 are the same, the only difference is that 2 uses a new set of variables. 1 is of the present, 2 is of the future. 1 will inevitably lead to 2.

2 is the final stage of 1, therefore, 2 is more important than 1. 2 is our goal. However, to get 2 we will have to first go thru 1.

That is the point I was trying to make.

[Iepilei]

genetically enhanced humans - like a aryan race. oh come now! breeding for perfection that's the same shit himmler wanted! it's a sick concept man, maybe over time we can make ourselves better - but that doesn't mean a purge of those who aren't.

just because humanity has the ability to produce a human baby, does not mean we are machinery. we are the creators of the machinery, and therefor regulators of the machinery. we own it through the state, which we worked to build - and which we control.

you get kids to identify with others through public education facilities, even today. the desire to create a mass populus of "test-tube" babies born not to the care of a mother... emotionless - sterile... it's just is unnatural.

There is a line in which we must seperate the means of production... there IS a difference between flesh and steel... human and machine.

[Iepilei]

From the Communist's Manifesto:

"We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, a appropriation that is made for the maintainace and reproduction of human life."

I'd say, in terms, that a child is very much an appropriation of 'labour' if you will. And it's quite vital to the maintainance and reproduction of human life.

So there ya go.