Reply With Quote
I knew this would be a tough thread, but please stay accurate. It is not eugenics because it is not based on genetics.
What's great is that this is coming from the guy who doesn't have health care, but assures us that he won't go to the emergency room if he can't pay for it out of pocket.
I knew this would be a tough thread, but please stay accurate. It is not eugenics because it is not based on genetics.
My thought here would be those who do not rely on the social welfare systems offered. It's one thing to have periodic necessity to use the safety nets, but those using them as a hammock are a burden to society, and should not add to societies burden by using tax payer dollars to start a family.
States are already making no smoking laws across this nation.
There are penalties for breaking laws that include the death sentence.
What are laws, but legal bounds placed on society as to protect others. Now I am completely against victimless crime laws. Why isn't it against the law for someone who clearly cannot afford to take on more household costs, to do so, but we have laws to redistribute more and more tax dollars to them?
But i do have health care. It times in my life, I have paid out off pocket.
No doubt -- social engineering is such a more palatable euphemism for your brand of selective breeding.
Enforcing sterilization amongst a particular community necessarily reduces their numbers in the general population. The result, in theory, is a richer* gene pool.
Not sure if it's stupidity or obstinance that's preventing you making this obvious connection, but it's downright egregious in either case.
*edited to point out that I'm speaking in terms of monetary richness, not diversity
Yes, I would agree it's social engineering.
I am normally against such ideas, but I have had it with what I see where I live. Maybe you guys don't see it to the degree I do. I live in what I call the "Capital of the North-Left Coast."
The tool of sterilization is used for a different purpose. Since when does the tool define motive?
Oh, if I'd wanted to attack your motive I would have called it class based preventive genocide.
LOL...
OK, whatever.
Even though its wrong, I can see how that's seen. If anything, you would agree I am not politically correct.
Neither am I.
I, however, am not a bigot.
Wouldn't it make more sense to just deny those people tax dollars, rather than ins ute a neutering program?
I would go for that. Sure are allot of laws to change, and then there is the "child abuse" factor we would start tying up our systems with. After all, most of these people who cannot take care of their children would eventually be turned in as abusing their children, since it would be a form of abuse.Wouldn't it make more sense to just deny those people tax dollars, rather than ins ute a neutering program?
Far less draconian, and more sensible.
Not to mention, you have a problem with funding something you don't believe in with taxpayer money, and this program would ostensibly use taxpayer funds to neuter members of the population. I'm pretty sure some people would object to their taxes being used in such a purpose.
Ah. So now rather than forced sterilization, you'd be on board with a solution that apparently requires children be neglected and/or abused.
That'll show 'em.
Which is one factor why the current laws/allotments still exist. That said, you don't trust government to responsibly use your taxmoney, but you'd trust them to neuter members of the population?
Heck, who would be the ones performing the operation? Would the gov't outsource to the lowest bidding hospital?
When's the last time you looked up that definition?
I don't hate or despise these people like you may think, any more than I hate and despise someone who would break into my house. I am not grouping them by the color of their skin, by religion, or anything normally associated with bigotry. In the name of Martin Luther King, I am judging them by their character.
I see it as criminal activity to take from others. I see this as a theft. Laws disagree with me, but that's the angle I see this as.
What would you say if 90% of the population started living off the government instead of providing for themselves? What would happen?
If your theory was correct then, all taxation would be illegal, unless specifically agreed to by all parties concerned. Agree or disagree?
The same thing I'd say if dinosaurs were brought back to life through genetic engineering, and then stepped on my car. Which is, what an unlikely event!
Oh... I trust whole heavyhearted that politicians will continue to buy votes by dangling tax dollars out to people.
You're right. I don't trust government much. The bureaucracy has become a tool just to support it's own self, and the people who are in Social Services positions should be working to put themselves out of work. they should be working to make citizens self sufficient in society instead of getting as many in programs as they can.
I am only painting the broad strokes. The finer details? Who knows. Not worried about making this plan 100% by my self.
Disagree. taxation is cons utional, and in the cons ution is the bill of rights.
Ever hear of the 10th amendment? Why is the federal government taking responsibility over things clearly left to the stats and lower levels, by our highest law?
I don't think you're a bigot just because of this thread.
For one thing, I don't see that ever happening. For another, I never suggested that we allow or encourage people of any standing become completely dependent upon taxpayer dollars. However, I see a solution not in assuming the worst of impoverished/marginalized communities and putting our efforts into either reducing their numbers or punishing them for breeding, but rather in investing in the social welfare (welfare, not Welfare) of our poorer communities so that hopefully within a few generations the problems you have identified are on the decline. Reducing the options available to already disadvantaged communities is seldom a useful endeavor.
I know. I am misunderstood, like my statement that those who support quota systems as a part of affirmative action are politically correct racists.
We have been in the "war on poverty" for about 50 years now. We are no better off than we were then. I say we go back to the level of social spending prior to the start of this way. 50 years and no payback over the expenses? When is enough enough?
When pretty much everyone misunderstands you, it might be time to look at how you're communicating.
I agree my communications skills are lacking. You eventually understand my intent though, right?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
