I'll bite!

Should the mentally handicapped be "weeded" out of the population?

thesis: cats are better than dogs

that's an hard topic to troll on... let me see :D

thesis: The_Master_Warrior was more fun as Diplomat1824. :-)

Thesis: The mentally handicapped be "weeded" out of the population?

For: Anyone who knows anything about evolution knows that keeping the handicapped in the gene pool damages the species overall. Obviously, just killing them all is politically unacceptable at this time, but mandatory sterilization is the right thing to do. It's not like they're capable of raising children anyway - what kind of parents could they possibly be? The planet is already overpopulated as it is - how many kids will starve because you want to coddle someone who can't take care of themselves?

Con (this one is easy): What, you mean like *Hitler* did? Should we set up the gas chambers and the ovens in your backyard? Any other 'undesirables' we should slaughter while we're at it?

Real: It's ridiculous to think that any attempt to 'weed' people out of the population would be anything but a fiasco, even ignoring the ethical issues involved. If 'weed' in this case means 'kill', there is zero justification for it - if the excuse is 'they're a drain on resources', there are much, *much* larger ways that we piss away money now. If the argument is 'it's a kindness', then who the hell are you to decide that - let the people directly impacted (ie: the person and their family) decide how 'kind' it is to kill a relative, and see how they react.

If the argument is for sterilization, then it's *still* invalid. For one thing, some developmental issues are not carried genetically. For another, there's this whole 'science marching on' thing - look at the history of polio and smallpox, for example. Today's calamity is tomorrow's historic footnote.

If the argument is 'they shouldn't raise kids', I *guarantee* you I can point at people who are less fit to be parents. Granted, they may need more assistance than your standard couple, but when you start arbitrarily deciding who is a fit parent and who is not, and what the 'right' way to raise a child is, that's a slippery damn slope. Example: look at Austrialia's history of, basically, kidnapping and 'raising' children from the indigenous population. The echos of that farce are still being felt today.

Thesis: Cats are better than dogs

Pro: So let me see if I understand. You think an animal that shits everywhere, requires more time and maintenance than a child, and routinely kills toddlers is a good thing? You don't see many feral cat packs deciding a two year old running around in a backyard is prey. They also *stink*.

Con: So let me see if I understand. You think an animal that routinely shreds furniture, ignores your existence unless they need something (usually at 3 AM), and tends to pee in random corners to 'mark' their territory is a good thing? There's a reason that dogs are called 'man's best friend' - they have this concept of *loyalty* that is completely foreign to the feline. They also shed *everywhere*, which makes maintaining a house a nightmare.

Real: We have cats, but I like dogs too. I just don't have the time necessary to *care* for one.

@Drag - sorry, I refuse to acknowledge the individual in question exists, and I encourage everyone to ignore whatever tripe he chooses to post in here. He'll doubtlessly attempt to 'pick apart' one of my statements in order to generate attention for himself, and I intend to completely ignore anything he writes in here.

However:

Thesis: Generic troll used to be more fun

Pro: Of course he used to be more fun. He at least demonstrated some creativity in the past, but he's just repeating himself now. He's obviously run out of steam, and it's really all your fault - you should have nurtured such a creative soul, and instead you guys all beat him down and made him pathetic. Learn a little tolerance so it doesn't happen again.

Con: No way, {troll}'s creativity has just gotten better with time. Sure, sometimes his comments are a bit controversial, but he certainly generates conversation, and isn't conversation the foundation of civilization?

Real: I find trolls in general to be a nuisance, but mostly I just see today's excuse for trolling and shake my head. There's a fine line between obviously just trying to generate controversy and having people wonder if you actually are batshit crazy, and I've yet to see one on this forum that goes into the second category. They're... well, honestly, they're kind of sad and pathetic. I don't actually *expect* better out of them, so it's not like I invest a lot of energy in flaming them, but I have the satisfaction of knowing they'll eventually grow up, look back at the crap they used to do, and wince.

@stratagos - fair enough.

@stratagos

I would like to interject that the proposition that not weeding out the mentally handicapped due to drain on resources /because/ there are bigger things that we piss our money out on is a logical fallacy.

You cannot deem an action justifiable/unjustifiable because there are things worse/less than it. Going by that logic, stealing shouldn't be punished because there are so many things worse than stealing going on.

@Sponson - you raise a good point. However, when it comes to 'resource use', assuming that there is an ideal way to utilize resources is also a fallacy, so then the question becomes "who determines what is 'waste'.". Given that the families of the afflicted are doubtlessly shouldering a majority of whatever burden there is - and presumably choosing to do so - and that any insurance costs are also baked into the rates we all pay - unless someone wants to broaden 'wasteful insurance spending' to include 'anything I don't have and don't think I'll get' - you reach the point where economic arguments are simply unsustainable.

If the argument *is* put forward that it is economically essential to 'weed out' the handicapped, then the counterargument I would raise is why *this* is a priority, compared to all the other spending items. In other words, I would ask the proponent to justify *this* savings compared to other savings that are available, and ask them why they are not prioritizing something with a bigger bang for the buck.

So while my statement could have been crafted more carefully, I stand by it - the 'resource' argument is flawed, and unless those that proport it are willing to demonstrate that the 'savings' is so large to overwhelm all the ethical issues, it is unsustainable

Thesis: Eugenics would benefit whichever country implemented it first

@DJ - is that not effectively the converse of the first thesis?

Thesis: The elderly should be drafted to fight our wars.

Never mind, let me answer is:

Pro: While there is obvious variety in the human genome, it's also obvious that some genes are a net negative to society. Eliminate the genes for diabetes and you save billions in health care. Eliminate the genes for insanity and you have less homeless on the street. If the genetically impure choose to leave they still leave the country better off

Con: Eugenics? That's something the Nazis did, so you're obviously a jew hating fascist.

Real: A 'successful' Eugenics policy would assume a few things: 1 - society as a whole has agreed on what are undesirable traits, 2 - they have a chance in hell in singling them out and 3 - the 'traits' in question aren't linked to other, positive things.

As much as it is a Goodwin, what Germany did in the 1930s was effectively Eugenics, and caused a massive brain drain as those who weren't 'pure' left for greener pastures. You know, like the Manhattan Project. Additionally, who bells the cat - who decides what 'pure' is, and what do you do to the 'impure'?

Genetics is a crap shoot, genes combine in all sorts of ways. Assuming we have the slightest idea on what the effects of willy nilly slicing crap out of the genome is laughable. Do you tell a couple they can't wed because their genes aren't going to produce 'ideal' specimens? Or do you tell person X they must marry person Y, as they're a better genetic 'fit'?

Now, if you want to give people the opportunity to do genetic testing, and they *choose* to do so, and they then make their *own* decisions based on what they learn, more power to them - but giving people information is not the same as a nationwide eugenics program

@Invictus - I'll get yours tomorrow

Eugenics is an oddly self-contradictory argument. The idea is that we should actively weed out the weak and breed the strong... because that is good for our evolution/gene pool. Thing is, the best test of what is strong is what survives in nature/society... to set up an artificial version of that we, at best, duplicate what nature will do anyway (over time)... of course, as strategos points out, genes are a crap shoot. You would be throwing the baby out with the bath water as much as not because of narrow/short-sighted/biased standards of what we would be breeding for. ...there would be whole hosts of unintended consequences... mostly negative, probably, that you would be creating. Consider, for example, breeding out the genetics for sickle cell anemia... sounds like a good idea, right? Until you realize that people with the sickle cell gene are particularly resistant to malaria (which is a very good adaptation for them if they live in a tropical area)... so sickle cells actually serve a purpose... and eliminating the sickle cell gene would actually weaken the gene pool. This is a very simple example. Eugenics is a very poor idea (ethics aside) that is commonly seen as Darwinian... this is a fallacy... it is Intelligent Design to its core... with people as the Intelligent Designer. Let nature do what it does... and let the best gene win.

"Con: Eugenics? That's something the Nazis did, so you're obviously a jew hating fascist."

I'm not sure that's what the Nazi's did, regardless of what they claimed. They believed in racial superiority. Didn't matter if you were a genius Jew, or a stupid (but not retarded) Aryan, your die was cast based on your parents blood.

@DJ - that was in trollspeak, and hence was written to generate controversy, not address the issue at hand ;)

Crap - I just realized I'm not playing the Troll game... it didn't phrase my post in trollspeak... does that make me a Troll here?

"I" not "it" (that was an odd typo... did I just give away that I'm actually a computer and this has all been a Turing Test?)

@dexter - I think I'm the only one who *has* to 'troll' to these proposals; feel free to debate them on their own merits. If you *are* going to troll, I suggest you indicate as so, otherwise people may think you're a moron ;)

I'll repost my serious, well intentioned thesis.

Thesis: The elderly should be drafted to fight our wars.

boobies

pardon my troll speak

stratagos, just as a hint, you aren't anything like self-righteous or strident enough yet, but otherwise, keep up the good work.

@Ghost - it's been awhile since I've played the troll; it's not easy pulling the batshit crazy back out. ;)

@Invictus - I'll repost my response - I'll get to it tomorrow ;)

@Invictus, I figured it was so self-evident that it didn't even need discussion.
OK - here I go:
PRO: The elderly are more disposable... we are actually all disposable, but they are more so. They are less likely to have minor children to support, less likely to have living parents that would grieve their deaths and besides, they have all that experience to draw upon to make them real fighting machines. With the advents of technology, after all, its not like they'll be expected to physically fight... well, except each other in the local bar when on leave, of course. They'll be pushing buttons like the rest of us... and when their deaths are recorded by the master computer system, they can dutifully report to the local disintegration chamber. (Star Trek reference)... It is, after all, such things that hold our society together. Without the orderly death of those selected for termination, chaos and the destruction of our entire civilization would surely ensue. Further, far more CEOs, government officials and other leaders are elderly than are 18-25 years old. Making the elderly fight our wars would make it more likely that policy makers would hesitate before declaring war and they themselves could be drafted. Oh - and they smell bad.

Con: Old people are stupid. ...and ugly. Making pre-teens fight our wars would make much more sense. They don't have wrinkles, they have boundless energy, aren't yet interested in gay sex (so "Don't Ask Don't Tell" won't even be an issue), they like playing war anyway, and there isn't as much investment of time made in them... we can always pop out a replacement should one break or die or something. Besides... since their smaller, wouldn't that make our wars smaller? That would be an immediate improvement. Besides, maybe war would be cute. That would be nice. You know those cute photos of little four year old kids in big person clothes holding hands and kissing? We could raise money for wars by selling cute photos of four year olds in baggy uniforms like running each other through with bayonets.

Real: Why can't we all just get along? (no, really... I mean it).

Thesis: why in god's name are you putting so much effort into a thread?

That's a question, not a thesis.

Thesis: People who don't know what a thesis is shouldn't try to post them.

Thesis: 'Alternative' medicine is as important as western, allopathic treatment

Due to the snow day, which means I'm focusing on my son, I will get back to this tomorrow