The end goal is to eradicate a certain non-desirable group of people from this earth, a group who may be not so intelligent as the others but have just as much right to live on earth & reproduce as anyone else. Sterilisation is irreversible; it isn’t even in the same ballpark. I would compare the idea as wanting to kill off the ‘undesirables’ of the earth, but nobody is actually killing them, they kill themselves off due to the incentive. Kind of like me scattering coins in a busy road in full sight of a tramp. It is wrong. In effect it would be the first step to eradicating undesirables from the face of the planet. Anyone daft enough to sign up to the program will indeed have been taken advantage of, due to the cash incentive or because they don’t have full mental Capacity. If we cleaned up the earth of these people, they it will only be a matter of time that we start going after the next group of undesirables.
Always brings this to mind. I wonder why people, whether it is Christian fanatics who are against gays, or Atheist fanatics who are against the poor and uneducated, cannot simply abide by "live and let live". In stOx's case, the failure is the welfare system, not the people the government intentionally places within it, to justify the existence of such a program. And that the conclusion is to kill people off rather than change a flawed system, man the human race is so depressing some days.
No it isn't. it's to encourage least fit parent to not have so many children. I have lost count of haw many time i have had to clarify my position in the face of these straw-men arguments. Re-read the the thread, And comment once you understand my position fully. Of course you would compare it to that, Because you lack the capacity to form an argument that isn't a straw-man. Nobody is being killed. No it isn't. it's incentivising those less able to care for children to have less children. Nobody is being eradicated. It's encouraging responsible reproduction. classic.... "It's wrong because i deem that some people aren't smart enough to make their own decisions, So i should make their decisions for them". Hey, Once you start making decisions for one group it will only be a matter of time before you start making decisions for the next group! probably based on race, Just like Hitler!!!! Slippery slope fallacy. FAIL... next!
Boy, you British spell funny...see that zig-zagged character in the lower right corner of the keyboard? The one you call "zed"? Try it, you'll like it... I think we should "incentivise sterilisation" for rich and poor alike. That way, every one will stop bitching about how unfair it is and focus on the wonderful idea of fewer humans. No more back-alley vascectomies! If you're poor, we'll give you a radio to have your nuts clipped. If you're rich, we'll give you stock options. That seems pretty fair.
And that is the problem. Determined by whom? You're going to give money to bribe poor people not to pro-create. Assumedly, the people setting the standard for who qualifies for free money, are not the very people being asked not to reproduce. Not to mention, you still have not addressed that education can solve many of these problems. As well as a free market economy where a middle class can prosper and thrive. You're asking people to sterilize based on social positioning, at a particular moment in time. In some cases, poor people become rich, and rich people become poor. In the US, many top professional athletes come from very poor, single parent families. Your assumption that the poor and uneducated produce the least worthwhile children is very flawed. Why does it fail? Throughout history, the slippery slope is inevitable. The state never gets smaller, never reduces it programs, close departments or cut budgets in any meaningful way.
The independent group assigned to determining who qualifies would be employed. It's unlikely that an employed person would qualify. The group would consist of many specialists in various fields, including statisticians and sociologist. No i'm not. No doubt their financial position would be one of many factors, But if they can be seen to successfully raise children on their low income then their low income wouldn't automatically qualify them. It's a logical fallacy. it suggests the initiation of one event will inevitably lead to culmination of an undesirable event later. it's not sound logic. yes sometimes things do lead to undesirable events, But the speculation that this program WILL lead to undesirable events is not sound logic and is not an argument against it.
Will there be any poor people in this group? Any uneducated people? You know, for balance and such... Only taken as an absolute. In my example of government growth, the statement "slippery slope" as applied here, is a priori knowledge.
If there happen to be any poor, uneducated people who managed to become specialists in statistics and sociology.. Sure, why not. Would the fact that they are poor and uneducated automatically qualify them for the program? No. even if it did, Would they have to get sterilised? No. yes governments expand, but that in it's self doesn't mean the program will escalate into the extermination of various undesirables. That argument is a non sequitur. toopac made the claim that "it will only be a matter of time that we start going after the next group of undesirables" which is a slippery slope fallacy. Is ANYONE on this forum at all familiar with logic and how arguments work?
Yes. You are the master of strawmen, and ad hominems, not to mention you play games with demanding negative proof all of the time with your atheist posts. That said, you don't have an argument against the slippery slope. Yelling loudest doesn't make you the winner.
Could you give me an example of where i demanded negative proof? I don't see how an atheist could be guilty of that when asking for evidence to support the claims that something does exist. Guerilla, I don't have to argue that what toopac said is a slippery slope, It's here for all to see http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html A slippery slope fallacy is the assertion that because event X has, or will, occur that event Y will inevitably follow. The claim that starting this program (event x) will inevitably lead to us going after other undesirables (event y) is flawed logic.
Have you ever asked for proof that God exists? If so, you're phishing for negative proof. Which is a logical fallacy. Your problem with the slippery slope, is that you are arguing that X never leads to Y, as an argument against X leading to Y. All toopac has to prove is that a slippery slope can happen, not that it will happen. Again, you are phishing for negative proof, you want him to conclusively prove what will happen in the future.
Asking for evidence to support the claim that something does exist is not committing a negative proof fallacy. I'm arguing that saying X will lead to Y is a logical fallacy. He is arguing that it will happen. He said "If we cleaned up the earth of these people, they[sic] it will only be a matter of time that we start going after the next group of undesirables." [emphasis mine]... Which makes it a slippery slope fallacy and flawed logic, And as such it is NOT an argument against anything. if he wants to change his argument from one where undesirable consequences will happen to one where undesirable consequences could possibly happen then I'll argue against it.
Its only a slippery slope fallacy if there is no proof that A will lead to B. All of the historical proof suggests a strong correlation with the A and B in this case. Judges have once in a while ordered chemical castration, even in modern times in the cases of sexual predators. If there were a completely unrelated law or charity that created an organization to facilitate this on a strictly voluntary basis, it would still serve as encouragement for public officials and a sign of general acceptance for the end-goal of reducing human population for essentially materialistic purposes.
The idea of this program is to stop a problem that you perceive to exist, that problem being unproductive subjects of the state to the state, whether you want to admit it or not you are indeed advocating the removal of the “non productive†people from this earth by stopping them pro-creating, therefore the end result is either less or even no non productive subjects. What about trying to educate them? I take it you would have deep concerns then if every non-productive person took up this program? After all the end result would be one segment of the society eradicated, you can dress it up how you like, that is the result, & that is the goal. "No actual person is being killed only a proportion of society would be killed off" It would be better to introduce incentives for people to act in a responsible & humane way, some people already have this incentive it is called a conscience. If what you’re advocating is so good, sample your own product. I know for a fact it would not stop there, once the government has a weapon as effective as this in place it will not stop using it, giving the government too much power is not what any responsible citizen would do. I'm been thinking about your various positions that you have expressed on this forum, I now tend to think that sound like a dictator & think like a dictator; first you would remove the right to vote from the most vulnerable to make them an unheard & ignored proportion of society, then introduce plans to eradicate them by using their own stupidity or their own misfortune against them, at the very same time they can’t do anything about it (even vote) in your version of elitist democracy.
That's an absence of proof, or a position based on negative proof. God doesn't exist because I can't see him and you can't show him to me. There is no slippery slope because A doesn't lead to B and you can't prove it will. These are logical fallacies. It's known as "proving a negative".
It's not necessarily true that children had by unproductive parents will grow up to be unproductive individuals themselves. The goal, As i have explained countless times, apparently upon deaf (or inherently dishonest and deceitful) ears, Is to limit the number of children had by those less able to raise children. try and spin it into something else all you want, I will carry on explaining this simple concept to you I would have no concerns regarding how many people chose to participate. yes, some people have it, Some people don't. It would be nice if the ones who don't have it didn't have so many children. You don't know it for a fact. You are making it up to give you a crutch to support this otherwise fatuous, illogical and unfounded position of yours. it's interesting that you should reference that post, What with it's similarity to this one in the way people ill-equipped to argue rationally and logically instead creating strawmen arguments. Nobody is being eradicated, No more than birth control education in Africa is trying to eradicate black people. it;s a program to reduce the number of children had by people ill-equipped to care for them. Is your tactic now to just repeat the same facile, dishonest lie? here's a tip, Arguing against a point should rarely involve you having to sacrifice your own integrity in public.
You happened to miss the above question; I have no idea as to why? Yet you don’t mind those people who would of existed not existing regardless of their potential? It really is to use the lack of a better term “playing Godâ€; Do you believe that it is your place or anyone else’s to decide how many children are too many for a person to have, or who can or who can’t parent x amount of children successfully even before these children are born? Or even parent full stop? or EVEN reproduce? Who do you think you are? It is this type of arrogance that needs to be eradicated & replaced with understanding. If parents can’t cope with x amount of children there are already procedures in place, such as social services who can forcibly remove children & adopt them exactly on the same premise that you provide. This is after the fact, when proof is available. How can you conclude that a parent can’t raise a child or another child before the fact? So in effect you want to limit the amount of children a parent can raise, these parents as you have said are educationally sub-normal or from less affluent backgrounds, however you would not mind that if the eventual result was indeed their eradication of this whole class/segment of people? My thoughts exactly, although I would replace “so many†with “noneâ€. Come on lets be real about this instead of beating about the bush, do you believe once one group is eradicated for being the lowest life form (or whatever word/phrase you want to use) then the next group that happens to replace them or indeed take their place they will be safe? You must have a lot of faith in government to give them free reign of who is in the countries gene pool. It is indeed the similarities are too huge to ignore. What is irrational is thinking that eradicating a segment of society (which you would not mind) is for the supposed good of children. "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."- Mein Kampf Again what about education? We have birth control here already. As I said earlier birth control as in condoms or pills is not irreversible, so using this as an argument for or to justify sterilisation is illogical. I would say you have demonstrated the point adequately without the need for stating it too.