Again, Nobody is being eradicated. Nobody is being eradicated. Nobody is being eradicated. We would simply be incentiving those less able to care for children to not have so many children. Nobody will be forced into it and nobody will be killed. As for education, it obviously don't work. People in the west know how to get condoms and they know how to use them. The thing is, some people lack the intellect and social responsibility to understand something regardless how many times you explain it to them, So explaining to them again how a condom works is a waste of money and time. People have had "more education" regarding contraception for decades, How many crack babies have to be born before you start thinking that maybe they aren't listening?. That line of reasoning simply doesn't make sense, Because if it did you would not only oppose what i am proposing, You would have to oppose everything that results in a woman not getting pregnant. Everything from condoms to abstinence. with the logic that every time a woman isn't pregnant she is possibly denying a great thinker a life.
That might not be the point to your sterilisation idea, but it sure seems like it & it is the eventual result, a result that you would not mind by your own admission. You would be preventing births & the continuation of that particular family or blood line as G said, multiplied by many thousands then you are indeed wiping out an whole segment of society, to say otherwise is futile, because a segment of society that is sterilised can’t pro-create which leads to the particular segments distinction, they will in effect be wiped out or eradicated once the ones who happen to have been sterilised die, by intent or as a side effect of your program. Isn't it incentive enough to have the child removed & adopted? So these people are a lost cause? No amount of anything can help them? Alternatively, perhaps they indeed want children, they just didn't realise that some arrogant person would be saying "They are not smart enough or rich enough therefore they should not have kids, use a carrot & a stick to take away there reproduction". You claimed you would not mind seeing the whole group of people this program would target no longer existing because of it (because they are low lives etc), then went on to say that children from these families can be different, so I was gauging if your program happened to stop even these good people being born, would you be bothered, I guess your response is the above, “they never existed therefore what is the problemâ€.
If i wanted to eradicate people i wouldn't make it voluntary and i wouldn't offer them money. if it still "seems like" this is an eradication program, after the countless time i have explained to you how and why it isn't, Then there is little to be gained intellectually for either of us, mostly me, continuing with this dialogue. You can't wipe out what doesn't exist. By using condoms you prevent a bloodline continuing. By not having forced birthing camps you are preventing blood lines from continuing. where does it stop? should we make reproduction compulsory so that these imaginary victims of the future are all given a chance? Obviously not. Some could be helped. So by reducing the numbers of those born straight into abject poverty, Unloving homes and requiring help we increase the amount of help we are able to give others. Like in Africa. By reducing the number of mouths to feed by contraception education we are able to provide more to the mouths that are already here. What i actually said was "I would have no concerns regarding how many people chose to participate". In other words, There wouldn't be a target to reach or a maximum capacity. Like i said, Contraceptive education could be responsible for stopping "even these good people being born". So unless you are going to oppose contraception education on the grounds that it may prevent "good people" being born you can't oppose the program for that reason.
Wait a minute, because I am not poor, uneducated, or a bad parent I can't get 15k for getting sterilized? I would sue the government for discrimination. Wait another minute, lets assume I am mildly retarded, I can drive and work, but at 30 years old I still have a legal guardian and am not deemed capable of making my own decisions and I make 5k a year and live in a facility, who gets to decide if I am sterilized? How about everyone in my assisted living community gets sterilized without their consent but with the consent of their keepers? Holy hell in a cat carrier, what if I am a crackwhore ON CRACK when I sign the papers and get my bits sawed? I was under the influence and clearly not of sound mind and body, now that I am clean can I sue? Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! What if I freeze my swimmers and right after I get sterilized I grab the turkey baster and impregnate the neighborhood? Do I have to pay the 15k back?
Forced & without incentive would not got too down to well though, how many people would queue up for treatment for their “own goodâ€, compared to the amount that would happily queue chop you in two? A population expands; you want to end that expansion for one group because you choose to discriminate, if you claim to be not stopping the expansion, then your still a discriminatory bigot. Here’s an idea take your idea to Africa it sounds like they need it. Although your proposed program is not fit for anyone.
If i wanted to eradicate people why would i care if it went down well or not? This is why your argument is entirely fatuous, Not a single person in this thread has had the capacity to form a rational, logical argument against this idea and all were limited to either creating strawmen arguments or repeating "it's bad! bad man, bad man!" without offering a reason why. Then of course there are the particularly deceitful few who, Even after being told otherwise countless times, Continued to misrepresent what is being said. The population will no doubt lessen as a result, But the initial goal is to reduce the number of children born in to "families" where outside help is automatically required. Just like contraception education tried to. Wow, So after calling it genocide, bigoted discrimination, The eradication of a class you tell me to take it to africa because "they need it"? Tell me, Exactly how do you think the Africans "need" eradicating?
Simple, any person/government that plans to introduce absolute evil as this program is, will be committing suicide or it would be refused outright “Too much too soon†springs to mind, it’s better to make out it’s a optional & beneficial to society & to your wallet as a victim, to get people to accept it without too much opposition. If I told you as a government that I will tax you breathing air you would kick up a fuss, if I told you I would tax you more to for e.g. to save your country from financial ruin you will happily pay, or pay without too much fuss. The arguments are only there if you choose to see them, dictators often believe they are the only one who is right & everyone else is wrong. I hate to say this to a fellow atheist, but the problem might be because you lack morals. How can you know the population will lessen? If these people do not exist? The population can only lessen if they existed in the first place then were killed. What do you mean by “initial goalâ€, surly the only goal you have stated is: “To reduce the number of children born in to "families" where outside help is automatically required†Do you have another goal a long term goal perhaps? That goal isn't that you are trying to lessen the population by stopping undesirables from reproducing, in effect ‘wiping them out’ or to be factually correct paying for the elimination of their bloodline? You were using Africa/Africans as a reason to start to reduce the population within the UK, if Africans are a problem as you pointed out, or are the reason you plan to put to an end a segment of this society so Africans can have more resources, then maybe you should take your program to the problem, that is how I believe you should prioritise, it is logical. I also told you I would not support this program anywhere on this earth; It targets people in a way that is discriminatory. The people that would be targeted have the least protection & need protecting from these types of social engineering experiments. It is absolute evil how it entices the poorest with cash, to sell their reproduction, something they may not want to do, but have to, to survive, taking advantage of people this way is immoral. It opens the way for some idiots to start deciding who qualifies as a candidate to cease their entire bloodline, power that is too great for a group of government officials, whether or not this leads to further population reduction strategies. Let’s face it, if the shoe was on the other foot, I wouldn’t like this program, would you? Suppose the vulnerable had the power & thought “these toffee nosed assholes are nothing but people that stick there nose into other peoples business, most of them are jobsworths, lets offer an incentive to get them to stop reproducing toffy nosed kids that only interfere†would this be good? My saying is this, I also see a few atheists use this to live by; “Treat others as you would wish to be treated†Live by this single principle & there would be less evil in this world.
It's funny, because You are the one saying that the people who would qualify for this program aren't able to make rational decisions for themselves. If anything is immoral it is preventing someone from making their own choices. What is moral in saying "you shouldn't be allowed to make a particular choice because i disagree with it"? I meant projected population growth. Stage 2 would probably consist of some kind of program to encourage those best suited to raising a child have more children. The more affluent, educated and civil members of society tend to have the fewest children while those least able to care for children have the most. This balance is unsustainable. It needs to be shifted. The reasons would be entirely different, They would be incentivising sterilisation because they don't like affluent educated people, Not for any kind of benefit to society. If they could find a valid reason why incentives sterilisation among the affluent would benefit society then i wouldn;t be opposed to them doing it. Good luck in finding volunteers though.
But what is even funnier is that those choices already exist; 1) Condoms/Pills etc, or even totally voluntary sterilisation to prevent births. 2) Regarding the ending of a bloodline there is the option of suicide, so that your bloodline as far as you are concerned is terminated. So what choice(s) are they not able to make? The only person preventing true choice is yourself with “incentivesâ€, which would lead some people into to something irreversible, then if they wanted children later that “choice†to have children is gone, because you disagree with it. Furthermore, I'm not saying all people can’t make rational decisions in this I suppose class, only some, some who this program would no doubt target. So you can project something, when it suits? Is it really, it has been this way since the start. Will the affluent start cleaning there own homes, hiring affluent butlers? Will the affluent start to get off their backsides, doing hard manual labour? You mean the most affluent, educated, and civil members of society like George W Bush? Not someone like yourself? middle class? No not because they don’t like educated people, but simply because they tend to bother about what is going on in everyone else’s backyard often whilst doing as they like. Why?
You are missing the point. I'm saying: heres a program, would you like to participate? You're saying: you can't participate in that because i disagree with it. You are taking someones ability to decide for themselves away by arguing against the program. You are saying they aren't able to decide what they want, Instead you decide what options they have. I don't know what this means, But i'll give you some info that may help if this was an honest question that inadvertently got garbled by your inability to string together a sentence Yes, figures can be projected. I have never said it doesn't "suit". What's your point? Or was there no point and it was just an excuse for you to quote something else to give the appearance that you are actually contributing something? I'm starting to repeat myself now, try to keep up. I don't have time to go over old ground just because you seem to think that arguing against something requires little more than mashing on your keyboard and giving a reply, any reply. 1. If people are in work it will be unlikely that they would qualify 2. Even if they did qualify, How would that result in less butlers? If George bush wasn't president he would be a credit to society. This is a fatuous point though, it's just pandering to pop-culture... "urg, we hate george bush, so i'm going to favour any argument that berates him!". So they want to sterilize them because they disagree with their opinions? Go away, rethink this contrived comparison and come back when you have something that doesn't sound like it's been written in crayon on the back of a napkin. 1. Intelligent people tend to understand that having sex makes babies. 2. They take precautions. 3. They tend not to reproduce at the same rate as those who would qualify for the program 4. If they do happen to have a child they will have the money and ability to raise it properly.
Your program offers nothing that is presently not available to the people besides ending their bloodline for cash; you just have a desire to do harm to those that you do not like & have a problem with comprehension. By your way of thinking government that is trying to stamp out drug dealers is limiting choice to buy drugs because they disagree with it. Naturally, you just don’t like them once they start to get their money back from the government or because they are unintelligent or not rich enough for your liking. The program has no benefits to society only grave dangers, not only to the people involved. Well the problem is once you wipe out a group of people at the bottom it usually means less support for those at the top, with your various outbursts in this thread & derogatory comments towards a certain group I believe people can see your real intentions, you happen to touch on them in the thread then tend to back peddle or worm yourself out of it. That is not the point; the point is that you’re not affluent as George W Bush, you stated earlier: “Stage 2 would probably consist of some kind of program to encourage those best suited to raising a child have more children. The more affluent, educated and civil members of society tend to have the fewest children while those least able to care for children have the most. This balance is unsustainable. It needs to be shifted.†So the point is; Are you affluent enough to have children compared to the likes of George W Bush? And you are the one promoting sterilisation because you disagree with their lifestyle, because it “might†be good for society if they did not reproduce based on wealth & intelligence, when in fact your not the richest or most intelligent person alive today yourself. I can tell the committee would need people like you sitting on it to see who qualifies for the “final solutionâ€. I can’t believe your attitude to be frank it is repugnant, arrogance at it’s worst, it really is not worth my time.
So now your deceitful rhetoric of "you are eradicating people" has been kicked to death and is now rotting in the curb your new line of deceitful rhetoric is "you just have a desire to do harm to those that you do not like". I don't dislike the poor, I don't dislike the cretinous and i don't particularly dislike bad parents. I just think it best of they restrict the amount of children they produce. Don't you? Don't you think that those least able to care for children should have fewer? No, The problem is that your line of argument has no basis in reality. And now since you can't explain how the program would result in less butlers (i assume you mean people to do menial tasks) you are having a little cry about the words i use to describe people. Imagine, For just one second, If you made such a piss poor attempt at debate in front of an audience. They would geer like you are some kind of jester, someone employed for the specific purpose of self humiliation in public. I'm far from the richest and most intelligent person alive, But then, The programs goal isn't to have only vastly wealthy or immensely intelligent people. It's to reduce the number of children had by those least able to care for children. I don't know how many more times i can explain this to you without starting to think it's intellectual dishonesty that is preventing you from grasping the concept, and not intellectual redundancy.
It's not eradicating people. It's eradicating people from the gene pool who should be culled out anyway.
Why not just get rid of welfare and let the process take care of itself. I've often said I'd prefer to live a short, brutal, painful life than to have never lived at all... I am very disturbed by the entirely western notion that life is not worth living without minimum levels of material, physical, or intellectual gratification - or that somehow, people who insist on living and multiplying despite an apparent lack of these things is a burden to the "enlightened and compassionate" ones.
I think you have a good idea what the problems are with this program but you choose to ignore, them so lets nail this down. We will start on this derogatory remark to the particular people your program would target. So unintelligent people do not understand the basic fact that sex creates children which has been known worldwide, like ‘forever’. Yet you expect these same unintelligent people to understand your program & what your program entails (or does to them) & for that person to then make an informed decision to participate in the program? Are you expecting anyone else to buy this line of reasoning? Would you mind if these unintelligent people did not have the capacity to give informed consent to the removal or destruction of their reproductive organs, because by the sounds of the people your program would target it would be inevitiable that you would not get informed consent, correct? Therefore would you stop trying to improve society via that person, or find some other way/excuse to abrogate their human rights otherwise known as taking advantage? You might say that you could get this information across to them in a manner which they can understand it, yet you claim education will not help these people. So that would be futile.
Well, I've avoided serious comment in this thread to avoid getting caught in the cross-hairs, but I may as well pipe in with my unpopular perspective. First of all, my vascectomied mate wants to be retroactively compensated for his sterilization. Second, this notion is a PR disaster, and everyone is suitably outraged, but take away the emotionalism, and the idea has some merit. If we weren't human ourselves, we would find the idea irresistible. *SHOCK* *OUTRAGE* *GRAB THE TAR AND FEATHERS* After all, this is how humans control the population of a wide variety of animals, from dogs to horses, and with far less urgency than the need to limit human growth. Farm animals are routinely castrated (not sterilized, castrated) merely to prevent unwanted breeding. Of course, I object to all such activities, but I have a little trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that paying people to make the collectively beneficial choice not to reproduce is oppressive. As if the quality of life for poor people is not harmed by excessive population. As if poor folk won't benefit from reduced societal costs as well. It's not as if there's any danger of running out of poor people. Obviously, any compulsory sterilization program would be abhorrent. On the other hand, distasteful as paying humans to be sterilized may be, it is the only solution I can even imagine which could reduce the population without coercion. Now adopting this as public policy is another matter. People are emotionally attached to the idea that reproduction=survival. I'm not sure this can be overcome. But I wonder if all the pompousness in this thread on both sides of the debate isn't overshadowing the real issue, which is reducing the population. I don't feel rich people are more qualified to reproduce than poor ones. In fact, it is the rich children of the world who consume the most resources. But I do think it is time for our species to consider voluntary restricting its growth, before the decision is made for us. Thank you for not breeding.
I have just read through this whole thread and have considered quotes at differnt points but clearly i'm entering the argument at a late stage so I'll restrict myself to the last page. OK so the idea is to pay those less fortunate the "poor" or should I say incentivise rather than pay No I guess we aren't so what do we class as poor? under £5K under £10K or maybe under £30K or $60000 if you prefer. How much of the population do you wish to incentivise to what extent do you wish to limit your species? Why do some reproduce more than others? If we look to the animal kingdom, giant turtles for example lay numerous eggs in the expectation that on the trip from the beach to the sea many will be eaten "exterminated" by predators. Elephants on the other hand can only produce one offspring and that one takes a number of years. Now think of the poor as the turtle and the rich as the Elephant. The pure reporduce more in the instinctive beleif that more are likely to die so they need more to carry on thier "clan" or bloodline after all isn't that what life is about as defined by us humans; respiration movement and reporduction. Does this then mean we are killing the volunteers as they can nolonger reproduce? How much then would you pay them to commit suicide, the payment being made to their nominated charity / friend or relative? Sure so why do we (the developed world) go to the third world and convince (educate) them to take on our sterilisation program? so you are taking us back to the political debate which you appear to despise, notheless I do agree. Is this not the case already in many countries my wife has voluntarily been implanted with an IUD ok not sterilisation but similar this was a free service when she asked for sterilisation but was convinced otherwise by the clinic. Should it not be a persons choice to reproduce or not why are those who wish to be sterilised convinced not to be? The medical profession has much to answer for. I personally don't agree with the incentivisation of sterilisation but not for the reasons stated in the thread. There are many areas where underage pregnancies are common place as are youthful pregnancies. they see their friends enjoying themselves at parties and want the same fun so get together with someone who buys them a few drinks and takes advantage. The following pregnancy is supported by welfare. Wasn't that easy and fun too!!!!! Life progresses and the expenses out grow the income so what shall I do, oh if I have another baby I can get a bigger flat and lots more freebies to live on so here we go number 2 and it goes on 3, 4, 5. I am speaking here not about political rhetoric but rather my experience what I have seen happen in a town I used to live in. What is my proposal? I don't have a perfect one, maybe the eskimos have a good one only keep the babies that provide sufficient to support the family. If its a girl first sorry have some snow we need boys then girls later. Ah what about the next one and the next one. Can't girls work too? I like the idea of stopping welfare but only to a point maybe it needs reviewing such that those who impose a burden have to do something in return to reimbuse the state. I have another option for you don't go to the poor to offer sterilisation go to a third world country and off them all sterilisation, how about China wouldn't that reduce the burden our race places on the planets resources? sorry I was so late joining the discussion