Quote from: Ian AbsentiaEthics is a messy business and, sadly, we're selfish beings.

You know, I'd like to qualify this statment, or change it, rather.

We're worried beings.  Worried that if we don't take as much as we need -- or simply can -- right now, that we'll be left with too little or none at all later on.  We're reactive beasts that forget that we're able to think rather than just respond.  We're worried little things that fear the truth -- that no one of us is inherently any better or more important than another.

And that's why so many ethical choices are legislated.

!i!

Children are a disposable resource. We know where they come from and we have a nearly infinite supply of them under even fairly extreme conditions.

We can always get more.  This current fetishization of children is harmful, as in order to transform them from a disposable asset into a functional member of a society is inherently a destructive process, not unlike smelting ores to get rid of impurities.  Try forging your sword/plowshare out of unrefined ore sometime... yet here we are coddling these proto-beings so that they can grow into unrefined 'adults' who will ultimately fail... as a collective, to function as a society.

Luckily, none of that stops THEM from getting more children out which can start over after the inevitable collapse (and subsequent refinement by force) of this now 'adult' society.  It is a self correcting situation, it just sucks to be on the pendulum when it swings back...



:what:

QuoteNo, what I'm saying is that that's not how the world works,

Yeah, and I replies that's how my world would work.

QuoteMercy that you have to earn isn't mercy, it's justice. A second chance that you earn isn't a second chance, it's you having succeeded at your first chance.

I guess we were raised differently. When I was sent to my room for being a punk I didn't get let out while still being a punk and told "your second chance starts now" while my mom patiently hoped for me to stop screaming at her. I was sent to my room and let out when my time was up and I'd calmed down, i.e. when I'd earned my second chance.

QuoteKeeping hope alive, even for those furthest gone, is not the job of the government, but it is our job as citizens and human beings.

This is a totally different discussion. I'd love to have it, but in it's own thread.

QuoteRestricting the right of anyone to better themselves is an act of despair. Advocating such restrictions is a philosophy of despair. I oppose both in absolute terms. To feel despair is natural but to act upon it is a failing, and to institutionalize it is a sin.

I'm not talking about restricting someone's right to better themselves. What I'm talking about is giving people that want to have kids a reason to better themselves.

QuoteWe're worried little things that fear the truth -- that no one of us is inherently any better or more important than another.

This is complete and utter tripe. Different people are most definitely better than one another. I know for a fact I'm better than people like Jeffrey Dahmer or a child molesting priest. You can lump yourself in with the human refuse if you want, but don't try to drag me into your cesspool.

Quote from: James McMurrayThis is complete and utter tripe. Different people are most definitely better than one another. I know for a fact I'm better than people like Jeffrey Dahmer or a child molesting priest. You can lump yourself in with the human refuse if you want, but don't try to drag me into your cesspool.

I believe you mis-read, and I thin you over-reacted.  I specifically wrote "No one of us is inherently[/u] better or more important than another."  None of us arrives in this veil of tears with any innate and superior purpose than any other.  It's what happens to us after we're born that determines relative value.  Unless, of course, by implying that some people are "human refuse" from birth, you're venturing into Nox-land.

!i!

Ah, I did misunderstand. Nevermind. I agree that we're born equal, but that sorting process starts pretty early.

Child rearing is too important a task to be left in the hands of those who have no children.

Quote from: James McMurrayYeah, and I replies that's how my world would work.

But you're not explaining how your world would work in any way whatsoever. I feel harping on a bit but you seem to want to hand peoples right to child-rearing to your government based on the idea that somebody there will surely know what what they're doing. You see the basic problem with talking about the ethics of stuff like this is working out who decides what is right or wrong. A good example can be seen in medical ethics which has spent the last 20 years moving away from a doctor knows best approach to one which heavily incolves patients, their families and other professionals.

Like I've said several times, I don't have a working model. I'm not qualified to create one. I would support a working model, created by someone who is qualified. And no, I don't know who that is.

Quote from: James McMurrayLike I've said several times, I don't have a working model. I'm not qualified to create one. I would support a working model, created by someone who is qualified. And no, I don't know who that is.

Do you understand why for me that means there's no real base to what you're saying? You're trying to have an ethical argument with no real ethical position to argue.

Quote from: mythusmageChild rearing is too important a task to be left in the hands of those who have no children.

And I think people with children are too close to the situation at hand to make rational decsions about society.

Quote from: Garry GDo you understand why for me that means there's no real base to what you're saying? You're trying to have an ethical argument with no real ethical position to argue.

My position is "some people don't deserve to have children, let's take that right away from them."

At some level of psychological instability, fiscal irresponsibility, sexual depredation, etc. a person loses the ability to raise a child properly. When that level is reached, we should take away their ability to have children.

Quote from: James McMurrayIf I did I wouldn't have said "These are people who cannot psychologically or physically care forr children and they become drains on society which usually grow up to give birth to another generation of drains."

[...]

Hell, if you can show me that poor peoples' children being a drain on society is a good thing I'll even drop the monetary prereqs and screen only for psychological acceptability.

By "drain", I assume you mean economic - that is, money. "Poor people cost me money!" Well, actually, not really.

Rich people cost society money. They demand and receive tax breaks, subsidies for their businesses and means of transport. Here in Australia, for example, government funding for "private" schools is twice that, per student, for "public" schools, four-wheel-drives (SUVs) are exempt from many taxes, dropping the price by $15,000 per vehicle (for which you could buy one middle-classed person's vehicle, or 3-8 working/unemployed class people's vehicles). The top 20% of the country earn 50% of the country's income, but pay only 10% of the taxes. The most profitable industry in Australia, mining, receives several billion in subsidies (and would be profitable still without them) and tax breaks, while the poorest people - the Aboriginals - have programmes to assist them of some tens of millions.

In our current society in the West, the rich are a drain on society, while the poor cost very little at all.

So if you think that people who are a financial "drain" on society should be prevented from having children, you'd best cut the balls off the rich.

I don't see any rich people on welfare, which if you noticed was the only real measurement of monetary worth that I gave.

Quote from: James McMurrayMy position is "some people don't deserve to have children, let's take that right away from them."

At some level of psychological instability, fiscal irresponsibility, sexual depredation, etc. a person loses the ability to raise a child properly. When that level is reached, we should take away their ability to have children.

I'm not even quite sure how you define any of your three examples so it's tough to know what you mean. Let's look at them,

Psychological instability to me means neurosis at worst so this would mean that somebody with neurotic depression, pretty light and probably not even needing medication.

Fiscal responsibility leaves me a bit confused especially since most people are pretty heavily in debt.

Sexual depradation is another weird one. What do you mean?

You're position is far too vague to be anything approaching ethical. Should George Bush decide who get's to have kids? How about Castro, Putin, Blair or Chavez.

Quote from: James McMurrayI don't see any rich people on welfare, which if you noticed was the only real measurement of monetary worth that I gave.

So if someone on welfare gets $10,000 in unemployment benefits, that's worth more than if someone who's a CEO gets a tax cut of $10,000?

So in other words, this isn't about how much money is given to people by private or public hands, but about kicking people on welfare?

Well, I guess everyone needs a hobby.

The sense of middle-classed entitlement in this thread is overwhelming. Where's that commie droog when we need him?