Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jul 1999 19:56:25 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
c576653@cclabs.missouri./IHateSpam/edu
|
Viewed:
|
1105 times
|
| |
|
|
John DiRienzo wrote:
>
> Groovy!
I got a big smile out of that.
> Chris, I tend to agree with you more often than with Ed "Boxer" Jones,
> but if you would advocate the above, I would have to puke. When some one
> brought up this sterilizing idea, I thought it was a joke. I don't like
It wasn't a joke, but it wasn't exactly serious either.
> that idea and I will tell you why. I don't think the government should be
> handing out goods taken from one who earned them to another who did not. No
Right. I'm straight-up 100% agreed. But, that's not the world we live
in. We live in a world where people think that robbing from the rich to
give to the poor is a romantic notion and it's even supported by many
rich - since it's socially demanded of them. Given our world of
taxation and other government intrusion, I make statements like "money
for schools is good" and "if generationally lazy people were not allowed
to breed, our welfare burden would decrease, what could we do to address that?"
> matter what preconditions are made, I still won't like group theft. Your
> new precondition is just wrong wrong worng and two wrongs still don't make a
> right.
Can't you imagine not minding this organized theft as much if you
approved of the way it was managed? It would still be wrong morally,
but it would be more palatable.
> > > Or is your intent merely to limit the reproduction of citizens that you • find to
> > > be worthless to society?
> > I'm not sure what you mean by merely. I consider such a goal a grand
> > aspiration, not something to be referred to as 'mere.' We already have
> > natural selection that is guided by societal mores. I'm not proposing
> > anything particularly revolutionary. And it's behavior that we impose
> > on lower animals without qualm...what's the difference?
>
> Maybe David Duke's grand aspiration.
Look people! 400,000 years ago, there were no people. People happened
because of the right circumstances of breeding. Period. Breeding is
important in guiding development of a species. There is nothing hideous
or immoral about wanting guided human breeding.
> I agree that it
> is pretty appalling to demand sterilization for receivers of charity. Now
> if you are talking about punishment, maybe in some cases it wouldn't be such
> a bad idea. Like rape, for instance, sterilization (or even castration)
That's funny. I'm totally opposite. If it's voluntary, who's to blame?
But I don't think that it's an appropriate punishment for anything.
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
