Charity Pays Drug Addicts to Undergo Sterilization

[Ted]

Eugenics need not be mandatory.

Again, how does a voluntary program become defined as eugenics?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I am aware of its founders. Your point?

My point is that a deliberate effort to murder the youngest and most innocent of black citizens goes much further into the realm of eugenics than preventing children being born to drug-addled mothers who are thoroughly incapable of taking care of them regardless of ethnicity. Further, why is it that contraception is so important that we had a misguided young woman arguing to congress that she is entitled to it on our dime, but it is wrong to supply it to those least able to care for children (remember that permanent sterilization is not the only option on the table with this group)? Maybe the other side has eugenics on their mind to shrink the pool of responsible citizens while inflating a new third-world-style peasant class?

 

[level.eleven]

Personally, I don't know that I could look another human being in the face and tell them that they are so worthless to me that rather than actually help them, I'd like to give them some drug money in exchange for sterilizing themselves. I just don't think I could do it. And this charity is the moral equivalent of that.

Thank you. Too bad Fletch isn't around anymore.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I didn't say it was extreme. Like I said, it's a contract between consenting parties and none of my business.

I did say that I think there are better uses of money. If you think it's the best cause out there, then I assume that you'll be cutting them a check?

Personally, I don't know that I could look another human being in the face and tell them that they are so worthless to me that rather than actually help them, I'd like to give them some drug money in exchange for sterilizing themselves. I just don't think I could do it. And this charity is the moral equivalent of that.

It is difficult, but as I have learned the hard way, you cannot help people who do not have any desire to change. When it reaches that point, the most you can do is mitigate the damage best you can, which I would include the prevention of adding more persons to the problem under the umbrella of mitigating the problem.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Thank you. Too bad Fletch isn't around anymore.

Fletch just posted something within the last couple of days. Granted not nearly so much as in times past.

 

[Ted]

Personally, I don't know that I could look another human being in the face and tell them that they are so worthless to me that rather than actually help them, I'd like to give them some drug money in exchange for sterilizing themselves. I just don't think I could do it. And this charity is the moral equivalent of that.

Thank you.

Worthless? Where did you read that? Who is defining a drug addict as worthless? How do you know that they are being defined as worthless?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Worthless? Where did you read that? Who is defining a drug addict as worthless? How do you know that they are being defined as worthless?

Exactly. The realization that a person is beyond help until they make their own choice to move in a different direction and considering them worthless are two entirely different things.

 

[steveh_131]

It is difficult, but as I have learned the hard way, you cannot help people who do not have any desire to change. When it reaches that point, the most you can do is mitigate the damage best you can, which I would include the prevention of adding more persons to the problem under the umbrella of mitigating the problem.

I have an idea. What if you offer them a year's supply of drugs, on the condition that they kill themselves after 1 year. Is this also a good idea? Think of how much money THAT would save you!

Worthless? Where did you read that? Who is defining a drug addict as worthless? How do you know that they are being defined as worthless?

You're saying to them "I have a bunch of money to donate, but because I don't care about you I'm not going to spend it on anything that might help you, I'm going to spend it to sterilize you."

That is demonstrating a distinct lack of worth.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I have an idea. What if you offer them a year's supply of drugs, on the condition that they kill themselves after 1 year. Is this also a good idea? Think of how much money THAT would save you!



You're saying to them "I have a bunch of money to donate, but because I don't care about you I'm not going to spend it on anything that might help you, I'm going to spend it to sterilize you."

That is demonstrating a distinct lack of worth.

1. You are assigning a goal that has nothing to do with the issue.

2. Spending money to 'help' people who are unwilling to receive help is pissing in the wind and nothing more. You cannot help people against their will. In such a case, preventing another person from sharing in the misery as about the best that can be done. No amount of time, effort, or money can force someone to give up (or attempt to give up) an addiction that they have no desire to give up. It simply cannot be done so quit impeaching the character of others because they are not attempting to do something that is damned well impossible.

Most people who are inclined to act are likely to try to help a person with the problems if it can be done, but once again, it cannot be done until such a person chooses to receive help.

 

[steveh_131]

1. You are assigning a goal that has nothing to do with the issue.

2. Spending money to 'help' people who are unwilling to receive help is pissing in the wind and nothing more. You cannot help people against their will. In such a case, preventing another person from sharing in the misery as about the best that can be done. No amount of time, effort, or money can force someone to give up (or attempt to give up) an addiction that they have no desire to give up. It simply cannot be done so quit impeaching the character of others because they are not attempting to do something that is damned well impossible.

Most people who are inclined to act are likely to try to help a person with the problems if it can be done, but once again, it cannot be done until such a person chooses to receive help.

Then spend your time and resources helping someone who, in your vital opinion, can be helped (or is worth helping).

 

[Ted]

You're saying to them "I have a bunch of money to donate, but because I don't care about you I'm not going to spend it on anything that might help you, I'm going to spend it to sterilize you."

That is demonstrating a distinct lack of worth.

How is preventing someone, who incidentally demonstrates that they cannot adequately take care of themselves, from having a child and not taking care of him and/or her too?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Then spend your time and resources helping someone who, in your vital opinion, can be helped (or is worth helping).

It is not a matter of my opinion. When confronted with the choice some people want better for themselves and others don't. It does not require any supernatural revelation. It does not take any divination on my part nor does it involve any decision on my part. If people don't want to change, they are not going to. This is a critical point of failure with the socialist mindset. You cannot overwhelm any problem society has by throwing money at it. I have seen some lives change for the better and others insist on going down the drain no matter how much time and money may have been invested. It is in a way like dealing with police. The dirty ones don't wear special uniforms indicating that they are crooks, and people scraping the bottom don't wear placards indicating whether or not the are going to be receptive to help. I consider your last statement to be both wrong-headed and insulting.

 

[steveh_131]

I consider your last statement to be both wrong-headed and insulting.

Some people might feel the same way about this thread.

Every one of us are a few bad decisions away from falling into the 'hopeless' category, based on these criteria. I'll always side with compassion and a hope for redemption before I side with nonsense like this.

 

[level.eleven]

I'll always side with compassion and a hope for redemption before I side with nonsense like this.

I read a book about a guy like this, once. Not a fan, but he did have a few good points.

 

[hornadylnl]

It is not a matter of my opinion. When confronted with the choice some people want better for themselves and others don't. It does not require any supernatural revelation. It does not take any divination on my part nor does it involve any decision on my part. If people don't want to change, they are not going to. This is a critical point of failure with the socialist mindset. You cannot overwhelm any problem society has by throwing money at it. I have seen some lives change for the better and others insist on going down the drain no matter how much time and money may have been invested. It is in a way like dealing with police. The dirty ones don't wear special uniforms indicating that they are crooks, and people scraping the bottom don't wear placards indicating whether or not the are going to be receptive to help. I consider your last statement to be both wrong-headed and insulting.

I wonder why Jesus bothered coming then.

 

[steveh_131]

I read a book about a guy like this, once. Not a fan, but he did have a few good points.

Oh yeah, that's right. He said something about loving your neighbor as yourself. And I think he even sat and ate dinner with the drug addict losers of his day.

I'm a huge fan, you should give him another chance.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I wonder why Jesus bothered coming then.

On the contrary, this is exactly the approach he took: He helped immediately and eternally those who chose to accept help and did thing to mitigate the immediate circumstances of those who would not accept it (i.e., feeding the multitudes who deserted him as soon as they realized that changing their condition would require changing themselves).

 

[IndyDave1776]

Oh yeah, that's right. He said something about loving your neighbor as yourself. And I think he even sat and ate dinner with the drug addict losers of his day.

I'm a huge fan, you should give him another chance.

Yes, He fraternized with 'sinners and tax collectors'. He also demanded that they change their ways. Those who refused went back to doing whatever they were doing. What is your point?

 

[Ted]

I wonder why Jesus bothered coming then.

To smite you.

 

[steveh_131]

On the contrary, this is exactly the approach he took: He helped immediately and eternally those who chose to accept help and did thing to mitigate the immediate circumstances of those who would not accept it (i.e., feeding the multitudes who deserted him as soon as they realized that changing their condition would require changing themselves).

You'll not convince me that He would have advocated this.