Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Sterilisation of heroin addicts - justified?

124»

Comments

  • #92
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The FBI don't consider it tripe at all https://www.fbi.gov/news/podcasts/thisweek/animal-cruelty-category-added-to-nibrs.mp3/view

    It is their view that abuse of animals in an indicator that the perpetrator is likely to go on to commit violent crimes against humans.
    I suspect they would consider the sterilization of those who are cruel to animals as tripe though, because that is what you came out with, not the simple correlation you're now claiming.

    You and Maximus Alexander were guilty of reductio ad absurdum in this discussion. This is the tripe I've highlighted.


  • #93
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I suspect they would consider the sterilization of those who are cruel to animals as tripe though, because that is what you came out with, not the simple correlation you're now claiming.

    You and Maximus Alexander were guilty of reductio ad absurdum in this discussion. This is the tripe I've highlighted.

    It is absurd to suggest that people be forced to undergo sterilization because they are addicted to one particular substance the abuse of which may cause them to neglect as yet unborn children.

    If the issue is addiction to a harmful substance which can cause people to become neglectful of their responsibilities than alcohol is a far greater cause of such neglect in Ireland than heroin so why not also include that?

    If the issue is that that at some point in the future a person is deemed likely to become violent/abusive due to their behaviour now than animal abuse becomes a valid reason.

    Why don't you explain why these things are not logical extensions of an absurd suggestion rather that keep bleating that they are tripe?


  • #94
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    It is absurd to suggest that people be forced to undergo sterilization because they are addicted to one particular substance the abuse of which may cause them to neglect as yet unborn children.
    It may well be, as I previously posted I don't think it's a good solution.

    However, were one to demonstrate that the 'may' in your sentence comes with a very high probability, then it would no longer so absurd.
    If the issue is addiction to a harmful substance which can cause people to become neglectful of their responsibilities than alcohol is a far greater cause of such neglect in Ireland than heroin so why not also include that?
    Again, as I previously posted, I noted this very point.
    If the issue is that that at some point in the future a person is deemed likely to become violent/abusive due to their behaviour now than animal abuse becomes a valid reason.
    And this is where you become absurd. A higher incidence, a correlation, does not mean 'likely'. And even if it somehow did, this does not automatically make them neglectful of their responsibilities as a parent - both of those are two separate jumps in logic by you, while the effect of addiction has been shown to do this.

    In effect you stretched your argument to the point where it would be like suggesting that users of Internet Explorers should be sterilized due to the correlation between them and murder rates.

    enhanced-buzz-25466-1365534595-12.jpg

    After all, all correlations, no matter how irrelevant, weak or possibly non-causatory are valid in your eyes given your examples.

    So you may have had a point with alcoholism, but you allowed yourself to slide into a reductio ad absurdum diatribe that pretty much negated the credibility of that.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96582065&postcount=72

    Why don't you explain why these things are not logical extensions of an absurd suggestion rather that keep bleating that they are tripe?


  • #95
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    It may well be, as I previously posted I don't think it's a good solution.

    However, were one to demonstrate that the 'may' in your sentence comes with a very high probability, then it would no longer so absurd.

    Again, as I previously posted, I noted this very point.

    And this is where you become absurd. A higher incidence, a correlation, does not mean 'likely'. And even if it somehow did, this does not automatically make them neglectful of their responsibilities as a parent - both of those are two separate jumps in logic by you, while the effect of addiction has been shown to do this.

    In effect you stretched your argument to the point where it would be like suggesting that users of Internet Explorers should be sterilized due to the correlation between them and murder rates.

    enhanced-buzz-25466-1365534595-12.jpg

    After all, all correlations, no matter how irrelevant, weak or possibly non-causatory are valid in your eyes given your examples.

    So you may have had a point with alcoholism, but you allowed yourself to slide into a reductio ad absurdum diatribe that pretty much negated the credibility of that.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96582065&postcount=72

    Why don't you explain why these things are not logical extensions of an absurd suggestion rather that keep bleating that they are tripe?

    So the FBI are wrong in their evidence based conclusion that there is a link between animal abuse and later violent crimes against humans and their time would be equally validly spent looking at Internet Explorer users because a bloke on the internet who likes to nit pick found a nice looking graph... And I am the one being absurd?

    Ok. I'm going to go do my garden because it would be absurd to continue to engage with you.


  • #96
    matban
    Registered Users Posts: 75 ✭✭matban


    What if the sterilisation was voluntary?

    We give you €1000, you get sterilised.
    Society saves a fortune in the long run.

    Still eugenics, but no-one is being forced.

    Win win


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,433 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Posters bringing up alcoholics, gamblers and other addictions is just convenient evasion.

    We are talking about heroin addicts.

    It's a very serious problem that needs attention urgently. Maybe sterilisation is not the right choice however one poster said just leave things as they are which is very bad and getting worse.

    That is not an option. Something needs to be done.


  • #98
    Samaris
    Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Posters bringing up alcoholics, gamblers and other addictions is just convenient evasion.

    We are talking about heroin addicts.

    It's a very serious problem that needs attention urgently. Maybe sterilisation is not the right choice however one poster said just leave things as they are which is very bad and getting worse.

    That is not an option. Something needs to be done.

    Leaving gambling aside, alcoholism is a serious issue as well in terms of children being born with awful side-effects and parents who are probably not entirely capable of raising them.

    Another option you mentioned was moving methadone clinics of the city and into some suburb somewhere (can't remember the exact phrase). I am rather interested to know how removing a clinic that is aimed to help wean people off a heroin addiction to make it inaccessible is going to help?


  • #99
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    So the FBI are wrong in their evidence based conclusion that there is a link between animal abuse and later violent crimes against humans and their time would be equally validly spent looking at Internet Explorer users because a bloke on the internet who likes to nit pick found a nice looking graph... And I am the one being absurd?
    You didn't actually understand what I wrote, did you? I neither said nor implied that there is no link and was pretty clear about what I was questioning.
    Ok. I'm going to go do my garden because it would be absurd to continue to engage with you.
    Yes, that I suspect might be a more productive use of your talents.


  • #100
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    To be honest, it's having views like in the OP (and similar ones throughout the thread) that I would judge far more harshly, than I'd judge any heroin addict with a kid.

    We already know the way forward, as proven by Portugal: Drug decriminalization, and stepping up its treatment as a medical/societal issue. Want actually effective solutions to the specific problem in the OP? Free contraception, legalized abortion, and better treatment of drug addiction.

    The way to deal with drug addiction, is also to deal with the actual causes of it, which are usually societal - and touch on an extremely wide variety of societal problems.
    Ensuring that everyone is able to be afforded meaningful work for a start, rather than having to face unemployment and long term unemployment, would go some way to resolving this.

    This is something we'd all have to pay for, so it would be spreading the cost of (what would otherwise be) unemployment across the entire population (so, lower quality of life when private employment is falling, and unchanged quality of life when private employment is at maximum), but it would provide a better society, and help prevent people being left behind and slipping into long-term stagnation, which can end up leading them to drug addiction as well.

    Bonus to that, we can shut up all of the morally righteous folk going on about 'dole scroungers taking their hard earned money', and minimize the drug problem to the point that there's barely anything to complain about.


  • #101
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    matban wrote: »
    What if the sterilisation was voluntary?

    We give you €1000, you get sterilised.
    Society saves a fortune in the long run.

    Still eugenics, but no-one is being forced.

    Win win
    Yea offering €1000 to a heroin addict - people who are known to end up short of money and end up engaging in desperate acts to fund their addiction - doesn't have any risk of coercing them into an involuntary choice? :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    matban
    Registered Users Posts: 75 ✭✭matban


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Yea offering €1000 to a heroin addict - people who are known to end up short of money and end up engaging in desperate acts to fund their addiction - doesn't have any risk of coercing them into an involuntary choice? :rolleyes:

    It would be open to all society, not just heroin addicts.

    But yes, with the full knowledge that the less advantaged are more likely to take the money, thereby reducing the probability of children being born in disadvantaged situations.

    Seems a lot more patatable than hauling people off for forced sterilisation.
    But I understand it still might not be everyone's cup of tea.


  • #103
    corner of hells
    Registered Users Posts: 8,354 ✭✭✭corner of hells


    Samaris wrote: »
    Leaving gambling aside, alcoholism is a serious issue as well in terms of children being born with awful side-effects and parents who are probably not entirely capable of raising them.

    Another option you mentioned was moving methadone clinics of the city and into some suburb somewhere (can't remember the exact phrase). I am rather interested to know how removing a clinic that is aimed to help wean people off a heroin addiction to make it inaccessible is going to help?

    Good post , I work with addicts , have friends who are in recovery and have friends who are the children of still active addicts.
    We have about 24000 individuals nationwide at some stage in their opiate addiction whether chaotic injectors or stable on methadone , quite a small figure , we have a rough estimate of one in ten people who are reckoned to have alcohol issues of some sort.

    A child born of a mother who drinks heavily during pregnancy is at risk of Foetal Alcohol Syndrome , its devastating if bad enough , often the mother may have more than one child with this condition.
    Ive worked adults with this condition , theres no recovery.

    A child born with a mum in chaotic addiction will be very unlikely to be allowed take that baby m almost immediately social workers are involved.I don't believe the taxi one bit mainly because of the addicts I work with .
    That child once it has no blood Bourne illness should grow up healthy .


  • #104
    AprilPhilips
    Closed Accounts Posts: 49 ✭AprilPhilips


    No one forces them to take heroin. People say poor people tend to take it more so. Do they not know they will not be able to pay for it? Who does not know now the future for someone who takes heroin?

    methadone is only supposed to be used as a substitute to withdraw from heroin not to, as someone says inwoody allen's in annie hall, move from being a heroin addict to a methadone addict

    maybe the dealers should be exterminated


  • #105
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,659 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Mod Note:
    Please refrain from making inflamatory statements or general unciviliness etc.
    This is an emotive topic but please try and post within the remit of this forum's charter.

    In future user infractions will be issued instead of a Mod warning.


  • #106
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,495 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    A maternity hospital releases a new born baby in the charge of parents that are so drugged up they can barely walk? And... the taxi takes them? Our babies car seat was checked when we leaving the maternity hospital.

    This story isn't true. It's a silly thread and should be locked.

    The thread starter has some sort of hard core agenda against drug users. He's well known on boards.ie for exaggerating issues in Dublin with amazingly horrific anecdotes, tall tails and wildly outrageous stories (like this drug addict child story).

    Then in true keyboard warrior fashion he admonishes everyone for not doing anything about it. :o

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057472491&page=1


  • #107
    Torakx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    People become addicts because of a lack of authentic relationships, leaving them low on oxytocin. Oxytocin interferes with the brains need for dopamine. Dopamine addiction can cause people to gamble, take drugs, over organise, troll forums etc etc. The outlet or means to gain dopamine is often down to experience and associations(our environment).
    Sterilizing people is a bandage, not a solution to the problem of a lack of love and compassion.
    Going down the sterilization road would lead to needing even more and greater bandages later on, as the same unaddressed, underlying issue gets worse.
    For example executions for those who are not loved, and who adjusted to their environment accordingly.
    An extreme example, but I think it makes my point.


Advertisement