Extermination through sterilisation - the solution to "skangerism"

old hippy · 07-06-2013 12:49PM

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The Irish state routinely seizes kids if the parents are not able to mind them. This is the state saying - you can't care for kids.

Yeah but some here are calling for sterilisation, that would be a move into very, very dodgy territory.

Duggys Housemate · 07-06-2013 12:49PM

old hippy wrote: »

I think you must be the first poster here to mention education. A commendable suggestion. Is it possible? I guess it is. Education and equal opportunities are a must for any functioning society.

We have an education system, free at source and obligatory until 16,

thiarfearr · 07-06-2013 12:56PM

old hippy wrote: »

Who the hell is anyone to dictate whether someone can have kids or not?

By the same token, who the hell are we to take kids off parents that can't care for or abuse them? Or do you think that shouldn't be allowed either?

Seachmall · 07-06-2013 12:57PM

old hippy wrote: »

Are we living in China now?

Do you have an answer?

Just because it's intuitive doesn't mean it should be allowed.

(Also, as Terry1985 pointed out we already attempt to restrict a person's right to have kids depending on their age. And we effectively do the same when we refuse conjugal visits in prison).

Terry1985 · 07-06-2013 12:58PM

old hippy wrote: »

Calling someone a nonce isn't a helpful contribution.

Lighten up on the back seat modding, after hours isn't serious, you thanked someone for a Nazi reference and also I called nobody a nonce, look up psychic channeling.

old hippy · 07-06-2013 01:00PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Do you have an answer?

Just because it's intuitive doesn't mean it should be allowed.

(Also, as Terry1985 pointed out we already attempt to restrict a person's right to have kids depending on their age).

Terry also insinuated that I'm a paedo, so you'll excuse me if I don't pay too much attention to him.

The answer is in a democracy, we have the right to have kids. Yes, if we treat them bad and social services need to intervene - so be it. But once we chose to sterilise people, it's adieu to democracy and hello to totalitarianism.

space_man · 07-06-2013 01:01PM

Davidth88 wrote: »

Not so funny considering Sweden's history of eugenics .

indeed.

i'm sure the guy who just had his business torched by these animals aint laughing at all.

Seachmall · 07-06-2013 01:05PM

old hippy wrote: »

The answer is in a democracy, we have the right to have kids.

Not if we vote to introduce a law that says otherwise (which is presumably how the OP is suggesting we go about it).

Terry1985 · 07-06-2013 01:07PM

Seachmall wrote: »

(Also, as Terry1985 pointed out we already attempt to restrict a person's right to have kids depending on their age. And we effectively do the same when we refuse conjugal visits in prison).

That was another poster not me.

old hippy · 07-06-2013 01:09PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Not if we vote to introduce a law that says otherwise (which is presumably how the OP is suggesting we go about it).

A law to introduce sterilisation of Irish citizens? Then we have another civil war looming, it would appear.

thiarfearr · 07-06-2013 01:35PM

old hippy wrote: »

A law to introduce sterilisation of Irish citizens? Then we have another civil war looming, it would appear.

Criminals would be more accurate. Aside from the fact that they should be locked up a lot longer than they are, what is the benefit to society in allowing them to have children? If not physically sterilised, then jail should preclude them from sex anyway, yet the're not locked up long enough

Seachmall · 07-06-2013 02:25PM

old hippy wrote: »

A law to introduce sterilisation of Irish citizens? Then we have another civil war looming, it would appear.

I'm asking if you've any reasons or arguments as to why people should have an absolute right to reproduce, I'm not asking what would be the kneejerk reaction of the voters.

wexie · 07-06-2013 02:48PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Why is there an assumed absolute right to have kids?

And, equally important, why does everybody so happily skip over the fact that with the RIGHT to have kids comes the RESPONSIBILITY to make sure they don't grow up to be a drain/nuisance/ulcer on society.

Seems to me there's quite a sizeable segment of our society that are very well versed in their 'entitlements' but when it comes to responsibilities things seem to be a bit hazy.

Handsome Bob · 07-06-2013 03:00PM

Cydoniac wrote: »

Seriously, AH? Hitting a new low every day...

I wouldn't call it a new low, it's more like a regression to ye olde days.

Prettyblack · 07-06-2013 03:01PM

I dunno, some of the good looking girl skangers show A LOT of skin in this type of weather...

PhlegmyMoses · 07-06-2013 03:26PM

Seachmall wrote: »

(Also, as Terry1985 pointed out we already attempt to restrict a person's right to have kids depending on their age. And we effectively do the same when we refuse conjugal visits in prison).

The age thing and conjugal visits preventing people from having kids are a by-product of what is intended, rather than being the primary intention. Nobody is stopping a 15 year old from having kids because they think they will have bad kids. The laws are there to prevent innocent and malleable children from being taken advantage of by older, more mature and sexually aware people. I know it's technically illegal for two 15 year olds to have sex but that law is rarely invoked.

As for conjugal visits, again, the principle behind this is not to prevent prisoners from having kids, but to deprive them of the benefits of what they had outside. If I'm being honest, conjugal visits should probably be allowed in many circumstances but it does carry the risk of prisoners being more likely to carry STDs into the prison system.

To prevent somebody from having kids because they broke into a car at 18 or because they were involved in fights when they grew up is just all kinds of wrong. It presumes that people never change and is such a permanent and intrusive solution to something that has much deeper roots. Let's see if we can make some changes to our socio-economic system before we start chopping people's balls off and tying their tubes, maybe.

And the OP is post of the day. Jesus wept.

karma_ · 07-06-2013 03:26PM

This is one of the most fascistic point of view I've ever seen on boards. Hard to believe the amount of support this has received in this day and age. Although looking at some of the usual suspects it's no real surprise.

Hoop66 · 07-06-2013 03:27PM

They can take my balls when they pry them from my cold dead hand.

Reekwind · 07-06-2013 03:44PM

wexie wrote: »

And, equally important, why does everybody so happily skip over the fact that with the RIGHT to have kids comes the RESPONSIBILITY to make sure they don't grow up to be a drain/nuisance/ulcer on society.

Because you just made that up.

Some rights (arguably all by definition but that's skirt that) are held to be fundamental. That is, they are not conditional or come with 'responsibilities'. You, for example, have the right to life; it doesn't matter how you use that life, no one has the right to take it from you. Similarly, you have the right not to be tortured or treated inhumanely, regardless of the crime you have/haven't committed.

The right to a family is one of those fundamental rights. It is certainly not dependent on any fascist notion of the parasitic untermenschen.

Seachmall · 07-06-2013 03:45PM

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

The age thing and conjugal visits preventing people from having kids are a by-product of what is intended, rather than being the primary intention. Nobody is stopping a 15 year old from having kids because they think they will have bad kids. The laws are there to prevent innocent and malleable children from being taken advantage of by older, more mature and sexually aware people. I know it's technically illegal for two 15 year olds to have sex but that law is rarely invoked.

As for conjugal visits, again, the principle behind this is not to prevent prisoners from having kids, but to deprive them of the benefits of what they had outside. If I'm being honest, conjugal visits should probably be allowed in many circumstances but it does carry the risk of prisoners being more likely to carry STDs into the prison system.

Regardless of the intention of the laws you can't suggest someone has an absolute right to reproduce while at the same time agreeing to laws that strip them of that right, intentionally or otherwise.

A right must be irrevocable to be an absolute right. It must not be impeded under any circumstances. Creating a situation where someone can't exercise an absolute right without there being a violation of the law, or simply making exercising that right impossible, is demoting that right to a conditional one.

It should probably be clarified that when I say "right to reproduce" I'm actually referring to the right to get pregnant or get someone else pregnant (the distinction being removing someone's right to reproduce would mandate abortions for those who got pregnant which isn't being discussed).

PhlegmyMoses · 07-06-2013 04:01PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Regardless of the intention of the laws you can't suggest someone has an absolute right to reproduce while at the same time agreeing to laws that strip them of that right, intentionally or otherwise.

A right must irrevocable to be an absolute right. It must not be impeded under any circumstances.

We also have a right to liberty, but prison removes that right. Prison just isn't a good analogy in any circumstance when it comes to rights because many are removed. This has been agreed on by society as the best recourse available to us at this time to deal with crime. I do not believe that forced sterilisation is our best option at this time to tackle the situations outlined in the OP and beyond in this thread and find it bizarre that anyone would

I have also never stated that we should have an absolute right to reproduce - I'm not sure where I stand on this. I'd have to read up a lot more on the different philosophical arguments involved. I'm just certain that this particular kind of permanent action should not be taken based on a judgement on a snapshot of somebody's life.

TBH, you're looking for a philosophical debate on this and, whilst it is an interesting one, this is absolutely the wrong thread and forum for it. Absolute rights are not what this thread is about. It's there to vilify a perceived underclass.

It should probably be clarified that when I say "right to reproduce" I'm actually referring to the right to get pregnant or get someone else pregnant (the distinction being removing someone's right to reproduce would mandate abortions for those who got pregnant which isn't being discussed).

Forcing abortions on people would create all kinds of other psychological and emotional issues, not to mention a society in uproar. This kind of thing would tear a country apart. Again, I understand that you're looking at it in a purely logical way, as an exercise, but the realities and practicalities of implementing such a system in a coherent and tangible way are totally unmanageable.

Edit: Read the last part of your post incorrectly. Disregard the first sentence of the second part of my reply.

Seachmall · 07-06-2013 04:11PM

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

TBH, you're looking for a philosophical debate on this and, whilst it is an interesting one, this is absolutely the wrong thread and forum for it. Absolute rights are not what this thread is about. It's there to vilify a perceived underclass.

I agree with more-or-less everything you wrote, but just to make the point I took this line of argument in direct response to the question of who are we to dictate who can have kids or not.

My point is simply that we are the only ones who can dictate this and we are well within our rights to do so.

Reekwind wrote: »

Some rights (arguably all by definition but that's skirt that) are held to be fundamental. That is, they are not conditional or come with 'responsibilities'. You, for example, have the right to life; it doesn't matter how you use that life, no one has the right to take it from you. Similarly, you have the right not to be tortured or treated inhumanely, regardless of the crime you have/haven't committed.

The right to a family is one of those fundamental rights. It is certainly not dependent on any fascist notion of the parasitic untermenschen.

In actuality there are no absolute rights, a position fundamental to a democratic system. Your absolute right to life is dependent on the democratic system giving you that right, something that obviously doesn't always occur (as in the case of capital punishment).

As such the argument that the right to a family is a fundamental one is redundant. It is only a fundamental one as long as we agree it is. This thread is arguing that we should agree that it is not a fundamental one and agree that some should be sterilised.

old hippy · 07-06-2013 04:27PM

thiarfearr wrote: »

Criminals would be more accurate. Aside from the fact that they should be locked up a lot longer than they are, what is the benefit to society in allowing them to have children? If not physically sterilised, then jail should preclude them from sex anyway, yet the're not locked up long enough

Oh this is ridiculous. Tell us what the benefit it is, say, of you having children? Why would your being allowed reproduce be any better than them?

Mr Benevolent · 07-06-2013 04:52PM

mike65 wrote: »

Since the sun put its hat on Dublin has seen riots on a beach in Portmarnock, a gang of feral youths in near Dalkey smash up some poor chaps car while he was in it, that same gang terrorise passengers on a bus and last night a train was invaded by louts on the journey between Pearse Street Station and Maynooth. Blood was spilt before the Guards arrived.

Rather than wring our hands at the horror of it all, is it time to just acknowledge
that there is a strata of society that will never be reformed regardless of best intentions and state spending and that sterilisation of the Skanger class is the best way forward. It won't catch all the bad genes but certainly a large % will be wiped out without killing anyone.

Mike, you REALLY need to get out of the house more. That hackneyed view has been trotted out time after time. To be frank, you sound like a taxi driver.

PopePalpatine · 07-06-2013 04:59PM

If we're gonna be ridiculous, why not sterilise Sundee Wurdled readers? :pac:

thiarfearr · 07-06-2013 05:14PM

old hippy wrote: »

Oh this is ridiculous. Tell us what the benefit it is, say, of you having children? Why would your being allowed reproduce be any better than them?

For the same reason I've never been in a prison cell once, let alone several times

mike65 · 07-06-2013 05:33PM

Mr Benevolent wrote: »

Mike, you REALLY need to get out of the house more. That hackneyed view has been trotted out time after time. To be frank, you sound like a taxi driver.

.com

wexie · 07-06-2013 05:46PM

Reekwind wrote: »

Because you just made that up.

Some rights (arguably all by definition but that's skirt that) are held to be fundamental. That is, they are not conditional or come with 'responsibilities'. You, for example, have the right to life; it doesn't matter how you use that life, no one has the right to take it from you. Similarly, you have the right not to be tortured or treated inhumanely, regardless of the crime you have/haven't committed.

The right to a family is one of those fundamental rights. It is certainly not dependent on any fascist notion of the parasitic untermenschen.

Nonsense!

So what you're saying is that it's quite acceptable for people to leech off society and not only not contribute anything positive but actively make the lives of more productive (and, dare I say respectable) members of society worse?

To top it all off they then have kids who they proceed to introduce to the time honoured tradition of this parasitic lifestyle? (good word by the way).

That might be okay with you but I certainly see some issues with it. Not the least of which is the fact I'd quite like for my kids (who I am, incidentally, raising with a moral compass) to grow up in a country where they don't constantly have to worry about being hit, stabbed, attached, spat on, molested etc.....for the larf...

hatrickpatrick · 07-06-2013 07:01PM

The King of Moo wrote: »

I don't think that's entirely true. While some people do acknowledge that thuggery isn't solely the preserve of the lower classes, plenty of people also reveal their prejudices in the form of snide little "jokes" about Dutch Gold and accents and Celtic jerseys (see below), and nonsensical drivel about food stamps and so on, without really mentioning anti-social behaviour.
The fact is that some people just can't stand the poor. I think for many of them it's because they're disturbed by the knowledge that we're products of our environments to a large extent, and that they could have ended up in similar circumstances if their lives had been different.

Sure, but you get the same kind of eejitism when people dismiss all protesters as bearded hippies without real political motivations, like how so many people attacked Occupy for having the temerity to protest against banking corruption. Those people are eejits, and one does not simply take eejits seriously

The King of Moo · 07-06-2013 08:20PM

Post of the day!? What the absolute f*ck!?

This is how fascism comes about: by appealing to people's irrational fear of people different from them with simplistic arguments which avoid dealing with complicated issues and appeal to people's inner urges to see violence inflicted on others.

Most fascists would respect the intelligence of their potential followers to not immediately suggest ludicrously extreme actions such as mass enforced sterilisation, but then they never came across the great minds of After Hours.

Extermination through sterilisation - the solution to "skangerism"

Comments