FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Second Coming of Madman on June 21, 2014, 06:09:01 pm
-
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/21/women-in-ca-prisons-forced-to-undergo-illegal-coercive-sterilizations-audit/
(http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/21/women-in-ca-prisons-forced-to-undergo-illegal-coercive-sterilizations-audit/)
This isn't a violation of prisoner rights?
This is eugenics-like actions by a state's government, a wholly unacceptable course of action in the 21st century. In addition, these prisoners are mostly below high school reading level, clearly preventing from them from understanding the documents using.
All in all, a despicable violation of human rights and a chilling course of actions by the Californian prison system.
-
This is horrible.
-
Why stop there California? Next step should be to construct extermination camps, we can't have degenerate scum walking around! We must cleanse this land of the unwanted!
Ok, sarcasm aside, why the fuck is eugenics or whatever the hell this is still a thing?
Or was that even the point of this? Was this just another chapter in Americas long quest to treat are prisoners as horribly as possible because somehow that'll fix crime?
-
Ok, sarcasm aside, why the fuck is eugenics or whatever the hell this is still a thing?
Or was that even the point of this? Was this just another chapter in Americas long quest to treat are prisoners as horribly as possible because somehow that'll fix crime?
Lots of people in the United States still believe in eugenics. There's a vocal plurality that uses "personal responsibility" as an excuse to justify punishing groups that they deem inferior, and that inferiority must be genetic, despite the complete inability of eugenicists to find the genetic markers for criminality, race, etc.
If you think eugenics is a mode of thinking well on its way out, you haven't been paying attention to right-wing politics.
-
Ok, sarcasm aside, why the fuck is eugenics or whatever the hell this is still a thing?
Or was that even the point of this? Was this just another chapter in Americas long quest to treat are prisoners as horribly as possible because somehow that'll fix crime?
Lots of people in the United States still believe in eugenics. There's a vocal plurality that uses "personal responsibility" as an excuse to justify punishing groups that they deem inferior, and that inferiority must be genetic, despite the complete inability of eugenicists to find the genetic markers for criminality, race, etc.
If you think eugenics is a mode of thinking well on its way out, you haven't been paying attention to right-wing politics.
Left-wingers do it too. Some of their arguments for abortion seem uncomfortably eugenicist.
-
Ok, sarcasm aside, why the fuck is eugenics or whatever the hell this is still a thing?
Or was that even the point of this? Was this just another chapter in Americas long quest to treat are prisoners as horribly as possible because somehow that'll fix crime?
Lots of people in the United States still believe in eugenics. There's a vocal plurality that uses "personal responsibility" as an excuse to justify punishing groups that they deem inferior, and that inferiority must be genetic, despite the complete inability of eugenicists to find the genetic markers for criminality, race, etc.
If you think eugenics is a mode of thinking well on its way out, you haven't been paying attention to right-wing politics.
Conservative protestants have historically opposed to eugenics, who viewed it as a threat to reliance on God as a cure for social ills.
-
Ok, sarcasm aside, why the fuck is eugenics or whatever the hell this is still a thing?
Or was that even the point of this? Was this just another chapter in Americas long quest to treat are prisoners as horribly as possible because somehow that'll fix crime?
Lots of people in the United States still believe in eugenics. There's a vocal plurality that uses "personal responsibility" as an excuse to justify punishing groups that they deem inferior, and that inferiority must be genetic, despite the complete inability of eugenicists to find the genetic markers for criminality, race, etc.
If you think eugenics is a mode of thinking well on its way out, you haven't been paying attention to right-wing politics.
Conservative protestants have historically opposed to eugenics, who viewed it as a threat to reliance on God as a cure for social ills.
Yeah, eugenics was originally done in the name of progress.
-
Dr. Heinrich's quote made him sound precisely like a Tea Party cunt of the "The money should go to me, a deserving SAWB, not the gubmint Welfare system". He charged typical prices for the procedures he performed, and exonerated himself by saying he was saving the tax payer more than that by pre-empting the addition of children to the welfare rolls.
-
I have no problems with this. If they don't want to be sterilized they shouldn't be committing crimes. It's no bigger a violation of their human rights than locking them in a metal cage for several months or years.
Ok, sarcasm aside, why the fuck is eugenics or whatever the hell this is still a thing?
Or was that even the point of this? Was this just another chapter in Americas long quest to treat are prisoners as horribly as possible because somehow that'll fix crime?
Lots of people in the United States still believe in eugenics. There's a vocal plurality that uses "personal responsibility" as an excuse to justify punishing groups that they deem inferior, and that inferiority must be genetic, despite the complete inability of eugenicists to find the genetic markers for criminality, race, etc.
You don't have to believe that criminality is genetic in order to know criminals probably wouldn't make good parents.
-
I have no problems with this. If they don't want to be sterilized they shouldn't be committing crimes. It's no bigger a violation of their human rights than locking them in a metal cage for several months or years.
Ok, sarcasm aside, why the fuck is eugenics or whatever the hell this is still a thing?
Or was that even the point of this? Was this just another chapter in Americas long quest to treat are prisoners as horribly as possible because somehow that'll fix crime?
Lots of people in the United States still believe in eugenics. There's a vocal plurality that uses "personal responsibility" as an excuse to justify punishing groups that they deem inferior, and that inferiority must be genetic, despite the complete inability of eugenicists to find the genetic markers for criminality, race, etc.
You don't have to believe that criminality is genetic in order to know criminals probably wouldn't make good parents.
I want to respectfully disagree, but nothing you said was worth respecting in the slightest. So, pardon me, but I'm going to call out your bullshit.
First of all, you really think an invasive, permanent, unreversable surgery is equivalent to being in prison? Your sense of perspective isn't just buggered, it's non-existent. The two are in no way equivalent.
Second of all, prisoners do have rights. In fact, they should have rights. Dehumanizing any group of people for any reason is a sign of many terrible things about the person or people doing the dehumanizing. A society that dehumanizes criminals is a society that is quickly going down the tube - history has proven this.
Thirdly, yes, criminals can be good parents. Does it surprise you? It shouldn't. All kinds of people end up criminals for one reason or another.
And finally, the biggest problem with the load of horse shit you just spewed into this thread is that the primary purpose of prison is to reform. Keeping harmful elements out of society is a close secondary purpose.
Not to mention, WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS HAPPEN.
Let me ask you this - would you support prisons cutting off fingers and toes of the criminals, just because they are criminals? Would you support them pulling kidneys out of people, leaving them with just one? How about cutting out eyes, or breaking their eardrums, or any other such thing?
If you said "no" to any of the above, then you are a hypocrite for condoning them doing this, which is just as bad.
-
First off, to those arguing over whether the left or right supports eugenics, I won't deny that the early supporters of it were leaning towards the left. Then again, how many right wingers do I hear today moaning about how certain people reproduce faster than their demographics do? So, it can go either way.
I'll freely admit: there are probably cases where I would agree that maybe some people shouldn't be reproducing. Not because of genetics, mind you, but because they would make terrible parents, and would add a lot of burdens to an already strained welfare system. But let's abandon the realm of theory, and talk about reality. In reality, many people in the prison system are in there for victimless crimes, if they were rightly convicted at all. Mass sterilization also assumes that prisons are incapable of rehabilitation. They can do it. Prisons are NOT rehabilitating, but they could if society would hold them accountable to that goal, but the topic of for profit prisons is another issue.
So, no, I don't support this.
-
Y'know, it's time I stepped in here.
I'm a criminal. Got the conviction and everything, back when I was 13. I've done terrible things in my life. Tell me, Cata, should I be/have been sterilized against my will? Do I deserve to never have children, my stance to not have them at this point in time notwithstanding? How about the guy that murdered my uncle when I was 7? How about the drunk driver that killed my first girlfriend when I was 12? They deserve to not have kids?
Who in the name of the darkness do you fucking think you are, shitstain? who are you to say that they deserve to never have kids? Do you SERIOUSLY think that there is NO chance for rehabilitation? no chance for redemption in life? I'm living fucking proof that things can change a person, both for better and worse. You? You seem determined to advocate everything from murder to genocide, because they committed a crime.
Go fuck yourself.
-
Thread justice has been delivered.
I may not always agree with Cerim, but this thread demanded that someone represent the other side and he delivered.
I have no problems with this. If they don't want to be sterilized they shouldn't be committing crimes. It's no bigger a violation of their human rights than locking them in a metal cage for several months or years.
Ok, sarcasm aside, why the fuck is eugenics or whatever the hell this is still a thing?
Or was that even the point of this? Was this just another chapter in Americas long quest to treat are prisoners as horribly as possible because somehow that'll fix crime?
Lots of people in the United States still believe in eugenics. There's a vocal plurality that uses "personal responsibility" as an excuse to justify punishing groups that they deem inferior, and that inferiority must be genetic, despite the complete inability of eugenicists to find the genetic markers for criminality, race, etc.
You don't have to believe that criminality is genetic in order to know criminals probably wouldn't make good parents.
I want to respectfully disagree, but nothing you said was worth respecting in the slightest. So, pardon me, but I'm going to call out your bullshit.
First of all, you really think an invasive, permanent, unreversable surgery is equivalent to being in prison? Your sense of perspective isn't just buggered, it's non-existent. The two are in no way equivalent.
Second of all, prisoners do have rights. In fact, they should have rights. Dehumanizing any group of people for any reason is a sign of many terrible things about the person or people doing the dehumanizing. A society that dehumanizes criminals is a society that is quickly going down the tube - history has proven this.
Thirdly, yes, criminals can be good parents. Does it surprise you? It shouldn't. All kinds of people end up criminals for one reason or another.
And finally, the biggest problem with the load of horse shit you just spewed into this thread is that the primary purpose of prison is to reform. Keeping harmful elements out of society is a close secondary purpose.
Not to mention, WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS HAPPEN.
Let me ask you this - would you support prisons cutting off fingers and toes of the criminals, just because they are criminals? Would you support them pulling kidneys out of people, leaving them with just one? How about cutting out eyes, or breaking their eardrums, or any other such thing?
If you said "no" to any of the above, then you are a hypocrite for condoning them doing this, which is just as bad.
Besides the fact that there are all sorts of downsides to cruel punishment, the positive claim that sterilization is necessary to bring crime down just isn't true. Criminality is not a trait that can be flushed out of a population; even if a genocidal society were to try, they would not have addressed the reason those crimes happened in the first place and that society would stratify itself again. Analogously, getting rid of all the "undesirable poors" while keeping our socioeconomic system unchanged won't solve poverty, and there's plenty of economic evidence that any attempts to do so would create a new impoverished population.
There is very little in our laws and criminal justice system that attempts to tackle the root issues of why people are motivated to commit crimes. Too much of it seems to be our outmoded primate reaction of vengeance and punishment of the other.
-
...specifically targeting those deemed likely to return to prison after they were released.
According to the audit, the typical sterilized inmate had previously been pregnant five or more times, with most women testing below high school reading proficiency levels, with one third of those reading below sixth-grade level.
I can see where the motivation is coming from; they are targeting the ones they feel are irredeemable and are going to inevitably add to the burden of an already strained system. That makes it a bit better than a 'fuck all the criminals' attitude, but that doesn't make it right.
-
Besides the fact that there are all sorts of downsides to cruel punishment, the positive claim that sterilization is necessary to bring crime down just isn't true. Criminality is not a trait that can be flushed out of a population; even if a genocidal society were to try, they would not have addressed the reason those crimes happened in the first place and that society would stratify itself again. Analogously, getting rid of all the "undesirable poors" while keeping our socioeconomic system unchanged won't solve poverty, and there's plenty of economic evidence that any attempts to do so would create a new impoverished population.
Exactly! I don't understand why so few people seem to understand this. It's like they think the best way to solve poverty is to punish people for being poor, and then are completely surprised when they become criminals.
Especially when the crime is doing drugs.
There is very little in our laws and criminal justice system that attempts to tackle the root issues of why people are motivated to commit crimes. Too much of it seems to be our outmoded primate reaction of vengeance and punishment of the other.
And BAM! You hit the nail right on the head. So hard, in fact, that I think this deserves to be sigged.
-
Lexi, you have caused the creation of an abomination unto nature.
-
First of all, you really think an invasive, permanent, unreversable surgery is equivalent to being in prison? Your sense of perspective isn't just buggered, it's non-existent. The two are in no way equivalent.
Sterilization in no way affects someone's life significantly (or at least it shouldn't), so if anything it's not as bad as prison time. Forcing someone to go to jail is just as invasive, and the time spent there can never get back, making it just as irreversible.
Second of all, prisoners do have rights. In fact, they should have rights. Dehumanizing any group of people for any reason is a sign of many terrible things about the person or people doing the dehumanizing.
Throwing them in prison is more dehumanizing, since you're watching them 24/7 and keeping them away from society.
Thirdly, yes, criminals can be good parents. Does it surprise you? It shouldn't. All kinds of people end up criminals for one reason or another.
They can be good parents, but they shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids until they finished probation.
And finally, the biggest problem with the load of horse shit you just spewed into this thread is that the primary purpose of prison is to reform. Keeping harmful elements out of society is a close secondary purpose.
The secondary purpose is still a purpose.
Let me ask you this - would you support prisons cutting off fingers and toes of the criminals, just because they are criminals? Would you support them pulling kidneys out of people, leaving them with just one? How about cutting out eyes, or breaking their eardrums, or any other such thing?
If you said "no" to any of the above, then you are a hypocrite for condoning them doing this, which is just as bad.
People need their eyes and limbs to sense things and get mobility, so it's not comparable to sterilization.
Y'know, it's time I stepped in here.
I'm a criminal. Got the conviction and everything, back when I was 13. I've done terrible things in my life. Tell me, Cata, should I be/have been sterilized against my will?
You were a minor, so no. It also would depend on the severity of the crime. I don't think people who stole a candy bar should be sterilized.
How about the guy that murdered my uncle when I was 7? How about the drunk driver that killed my first girlfriend when I was 12? They deserve to not have kids?
They're violent offenders, so yes.
Who in the name of the darkness do you fucking think you are, shitstain? who are you to say that they deserve to never have kids?
You're the shitstain for saying criminals should be trusted in having children immediately after release.
Do you SERIOUSLY think that there is NO chance for rehabilitation?
Nope, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take precautions.
You? You seem determined to advocate everything from murder to genocide, because they committed a crime.
Lol wut?
-
Yeah...
I probably say that forced chemical castration would make an impact if done to those who have committed aggressive sexual crimes (rape, molestation, etc)
But I don't see a reason to do it otherwise.
-
Sterilization in no way affects someone's life significantly (or at least it shouldn't), so if anything it's not as bad as prison time. Forcing someone to go to jail is just as invasive, and the time spent there can never get back, making it just as irreversible.
Uh... no, forced sterilization DOES impact someone's life significantly, and IT'S ABOUT AS INVASIVE AS YOU CAN FUCKING GET. You are taking away a function of someone's body without their consent. In fact, I would compare it to rape.
Do you not understand the meaning of the word "invasive"?
Also, having a bodily function STOLEN from you would have a fucking impact. It's one thing to give it up voluntarily, BUT BEING FORCED TO UNDERGO AN INVASIVE NON-LIFE-SAVING SURGERY IS FUCKING BAD OKAY.
Throwing them in prison is more dehumanizing, since you're watching them 24/7 and keeping them away from society.
This is so wrong that there isn't even any argument to be made against it other than "You are factually wrong, sit there and bask in your wrongness."
They can be good parents, but they shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids until they finished probation.
You do realize that there are good parents that are currently in prison?
Or has it not hit your brain that someone can be a parent before being put in prison?
The secondary purpose is still a purpose.
And it should not interfere with the primary purpose.
Forced sterilization intereferes with the primary purpose.
How is it that you are completely unable to understand this?
People need their eyes and limbs to sense things and get mobility, so it's not comparable to sterilization.
You only need one eye, you don't need all your fingers and toes, and you only need one kidney to survive.
The thing is, you are going into somebody and destroying it for no good reason. It's not just comparable, IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME.
You're the shitstain for saying criminals should be trusted in having children immediately after release.
...Your reading comprehension is as bad as your ethics. He didn't say they should have children immediately after release. But you know what? I would rather let a criminal have children than you. Because you've shown a clear lack of regard for the sanctity of other human beings.
Nope, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take precautions.
How neoconservative of you.
-
Quote
Throwing them in prison is more dehumanizing, since you're watching them 24/7 and keeping them away from society.
This is so wrong that there isn't even any argument to be made against it other than "You are factually wrong, sit there and bask in your wrongness."
I'll bite.
Just because prison can be dehumanizing doesn't mean we should encourage more dehumanizing punishments. To make a poor analogy, shots can hurt, but they're necessary for kids. That doesn't however, justify parents poking their kids with needles as some kind of punishment.
Back on topic: what gets me about this is that this is the same state that let Lawrence Bittaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Bittaker_and_Roy_Norris), an all around Complete Monster (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CompleteMonster) in every sense of the word, live like a celebrity in prison for 30 years (he has his fans *shudder*). If they're going to be humane to that piece of garbage, than they should be humane to everyone. (Not that I support inhumane practices such as that, but at least be consistent.)
-
Welp, I think it's official, FQA has officially jumped the shark.
-
Cataclysm, if I were you, I'd try and get my moral compass fixed.
-
Welp, I think it's official, FQA has officially jumped the shark.
Are you kidding? FQA's local pastime is jumping the shark.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLDER6GP30c
-
Do you SERIOUSLY think that there is NO chance for rehabilitation?
Nope, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take precautions.
The precaution being something that permanently mutilates and changes them regardless.
That's not a precaution, that's tossing reasonable doubt out the window of an aeroplane and into the maw of a raging volcano!
-
Uh... no, forced sterilization DOES impact someone's life significantly, and IT'S ABOUT AS INVASIVE AS YOU CAN FUCKING GET. You are taking away a function of someone's body without their consent. In fact, I would compare it to rape.
A bodily function that they don't ever use for any practical purpose.
Throwing them in prison is more dehumanizing, since you're watching them 24/7 and keeping them away from society.
This is so wrong that there isn't even any argument to be made against it other than "You are factually wrong, sit there and bask in your wrongness."
Translation: I know I'm wrong and have no arguments to support my position, so I'll just say this instead"
They can be good parents, but they shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids until they finished probation.
You do realize that there are good parents that are currently in prison?
[/quote]
Yes. Doesn't mean they should be allowed to have more children until they proven otherwise.
The secondary purpose is still a purpose.
And it should not interfere with the primary purpose.
[/quote]
It doesn't. How does sterilizing prisoners interfere with rehabilitating them into society? It keeps them from having children, which they shouldn't if they are trying to get back into society, and are prone to committing crimes.
You only need one eye, you don't need all your fingers and toes, and you only need one kidney to survive.
The thing is, you are going into somebody and destroying it for no good reason. It's not just comparable, IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME.
Sterilization is done for a good reason, it prevents them from having children.
...Your reading comprehension is as bad as your ethics. He didn't say they should have children immediately after release.
Then he'd support forced sterilization ;D.
But you know what? I would rather let a criminal have children than you. Because you've shown a clear lack of regard for the sanctity of other human beings.
You don't show regard for the sanctity of other human beings if you think people who committed crimes should have children.
I'll bite.
Just because prison can be dehumanizing doesn't mean we should encourage more dehumanizing punishments. To make a poor analogy, shots can hurt, but they're necessary for kids. That doesn't however, justify parents poking their kids with needles as some kind of punishment.
It does justify however, shots for different reasons like blood tests.
-
A bodily function that they don't ever use for any practical purpose.
Except having children should they choose to. A choice that gets taken away from them.
Translation: I know I'm wrong and have no arguments to support my position, so I'll just say this instead"
No, it's literally too stupid to address. Thankfully, rageaholic managed to destroy your position. Therefore, it was unnecessary.
Yes. Doesn't mean they should be allowed to have more children until they proven otherwise.
That's a violation of human rights.
It doesn't. How does sterilizing prisoners interfere with rehabilitating them into society? It keeps them from having children, which they shouldn't if they are trying to get back into society, and are prone to committing crimes.
Gee, I dunno, let me make a life-changing and permanent decision for you, without your consent, and without your say, and let me see how well you adjust to life.
Sterilization is done for a good reason, it prevents them from having children.
Which serves no practical purpose other than to punish someone after their time has served.
You are literally advocating eugenics.
Then he'd support forced sterilization ;D.
False Equivalency Fallacy.
You don't show regard for the sanctity of other human beings if you think people who committed crimes should have children.
Actually, by definition of the latter half of your statement, I AM showing regard for the sanctity of other human beings. You're just spouting nonsense now.
It does justify however, shots for different reasons like blood tests.
Which benefit the child, and therefore are not comparable to an invasive procedure that removes a person's bodily function without their consent at no benefit to them.
-
-snip-
-snip-
-snip-
(http://deathsplaining.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/nicknope.gif)
-
-snip-
-snip-
-snip-
(http://deathsplaining.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/nicknope.gif)
I'm about there myself.
I mean seriously, our "resident official sociopath" (sorry for my offense, niam) shows more respect for fellow human beings than this.
-
Cataclysm's pontifications boil down to a justification of extralegal action against other human beings based on what might happen and what might happen is some women in prison might have babies at some point in their lives, which would be awful. ::)
-
Cataclysm's pontifications boil down to a justification of extralegal action against other human beings based on what might happen and what might happen is some women in prison might have babies at some point in their lives, which would be awful. ::)
It's okay, because sterilization of someone isn't a big deal because it doesn't physically harm you, so it must be completely humane.
-
First of all, you really think an invasive, permanent, unreversable surgery is equivalent to being in prison? Your sense of perspective isn't just buggered, it's non-existent. The two are in no way equivalent.
Sterilization in no way affects someone's life significantly (or at least it shouldn't), so if anything it's not as bad as prison time. Forcing someone to go to jail is just as invasive, and the time spent there can never get back, making it just as irreversible.
Second of all, prisoners do have rights. In fact, they should have rights. Dehumanizing any group of people for any reason is a sign of many terrible things about the person or people doing the dehumanizing.
Throwing them in prison is more dehumanizing, since you're watching them 24/7 and keeping them away from society.
So locking someone up, with food, drink, basic cable, a library, and exrcise equpiment is less dehumanizing than mutilation of ones genetalia? Suuure...
Thirdly, yes, criminals can be good parents. Does it surprise you? It shouldn't. All kinds of people end up criminals for one reason or another.
They can be good parents, but they shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids until they finished probation.
And finally, the biggest problem with the load of horse shit you just spewed into this thread is that the primary purpose of prison is to reform. Keeping harmful elements out of society is a close secondary purpose.
The secondary purpose is still a purpose.
Let me ask you this - would you support prisons cutting off fingers and toes of the criminals, just because they are criminals? Would you support them pulling kidneys out of people, leaving them with just one? How about cutting out eyes, or breaking their eardrums, or any other such thing?
If you said "no" to any of the above, then you are a hypocrite for condoning them doing this, which is just as bad.
People need their eyes and limbs to sense things and get mobility, so it's not comparable to sterilization.
Y'know, it's time I stepped in here.
I'm a criminal. Got the conviction and everything, back when I was 13. I've done terrible things in my life. Tell me, Cata, should I be/have been sterilized against my will?
You were a minor, so no. It also would depend on the severity of the crime. I don't think people who stole a candy bar should be sterilized.
How about the guy that murdered my uncle when I was 7? How about the drunk driver that killed my first girlfriend when I was 12? They deserve to not have kids?
They're violent offenders, so yes.
Who in the name of the darkness do you fucking think you are, shitstain? who are you to say that they deserve to never have kids?
You're the shitstain for saying criminals should be trusted in having children immediately after release.
Do you SERIOUSLY think that there is NO chance for rehabilitation?
Nope, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take precautions.
You? You seem determined to advocate everything from murder to genocide, because they committed a crime.
Lol wut?
My father had been in prison before I was born. As someone who would have never existed if you had your way, I deliver a hearty "Fuck You". In addition to that, my girfriend once told me that she was planning to kill herelf before we started dating. So in addition to depriving the world of my brilliance, you would have her death on your hands.
-
Wow, what an asshole. 2/10
-
I have no problems with this. If they don't want to be sterilized they shouldn't be committing crimes. It's no bigger a violation of their human rights than locking them in a metal cage for several months or years.
Then let's start talking when the sterilization is court-ordered. Until then, this is completely illegal.
-
I...I don't even know what to do with you, Lexi. Your argument, such as it is, comes from such a horrifyingly broken base that any attempts to fix it would probably drive most normal people insane. Thankfully, I'm pretty fucking abnormal, so let's get down to this shit!
First off, child, you've got a history of being a completely reprehensible twat when it comes to basic human rights. Reproduction is a basic human right, no matter how you want to "argue" your way out of it. You claim that they should be sterilized, a procedure which is, more times than not, permanent, for the safety and security of any children they might bear/sire. This is fundamentally flawed for several reasons.
One, criminality is not genetic. Two, taking a basic right for them would cause psychological damage to a person that's already dealing with or had to deal with an incredibly damaging environment. Three, there are protections already in place to remove children from toxic environments. Four, your "suggestion," such as it is, turns the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" on its nose.
You go on to assume, with absolutely no data to back you up, that it wouldn't be invasive to sterilize an unwilling convict. Your rhetoric is as broken, idiotic, and offensive as those who argue for forced ultrasounds on women who are going to get an abortion. You are invading their bodies for your own social and/or political gain and some vague "good of the many" disguise that's so paper-thin, its a miracle it isn't transparent.
Let me explain it to you in baby talk, because apparently, Lexi, you can't understand real-person speak: if you make people who do bad things unable to have kids when they don't want to, that makes you a bad person.
-
I was wondering, but have we considered the possibility of Caty to just be showing some epic trollzor skillz?
-
Nope. He's been like this the beginning. Gets hung up on an incredibly bad idea, and his ego prevents others from getting into that thick skull of his.
-
He would make a good libertarian.
-
I once read a book where there was control of reproduction by the state and only the best genetics could breed, it was called "Brave New World".
While criminality may not be genetic, intelligence is. Given that the world is quickly becoming overpopulated with humans and the animals we feed ourselves with should we not be trying to make sure that the maximum number of children have the highest intelligence? Is eugenics unequivocally wrong?
-
I once read a book where there was control of reproduction by the state and only the best genetics could breed, it was called "Brave New World".
While criminality may not be genetic, intelligence is. Given that the world is quickly becoming overpopulated with humans and the animals we feed ourselves with should we not be trying to make sure that the maximum number of children have the highest intelligence? Is eugenics unequivocally wrong?
Only if it's forced which is the case here.
-
I once read a book where there was control of reproduction by the state and only the best genetics could breed, it was called "Brave New World".
While criminality may not be genetic, intelligence is. Given that the world is quickly becoming overpopulated with humans and the animals we feed ourselves with should we not be trying to make sure that the maximum number of children have the highest intelligence? Is eugenics unequivocally wrong?
When it comes at the cost of freedom and civil rights, yes.
-
Oh I'd love it if all of us were sterile unless we reaaaaaaaally want kids. Like super really. And are ready. And willing.
Ironbite-gods could you imagine how much better this world would be?
-
Except having children should they choose to. A choice that gets taken away from them.
They still can have children, just not biologically.
Gee, I dunno, let me make a life-changing and permanent decision for you, without your consent, and without your say, and let me see how well you adjust to life.
So you think we shouldn’t send criminals to prison then?
Your comparison of sterilization to the removal of limbs is completely based on emotion and the irrational value this culture places on having biological children.
Actually, by definition of the latter half of your statement, I AM showing regard for the sanctity of other human beings. You're just spouting nonsense now.
Sure, you think children less well off then they should be, that’s so regarding ::)
Which benefit the child, and therefore are not comparable to an invasive procedure that removes a person's bodily function without their consent at no benefit to them.
If children raised by criminals in a certain time-frame are on average worse off than children who are not, then forced sterilization would be justified, since it is beneficial to society. If they are no worse off, then it wouldn't be justified.
And it’s the same things with prisons. If criminals are as likely or less likely to commit further crimes if they aren't sent to prison, and just have to take rehabilitation classes, or go through another program, then prisons wouldn't be justified.
First off, child, you've got a history of being a completely reprehensible twat when it comes to basic human rights. Reproduction is a basic human right, no matter how you want to "argue" your way out of it.
Raising children is a responsibility, not a right.
Four, your "suggestion," such as it is, turns the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" on its nose.
They are guilty.
You go on to assume, with absolutely no data to back you up, that it wouldn't be invasive to sterilize an unwilling convict.
My position that forced sterilization isn't any more invasive than prison time, not that's it's not invasive at all.
Your rhetoric is as broken, idiotic, and offensive as those who argue for forced ultrasounds on women who are going to get an abortion.
Except women getting the abortions they want is an inherently good thing, while leaving criminals fertile isn't. If there's statistics and studies that show otherwise, show me.
Then let's start talking when the sterilization is court-ordered. Until then, this is completely illegal.
Most of the arguments against this stem from morality instead of legality, so those are the arguments that should be addressed.
-
Since I don't remember if you've addressed this before, and frankly I'm not inclined to wade through the wharrgble, can you tell us, Cataclysm, what specific crimes should justify sterilization? And how would you address the fact that false convictions happen when implementing this program?
Just to play devil's advocate, I can see eugenics becoming an effective way to control crime because it would target the genes rather than the person; the urge to reproduce and pass our genes on is one of our strongest instincts. Many people who would happily do prison time would hesitate, at least, if they knew they ran the risk of losing their ability to have children. Any such effort would take years to show any sort of effect, though.
BUT...and this is the biggest BUT since Fat Albert's mother's...we don't currently have any way to guarantee, beyond any possibility of doubt, that a conviction is correct; the Innocence Project shows that. Even DNA evidence can be tainted or misinterpreted or processed incorrectly; I read about one case where a man was accused of rape and the DNA evidence seemed to back it up. It turned out, however, that the lab had done the analysis incorrectly, so the mixture of the rapist's semen and the woman's vaginal mucus came up as a match to the man accused; when the tests were redone correctly, they showed clearly that the semen collected in the rape kit did not come from the man accused. A billions-to-one chance, but NOT outside the realm of possibility.
Since our justice system only calls for conviction beyond a REASONABLE doubt, not beyond ANY POSSIBILITY of doubt, then we tacitly acknowledge the fact that the justice system makes mistakes; this is also why I'm against the death penalty. What would you recommend happen, Cataclysm, if someone wrongfully convicted were sterilized?
-
Just to play devil's advocate, I can see eugenics becoming an effective way to control crime because it would target the genes rather than the person; the urge to reproduce and pass our genes on is one of our strongest instincts. Many people who would happily do prison time would hesitate, at least, if they knew they ran the risk of losing their ability to have children. Any such effort would take years to show any sort of effect, though.
Well 1. There's no evidence that genes themselves cause crime.
2. Raping and torturing them would also deter crime.
-
Except having children should they choose to. A choice that gets taken away from them.
They still can have children, just not biologically.
Okay, I'm addressing nothing else but this, because quite frankly, your lack of self-awareness is astounding.
Criminals, even the ones slated for the death penalty, have just as much right to intact reproductive systems as they have the right to keep both kidneys.
Advocating that they have their reproductive systems tampered with is, morally, not a single bit different than advocating that someone cut into them and rip out a kidney.
Criminals are human beings. Not cattle. Even the ones on death row, right now.
Or would you rather we go back to ancient times where criminals aren't even given food or water unless a family member brings it to them?
Also, would you be alright with me going over to your house right now and, without your consent, sterilizing you?
Because right now, you're saying the same damn things that the people who sterilized Alan Turing said. Remember, it was illegal to be gay in those times. And since that made him a criminal, therefore no one should have had any sympathy for him. By your logic.
-
Except having children should they choose to. A choice that gets taken away from them.
They still can have children, just not biologically.
I'm confused. You're against criminals having biological children, but would still want to let them adopt? That policy seems inconsistent.
Or is this more of a "well, in case they clean up their act and go back to deserving children, we can't reverse sterilization but we can let them adopt" contingency plan?
-
Criminals, even the ones slated for the death penalty, have just as much right to intact reproductive systems as they have the right to keep both kidneys.
Aren't you against the death penalty? You seem to be more upset that they would be sterilized than the fact that the state is going to kill them. (And it would be pointless to sterilize someone on death row)
Advocating that they have their reproductive systems tampered with is, morally, not a single bit different than advocating that someone cut into them and rip out a kidney.
There are long term health effects of only having one kidney, as well as dealing with the risks of only having one kidney, so it's not comparable. Plus it doesn't serve a purpose towards the criminal like sterilization does.
Also, would you be alright with me going over to your house right now and, without your consent, sterilizing you?
No because you'd be breaking into my house. Also, I'm not a hardened criminal.
Would you be okay with me kidnapping you and making you live in a metal cage for a couple years?
Oh, and there's something else I forgot to mention
Sterilization is done for a good reason, it prevents them from having children.
Which serves no practical purpose other than to punish someone after their time has served.
Many criminals are limited in what jobs or actions they can take after being released. Do you consider this wrong?
Since I don't remember if you've addressed this before, and frankly I'm not inclined to wade through the wharrgble, can you tell us, Cataclysm, what specific crimes should justify sterilization? And how would you address the fact that false convictions happen when implementing this program?
Well, sterilizing prisoners isn't in my top 20 issues, so I haven't worked out the details. Basically very minor crimes shouldn't warrant sterilization, and neither should crimes that shouldn't be crimes (ie smoking weed).
The effect that different criminals have probably varies from state to state, or even from different counties, so they should be the ones creating most of the rules.
Sterilization would likely be done at the end of one's prison time, so that if evidence that one was innocent came up, they wouldn't be sterilized before release. However,the evidence came up after they served their time...
Since our justice system only calls for conviction beyond a REASONABLE doubt, not beyond ANY POSSIBILITY of doubt, then we tacitly acknowledge the fact that the justice system makes mistakes; this is also why I'm against the death penalty. What would you recommend happen, Cataclysm, if someone wrongfully convicted were sterilized?
What would you recommend if someone who was wrongfully convicted spent years in prison? Currently our system doesn't do anything, using the logic that the courts weren't intending to put an innocent person in jail, so they shouldn't be held accountable. I don't agree with this and do think that the government should do some monetary compensations. I'd imagine that someone who has been wrongfully convicted would care more about getting back the time and opportunities lost.
However, since it can be argued that the government has unfairly taken away that ability, it should pay for somatic-cell nuclear transfer of the person in order for the person to create gametes so they can have biological children, or if possibly pay for a surgery that can reverse the sterilization should these technologies become commonplace.
Or is this more of a "well, in case they clean up their act and go back to deserving children, we can't reverse sterilization but we can let them adopt" contingency plan?
Essentially.
-
Meanwhile, back in California....women are being intimidated into signing consent forms for sterilization, and not based on their crimes, but based primarily on how many children they already have.
I also find it interesting that there was no mention of male inmates being coerced into it. And it seems also likely that sterilized female prisoners don't get pregnant from rape by guards and admins.
WHY the fuck would the system spend the fucking money on these procedures, for women, which cost 8 times more than sterilizing males? "Lighten the welfare load!" or is it more like "The docs make money, and if the guards get frisky, we don't have a scandal."
ADDENDUM:
Oh and I have another thought...betcha ten bucks the ovaries were placed on ice and snuck out by ol' Doc Heinrich. Ova. Raw material for stem cell technician training and for actual cultivation on the black market, overseas, or here, under the radar.
-
Quote from: Magus Silveresti on Today at 01:28:59 AM
Except having children should they choose to. A choice that gets taken away from them.
They still can have children, just not biologically.
That's just as ridiculous as the argument that gays can still get married (opposite sex). It ignores the point
Quote
Gee, I dunno, let me make a life-changing and permanent decision for you, without your consent, and without your say, and let me see how well you adjust to life.
So you think we shouldn’t send criminals to prison then?
Your comparison of sterilization to the removal of limbs is completely based on emotion and the irrational value this culture places on having biological children.
I'm not going to argue that prison is a cakewalk, but it's in a different ball park as forcing someone to undergo a life changing medical procedure. One is a necessary determinant to keep dangerous felons from hurting others. The other is needless extra punishment that's not necessary.
-
Actually, why is there a need to do it when they are going into jail? After all, the only ways they can get pregnant in jail are the "conjugal visits" which can be denied if they don't want pregnant prisoners OR if they have sex with the guards. Which is all kinds of wrong and illegal.
IF they feel that some of the prisoners aren't cut out to be parents then they could do the sterilisation just before they are released. That way they could make a judgement based on how they behaved in jail and if they perhaps changed their ways.
I mean, this thing does start to sound worse and worse when you think about it. Either they truly believe in "criminal dna," an inheritable criminal tendency that cannot be cured or this is a setup to help the guards rape prisoners.
-
I'm just going to cut right to the chase here.
-bullshit snip-
-more shit snip-
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/50/503b96e525bff83c12b8ea56fc2d4723d1debe11cc1e1d77123f2d740dd86b7d.jpg)
-
So this is the hill you've chosen to die on, huh?
They still can have children, just not biologically.
Well that's a relief, I'm sure they wouldn't mind you doing permanent damage to their reproductive organs then. Tell me, if someone wanted to make the teeniest change to your plumbing so you couldn't have children would you be comfortable with that?
So you think we shouldn’t send criminals to prison then?
Nope, I didn't hear a single person saying that absolutely none of the women should have been in lockup. But sterilisation was not part of their sentences and they didn't uniformly have life sentences either.
Your comparison of sterilization to the removal of limbs is completely based on emotion and the irrational value this culture places on having biological children.
And not at all based on the unfortunate fact that neither your limbs nor your genitals grow back if removed!
Sure, you think children less well off then they should be, that’s so regarding ::)
So that's why you want to sterilize women because they happen to be in prison, because you are saying "won't someone think of the children" who-presumably are hypothetical at this point?
If children raised by criminals in a certain time-frame are on average worse off than children who are not, then forced sterilization would be justified, since it is beneficial to society. If they are no worse off, then it wouldn't be justified.
And it’s the same things with prisons. If criminals are as likely or less likely to commit further crimes if they aren't sent to prison, and just have to take rehabilitation classes, or go through another program, then prisons wouldn't be justified.
Of course, it's not like a society can do anything to help these women before they end up in jail-except that is entirely possible, the same goes with assisting these women get through the difficult period of motherhood.
Also-I don't think there is a judge or a lawyer on the planet who wouldn't take issue with your horrendously simplistic view of rehabilitation programs, they don't have nice simplistic if-then outcomes because they are dealing with these messy things called "people". Some people will get help through a program, others won't-in some cases it's up to the participants to want that help, and some might have good days and bad days because they are you know-human.
Raising children is a responsibility, not a right.
If you are suggesting that breeding is a privilege granted by the state then I think you are on very shaky ground. Under which jurisdiction do states have this privilege, the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom or is it covered in the UN convention on the rights of the child? I'd like to see you cite the relevant law, statute or treaty if you are making this claim.
They are guilty.
Except in cases of wrongful conviction, and they were never sentenced to sterilisation, your opinions notwithstanding!
My position that forced sterilization isn't any more invasive than prison time, not that's it's not invasive at all.
Your position is backed neither by hard data or lived experience, also prison time-except in the rare cases of life sentences has a definite start and finish date. Sterilisations are forever!
Except women getting the abortions they want is an inherently good thing, while leaving criminals fertile isn't. If there's statistics and studies that show otherwise, show me.
You have the burden of proof precisely backwards, you are the one claiming that spaying or neutering criminals has any measurable social benefit!
-
I'm really interested in seeing how Cataclysm will attempt to weasel around Tolpuddle's arguments.
-
They still can have children, just not biologically.
[/quote]
Then what is the point? Why sterilize them if you are going to allow them to have adopted children? The only difference is DNA and unless you actually believe that criminality is caused by DNA this makes no sense. If they are bad parents why would you give them adopted children? If they are good parents why would you not let them have biological kids?
Speaking of biological children, what about the kids they already have? Will they be taken from them? Can the ones who are allowed to adopt kids have their own kids back or is it the combination of parent being a criminal and the child being their biological child the only one you oppose?
-
Something of a side issue, but isn't forced sterilisation of women convicts a bit convenient in cases where the pregnancy occurred in jail and the father was one of the guards, particularly if the sex was non consensual? This totally happens by the way! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/03/california-women-prisons_n_871125.html)
If Cataclysm and the people behind the forced sterilisations had their way then prison guards would feel free to merrily rape and/or sexually exploit as many women convicts as they like and never have to face a paternity suit!
-
Would it be less evil to have prisoners of both sexes on long term contraception while in prison, which would last for a year after release? Would allow them a year before getting pregnant or getting someone pregant to get their lives together?
-
I was going to comment that there should be no need for contraception during their time in prison, but I suppose it would be smart to give condoms to male prisoners to help protect them from STDs.
Seriously though, unless conjugal visits are a thing why would gender segregated prisoners be in danger of getting pregnant (or impregnating someone?)
-
Having contraceptives given to prisoners would be sensible.
However if said prisoners are having to hook just to get reasonable sanitary supplies, or if the sex is flat out forced on them then the choice to apply contraceptives might not be quite so clear cut.
-
You know, Cataclysm, there was another man who advocated forcibly sterilizing people.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Adolf_Hitler-1933.jpg)
Normally, I'd call this a Godwin, but if the jackboot fits...
-
You know, Cataclysm, there was another man who advocated forcibly sterilizing people.
Damnit Paragon, I wanted him to find a jurisdiction where breeding was a privilege granted by the state by himself! Let the guy do a bit of his own legwork!
-
Why don't we just cut to the chase and say that anyone going on welfare has to be sterilized in order to receive benefits. It would be quicker, cheaper and more efficient.
-
Just to play devil's advocate, I can see eugenics becoming an effective way to control crime because it would target the genes rather than the person; the urge to reproduce and pass our genes on is one of our strongest instincts. Many people who would happily do prison time would hesitate, at least, if they knew they ran the risk of losing their ability to have children. Any such effort would take years to show any sort of effect, though.
Well 1. There's no evidence that genes themselves cause crime.
2. Raping and torturing them would also deter crime.
I see I didn't make my point clearly.
I know there isn't any evidence of "criminal genes" in and of themselves. What I was referring to was targeting the instinct to breed itself. Even without specific genes driving a criminal behavior, taking away the ability to reproduce would ping on people's instincts a lot harder than many of the punishments our system has nowadays.
As to point two, "effective" isn't the same as "right"; I don't believe the ends justify the means. If the means can't stand on their own, then the means are wrong, period. Whether sterilizing criminals would be an effective strategy or not, it's still a massive human rights violation.
Since our justice system only calls for conviction beyond a REASONABLE doubt, not beyond ANY POSSIBILITY of doubt, then we tacitly acknowledge the fact that the justice system makes mistakes; this is also why I'm against the death penalty. What would you recommend happen, Cataclysm, if someone wrongfully convicted were sterilized?
What would you recommend if someone who was wrongfully convicted spent years in prison? Currently our system doesn't do anything, using the logic that the courts weren't intending to put an innocent person in jail, so they shouldn't be held accountable. I don't agree with this and do think that the government should do some monetary compensations. I'd imagine that someone who has been wrongfully convicted would care more about getting back the time and opportunities lost.
However, since it can be argued that the government has unfairly taken away that ability, it should pay for somatic-cell nuclear transfer of the person in order for the person to create gametes so they can have biological children, or if possibly pay for a surgery that can reverse the sterilization should these technologies become commonplace.
I agree that they should be financially compensated; I also think the prosecutors in the case, at the very least, should be liable for false prosecution, both criminally and civilly.
As for your suggestion on how to handle cases of wrongful sterilization (if sterilization were made part of a sentence), what about prisoners who have moral or religious objections to in vetro fertilization? Or those who refuse blood transfusions for similar reasons and therefore wouldn't survive a sterilization surgery?
-
You know, Cataclysm, there was another man who advocated forcibly sterilizing people.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Adolf_Hitler-1933.jpg)
Normally, I'd call this a Godwin, but if the jackboot fits...
Ninja'd.
-
Well, this is coming from the kid that, when he first arrived here, spent an inordinate amount of time (http://fstdt.proboards.com/thread/10209/post-potentially-unpopular-political-opinions) on ProBoards arguing that forcibly (thru ingesting hormones) stopping his own puberty was a good idea. The kid's a bullheaded moron and/or a troll.
-
Sterilization would likely be done at the end of one's prison time, so that if evidence that one was innocent came up, they wouldn't be sterilized before there release?
I'm confused, why would he support the recent sterilizations then? I'm fairly sure they didn't sterilize them at the end of there release.
-
You know, Cataclysm, there was another man who advocated forcibly sterilizing people.
[picture of Hitler snipped]
Normally, I'd call this a Godwin, but if the jackboot fits...
Nope, still a Godwin.
-
Just to play devil's advocate, I can see eugenics becoming an effective way to control crime because it would target the genes rather than the person; the urge to reproduce and pass our genes on is one of our strongest instincts. Many people who would happily do prison time would hesitate, at least, if they knew they ran the risk of losing their ability to have children. Any such effort would take years to show any sort of effect, though.
Well 1. There's no evidence that genes themselves cause crime.
2. Raping and torturing them would also deter crime.
I see I didn't make my point clearly.
I know there isn't any evidence of "criminal genes" in and of themselves. What I was referring to was targeting the instinct to breed itself. Even without specific genes driving a criminal behavior, taking away the ability to reproduce would ping on people's instincts a lot harder than many of the punishments our system has nowadays.
It's just a hunch, but I don't believe criminals would be successfully deterred by the threat of sterilization. We already have data on murder rates in states with and without capital punishment (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates); curiously enough, the states with capital punishment had a consistently higher murder rate.
Besides, we have tons of unjust laws in the United States, especially applying to drug use and copyright law. Citizens will continue to be thrown in prison simply for living a normal life.
-
You know, Cataclysm, there was another man who advocated forcibly sterilizing people.
[picture of Hitler snipped]
Normally, I'd call this a Godwin, but if the jackboot fits...
Nope, still a Godwin.
I will point that Godwin's law only-
HOOOLLLLLLLYYYY SHIT, CATYCLYSM FUCKING APPROVES OF EUGENICS!
-
HOOOLLLLLLLYYYY SHIT, CATYCLYSM FUCKING APROVES OF MUTILATING TEENAGE GIRLS!
[citation needed]
-
HOOOLLLLLLLYYYY SHIT, CATYCLYSM FUCKING APROVES OF MUTILATING TEENAGE GIRLS!
[citation needed]
Okay, I admit that was a total exaggeration, Cat merely suggest that we perform permanent, life changing surgery on people without consent.
-
Just to play devil's advocate, I can see eugenics becoming an effective way to control crime because it would target the genes rather than the person; the urge to reproduce and pass our genes on is one of our strongest instincts. Many people who would happily do prison time would hesitate, at least, if they knew they ran the risk of losing their ability to have children. Any such effort would take years to show any sort of effect, though.
Well 1. There's no evidence that genes themselves cause crime.
2. Raping and torturing them would also deter crime.
I see I didn't make my point clearly.
I know there isn't any evidence of "criminal genes" in and of themselves. What I was referring to was targeting the instinct to breed itself. Even without specific genes driving a criminal behavior, taking away the ability to reproduce would ping on people's instincts a lot harder than many of the punishments our system has nowadays.
It's just a hunch, but I don't believe criminals would be successfully deterred by the threat of sterilization. We already have data on murder rates in states with and without capital punishment (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates); curiously enough, the states with capital punishment had a consistently higher murder rate.
Besides, we have tons of unjust laws in the United States, especially applying to drug use and copyright law. Citizens will continue to be thrown in prison simply for living a normal life.
I don't think that is directly caused by the death penalty, and is most likely because states who have the death penalty are going to follow the logic that "Spending money on abortion, education, and foodstamps is bad. Spending money on lethal injection is good.
-
You know, Cataclysm, there was another man who advocated forcibly sterilizing people.
[picture of Hitler snipped]
Normally, I'd call this a Godwin, but if the jackboot fits...
Nope, still a Godwin.
I will point that Godwin's law only-
HOOOLLLLLLLYYYY SHIT, CATYCLYSM FUCKING APPROVES OF EUGENICS!
Meh. I support some forms of eugenics as at least interesting ideas (not this one in particular, or in general any that involve force and non-consent). Saying "This was supported by Hitler!" or "This is eugenics!" is lazy arguing. Things are not wrong because of who else liked them or because of which particular word you choose to apply to it. Things are wrong because of reasons like being forced on unwilling participants on flimsy justification.
Call me crazy, but focusing on shitty arguments when the good ones are plentiful bothers me.
-
Meh, I prefer to just flail about in an incoherent rage until I break thru a wall like the Incredible Hulk.
-
You know, Cataclysm, there was another man who advocated forcibly sterilizing people.
[picture of Hitler snipped]
Normally, I'd call this a Godwin, but if the jackboot fits...
Nope, still a Godwin.
I will point that Godwin's law only-
HOOOLLLLLLLYYYY SHIT, CATYCLYSM FUCKING APPROVES OF EUGENICS!
Meh. I support some forms of eugenics as at least interesting ideas (not this one in particular, or in general any that involve force and non-consent). Saying "This was supported by Hitler!" or "This is eugenics!" is lazy arguing. Things are not wrong because of who else liked them or because of which particular word you choose to apply to it. Things are wrong because of reasons like being forced on unwilling participants on flimsy justification.
Call me crazy, but focusing on shitty arguments when the good ones are plentiful bothers me.
Well sure it's lazy, but I will point out that this is one of those cases where a Godwin makes a certain level of sense considering Cat has already voiced how he's okay with performing illegal surgery on prisoners and the homeless.
My main beef with UP's use of Godwin's law is uncreative he was with it.
(Next time try "I remember one society that supported sterilizing undesirable aspects of the population, but sadly they haven't been around since 1944" "I heard of a book advocating getting rid of segments of the population, I would read it, but I can't understand German" )
-
Meh. I support some forms of eugenics as at least interesting ideas (not this one in particular, or in general any that involve force and non-consent). Saying "This was supported by Hitler!" or "This is eugenics!" is lazy arguing. Things are not wrong because of who else liked them or because of which particular word you choose to apply to it. Things are wrong because of reasons like being forced on unwilling participants on flimsy justification.
Call me crazy, but focusing on shitty arguments when the good ones are plentiful bothers me.
An idea that was supported by Hitler isn't necessarily wrong because it was supported by Hitler, last I heard the Autobahns were a rather decent bit of national infrastructure.
However if someone is deciding that the right to reproduce is a privilege granted by the state based on the worthiness or lack thereof of an individual then I think the comparison is apt. Nazi Germany's Eugenics policy was based on the notion that some life was unworthy of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics) and that only "worthy" people should be allowed to reproduce as opposed to say, criminals, dissidents or the disabled. This wasn't a bad thing because it happened under a regime led by Hugo-Boss wearing Nazis, it was a bad thing because it caused an injustice to occur.
Cat's argument has key things in common with those of the Nazis and also previous generations of American Eugenicists that inspired the Nazis in saying that reproduction is a privilege that should be granted by society rather than a fundamental human right and that that privilege should be granted to people based on the value they give to society. The justification for the Eugenics being proposed here is not based on anything genetic but rather a subjective moral value that can be placed on certain classes of people.
Cat's rationale differs from the Nazis in that they did not want undesirable elements reproducing whereas Cat seems to be motivated by the welfare of their as yet unborn children and the effect they might have on society at large. The overall effect is the same, you make a value judgement about someone's worth and then impose a permanent physiological change based on that assessment.
My problem with this position is that once you allow the state to remove peoples ability to reproduce then not only are you violating the fundamental human rights of those who are subjectively considered to be "unworthy" you are also allowing the state to make irreversible decisions about peoples lives that might later be found to be unwarranted or mistaken. Any complications or injuries arising from botched procedures can likewise not be undone.
Granted, imprisonment can also be found to be unwarranted or mistaken but forced sterilisation is a different class of punishment, more like capital punishment in that it cannot be reversed or undone. A prison sentence can be cut short, a sterilisation cannot. Compensation doesn't make up for years in prison, equally it doesn't make up for losing your ability to reproduce.
The women in this story were not uniformly imprisoned for culpable offences like rape or murder, and an effective permanent sentence imposed on them would be unjust in most cases. I'd question whether permanently altering someone's physiology because of their perceived worth or because of what they might do is useful to anybody. It will hurt some people, and there's no good reason to believe that it'll help anyone.
-
Meh. I support some forms of eugenics as at least interesting ideas (not this one in particular, or in general any that involve force and non-consent). Saying "This was supported by Hitler!" or "This is eugenics!" is lazy arguing. Things are not wrong because of who else liked them or because of which particular word you choose to apply to it. Things are wrong because of reasons like being forced on unwilling participants on flimsy justification.
Call me crazy, but focusing on shitty arguments when the good ones are plentiful bothers me.
An idea that was supported by Hitler isn't necessarily wrong because it was supported by Hitler, last I heard the Autobahns were a rather decent bit of national infrastructure.
However if someone is deciding that the right to reproduce is a privilege granted by the state based on the worthiness or lack thereof of an individual then I think the comparison is apt. Nazi Germany's Eugenics policy was based on the notion that some life was unworthy of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics) and that only "worthy" people should be allowed to reproduce as opposed to say, criminals, dissidents or the disabled. This wasn't a bad thing because it happened under a regime led by Hugo-Boss wearing Nazis, it was a bad thing because it caused an injustice to occur.
Which is kind of my point. It doesn't matter if the comparison is correct, because forced sterilization is wrong independently of the correctness of the comparison. Since making the comparison adds nothing to the conversation other than pressing emotional buttons and insulting people, it's a bad idea to make it. Godwin's law exists for a reason.
Agreed on every other point, by the way.
-
I'll actually concede to Sigma on this one, mostly because if false equivalence is pointed out you can't wrangle your way out of it without looking like a dill.
Cat agrees undesirable people should not be allowed to breed, Hitler believed undesirable people should not be allowed to breed-OOOH! It's uncomfortably close to the fundie canard that atheism leads to Stalinism because Marx was an atheist.
The idea of forced sterilization on certain classes of people because they are "bad" for society is still stinky though.
-
Also pretty sure it's a human rights violation.
-
I had an idea for a story once. It's creepy because it came to me before this thread.
In this setting, the USA has decided that criminals are no longer human beings, but are now treated as lesser animals. Cattle, basically. Their organs are harvested with no regard for their health or well-being, they are spayed and neutered, they are executed in painful but convenient ways, and their skin is turned into leather (for any leather needs) and their meat is sold in supermarkets. It's considered a pride in this alternate USA to own clothing made from "Criminal Skin" and to eat meat made from "Criminals." After all, "they aren't human."
I'm 25% scared that this could potentially become a reality, now.
-
SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE! SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLEEEEEEEE!
-
SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE! SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLEEEEEEEE!
Yep.