Having problem children neutered?

Post Reply New Topic

It is hardly "cold." The main idea is to improve their mental well-being and their odds of becoming successful adults.

I wonder how adaptable people actually are in this respect.

Societal expectations do not dictate actual outcomes.

Whereas mine generally sleep in the same bed as I do, and they snore loudly enough to make the pictures rattle on their hooks.

The idea behind it is to benefit the individual.

For parents to have a right to do what they think is best for their children?

Most parents want their kids to grow up and be parents.

And also, how do you know that neutering children will "improve" their behavior?

Also, there are other means of improving bad behavior of children, a lot of which are being used today.

I know you do. In fact, I feel I can dismiss your overall character out of hand, Orwell. For one thing, I did nothing more than affirm the inherent worth of human beings. For another, I certainly wasn't being dismissive toward a counter-claim, and I have so far gone above and beyond to handle people's reactions to the idea as maturely as possible. However, when you are discussing my behavior, Orwell, restrict yourself to things that I have actually done, and do not make up things to browbeat me over. That is strike one, Orwell.

Not all parents are living under the same circumstances, though. Besides, not all means of going about "neutering" are surgical or permanent.

I don't. That is, I don't know with the kind of certainty that most people think they have when they are advancing a new idea. I think that it is interesting that it appears to have beneficial effects in animals. I was interested in the idea that it could lead to similar effects in humans.

Indeed, and some are more exotic than others. For example, people used to believe that you could correct bad behavior in a child by striking him painfully on his buttocks. Unfortunately, it leads to very bad behavior in the long-term, and the consequences can include violence or other risky behavior. We have done odd things in the past, but they seemed perfectly ordinary at the time. They WERE perfectly ordinary at the time.

By forcibly sterilizing people against their will because you think it might make it easier for you to deal with those people? I think most sane people would regard that as a flagrant human rights violation rather than "affirming the inherent worth of human beings."


Um... "Don't be ridiculous" is pretty dismissive, especially as you did not really give an adequate argument as to why the comparison you were dismissing fails, and there is enough in your OP to support the comparison drawn by Dee, in particular when you said "I also think that it is a service to society as a whole to reproductively incapacitate individuals who are often difficult to get along with and, quite frankly, potentially dangerous." That is quite similar to eugenic thought, and eugenics is a very problematic ideology for a variety of reasons.


Post something stupid, expect to get negative responses.


What have I "made up" exactly? And "strike one?" For what? You're not a mod, and I don't particularly care if I lose your approval. Go ahead, give me strike two for this post. I'll get to strike three soon enough and see what you plan to do about it.

was it a desirable thing to breed their aryan race with dark hair and brown eyes or eas it desirable to breed blonde hair and blue eyes?

I wonder what liberal professor your head has been filled up by... with this psychological babble? Seeing that you are currently attending a university... are you?

Like i said, I rrad similar stuff you're talking about from a few older books I used to have in psychology and sociology.... this sort of thing was common thought in the 60's and 70's... people who are institutionalized have had their genitles modified so that they can not have children, did not matter if you wer a boy or a girl... These such individuals, to breed offspring, was an undesirable act... because their offspring would not be desired by society...

It is people such as yourself that has a big ego, a false sense of self importance that I do find irritating… Reading your post, it sounds like something spewed out of a psychological magazine from the 1970’s. I am very normal, even if others think I am this or that… How I function or do things, it is what I am used to… but to change to be something I am not and is for me, quite abnormal, no thanks.

I really doubt you are autistic or on the spectrum... you come on to people in this thread like a NT with a chip on thier shoulder, somoene with some serious issues and needs a target or just trolling for attention, needing to exercise the new information you have acquired recently from the university...

Problems:

1) Neutering only has an effect on people/animals at or beyond puberty. So childhood behavioral problems will not be effected by it.

And, you've proposed it as a panacea. If an autistic is having meltdowns due to sounds no one else can hear, neutering them isn't going to help.

2) Who is to decide who has "a problem" and is to receive this solution? History is rife with examples of this sort of (and even precisely) power being abused. It might start out with an austere philosophical basis, but eventually it will become corrupt and be used on "people I find bothersome." It's interesting that later you say:

You went from "children who have ... problems" to "difficult [for me] to get along with" in one paragraph. You're already heading down the slippery slope.

And how do you know it's always going to be decided the way you would see as correct? Bullies always think their victims "ask for it" by "being annoying"; it's part of the unconcious script. Maybe you imagine the scenario as a bully always getting justly 'fixed'; I imagine, "what if a bully ends up in charge of who gets 'fixed'?" Better to have some limits on what people can take away from each other, so that nobody can do that.

These scenarios always end up FUBAR. Dr. Lovaas and others, 'helping' autistic kids with electric shocks, or forced eye contact & touching, sometimes with loud shouts. People being 'helped' with lobotomies -- which are effective in eliminating negative behavior, since they remove all volitional behavior. Black American slaves being 'helped' by being enslaved, because they were considered too 'psychologically disorganized' to function without the structure of slavery. The problem with such ideas isn't their logic; it's how their logic masks how psychologically deceptive they are. Humans cannot handle too much direct power over other humans without becoming corrupt & abusive -- and in such a way that they can't see it. It's in our DNA, and it's folly to ignore what history has shows about the implementation of such ideas.

This is a description of the character of Caffarelli, a famous castrato who was castrated at the age of 10 to preserve his childhood voice. (from Wikipedia) It does not seem to have helped his behavior.

"He was notorious for his unpredictable behavior, both on and off stage. On stage he is reputed to have sung his own preferred versions irrespective of what his colleagues were doing, mimicking them while they sang their solos and sometimes conversing with members of the public in their boxes. Such misconduct led to arrests and spells of house imprisonment for assault and making obscene gestures in mockery of his fellow singers at performances. His most infamous stunt was the complete humiliation of a prima donna during a performance of Hasse's Antigono.[3]

Caffarelli was also notoriously pugnacious and possessed of a fierce temper, willing to duel with anybody for little apparent reason. However, he seems to have been able to coexist with Handel (also a famously fiery character) on a peaceable basis, perhaps due to the fantastic sums of money the composer paid him for his work.

Time, however, seemed to soften Caffarelli. In the fading years of his life he donated extensively to charity, and when Burney came to meet the singer he was impressed by his politeness.[3] He died in Naples."

Therefore YOU should be appointed as Reich fuhrer and be able to decide who does and does not have the chance to reproduce. How would sterilizing them result in an improved quality of life? Are you not instead TAKING from them the chance to have children on their own? Wouldn't YOU be directly responsible for many of the difficulties they would face in the future? Wouldn't this experience be physically and psychologically traumatic, thus resulting in a greater propensity towards greater behavioral problems in the future? I may be defined as "difficult to get along with" and I would have no qualms with confronting those who want to eliminate my liberty. My purpose in life is not to fulfill the perceived needs of society but rather to work towards my goals and aspirations.

Some parents think that murdering their own children is the best thing to do. But of course, a figure of authority can NEVER be wrong.



Why don't you start with yourself?

Okay, the arguments against it were all mentioned and I do not want to repeat them. I however do admit that it sounds really emotionally satisfying to me to imagine various people who used to beat me up getting this treatment...

You are, of course, assuming the guys who beat you up will not be in charge of who should lose his balls.

Someone hold him down for Castration without painkillers.

But seriously FORCE a child to get castrated without concent?
Unless it was a random castration I dont agree.
"your child is depressed, time for castration."

Yes, I was assuming a functioning system of justice.

Umm.... the reason for something does not mean it cannot be cold. You are still permanently damaging their bodies.


Adaptable does not mean that it would be the same to adopt as not to, it would just be a disappointing reality to get used to.


Yes, yes they actually do. Saying otherwise is deeply questionable.


Yes, but that's also in deep question, as you are permanently damaging their bodies in a manner that will have significant consequences for their future.


For this to be seen as good parenting, it would be a step towards totalitarian eugenics. It is almost the same as neutering your genetically problematic children just to save their grandkids, it really violates our standards for what is proper and what seems ethical to do, as you are deciding for someone else, to constrain their behavior by permanently damaging their bodies. Parenting is a tricky issue about where the line is, but if you do something irreversible, you are usually considered to cross that line.

Hmm... yeah, sounds like that'd be your attitude towards everyone.

In any case, I think that your posts are generally unsophisticated foolishness, and basically just the opinions of a crotchety old man relegated to the realm of indisputable fact.