Having problem children neutered?

Post Reply New Topic

I really would expect nothing else from you and I would prefer nothing more than that my opinions be relegated to indisputable fact.
I'm happy you think so.

Do I smell a Troll?


It doesnt take a genius to figure out that what you're saying, especially among people like US, is EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE and if you said this out loud you could end up being assaulted. Involuntarily castration is a GROSS VIOLATION of individual rights, and yes children ARE citizens and they DO have constitutional rights as well. I violently disagree with you that we should be open to this kind of fascisitc stupidity. I was a "problem child" and I can tell you that if I had been neutered during childhood I would deliberately and forcibly castrate someone else.....or WORSE.

NT state would use this to neuter Aspergian children.

Stating a controversial opinion and defending it is NOT TROLLING.

Saying "I'm offended" does not create a line for discourse, if it did then I AM SO F***ING OFFENDED BY PEOPLE WHO GET OFFENDED! See, now if offense is a preventer of the statement of opinions, then opinions that use that to prevent discourse can themselves be offensive and thus impermissible, you can say that a contradiction is used to express that thought, but the contradiction does not mean the offense is invalid.

In any case, the matter in question of "individual rights" is a matter that can be talked, and that has to be defined and argued against this position. Not only that, but there are no Constitutional rights involved with this matter at all as the Constitution says absolutely nothing about castration or chemical ways to implement the same thing, and parents can have their children undergo medical procedures as children are not persons, the issue is that this is not on the list of reasonable medical procedures.

Well, Haliphron, it is hard to know what a person would do given a counterfactual.

In any case though, I do think that the OP's stance might logically lead to the alteration in physiology of a good number of the people on this board, and your own stance that it cannot be justified is a legitimate argument against the OP's desired move.

------

In any case, to defend an earlier argument that this expansion of parental power would seem to lead to fascistic eugenics, I would make the argument based upon the notion that governments are often found to enforce cultural norms because of their dependence upon the societies from which these norms occur. If this kind of thought ever drifted towards the norm, then this kind of behavior would end up being enforced. It is better that certain actions do not have precedent, even if there is 1 case in which this was done where it aligned with justice, just because of the possibility of injustice based upon this precedent.

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 21 Apr 2009, 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If you are going to start neutering problem people, why not just kill them and be done with it. I'd rather be killed than neutered personally, and as long as its painless and preferably done without warning, it results in far less suffering.

I affirmed the inherent worth of human beings by dismissing the idea that any individual should be construed as an "undesirable." What did you think that I was trying to say?

Human beings are individuals. They are not cogs in a machine. There are actually very good reasons that this mentality does not work. If an individual has been violently assaulting others, though, then other children should be somehow sheltered from such attacks. I also think that there is merit to the idea that this sort of approach could improve the quality of life.

http://www.securityworld.com/ia-428-sch ... stics.aspx

In extreme cases, something needs to be done to curb the chances of other young people coming to harm. I am not talking about "culling" individuals who don't pass some "test" if that is what you are getting at. I am suggesting a possible means of getting individuals who are already violent offenders under control, whether chemically or surgically.

I do find it very interesting that you are as squeamish as you are over the idea of eugenics.

Orwell, I always expect some degree of negativity when I bring up radical ideas. However, I only expect mendacity out of people who inherently suffer from poor character.

So the only criticism you care about is the kind that is backed by brute force. Do I understand you correctly, Orwell?

Because this would be immoral.

And I am not sure that I understand your balance of priorities.

The problem others see is that neutering would be immoral.


Even if you do not, the idea that you are doing immense harm to an individual by doing this isn't hard for many to recognize, as even a less extreme balance of priorities *still* makes the stance difficult to justify.

I have sense that it would be used against Aspergian children, if ever implemented.

I would advocate that we only install law like that if it is state controlled by Aspergians.

You promoted the idea of preventing people who are "potentially dangerous" from reproducing. That is eugenics, whatever you want to call it. It also rests on the assumption that such people are genetically undesirable and should be removed from the gene pool.

Quit trying to weasel out of what you said, as enough of us here are likely to call you out on it. If you communicated badly or have changed your mind, then clarify that that is the case rather than accusing others of lying.


Should I feel warm and fuzzy about such a prospect?


Are people who "suffer from poor character" next on your list of people who should not be able to reproduce?

Do not accuse me of lying unless you can directly quote me. I do not take kindly to false accusations, and I place extremely high value on honesty in myself and in others.


No, I actually don't care much about the mods either. I just thought your "strike one" comment was ridiculous, as a seeming threat from a random stranger on the internet just seems pointless. I don't have any particular reason to hold you in high regard, and therefore your opinion of me is irrelevant from my perspective. I care about criticism from people I respect, and you do not fall into that category.

Orwell, you suck!

(ok, worth a try, I don't know who I should convince to try next)

I was a difficult child as well. I sympathize.

I doubt anything of the sort would be done to you if you were obviously very distressed over the idea. Personally, I would have agreed to it at that age. I rejected my sexual impulses out of hand. I found them disturbing. I felt very violated. Even now, I would accept a medication that could somewhat lower my sex drive because, to be perfectly frank, it interferes badly with my studies. Is this concept alien to you?

The bigger threat will come from a pre-natal test for autism. Once a pre-natal test for autism is discovered, many autistic and aspergian fetuses will be aborted. Personally I would rather be sterilized.

If child abuse is illegal, something like this could EASILY be interpreted as such given the current laws. Futhermore, WHERE does the constitution and/or USCode designate that children are the property of their parents, let alone the property of the state??? I hope you understand that this is the kind of thing that will not happen in the United States unless there US Goverment is replaced by fascistic dictatorship. Grossly Violating the rights of individuals for the perceived benefit of the group is the kind of thing that I am actively intolerant of and have sufficient fervor about this kind of thing to take DIRECT ACTION.
It maybe hard to for you to know what you would do given a counterfactual but not I. If you dont believe, that is your problem because I am not obligated to prove ANYTHING to you. Despite your philosophical prowess you honestly dont seem to know much about constitutional law because the compulsory castration of badly behaved children would be classified as cruel and unusual punishment as well as being contrarty to the 5th Amendment.



Your reasoning shows a serious ignorance about human endocrinology and the effect of gonadal hormones on the development and functioning of childrens brains. Dogs and Cats reach adulthood between 1 and 2 years of age but humans require 20 to 25 years to reach adulthood in the biological sense. The behaviour of so-called "problem children" CANNOT be blamed on the influence of steroid hormones from their balls/ovaries. PERIOD.

I suggested a number of ideas.

I intended to distance myself from the view that anyone should be regarded as an 'undesirable' because my politics are generally very egalitarian. My wording was reasonably plain: I said, "there is no such thing as an 'undesirable.' Don't be ridiculous." You subsequently responded to an incomplete quotation of this statement in a way that made it look as if I were responding to an argument against eugenics by calling it "ridiculous," and you proceeded to lecture me in tones of smug superiority.

Orwell, you were trying to play "poison the well," and I suspect that you are doing so because you are afraid of what might happen if we dignify this subject with rational, thoughtful discussion. You are probably a paranoid libertarian who lives with a deep, irrational fear that society has a natural tendency to ever further encroach on your rights unless you somehow defend yourself against it. It is also likely that you spend far more time on these kinds of forums than is really healthy for you, and I suggest that you seek counseling of some kind before you become a complete hermit.

You should consider suppressing your gut reactions to the idea, so you can think about it with some level of intelligence.

You strike me as a disrespectful person in general.