PDA

View Full Version : Medical Policy Regarding Eugenics and Disability?



Nachtengel
Thursday, August 21st, 2008, 11:38 PM
Messages moved from this thread:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=9150
- Oswiu

The world belongs to the strong and healthy, not the weak and sick. There shouldn't be state funding for people with disabilities and things like Down Syndrome. We should be spending more funds on finding cures for diseases which have a chance to be reversed altogether, not prolonging the lives of those suffering from diseases that can't be treated.

Volksdeutscher
Friday, August 22nd, 2008, 01:11 AM
The world belongs to the strong and healthy, not the weak and sick. There shouldn't be state funding for people with disabilities and things like Down Syndrome. We should be spending more funds on finding cures for diseases which have a chance to be reversed altogether, not prolonging the lives of those suffering from diseases that can't be treated.
So people with disabilities can't become good citisens? Are you familiar with the Hippocratic Oath? Physicians have to practice and prescribe to the best of their ability for the good of their patients, and to try to avoid harming them and never to do deliberate harm to anyone for anyone else's interest. Refusing to cure a human being for the sake of "the betterment of the Aryan race" or whatever, is harming him and a violation of the Oath.

Ulf
Friday, August 22nd, 2008, 02:33 AM
The world belongs to the strong and healthy, not the weak and sick. There shouldn't be state funding for people with disabilities and things like Down Syndrome. We should be spending more funds on finding cures for diseases which have a chance to be reversed altogether, not prolonging the lives of those suffering from diseases that can't be treated.

How the hell would we cure new diseases if we're just brushing the weak and sick aside? Initially all new diseases are incurable...

Poor Stephen Hawking, it's a shame we'd have to off him in that ideal world of yours...

Nachtengel
Friday, August 22nd, 2008, 03:39 AM
Some cures work in incipient stages and for this there needs to be a selected area of humans to try if the cure is proper if you spend the money on everyone it's not the same. If you find a cure you can also find means of prevention. Try giving to a vegetable person on the death bed an Aspirin, it won't do anything.

What percentage of disabled people are geniouses? Not the majority. Eugenics was practiced by Germanics and Europeans from very old times, the ancient Germanics and the Spartans would kill disabled babies and throw them in abysses. We don't do that, but we can control quality of life through abortions and euthanasia which is becoming legal in some places, that's a start for sure. With the death penalty we could also control the spread of criminal genes.

The future of the Germanic/European race should look more like this

http://images102.fotki.com/v856/photos/1/1148085/4941659/regular117-vi.jpg

http://images30.fotki.com/v42/photos/1/1148085/4941659/regular146-vi.jpg

than like this.

http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/361-6-Ch1_files/Down's%20syndromeI.jpg

http://www.cill.org.uk/out1.jpg

Ulf
Friday, August 22nd, 2008, 05:03 AM
Try giving to a vegetable person on the death bed an Aspirin, it won't do anything.
It'll do something, mainly thin the blood. It'll do nothing for the coma but it will do something...



What percentage of disabled people are geniouses? Not the majority. Eugenics was practiced by Germanics and Europeans from very old times, the ancient Germanics and the Spartans would kill disabled babies and throw them in abysses. We don't do that, but we can control quality of life through abortions and euthanasia which is becoming legal in some places, that's a start for sure. With the death penalty we could also control the spread of criminal genes.
Yes, of course the ancients were always right!
Let us disregard gene therapy and rather cull the herd of retards who often are the offspring of perfectly healthy individuals. Should you have a child that is mentally retarded should we not purge your genes, whether they express themselves or not?
Down syndrome is caused by nondisjunction, a process which can happen to anyone regardless of their genes.



The future of the Germanic/European race should look more like this

http://images102.fotki.com/v856/photos/1/1148085/4941659/regular117-vi.jpg

http://images30.fotki.com/v42/photos/1/1148085/4941659/regular146-vi.jpg

These people^, are quite capable of giving birth to these people...


than like this.

http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/361-6-Ch1_files/Down's%20syndromeI.jpg

http://www.cill.org.uk/out1.jpg

These people most likely will not reproduce or cannot reproduce, they're an inconvenience at best.

skyhawk
Friday, August 22nd, 2008, 08:01 AM
The world belongs to the strong and healthy, not the weak and sick. There shouldn't be state funding for people with disabilities and things like Down Syndrome. We should be spending more funds on finding cures for diseases which have a chance to be reversed altogether, not prolonging the lives of those suffering from diseases that can't be treated.

It's about respect for life . I don't expect many Nationalsocialists to understand that and it is also a reflection on the ideology itself that that is the case.

Let's hope your comments don't bite you on the arse oneday in the future

Dagna
Friday, August 22nd, 2008, 11:57 AM
The world belongs to the strong and healthy, not the weak and sick. There shouldn't be state funding for people with disabilities and things like Down Syndrome. We should be spending more funds on finding cures for diseases which have a chance to be reversed altogether, not prolonging the lives of those suffering from diseases that can't be treated.
I do agree with euthanasia for people like Terri Schiavo who live like vegetables or for those who experience pain and do not wish to have their lives prolonged at any costs. I do not believe in prolonging life at any cost, the cost being putting that person through agonizing sufference. They should have the right to end it painlessly. However, disabled people/people with Down Syndrome are a whole different category. They can live perfectly happy and enjoyable lives. I don't believe disabilities are only about genetics. An accident can leave someone disabled. So, does that mean that once someone loses their legs or arms, they cannot contribute to our communities anymore? I believe that is nonsense. The National Socialists had no regard for this. They had a mania for physical perfection. Contribution and success do not solely reside in the physical, Germanic minds can also create. People like Stephen Hawking are 100 times more worthy to human kind than brainless sex symbols from Hollywood who have your ideal, perfect physical shape.

Jäger
Friday, August 22nd, 2008, 04:38 PM
So people with disabilities can't become good citisens?
That's not it, first and foremost this is not about euthanasia, but about "social medicine", it is just that the state shouldn't help them, if they can afford their treatment, then they can pay for it themselves. No one should forbid this :)


Are you familiar with the Hippocratic Oath? Physicians have to practice and prescribe to the best of their ability for the good of their patients, and to try to avoid harming them and never to do deliberate harm to anyone for anyone else's interest.
You are saying, that I have been paying my doctor and the taxes in vain :eek:
I could have gotten the treatment for free anyway?
Darn!

Then this is the solution to our question here, we just don't pay anything :)


Poor Stephen Hawking, it's a shame we'd have to off him in that ideal world of yours...
Oh noes, what a loss, we would have to say goodbye to our beloved time travel :(

Volksdeutscher
Friday, August 22nd, 2008, 05:14 PM
That's not it, first and foremost this is not about euthanasia, but about "social medicine", it is just that the state shouldn't help them, if they can afford their treatment, then they can pay for it themselves. No one should forbid this :)
If a poor child has an accident and can't afford to treat himself, he should be left to rot and die?


You are saying, that I have been paying my doctor and the taxes in vain :eek:
I could have gotten the treatment for free anyway?
Darn!

Then this is the solution to our question here, we just don't pay anything :)
Medical treatment should ideally be free of charge and financed by the state, yes.

Jäger
Friday, August 22nd, 2008, 05:28 PM
If a poor child has an accident and can't afford to treat himself, he should be left to rot and die?
Nope, I already wrote that accidents should be treated free of any cost, and that people should be able to die peacefully (e.g. if the child had cancer), and not have to rot and die. :)


Medical treatment should ideally be free of charge and financed by the state, yes.
Why should the state pay, if the doctor has to do it for free?

Freydis
Friday, August 22nd, 2008, 07:16 PM
The world belongs to the strong and healthy, not the weak and sick. There shouldn't be state funding for people with disabilities and things like Down Syndrome. We should be spending more funds on finding cures for diseases which have a chance to be reversed altogether, not prolonging the lives of those suffering from diseases that can't be treated.

Likewise I guess there shouldn't be state funding for the elderly or children because they only cost money and are not "strong and healthy", productive members of society. Why not scrap the education system because it robs us of people who could be working earlier? :D





Why should the state pay, if the doctor has to do it for free?\

Because the doctor spends years of their life studying to be a doctor and has a family to feed too? ^^

Anyways about this public "non-innovation" issue... my job is funded via a grant. Where did this grant come from? The Government. What do I do? Environmental Health (mostly policy end). Come on, people. -_- Just cause it comes from the government doesn't mean that it doesn't do anything. ^^

DanseMacabre
Friday, August 22nd, 2008, 08:22 PM
Likewise I guess there shouldn't be state funding for the elderly or children because they only cost money and are not "strong and healthy", productive members of society. Why not scrap the education system because it robs us of people who could be working earlier?
By not allowing inferior types of people to have free medical treatment they die off. Children should be educated because smart and healthy children are a benefit to the nation. Sickly, weak, and disformed children should be allowed to die off. It's better for them and better for the race. The elderly, if they have taken care of their bodies throughout life, can support themselves(pensions,retirement,savings, etc.). Otherwise, when their time comes they should be allowed to die peacefully instead of keeping them alive in a condition where they can't enjoy life. I'd suggest any nation that has a NHS should also invest time and money on encouraging it's citizens to eat right, exercise, and stay away from physically harmful activities.


I don't believe disabilities are only about genetics. An accident can leave someone disabled. So, does that mean that once someone loses their legs or arms, they cannot contribute to our communities anymore? I believe that is nonsense. The National Socialists had no regard for this. They had a mania for physical perfection. Contribution and success do not solely reside in the physical, Germanic minds can also create. People like Stephen Hawking are 100 times more worthy to human kind than brainless sex symbols from Hollywood who have your ideal, perfect physical shape.

The goal is creating a physically, mentally, and emotionally healthy people. I do agree that there is a difference between a disabled person who was disabled by an accident and one who is genetically disabled. the difference being if the one disabled by an accident reproduces their child will have its legs. Whereas somebody who is suffering from a hereditary illness can pass it on down the line to other family. This shouldn't be allowed.

Ulf
Friday, August 22nd, 2008, 10:14 PM
The goal is creating a physically, mentally, and emotionally healthy people. I do agree that there is a difference between a disabled person who was disabled by an accident and one who is genetically disabled. the difference being if the one disabled by an accident reproduces their child will have its legs. Whereas somebody who is suffering from a hereditary illness can pass it on down the line to other family. This shouldn't be allowed.

Have you ever even read anything about genetics, aside from diatribes about creating a superior race?

You could have recessive genetic traits that are not expressed, you could be a carrier. Should we eliminate you? You could have the potential to give birth to an army of retards.

A women who is 25 has a 1 in 1000 chance of giving birth to a child with down syndrome. A 40 year old woman has a 1 in 30 chance. The longer you wait to have kids the more likely they will be retarded.

But hey, if you want to cull the herd, keep outsiders out and inbreed till the cows come home, so be it.

Nachtengel
Saturday, August 23rd, 2008, 05:05 PM
It'll do something, mainly thin the blood. It'll do nothing for the coma but it will do something...
I mean it will do nothing to save his life, so it's no cure. That's why I don't think it does anything benefic to prolong the lifes of vegetables and crippled at any cost. The money spent on their Aspirins could be of better use for other medical research.


Yes, of course the ancients were always right!
Let us disregard gene therapy and rather cull the herd of retards who often are the offspring of perfectly healthy individuals. Should you have a child that is mentally retarded should we not purge your genes, whether they express themselves or not?
Down syndrome is caused by nondisjunction, a process which can happen to anyone regardless of their genes.
If my child has Down syndrome it wouldn't be born, I would make tests on my pregnancy and abort such a fetus because I want healthy children.


These people^, are quite capable of giving birth to these people...
Yes, and? Like I said, quality control can be done through abortions. Medicine is advanced in the 21st century, if a child is malformed or sick with Down Syndrome we can find out before he comes out of the womb.


It's about respect for life . I don't expect many Nationalsocialists to understand that and it is also a reflection on the ideology itself that that is the case.

Let's hope your comments don't bite you on the arse oneday in the future
Nationalsocialists respected life, thanks to their medical research we know many useful things today. To respect life doesn't mean to breed people at any cost and give birth to sick children who will suffer.


Likewise I guess there shouldn't be state funding for the elderly or children because they only cost money and are not "strong and healthy", productive members of society. Why not scrap the education system because it robs us of people who could be working earlier? :D
Children will later become productive members of society, elderly have contributed to society in their lives, but about how many permanently mentally and physically ill people can you say that? Not many, not the majority. They are permanent inconveniences, they take but don't give anything back. The elderly should receive pensions for the work they did in society in life, and war veterans for the sacrifice they did for their country, not for laying in a wheelchair all their lives and eating and sleeping and doing nothing else.

Jäger
Saturday, August 23rd, 2008, 06:37 PM
You could have recessive genetic traits that are not expressed, you could be a carrier. Should we eliminate you?
Nope, there are more than one reason why euthanasia should be put into place, the eugenically aspect is only one of it.

Anyhow, there is still a difference between not helping people, and killing them. :)

Bloem
Saturday, August 23rd, 2008, 06:48 PM
Nationalsocialists respected life, thanks to their medical research we know many useful things today. To respect life doesn't mean to breed people at any cost and give birth to sick children who will suffer.
Nazis had no respect for life, that's why they killed millions of Jews for being "inferior". Your beloved doctors in Auschwitz did not save lives, they took lives. They were murderers. "Eugenics" was a code word for extermination of those they considered "unfit to live". The Nazis were hypocrites. Hitler should have exterminated himself for having only one testicle and so being "unfit to live". Mengele should have exterminated himself for catching typhus, the disease of the "racially inferior".
The sad fact is that nothing that was done in Auschwitz helped human kind. These nazi "scientists" were mediocre at most. They learned absolutely nothing new, their sole goal was achieving pleasure through sadism.

Jäger
Saturday, August 23rd, 2008, 07:21 PM
The Nazis were hypocrites. Hitler should have exterminated himself for having only one testicle and so being "unfit to live".
Despite that I think your accusation is untrue, and stems from personal reasons.
He did. And he didn't have any kids.


Mengele should have exterminated himself for catching typhus, the disease of the "racially inferior".
Where did you get that Typhus was considered an illness of the racially inferior?
Mengele considered Noma to be an illness of the racially inferior.


The sad fact is that nothing that was done in Auschwitz helped human kind.
It helped Germany stay free of Jews.


These nazi "scientists" were mediocre at most. They learned absolutely nothing new, their sole goal was achieving pleasure through sadism.
Mengele's research on Noma is still used today, and gave precious data as to what may cause it.

Bloem
Saturday, August 23rd, 2008, 07:36 PM
Despite that I think your accusation is untrue, and stems from personal reasons.
He did. And he didn't have any kids.
He exterminated himself because he wanted to do it before the Allies caught him, not because he considered himself inferior.


Where did you get that Typhus was considered an illness of the racially inferior?
Mengele considered Noma to be an illness of the racially inferior.
From a documentary. Mengele considered typhus "the disease of the Jew" and he liquidated an entire camp of women when some of them caught typhus. But when he caught typhus, he didn't go to the gas chambers, instead he vaccined himself.


It helped Germany stay free of Jews.
Jews in Germany did no harm and it's a lie anyway because Jews in Auschwitz who collaborated with the Nazis were spared, like Dr. Miklos Nyszli, a Hungarian Jew. Moreover the Nazis were hypocrites because Hitler was 1/4 Jewish and Mengele's wife was also 1/4 Jewish.


Mengele's research on Noma is still used today, and gave precious data as to what may cause it.
Where did you get this idea from?

Fortis_in_Arduis
Saturday, August 23rd, 2008, 07:46 PM
They learned absolutely nothing new, their sole goal was achieving pleasure through sadism.

Hmm... Sounds a bit kinky! :D

Unfortunately this is not true. Their experiments did gain us knowledge, including the science required to send man to the moon.

You may have a point in as much as they separated science from morality and perhaps put science first. I do not necessarily think that this was a good thing. I think that they were avant garde.

Technology advances and the masses take time to play catch up and claim back the rights and status they have lost through technological advance.

There is much to criticize in NS. For myself I dislike the technocracy, but the point you have made is invalid.

Nachtengel
Saturday, August 23rd, 2008, 07:50 PM
Your beloved doctors in Auschwitz did not save lives, they took lives.
They actually did, even Jewish lives. Many twins survived Auschwitz because of Mengele's research.


The Nazis were hypocrites. Hitler should have exterminated himself for having only one testicle and so being "unfit to live".
No, the one testicle story is propaganda and mockery.


Mengele should have exterminated himself for catching typhus, the disease of the "racially inferior".
Mengele never said typhus was a disease of the racially inferior.


The sad fact is that nothing that was done in Auschwitz helped human kind.
Yes it did and by the way, on Noma:


The disease and treatments were studied by Berthold Epstein, a Czech inmate physician directed to do so by Josef Mengele.

The progression of the disease can be halted with the use of antibiotics and improved nutrition; however, its physical effects are permanent and may require reconstructive plastic surgery to repair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noma_(disease)


These nazi "scientists" were mediocre at most.
No they weren't they had degrees from universities and they studied and learned hard to get where they were. And mediocres don't get Iron Crosses, by the way.


their sole goal was achieving pleasure through sadism.
Then maybe you could explain why some of them had to drink and take vacationing time away from the camp. People don't take pleasure in seeing/smelling dead bodies and being surrounded by diseases and dirty prisoners. Conditions in Auschwitz were bad and nobody liked it there, they were people performing duties which they had to perform.

DanseMacabre
Saturday, August 23rd, 2008, 08:35 PM
Have you ever even read anything about genetics, aside from diatribes about creating a superior race?

Indeed, I have.


You could have recessive genetic traits that are not expressed, you could be a carrier. Should we eliminate you? You could have the potential to give birth to an army of retards.

If this hypothetical situation ever arose the child would not be born and I would never father another child. Let alone an army of "retards" as you so eloquently put it. One doesn't have to breed to benefit their race. Sometimes it is just as necessary not to have children.



A women who is 25 has a 1 in 1000 chance of giving birth to a child with down syndrome. A 40 year old woman has a 1 in 30 chance. The longer you wait to have kids the more likely they will be retarded.

And? I believe women should start families when they are young. A child needs a young vigerous mother and father.

SubGnostic
Sunday, August 24th, 2008, 01:48 AM
The world belongs to the strong and healthy, not the weak and sick. There shouldn't be state funding for people with disabilities and things like Down Syndrome. We should be spending more funds on finding cures for diseases which have a chance to be reversed altogether, not prolonging the lives of those suffering from diseases that can't be treated.

I thought I'd chime in. Indeed, medicine itself as a scientific discipline in the modern age has become a dysgenic mechanism, as illnesses having hereditary basis are made less of a burden (thus increasing the reproductive success of afflicted):


...Dysgenic trends consist of medical advances that have preserved the lives of those with these disorders, enabling them to have children to whom thay may transmit the deleterious genes. This trend increases the prevalence of the genes in the population. These dysgenic medical advancements are of three principal types: surgical treatments, pharmacological treatments, and improved treatments of critically ill newborns.
The first major dysgenic surgical treatment was developed in 1912 and consisted of an operation to correct congenital pyloric stenosis, a genetic defect in the functioning of the stomach. The next major surgical treatment was developed for retinoblastoma, a congenital eye cancer, consisting of cutting out the affected eyes. Later in the twentieth century a number of genetic disorders became surgically treatable by organ transplants, including those of the cornea, kidneys, liver, pancreas, heart, and lungs.
The development pf pharmacological treatments has also contributed to dysgenics. For instance, the development of insulin in the 1920s made it possible to treat insulin-dependent diabetes, and the development of antibiotics in the mid-twentieth century made it possible to treat cystic fibrosis and other illnesses with some genetic component.
From around 1970, medicine became increasingly successful in the treatment of critically ill newborn babies. Most of these babies are either premature, born between 22 and 25 weeks gestation, with very low birth weights, or else they have congenital disabilities that previously would have been fatal. Many of these babies can now be kept alive by intensive care, but their prognosis is often poor. They are likely either to die in childhood or, if they survive, to have various impairments and a poor quality of life. In the economically developed nations, about 6 percent of newborns are so critically ill that they fall into this category.
--From "Eugenics - A Reassessment" by Richard Lynn

I've thought of modern advances in medical treatment as that of putting a cup under a spot in the ceiling where it's dripping water. New holes - new cups, maybe an occasional pot. But what would be in place would be to patch the roof.

Jäger
Sunday, August 24th, 2008, 09:34 AM
He exterminated himself because he wanted to do it before the Allies caught him, not because he considered himself inferior.
A mind reader you are, even those minds of the dead, impressive.


From a documentary.
Which one? It is wrong.


Moreover the Nazis were hypocrites because Hitler was 1/4 Jewish and Mengele's wife was also 1/4 Jewish.
No, Hitler was fully Jewish, as was the whole NS leadership! :rolleyes:


Where did you get this idea from?
From my university.
E.g. one of the reasons for Noma, seems to be malnutrition, something no one ever tested, if it was true, before Mengele :)

BeornWulfWer
Sunday, August 24th, 2008, 02:51 PM
The world belongs to the strong and healthy, not the weak and sick. There shouldn't be state funding for people with disabilities and things like Down Syndrome. We should be spending more funds on finding cures for diseases which have a chance to be reversed altogether, not prolonging the lives of those suffering from diseases that can't be treated.

The world belongs to those who want to live.

I was born with Asthma. I died several times through having severe Asthma attacks. My Mothers arms were full of what she thought was 'a goner'

Should I have been tossed into the Spartans abyss?

I was born with an extreme propensity for acts of violence and depression.
From an early age I have had to suffer intolerable fuckwits with Phd's thinking they knew my head and my reasons for being full of anger.

Should I be locked away for the probable time I decide to act upon my primal urges?

As I grew older, I became addicted to drugs and Alcohol. It broke up my relationships with my close family and destroyed all who knew me.
As with a current situation I am in; I am again turning to alcohol and drugs to fill that big black hole that can't be filled.

Should I be sectioned as a 'Lebensunwertes Leben?'



They say that you should judge a society on how they treat their animals.
I think it should be said "judge a society upon how they treat their old and sickly"

Be honoured that you live in a world today where you don't have to leave your old and sick behind to be attacked by the Bears and the Wolves.
For one day it may be you who is old and sickly.

Jäger
Monday, August 25th, 2008, 05:59 PM
The world belongs to those who want to live.
Sounds like a shallow phrase. Those who do not want to live, certainly are not long enough on this world to lay any claim.


I was born with Asthma. I died several times through having severe Asthma attacks. My Mothers arms were full of what she thought was 'a goner'

Should I have been tossed into the Spartans abyss?
This is a decisions your parents would have to make, they shouldn't expect any help from the state to prolong the life of the ill and the weak, though.


I was born with an extreme propensity for acts of violence and depression.
From an early age I have had to suffer intolerable fuckwits with Phd's thinking they knew my head and my reasons for being full of anger.

Should I be locked away for the probable time I decide to act upon my primal urges?
Well, I am very skeptical when it comes to "behavioral disorders", it is simply personality, which is bad or good, depending on the circumstances (incl. genetic ones), I mean it is not the fault of the asshole to be an asshole, and still I don't have to invent illnesses for assholes to justify them or anything.
However, generally speaking, people who can't control their primal urges are of the lower kind, and putting them away might be a good idea.
Now when you say you decided to act on your primal urges, then this sounds paradox to my ears.


As I grew older, I became addicted to drugs and Alcohol. It broke up my relationships with my close family and destroyed all who knew me.
As with a current situation I am in; I am again turning to alcohol and drugs to fill that big black hole that can't be filled.

Should I be sectioned as a 'Lebensunwertes Leben?'
So it would have been better for the nation, the community and your family if you did indeed fall into the spartan abyss, and your parents would have tried again with a healthy child.

Anyways, at least I wouldn't give you a license to marry and thus to have children of your own.


They say that you should judge a society on how they treat their animals.
I think it should be said "judge a society upon how they treat their old and sickly"
This holds some truth, it should indeed be a goal of the socialized medicine to let people die peacefully and quick, I said that already twice, but it can't be repeated often enough.


Be honoured that you live in a world today where you don't have to leave your old and sick behind to be attacked by the Bears and the Wolves.
For one day it may be you who is old and sickly.
If I am old and sickly, I would want to die, what life would it be to be a breathing vegetable?
Anyways, the truth does not depend on the personal situation.

BeornWulfWer
Monday, August 25th, 2008, 06:35 PM
Sounds like a shallow phrase. Those who do not want to live, certainly are not long enough on this world to lay any claim.

It isn't shallow. It is, if anything, the truth. I want to live; therefore I have a claim to being on this Earth.

If someone didn't want to live then I would happily recommend that person killed themselves. If they cannot go through with that then they will receive the care and attention of the community to see the error of their ways, rebalance the chemical imbalance afflicting their mind and be given a sense of love, worth and purpose.



This is a decisions your parents would have to make, they shouldn't expect any help from the state to prolong the life of the ill and the weak, though.

It is not the choice of my parents. They are my guardians. If they want to cede their right to be my guardian then so be it but, they didn't. They kept me and nurtured me through to adulthood. They witnessed my Asthma disappearing and me becoming a vibrant and active member of my generation.

I was the top fastest kid in my year. The only person able to beat me was a Scot with flame red hair. (bastard:D)
I was fit and able to join the Army at 17, but was failed on my admittance to having smoked cannabis.
I then get even more fitter and applied for the Marines. They were ready to accept me till I then failed the medical. My history showed asthma and they decided not to risk it.
Their mistake as I still don't have any asthma throwbacks. I'm 28. That would have been 10 years of service. Ah well.

I tried one last time, but was told it was noted I had asthma. "Sorry son"

But I was not the weak child that could've been tossed into the Spartans pit. I became strong. I became active and healthy.
There are many, many cases of these same scenarios.

You cannot discard a life by judging the weak child which enters this world.



Well, I am very skeptical when it comes to "behavioral disorders", it is simply personality, which is bad or good, depending on the circumstances (incl. genetic ones), I mean it is not the fault of the asshole to be an asshole, and still I don't have to invent illnesses for assholes to justify them or anything.
However, generally speaking, people who can't control their primal urges are of the lower kind, and putting them away might be a good idea.
Now when you say you decided to act on your primal urges, then this sounds paradox to my ears.

Your opinion.



Anyways, at least I wouldn't give you a license to marry and thus to have children of your own.

I wouldn't require a license to marry. I'm sure I would just procreate and rear healthy children to just simply annoy the status quo.

I'm all for authority controlling most of my life, but I will not bow to anyone deciding if and when I can marry.
If I choose to marry I ask no one but the woman I love. If I decide to dress her in an outfit fit for a princess and place my hand into hers and vow to be with her for eternity, then no stuffy bureaucrat can say otherwise.

Love, however ill fitting and repulsive it may be at times, is free and uncontrollable.



If I am old and sickly, I would want to die, what life would it be to be a breathing vegetable?


I would want you to live.

You can teach the next generations your wisdom and your experiences.
You can regale them with your loves, hopes and dreams. You would have so much to give and so little to take from the younger generation.

If you were that uncomfortable in life and couldn't face the pain and wanted to die, then I am sure we could arrange for your freedom to end it all.

Jäger
Monday, August 25th, 2008, 08:04 PM
It isn't shallow. It is, if anything, the truth.
It is truth, a tautology, that's why it is a shallow phrase, even if it is a true one.


If they cannot go through with that [suicide] then they will receive the care and attention of the community to see the error of their ways, rebalance the chemical imbalance afflicting their mind and be given a sense of love, worth and purpose.
If they have the will, but can't do it, it lacks courage, cowards.


It is not the choice of my parents.
I know, but it should be.


I was the top fastest kid in my year.
Nice.


I tried one last time, but was told it was noted I had asthma. "Sorry son"
Too risky.


But I was not the weak child that could've been tossed into the Spartans pit.
Then who would do that?


There are many, many cases of these same scenarios.
I don't know any.


You cannot discard a life by judging the weak child which enters this world.
I can.


Your opinion.
That people who cannot control their primal urges are of the low kind?
That's what puts us above all other animals, reason.


I wouldn't require a license to marry.
You would.


I'm sure I would just procreate and rear healthy children to just simply annoy the status quo.
Then you just have to keep it a secret, or face the consequences.


I'm all for authority controlling most of my life, but I will not bow to anyone deciding if and when I can marry.
This is of course just a mind experiment, however, you couldn't do much against it.


Love, however ill fitting and repulsive it may be at times, is free and uncontrollable.
We are back at controlling primal urges I see :D


I would want you to live.

You can teach the next generations your wisdom and your experiences.
You can regale them with your loves, hopes and dreams. You would have so much to give and so little to take from the younger generation.
There are surely things the elderly can do, and this is why they get taken care of by the community.
However when you said "sickly", this implied to me a state of vegetation (at least the German equivalent "siechen", is very clear in this regard).
And when it comes to a state where you are totally dependent on others, this is something no free man could endure.


If you were that uncomfortable in life and couldn't face the pain and wanted to die, then I am sure we could arrange for your freedom to end it all.
That's what I said. :)

BeornWulfWer
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008, 12:06 AM
I think this argument could go on for eternity and end up with one of us dwelling beneath a bridge.

But, out of my own interest I would like to give a scenario to you.

You and your partner procreate.
9 months later (give or take) you are blessed with the arrival of your Daughter. Weighing in at 6lbs 7ounces. She is perfect. Her little fingers are so delicate and look like they would break even if you were to just touch them with your warm lips. Lying there on her Mothers breast, you can see her looking tentatively around at the new sensations she is experiencing. Bright lights. Blurred figures. Loud noises.
You take the first ever picture of your baby girl.

*Flash* 4666

Doesn't she look beautiful! Lying there all helpless and vulnerable. Her whole life ahead of her; with you as her guardian. You as her rock at times of trouble. Together till the day she leaves to rear her own family. And even then she will still come back to you and your arms.

In the hospital you are daydreaming about her first smile,her first cruise around the room; her first steps on her two feet; her first words; her first birthday. You even think of the excitement she will have at the arrival of her little sibling in years to come.

4667
4668
4670
4669

But wait! What is this? The Nurse has just come over to you and whispered gently and hurriedly within your year that there is something wrong.

"What can be wrong?" you say out loud. You rush over to where the nurse has hurriedly scurried over too.
She points at the screen and there in black and white is a the words '
Tay-Sachs Disease'.

Your heart falls below your stomach line. You know what will be happening now. The Doctor comes through the door. Goes up to your wife holding your delicate little baby girl. Your Daughter, and calmly says "Your baby is a defect. You must hand her to me for destruction"

-------------


I can only guess the one sound that would be heard in that room. I wish to never hear it. And I wish for not one soul on this Earth to ever have to hear it.

That sound would be the sound of a Mother screaming in agony as her baby is taken from her arms all in the name of perfection.

You watch as your precious daughter is carried past you. You take one last look at those beautiful eyes and those delicate little fingers that look as if they would break at the slightest touch of your lips.

And you do nothing.

Or would you?

SwordOfTheVistula
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008, 06:06 AM
On the other hand, whenever one child is disabled, the parents (and usually the rest of the family) spend all their time, energy, and resources taking care of the retard.

It's the same problem as with socialist medical systems in general: if you have a society which devotes enormous resources towards those at the bottom of the natural order, society will deteriorate over time because those at the middle and top of the natural order are being deprived of these resources.

BeornWulfWer
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008, 03:50 PM
If you have a society which devotes enormous resources towards those at the bottom of the natural order, society will deteriorate over time because those at the middle and top of the natural order are being deprived of these resources.

But if you strike a good balance which we do......

Societies do not overly suffer through accommodating their 'weaker' members of society. If anything, it makes them stronger.


The Greeks and Romans, as well many other European societies, did very little to accommodate the elderly or infirm, choosing to kill them as the ultimate cure for their ailments. Hospitals were unheard of in common history, save for the medic’s tent in the battlefield, until about AD 399 when a hospice was set up for the sick and needy by St. Fabiola near Rome.

However, the Irish had hospitals by the time Christianity came to Ireland. Legend tells of Queen Macha Mong Rhuadh who set up a hospital called Broin Bherg (House of Sorrows) in Emain Macha in BC 377, which remained in operation until it was destroyed in AD 22.

The Brehon Laws stated that a hospital was to be available in all tribal localities. It was to have four doors and be placed near a stream of running water and be maintained by the local assembly of people, free of taxation. Caretakers were hired to keep away stray dogs and to ensure that the patients were not disturbed by anyone who could cause any problems (including nagging women!).

The Laws also detailed provisions for sick maintenance in the way of costs and who was to pay for it. There was even a form of workers’ compensation in the form of the Law of Torts, which stated that “Full sick maintenance [must be paid] to a worker injured for the sake of unnecessary profit…”

Strict rules were also applied to practitioners of medicine, which are similar to the laws regarding physicians and medical professionals today. A physician was liable for any exacerbation of the patient’s condition under his care and could essentially be “sued for malpractice”. Physicians were even allowed to take occasional sabbaticals to upgrade their knowledge.

This alone tells us that the Celts had very strong values when it came to human life and life in general. The sick were treated with due care and strict laws were in place to ensure that care was optimal.

The Celts also had very strong values when it came to personal responsibility. Offences against the person carried consequence and required compensation. The compensation was calculated through a very complex classification of a person’s rank in society.

Jäger
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008, 05:54 PM
And you do nothing.

Or would you?
I would try to calm my wife down, although I doubt her reaction would be that tragic you make it to be.
I certainly don't need a chronically idiotic girl as a daughter.
Family is an investment, and using up all my resources to foster a retard with little to no chance to carry my family into the future is a waste of time, and pretty much idiotic, and so far, I don't think I have Tay-Sachs.


Societies do not overly suffer through accommodating their 'weaker' members of society. If anything, it makes them stronger.
It is true that retards and cripples are "affordable" (something which is not really provable, who knows what else we could do with this money, let's say we give all the money for the thousands of retards to one genius, and he makes an invention that is beyond price for our culture and future), but how does it make us stronger?

BeornWulfWer
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008, 06:01 PM
I would try to calm my wife down, although I doubt her reaction would be that tragic you make it to be.

Then I wish you and your wife the very, very best of luck in procreating healthy children.



let's say we give all the money for the thousands of retards to one genius, and he makes an invention that is beyond price for our culture and future

What would the invention be?

I already have a toaster that wakes me up in the morning, and personally scientists attempting to recreate the Big Bang scares me.

It would have to be a really beneficial invention that could change my perception on life and the way I conduct my life to warrant the price of a thousand retards.



but how does it make us stronger?


Define "stronger"

To me strength begins with the person wielding the strength.

Will that person conduct himself correctly for the greater, or for the lesser?

Nachtengel
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008, 06:24 PM
The world belongs to those who want to live.
No, wanting to live is not enough.


I was born with Asthma. I died several times through having severe Asthma attacks. My Mothers arms were full of what she thought was 'a goner'

Should I have been tossed into the Spartans abyss?
In Sparta you would most certainly have been tossed in an abyss. Today is different, the point is the state shouldn't have to pay you for being sick.


I was born with an extreme propensity for acts of violence and depression.
From an early age I have had to suffer intolerable fuckwits with Phd's thinking they knew my head and my reasons for being full of anger.

Should I be locked away for the probable time I decide to act upon my primal urges?
Yes, in my opinion people with propensity to violence should be locked away because they are a threat and liability to the rest of society. Acting upon primal urges isn't good. Imagine if someone does it to his wife or daughter. How much should the healthy and normal suffer to foster the sick and mentally damaged? Those who can't control themself should be controlled by someone else.


As I grew older, I became addicted to drugs and Alcohol. It broke up my relationships with my close family and destroyed all who knew me.
As with a current situation I am in; I am again turning to alcohol and drugs to fill that big black hole that can't be filled.

Should I be sectioned as a 'Lebensunwertes Leben?'
Alcohol and drug abuse is not a disease, it's a vice which can be cured, but I guess it depends on the character and personality and history of the person who is abusing them, if it's just a teenage phase it can go away, if it's a person with predisposition to violence and antecedents then it would be better to keep him locked away in a sanatorium.


They say that you should judge a society on how they treat their animals.
I think it should be said "judge a society upon how they treat their old and sickly"
The difference is that animals give something back in return for the care you give them. The dog watches the home, the hen lays you eggs, the cow gives you milk. What do the sick give you? Nothing. They only take. They are a burden, an inconvenience. If I judge society this way, then society is sick too, and very very weak.


Be honoured that you live in a world today where you don't have to leave your old and sick behind to be attacked by the Bears and the Wolves.
For one day it may be you who is old and sickly.
I feel no honour in being part of a world that advantages the retarded.

BeornWulfWer
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008, 07:39 PM
No, wanting to live is not enough.

What, in your eyes, is enough to warrant an existence?



In Sparta you would most certainly have been tossed in an abyss. Today is different, the point is the state shouldn't have to pay you for being sick.

It is very different. Thank goodness. The state shouldn't have to pay for anything. Why should it pay for you if you don't think it can't pay for others you deem unworthy?

My Father paid his taxes and contributed towards the state and his reward is free healthcare for him and his family.
That world class health care tended to my needs and created the person writing this very post.
I have two lovely children. I perhaps shouldn't mention that one is asthmatic, with poor eyesight and a speech impediment. (oops), but they are fine and healthy little mites.

God bless them.




Yes, in my opinion people with propensity to violence should be locked away because they are a threat and liability to the rest of society. Acting upon primal urges isn't good. Imagine if someone does it to his wife or daughter. How much should the healthy and normal suffer to foster the sick and mentally damaged? Those who can't control themself should be controlled by someone else.

How would you control them? Every person in this world has the ability of committing acts of violence. Should we do away with the world?



Alcohol and drug abuse is not a disease, it's a vice which can be cured, but I guess it depends on the character and personality and history of the person who is abusing them, if it's just a teenage phase it can go away......

Agreed!


....if it's a person with predisposition to violence and antecedents then it would be better to keep him locked away in a sanatorium.

And have them drain financial resources? Best kill them!



The difference is that animals give something back in return for the care you give them. The dog watches the home, the hen lays you eggs, the cow gives you milk. What do the sick give you? Nothing.

Love? Comfort? Attention? Laughter? Joy?





I feel no honour in being part of a world that advantages the retarded.

It doesn't give advantages anymore to 'retards' then it does to you or I.
This sense of honour you have is not honour; It is a lack of moral fortitude.


If my child has Down syndrome it wouldn't be born, I would make tests on my pregnancy and abort such a fetus because I want healthy children.


I meant to ask you about this, Todesengel.

I assume by the word "tests" that you were referring to Amniocentesis?
Both times my partner has been pregnant, and both times we have firmly refused the test.

Why?

Although it is a test to ascertain whether your baby will come out a 'retard', its results are very low in actually being correct and hold a very slim chance (1%) of killing your baby.

You then have the possibility of giving your healthy baby club foot.

In your quest for perfection you will expose your child to dangers. The test may not be exact in its results. The results may come back your baby is retarded when in fact it could be healthy, and vice versa.

So, say you don't have your test done and rely upon your exemplary medical history and it comes out deformed or sickly and not productive to the state.

What would you do?

Nachtengel
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008, 07:48 PM
What, in your eyes, is enough to warrant an existence?
Being of some use to society. Otherwise you exist as a burden on someon'e back and the someone shouldn't be forced to support your existence.


It is very different. Thank goodness. The state shouldn't have to pay for anything. Why should it pay for you if you don't think it can't pay for others you deem unworthy?It pays me for my work. The retarded get paid for nothing. Being retarded isn't a job.


My Father paid his taxes and contributed towards the state and his reward is free healthcare for him and his family.


That world class health care tended to my needs and created the person writing this very post.
I have two lovely children. I perhaps shouldn't mention that one is asthmatic, with poor eyesight and a speech impediment. (oops), but they are fine and healthy little mites.

God bless them."God" didn't bless them since they are sick.


How would you control them? Every person in this world has the ability of committing acts of violence. Should we do away with the world?Sure everyone has the ability but it's a matter on whether they can control that ability or not. I have the ability to stop a person on the street and kick her in the face but I don't do it.


And have them drain financial resources? Best kill them!If they can be cured it's an investment, if they don't they could be used for other purposes like labour.


Love? Comfort? Attention? Laughter? Joy?Emotions don't feed the masses. Keeping millions of retarded children smothered by the state costs. Some retarded children don't feel "love" anyway, they can't even distinguish who their parents are. And the love is equaled or outpassed by suffering. A mother of a retarded child will suffer a lot because the child suffers, because the child will be ridiculised and not have a normal life.


It doesn't give advantages anymore to 'retards' then it does to you or I.
This sense of honour you have is not honour; It is a lack of moral fortitude.It does, otherwise why do the ill get state pensions simply for being ill?


I meant to ask you about this, Todesengel.

I assume by the word "tests" that you were referring to Amniocentesis?
Both times my partner has been pregnant, and both times we have firmly refused the test.

Why?

Although it is a test to ascertain whether your baby will come out a 'retard', its results are very low in actually being correct and hold a very slim chance (1%) of killing your baby.

You then have the possibility of giving your healthy baby club foot.

In your quest for perfection you will expose your child to dangers. The test may not be exact in its results. The results may come back your baby is retarded when in fact it could be healthy, and vice versa.

So, say you don't have your test done and rely upon your exemplary medical history and it comes out deformed or sickly and not productive to the state.

What would you do?
If I lived in a society where euthanasia is legal, I would demand euthanasia for the child. Otherwise, I'd give it away for adoption or give it to a church or something. I have no intention to raise a cripple.

If the test showed anything wrong with the baby needless to say I'd have an abortion, even if it could be an error. It's better to be safe than sorry.

If I had any bad medical history, I just wouldn't reproduce by the way. The best way to weed out bad genes.

DanseMacabre
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008, 08:51 PM
I think alot of people are guided by their emotions and not logic and reason when it comes to the discussion of Eugenics. Thus the "what if you have a retarded baby..." posts. Healthy, intelligent, and physically attractive people are more desirable than sickly, unintelligent, and deformed people. I believe this is both logical and rational.

We should always seek to improve our race. Allowing inferior humans to suck resources that could be better used on superior humans doesn't improve our race. So I believe it must be rejected.

Jäger
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008, 09:02 PM
Then I wish you and your wife the very, very best of luck in procreating healthy children.
Yes, because that was just hypothetical, and there is no doctor helping me taking care of this.


What would the invention be?
If I knew, I would invent it :D


It would have to be a really beneficial invention that could change my perception on life and the way I conduct my life to warrant the price of a thousand retards.
Just more beneficial than a thousands retards, that is actually not that much of an requirement. ;)


Define "stronger"
You brought it up, but ultimately strength means will and courage.


To me strength begins with the person wielding the strength.

]Will that person conduct himself correctly for the greater, or for the lesser?
:confused: So a strong person doing "bad" is not strong, a strong person doing "good" is strong?
You don't have to reinvent the word strength here.

skyhawk
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008, 09:08 PM
The NSists here sound like those nutcases who have been carrying out eugenics in dogs for years.

We now have breeds like the King Charles Spaniels who's brains are too big for their skulls..............bravo

It's not a totalitarian ideology but you have to have permission to breed. ;)

If we stopped all the people who have some sort of genetic vulnerability to disease from having children there would be nobody left. :rolleyes:

DanseMacabre
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008, 09:42 PM
If we stopped all the people who have some sort of genetic vulnerability to disease from having children there would be nobody left. :rolleyes:

Nonesense. It has been done for thousands of years. And clearly there were enough people left to have children or we wouldn't be here. Of course the ancients had a healthier worldview than we do in modern times.

BeornWulfWer
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008, 10:12 PM
It pays me for my work. The retarded get paid for nothing. Being retarded isn't a job.

At what strength of retardation would you deem unable to work?
There are an innumerable amount who do work and benefit society to your satisfaction.
The reason, I feel, that more are not working is pure and simple embarrassment and hassle they would face in the work place.


"God" didn't bless them since they are sick.

She has asthma(mild), poor eyesight through only having a slight case of Brown's syndrome(again, mild that is corrective); and a speech impediment which speech therapists say will be gone within a few years.

Hardly sick!


Sure everyone has the ability but it's a matter on whether they can control that ability or not. I have the ability to stop a person on the street and kick her in the face but I don't do it.

Nor does the rest of the world. When they do submit to that urge, they will be sent to prison. A fact of life the crime occurred. A fact of life they will be punished.



Emotions don't feed the masses.

But the masses emotions certainly feed the medical trade.

I wonder how much money is written out in cheques to psychiatrists and other professionals by the millions of patients?



If I lived in a society where euthanasia is legal, I would demand euthanasia for the child. Otherwise, I'd give it away for adoption or give it to a church or something. I have no intention to raise a cripple.
If the test showed anything wrong with the baby needless to say I'd have an abortion, even if it could be an error. It's better to be safe than sorry.

Just a question.

Do you have children, or have ever had a child?

skyhawk
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008, 10:16 PM
Nonesense. It has been done for thousands of years. And clearly there were enough people left to have children or we wouldn't be here. Of course the ancients had a healthier worldview than we do in modern times.

So has everyone been doing this " for thousands of years ? "

If they have it hasn't worked has it ?

BeornWulfWer
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008, 10:21 PM
I think alot of people are guided by their emotions and not logic and reason when it comes to the discussion of Eugenics. Thus the "what if you have a retarded baby..." posts. Healthy, intelligent, and physically attractive people are more desirable than sickly, unintelligent, and deformed people. I believe this is both logical and rational.


It isn't emotionally driven. It is a perspective which can hold its head up to the very highest scrutiny of moral fortitude.

I personally can't see why someone's looks could shape my perception of their usefulness towards society! Neither could I see why intelligence would be of the utmost importance through contributing to society!

The lowest jobs still have to be done and I can't really see intelligent, Penelope Cruz type citizens cleaning toilets or washing soiled linen.

Could you?

By the way, do you have a child, or have ever fathered child in your lifetime, DanseMacabre?


:confused: So a strong person doing "bad" is not strong, a strong person doing "good" is strong?
You don't have to reinvent the word strength here.

I am not reinventing the word. My apologies for confusing the matter, but what I meant by strength would be the strength to carry on with life and protect those that need your strength regardless of how much you may feel they 'drag you down.'

I have always thought a man is one who does what is required even if the process is hard and beyond him.

To be a man you need the strength I described.

Out of interest, Jäger; are you a Father or ever had a child?

skyhawk
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008, 10:22 PM
On the other hand, whenever one child is disabled, the parents (and usually the rest of the family) spend all their time, energy, and resources taking care of the retard.

And that is their choice so you should respect that.

BTW how many children do you ( or the other vocalists here ) have ?

Nachtengel
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008, 10:40 PM
At what strength of retardation would you deem unable to work?
There are an innumerable amount who do work and benefit society to your satisfaction.
The reason, I feel, that more are not working is pure and simple embarrassment and hassle they would face in the work place.
Then they are selfish.


She has asthma(mild), poor eyesight through only having a slight case of Brown's syndrome(again, mild that is corrective); and a speech impediment which speech therapists say will be gone within a few years.

Hardly sick!
Hardly healthy. I wouldn't consider myself blessed if I had a child like that. The child will be ridiculed later and suffer because of these defects. No suffering is better than suffering.


Nor does the rest of the world. When they do submit to that urge, they will be sent to prison. A fact of life the crime occurred. A fact of life they will be punished.
You mentioned a propensity, not an ability. Two different things. It's better to prevent crime than to let it happen. People who have a propensity to act based on their primary urges are a threat, like a ticking bomb. I don't want to imagine how it would be if I had such a man near me or near my child. I'd close the door on him immediately than wait to get harmed.


But the masses emotions certainly feed the medical trade.

I wonder how much money is written out in cheques to psychiatrists and other professionals by the millions of patients?
Yes, and?



Just a question.

Do you have children, or have ever had a child?
How is my personal life of any concern to you? But yes, I have a son. How is it relavant? Does having children make someone a better authority to speak on the subject?

BeornWulfWer
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008, 10:45 PM
How is my personal life of any concern to you? But yes, I have a son. How is it relavant? Does having children make someone a better authority to speak on the subject?

It was just a curiosity that I was eager to hear.

I wish your son the very best. Here's to his constant health.

:betm1301:

skyhawk
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008, 10:55 PM
How is my personal life of any concern to you?

Likewise how is anyone elses personal life, the choices they make , any concern to you ?

Evolved
Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 03:50 AM
Severe deformities of the body, intellect, or mental state are rare anomalies which will always exist in human populations regardless of any eugenics measures taken against them. Are these people a drain on the system? Just as an example, in 1988 in Australia (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyReleaseDate/1618215DB8A5C6ABCA25692D0083019D?OpenDoc ument) around 4% of the total population was considered "severely disabled" and the vast majority of these were elderly people afflicted by the problems of old age. The notion that the hereditarily ill are propagating in out of control numbers and are a huge drain on public resources is a myth straight out of some 1930's propaganda film. Think of any normal public high school, you'll have 1500 students and around 15 of these will be deaf/blind/severely retarded/Down Syndrome students and perhaps 20 mildly retarded/learning disabled.

As for stopping them from breeding, very few of the severely hereditarily handicapped manage to breed anyway, so sterilizing or euthanizing them would be a waste of medical resources. Healthy people have unhealthy offspring all the time, we all carry the genetic possibility of abnormalities like it or not. People who call for the complete culling of the retards and mutants don't seem to understand this simple fact of nature. Even if you get rid of them, you will still see them pop up every now and then in the next generation. There is no cure-all for these genetic disorders. The existence of such people is important actually for understanding evolution & human development, so they are far from "useless." You gain a greater understanding of what is normal by examining what is abnormal.

A program of encouraging healthy, intelligent couples to have more children & unhealthy, unintelligent couples to have fewer (or ideally, none) is a step in the right direction and all that is needed for 'race betterment.' A much bigger eugenic problem involves lowering standards in education to meet the needs of the less intelligent (no child left behind = every child left behind), when the logical thing to do is refuse to educate the irreversibly stupid (anyone with an IQ lower than, say, 85) beyond a certain point (6th grade or so) instead of filling them up with false hopes of greatness they will never achieve.

Thrymheim
Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 04:25 AM
I think the point that some people seem to be missing is that there is a huge difference between not helping someone and hindering them. In my ideal world it would depend on the child's ability to survive. ie if it was born with no legs but was otherwise healthy thats fine, when the child grew up a suitable job would be found depending on it's skills, obviously this might require some help from an able bodies person but that would be minimal, the adult would have to live without constant care.
I believe that some disabilities like downs come with increased risks of death from relatively minor illnesses etc, I would then let these illnesses take their toll as a badly retarded child removes the parents from the productive population and requires several other people to look after it as well effectively wasting their time too.

The elderly and those who have had accidents are a different matter. The elderly should have provided for themselves, be this by saving or by having children to provide for them. People who have had accidents can be further split into those who were in the service of their folk when it happened (Army Fire service etc) who should be supported by the state, those whose disability is through no fault of their own (train crash victims lightning etc) who would be found employment in a suitable position or allowed to die if they were very bad. And those that brought it on themselves (idiot drivers, skydivers etc) who would receive no help and would need to rely on their own resources

I would also have marriage and child licences

Jäger
Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 06:13 PM
It's not a totalitarian ideology but you have to have permission to breed. ;)
How totalitarian NS is depends on the leader, and on necessity.


If we stopped all the people who have some sort of genetic vulnerability to disease from having children there would be nobody left. :rolleyes:
That is not necessary, and would be indeed counterproductive.
However, certain genetic vulnerabilities should still be stopped :)


My apologies for confusing the matter, but what I meant by strength would be the strength to carry on with life and protect those that need your strength regardless of how much you may feel they 'drag you down.'
The word you are looking for is "humanism".


I have always thought a man is one who does what is required even if the process is hard and beyond him.
If it is beyond him, he cannot do it, however, without the beyond thingy, I would agree, but we are talking about whether helping the unfit is "required".


Out of interest, Jäger; are you a Father or ever had a child?
I'd like to keep my personal life out of such discussions.


Likewise how is anyone elses personal life, the choices they make , any concern to you ?
Because we live with them, you need to differentiate between a discussion, which has its focus on a subject, where personal "arguments" must not distract from factual arguments. (if the person is not the subject of the discussion that is :D).
Such distractions are called ad hominems.


Are these people a drain on the system?
Yes.


The notion that the hereditarily ill are propagating in out of control numbers and are a huge drain on public resources is a myth straight out of some 1930's propaganda film.
Who noted that?


As for stopping them from breeding, very few of the severely hereditarily handicapped manage to breed anyway, so sterilizing or euthanizing them would be a waste of medical resources.
Why not waste them anyways? After all we wasted even more medical resources on keeping them alive.


Healthy people have unhealthy offspring all the time, we all carry the genetic possibility of abnormalities like it or not.
The goal is not to never ever get a retarded baby, but to take care of it in a advantageous manner.
It is not important how many idiots will be born, it is important how many of them will survive.


People who call for the complete culling of the retards and mutants don't seem to understand this simple fact of nature.
Nope, I understand very well.
A meteor aiming for earth might be also a simple fact of nature, however, I still would try to prevent being hit.


Even if you get rid of them, you will still see them pop up every now and then in the next generation.
Doesn't matter, if we can git rid of them easily.


The existence of such people is important actually for understanding evolution & human development, so they are far from "useless."
You mean letting some of them live as test animals?


A program of encouraging healthy, intelligent couples to have more children & unhealthy, unintelligent couples to have fewer (or ideally, none) is a step in the right direction and all that is needed for 'race betterment.'
I totally agree, one of the discouragements, which like you said should be ideally lead to no offspring, could be eugenics :)


A much bigger eugenic problem involves lowering standards in education to meet the needs of the less intelligent (no child left behind = every child left behind), when the logical thing to do is refuse to educate the irreversibly stupid (anyone with an IQ lower than, say, 85) beyond a certain point (6th grade or so) instead of filling them up with false hopes of greatness they will never achieve.
Very good point, we are talking about the exact same thing when it comes to retards here.
It is more than just an eugenic thing, it is a philosophy of how to view the weak.
We do not tow them with us, just for humanistic reasons, we let the weak go down.
So I take you agree, that there shouldn't be medical help of the state for the retards?

skyhawk
Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 08:38 PM
How totalitarian NS is depends on the leader, and on necessity.

The leadership will tell you what the necessities are . Depending on how many people disagree will determine how totalitarian that leadership needs to be to enforce their will upon them :)



However, certain genetic vulnerabilities should still be stopped :)
In your opinion.
And who decides what is acceptable ?



I'd like to keep my personal life out of such discussions.

That's convenient. I will take a guess and say you are childless and thus have never personally experienced the bond between child and parent.



Because we live with them,

Well nobody is asking you to personally help with their welfare are they ?

If parents wish to devote themselves to their disabled children what business is it of yours Jager ?

Jäger
Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 09:12 PM
The leadership will tell you what the necessities are . Depending on how many people disagree will determine how totalitarian that leadership needs to be to enforce their will upon them :)
Yep :)


In your opinion.
And who decides what is acceptable ?
Intellect, and of course one should give the benefit of doubt in uncertain cases.


That's convenient. I will take a guess and say you are childless and thus have never personally experienced the bond between child and parent.
That's what I was talking about.
And yet, what is right stays right, and doesn't change because I get touchy with my feelings.
That is the way of the idiot, who argues with moral and the like, you know that ;)


Well nobody is asking you to personally help with their welfare are they ?
That was the topic of this discussion, more or less, until Oswiu split it.


If parents wish to devote themselves to their disabled children what business is it of yours Jager ?
None, they may do so, I would give them the right to dispose of it, more freedom so to say :)

BeornWulfWer
Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 09:19 PM
None, they may do so, I would give them the right to dispose of it, more freedom so to say :)

I can't help but think you do not have children when you refer to newborns, or humans in general, as 'it'

I could be corrected of course.

I don't think any sane and correct person would happily stand by and allow their child or loved one to be disposed of.

Jäger
Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 09:40 PM
I can't help but think you do not have children when you refer to newborns, or humans in general, as 'it'
I thought it to be the correct English grammar, it wasn't intentionally.
Did I mix that up with animals?


I don't think any sane and correct person would happily stand by and allow their child or loved one to be disposed of.
You are mistaken.

BeornWulfWer
Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 09:47 PM
I thought it to be the correct English grammar, it wasn't intentionally.
Did I mix that up with animals?

No. Your English is very good. Better than most of my fellow countrymen.

I'm not very good at describing the English language by its correct terms, but 'it' whilst in this sentence denoted a thing that was not worthy.

Apt I suppose.

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, August 28th, 2008, 08:02 AM
'It' is also used as a gender-neutral term for people. 'Him' used to be used as the gender-neutral term, but this was determined to be 'sexist' and thus 'offensive', so 'it' or 'them' are often used as a singular gender neutral term for a person instead. Can't win either way I guess :confused:

Nachtengel
Thursday, August 28th, 2008, 11:09 PM
Likewise how is anyone elses personal life, the choices they make , any concern to you ?
Because I pay from my pocket, the taxes for their "personal choices".

skyhawk
Thursday, August 28th, 2008, 11:40 PM
Because I pay from my pocket, the taxes for their "personal choices".

Likewise the parents of disabled children pay for yours too.

Live and let live.

You should be thankfull that your child is fit and well , not moaning about the misfortunes of others and thinking of your pocket all the time.


Yep :)


Seeing as National Socialism is about as popular as a fart in a space suit we should expect any national socialist leadership to be highly totalitarian then shouldn't we ?

Fortis_in_Arduis
Friday, August 29th, 2008, 02:02 PM
Forum eugenicists seem to focus on the lower end of the debate (exterminate spastics... la la la...)

Why is there so little focus given to the developing of eugenic social policies and the improving pre-natal health and so on? These are eugenic methods which do not involve the killing of human beings. Why the monologue about killing the weak?

Am I alone in thinking that there is more than just small element of primitive scapegoating in the thinking of those who are in favour of eugenics and euthenics?

Thrymheim
Friday, August 29th, 2008, 02:09 PM
you are correct FIA in the north midlands it has been shown that low birth weights due to poor maternal nutrition smoking during pregnancy etc, causes lowered IQ and height in offspring it also increases the chances of birth defects (non genetic) However as most of the women who have these babies are in the lower end of the social scale, maybe this is evolutions way of slowly removing them form the gene pool, or it would be if we didn't waste resources keeping them alive, fed and housed.
As to trying to get the more socially advantaged to have more children, that would be difficult. There is no financial incentive to do so and having too many can soon drop you down into the class I was just referring too, effectively through no fault of your own. I wonder if those on the dole have more children in part because they have nothing better to do?

Fortis_in_Arduis
Friday, August 29th, 2008, 02:25 PM
you are correct FIA in the north midlands it has been shown that low birth weights due to poor maternal nutrition smoking during pregnancy etc, causes lowered IQ and height in offspring it also increases the chances of birth defects (non genetic) However as most of the women who have these babies are in the lower end of the social scale, maybe this is evolutions way of slowly removing them form the gene pool, or it would be if we didn't waste resources keeping them alive, fed and housed.
As to trying to get the more socially advantaged to have more children, that would be difficult. There is no financial incentive to do so and having too many can soon drop you down into the class I was just referring too, effectively through no fault of your own. I wonder if those on the dole have more children in part because they have nothing better to do?

I think that in order to have success we want to create a system which mirrors nature. Capitalism and communism do not actually do that, and although some nationalist models are better, they are perhaps not much better.

I would like to see welfare and healthcare linked to the communities which use them.

In countries such as Bali, which are really quite poor, life is still beautiful because extended families look after each other.

What the forum Nazis fail to see is that people do not want to live in the thrall of a technocratic government which seeks to dominate or replace family life.

Jäger
Friday, August 29th, 2008, 05:17 PM
Seeing as National Socialism is about as popular as a fart in a space suit we should expect any national socialist leadership to be highly totalitarian then shouldn't we ?
Nope, because the masses change their support like a leaf in the wind, better put, the masses can be made to change to support anything :)

skyhawk
Friday, August 29th, 2008, 09:16 PM
Nope, because the masses change their support like a leaf in the wind, better put, the masses can be made to change to support anything :)

I agree that the majority of people can be swayed with propaganda , however , the stigmas ( which I believe are merited ) associated with National Socialism present a real problem and it would have to involve mass full frontal lobotomy for even the masses to support it.

Besides there has been a slow but steady movement against rule by hierarchal tyrranies , of which National Socialism would qualify imo , throughout the course of history.

I don't see too many signs of that changing which further removes the chance of any elitist ideology from enjoying genuine popular support.

The BNP is a good example , even most of their supporters would not support National Socialist policies and any talk of eugenics would be met with genuine horror by the majority.

You would have to resort to totalitarian tyrrany to control your own supporters let alone the opposition which even now , in the lapse of political culture amongst the masses , enjoys more support.

But if ya wish to stay in Dreamsville be my guest.............. just don't be sad in old age because it never happened :D

Evolved
Saturday, August 30th, 2008, 04:24 AM
You mean letting some of them live as test animals?

What I mean is studying rare disease & deformity has given new information about human development and this info can be applied to curing other more common diseases.


So I take you agree, that there shouldn't be medical help of the state for the retards?

If a couple brings an extreme case of retarded/deformed child into the world, it should be their responsibility alone to care for the child, because what they have done is selfish.

The future of eugenics will move away from euthanization or withholding treatment and more toward genetic testing and prevention. The state should pay for preventive care, such as genetic testing of people who cannot afford it.

Jäger
Saturday, August 30th, 2008, 08:03 AM
I agree that the majority of people can be swayed with propaganda , however , the stigmas ( which I believe are merited ) associated with National Socialism present a real problem and it would have to involve mass full frontal lobotomy for even the masses to support it.
It is a problem, but none that we couldn't solve, the trick is to sell it under a different name and reject any connections to NS; even if they are obvious :D


Besides there has been a slow but steady movement against rule by hierarchal tyrranies , of which National Socialism would qualify imo , throughout the course of history.
Oddly enough, this is true, but NS is no tyranny, it is a lordship. :)


I don't see too many signs of that changing which further removes the chance of any elitist ideology from enjoying genuine popular support.
See above, and see above.


The BNP is a good example, even most of their supporters would not support National Socialist policies and any talk of eugenics would be met with genuine horror by the majority.
You could have picked the Labour party as well, we are back at the propaganda thingy, of course, we don't tell the masses everything, silly, old rule of politics :)


You would have to resort to totalitarian tyrrany to control your own supporters
Nope, by your own logic, they would stop to support us. A paradox.


But if ya wish to stay in Dreamsville be my guest.............. just don't be sad in old age because it never happened :D
Do not worry about impossibilities.
The weak always want to convince the strong that something is impossible, so they have an excuse for their weakness (it wasn't because of us it was just because it is impossible, blahblah...).

"Obstacles do not exist to be surrendered to, but only to be broken." - A. Hitler


What I mean is studying rare disease & deformity has given new information about human development and this info can be applied to curing other more common diseases.
Do you have an example?
Maybe one could sell his retarded child to a medical institution.


If a couple brings an extreme case of retarded/deformed child into the world, it should be their responsibility alone to care for the child, because what they have done is selfish.
I agree.


The future of eugenics will move away from euthanization or withholding treatment and more toward genetic testing and prevention.
That's what I was saying. Allowing only healthy (where healthy should not be seen in a too narrow definition) couples to marry, and thus have legitimate children, is a form of prevention :)


The state should pay for preventive care, such as genetic testing of people who cannot afford it.
Yep, I agree.

Nachtengel
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 12:24 AM
Likewise the parents of disabled children pay for yours too.
My child doesn't receive state pension for being sick.


Live and let live.
I'm not a Christian, thanks.


You should be thankfull that your child is fit and well , not moaning about the misfortunes of others and thinking of your pocket all the time.
It wouldn't have been any other way. If my child was detected to have a disability it wouldn't have been born. It's unthoughtfulness to give birth to a retarded child.

Sigurd
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 02:12 AM
The world belongs to the strong and healthy, not the weak and sick. There shouldn't be state funding for people with disabilities and things like Down Syndrome. We should be spending more funds on finding cures for diseases which have a chance to be reversed altogether, not prolonging the lives of those suffering from diseases that can't be treated.

Nice to hear that I should be wiped off the face off the earth then, too. Having been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome I suffer from the same incurable, sometimes inheritable disease as the likes of Leonardo Da Vinci, Albert Einstein and W. A. Mozart ... the former two actually had it in conjunction with dyslexia, the latter likely in conjunction with Tourette's - two disorders I luckily do not suffer from. :thumbup

I've come to live with mine, it doesn't create major problems if you work at yourself. Sure, I still have trouble organising myself, and sure will I sometimes not get hints that others consider obvious: But at least for the later, I have a better deal of observation than most, just last Friday I flawlessly guessed a loosely acquainted woman's taste in men to the point. (And no, even though I knew that I was amongst it, I did not find out by kissing her, which I didn't - I instead just guessed her taste. Ethnic make-up wouldn't have been right for that anyway ... ;)) Sure I can seem inconsiderate then in some situations, but at the same time considerate in others ... that's life. Other than that, it's one of these supposed neurological disabilities that is easy to get "into order" because by the time most Asperger's patients reach about age 20, you've learnt how to use its advantages (such as good memory, special topics of interest etc.) to your benefit whilst knowing how to deal with the weaknesses.

It is even considered a 75/25 diagnosis with boys/girls, because it is really so little of a hindrance that chances are that it is really 50/50 but that it never shows with girls because they tend to be more socially adaptable and are expected to adapt more than boys are.

Or let's kill off all blind tenors (Pavarotti has already passed, but there's still Bocelli), or withdraw life support from Stephen Hawking. The youngest ski jumper to take a title at the Ski Flying World Championships, Gregor Schlierenzauer, is death on one ear. Or what about all these people who are missing a pair of legs but run faster and jump further than 95% of average people at the Paralympics that take place as we speak?

No, what you need is a measurement of "degree of disability". I am actually in favour of euthanasia in the case of disabilities, however I would apply a certain sense of discretion here.

Most people who are blind, deaf, immobile etc. will not suffer from that. They tend to come clear with that fate, and often will use that weakness to their advantage elsewhere. They can still lead a fairly normal life, and have often been known to make something of themselves. A physical order has never stopped anyone becoming a valuable member of the folk.

Mild neurological/mental disorders are also no issue. Often enough, people can be nutcases but at the same time be the most intelligent men alive. Prof. John Nash even had a film devoted to his schizophrenia, Rudolf Heß suffered from several paranoia, i'd go as far as including schizoid personality disorder in that. They still made it far. A slight (or sometimes less slight) mental disorder that does not overly inhibit living has never stopped anyone becoming a valuable member of the folk either.

Where euthanasia might be applied however is where one would clearly relieve the subject concerned. I would not see an issue in euthanising those who are so severely mentally handicapped, that no matter what, they will never be able to lead a near-normal life. That's not a question of the Folk's Health, that's a question of sparing that child a harsher fate - just like withdrawing a vegetable's life support is sparing them a harsher fate.

If you seriously believe that the old NS guard, if they did euthanise mentally handicapped persons, for the sake of "purging the weak", then you are clearly misinformed and are likely believing an old line of Allied propaganda which would seek to make monsters out of all of the leading Guard of NS, whilst many really just tended to be the same fanatics found everywhere that just so happened to be on the losing side of the war.

Dr. Mengele, I am certain, did not administer a single euthanasia for the purpose of creating a Nietzschean Superhuman, he would have done that in those commendable cases where it would not have been more humane to let them live, anyway.

Fortis_in_Arduis
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 01:33 PM
Having been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome I suffer from the same incurable, sometimes inheritable disease as the likes of Leonardo Da Vinci, Albert Einstein and W. A. Mozart ... the former two actually had it in conjunction with dyslexia, the latter likely in conjunction with Tourette's - two disorders I luckily do not suffer from. :thumbup

Well, I have Asperger's syndrome too. My personal world is much bigger than the neurotypical person, and my social world (although I am very sociable) is much smaller. This is one way to look at the disorder.

Arrested social development is another way to look at it, because people with Autism Spectrum Disorders 'improve' with age.

Some of my ambitions have been thwarted by both the disorder and the diagnosis, but, of course, none of these paths were in any way appropriate for me.

I am fascinated by autism's prevalance in the Cro-Magnoid population of Northern Finland and I want to see anthropological explanation for this.

Lastly, it is clear to me that autism genes are extremely valuable for the continued survival of Germanics, because they have created such genius as well as the tragedy of low-functioning autism.

If qualities such as hyperlexia, and extreme capacity for abstract thought (or just plain old clear thinking without regard for social concerns) is a problem for Todesengel and the Hollywood Nazi scapegoater-eugenicists, then perhaps they need to take a look in the mirror and think about why.

This obsession with swarming, herding and 'everyone fitting in' is also strangely over-feminine, passive-aggressive, Communistic and conspicuously proletarian.

Hauke Haien
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 03:54 PM
Why make public policy contingent upon your personal situation? It is a vestige of liberal-individualism that you should cleanse from your mind if you have rejected the ideology as such.

And why would we need to target Aspies if they are really a boon to our folk?

Lastly, I don't think it is fair to label Todesengel as a Hollywood Nazi. Her attitude is what would have been expected from a normal member of the NS-Frauenschaft. Not aggressive, but mindful of her duty and her people.

BeornWulfWer
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 04:25 PM
....the former two actually had it in conjunction with dyslexia, the latter likely in conjunction with Tourette's - two disorders I luckily do not suffer from....



Gregor Schlierenzauer, is death on one ear.


Perhaps not Dyslexic, but I'm starting to wonder. :fgossip:

Nachtengel
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 05:40 PM
Nice to hear that I should be wiped off the face off the earth then, too. Having been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome I suffer from the same incurable, sometimes inheritable disease as the likes of Leonardo Da Vinci, Albert Einstein and W. A. Mozart ... the former two actually had it in conjunction with dyslexia, the latter likely in conjunction with Tourette's - two disorders I luckily do not suffer from. :thumbup

I've come to live with mine, it doesn't create major problems if you work at yourself. Sure, I still have trouble organising myself, and sure will I sometimes not get hints that others consider obvious: But at least for the later, I have a better deal of observation than most, just last Friday I flawlessly guessed a loosely acquainted woman's taste in men to the point. (And no, even though I knew that I was amongst it, I did not find out by kissing her, which I didn't - I instead just guessed her taste. Ethnic make-up wouldn't have been right for that anyway ... ;)) Sure I can seem inconsiderate then in some situations, but at the same time considerate in others ... that's life. Other than that, it's one of these supposed neurological disabilities that is easy to get "into order" because by the time most Asperger's patients reach about age 20, you've learnt how to use its advantages (such as good memory, special topics of interest etc.) to your benefit whilst knowing how to deal with the weaknesses.

It is even considered a 75/25 diagnosis with boys/girls, because it is really so little of a hindrance that chances are that it is really 50/50 but that it never shows with girls because they tend to be more socially adaptable and are expected to adapt more than boys are.

Or let's kill off all blind tenors (Pavarotti has already passed, but there's still Bocelli), or withdraw life support from Stephen Hawking. The youngest ski jumper to take a title at the Ski Flying World Championships, Gregor Schlierenzauer, is death on one ear. Or what about all these people who are missing a pair of legs but run faster and jump further than 95% of average people at the Paralympics that take place as we speak?

No, what you need is a measurement of "degree of disability". I am actually in favour of euthanasia in the case of disabilities, however I would apply a certain sense of discretion here.

Most people who are blind, deaf, immobile etc. will not suffer from that. They tend to come clear with that fate, and often will use that weakness to their advantage elsewhere. They can still lead a fairly normal life, and have often been known to make something of themselves. A physical order has never stopped anyone becoming a valuable member of the folk.

Mild neurological/mental disorders are also no issue. Often enough, people can be nutcases but at the same time be the most intelligent men alive. Prof. John Nash even had a film devoted to his schizophrenia, Rudolf Heß suffered from several paranoia, i'd go as far as including schizoid personality disorder in that. They still made it far. A slight (or sometimes less slight) mental disorder that does not overly inhibit living has never stopped anyone becoming a valuable member of the folk either.

Where euthanasia might be applied however is where one would clearly relieve the subject concerned. I would not see an issue in euthanising those who are so severely mentally handicapped, that no matter what, they will never be able to lead a near-normal life. That's not a question of the Folk's Health, that's a question of sparing that child a harsher fate - just like withdrawing a vegetable's life support is sparing them a harsher fate.
How many disabled are qualified as geniouses? 1%? 4%? Not the majority anyway. :|
Naturally there's also a difference between the classic diseases and the 1st century diseases invented to control the population like holocaust boredom, or things like when you are too introverted/extroverted, asocial or something like that, just invented for psychiatrists to make money with selling some medication for it.

Why you are making this personal anyway, you think if someone who posts on the same forum as I, my nextdoor neighbour, my family or myself would be the ones affected, I would change my mind? I'd be the first to request euthanasia for myself if I were bound to a wheelchair like a veggie.


If you seriously believe that the old NS guard, if they did euthanise mentally handicapped persons, for the sake of "purging the weak", then you are clearly misinformed and are likely believing an old line of Allied propaganda which would seek to make monsters out of all of the leading Guard of NS, whilst many really just tended to be the same fanatics found everywhere that just so happened to be on the losing side of the war.
It doesn't make them monsters, it makes them people concerned for the health of their nation and I also don't believe the propaganda which tries to make the nationalsocialists cuddly teddy bears. Please watch the nationalsocialist propaganda videos where they show us why the weak are an inconvenience to us.


Dr. Mengele, I am certain, did not administer a single euthanasia for the purpose of creating a Nietzschean Superhuman, he would have done that in those commendable cases where it would not have been more humane to let them live, anyway.
And how you are so certain, did you ask him? :D

Thrymheim
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 06:15 PM
I think the point that some people seem to be missing is that there is a huge difference between not helping someone and hindering them. In my ideal world it would depend on the child's ability to survive. ie if it was born with no legs but was otherwise healthy thats fine, when the child grew up a suitable job would be found depending on it's skills,
Hate to quote myself but...


Nice to hear that I should be wiped off the face off the earth then, too. Having been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome ...

...I've come to live with mine, it doesn't create major problems if you work at yourself...

...It is even considered a 75/25 diagnosis with boys/girls, because it is really so little of a hindrance that chances are that it is really 50/50 but that it never shows with girls because they tend to be more socially adaptable and are expected to adapt more than boys are.


So in other words you are not disabled just different, mental illnesses are in my opinion just our society trying to find a pigeon hole for everything, people who in times gone, would just have been Thick/gifted/different now have a name to hide behind.


No, what you need is a measurement of "degree of disability". I am actually in favour of euthanasia in the case of disabilities, however I would apply a certain sense of discretion here.

Of course all things in moderation


Mild neurological/mental disorders are also no issue. Often enough, people can be nutcases but at the same time be the most intelligent men alive....
... A slight (or sometimes less slight) mental disorder that does not overly inhibit living has never stopped anyone becoming a valuable member of the folk either.

Yes therefore it is not a disability per say.



Well, I have Asperger's syndrome too. My personal world is much bigger than the neurotypical person, and my social world (although I am very sociable) is much smaller. This is one way to look at the disorder.

Arrested social development is another way to look at it, because people with Autism Spectrum Disorders 'improve' with age.

So again proving it's not a "true" disability


Why make public policy contingent upon your personal situation? It is a vestige of liberal-individualism that you should cleanse from your mind if you have rejected the ideology as such.

And why would we need to target Aspies if they are really a boon to our folk?

Lastly, I don't think it is fair to label Todesengel as a Hollywood Nazi. Her attitude is what would have been expected from a normal member of the NS-Frauenschaft. Not aggressive, but mindful of her duty and her people.

One of course must be consistent, even if this impacts upon someone you care about or even yourself.


How many disabled are qualified as geniouses? 1%? 4%? Not the majority anyway. :|
Naturally there's also a difference between the classic diseases and the 1st century diseases invented to control the population like holocaust boredom, or things like when you are too introverted/extroverted, asocial or something like that, just invented for psychiatrists to make money with selling some medication for it.

Totally agree here.

Sigurd
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 06:57 PM
(Trying to guilt trip people into capitulating? this argument is below you,and you know it.)

No, but precluding people from citing hypocrisy by quoting old posts. ;)

The fact is that, in official classification, Asperger's is classed as a high-functioning disorder on the autism spectrum. Its classification as a disabilities, as you know, is the reason why the council decided to pay for my school. ;)

Thrymheim
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 07:06 PM
The fact is that, in official classification, Asperger's is classed as a high-functioning disorder on the autism spectrum. Its classification as a disabilities, as you know, is the reason why the council decided to pay for my school. ;)

exactly my point, in official classification I am registered disabled with the University. But neither of us has in my opinion a "true" disability and certainly not one that precludes us from benifiting our race.

Sigurd
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 07:14 PM
exactly my point, in official classification I am registered disabled with the University. But neither of us has in my opinion a "true" disability and certainly not one that precludes us from benifiting our race.

Well go back to the initial post, where Todesengel posts the picture of wheelchair-bound people that seem to have little else wrong with them except for being paralysed. Like I said, Stephen Hawking has had enough to add to human thought, and at present people are tackling the 800m at the paralympics a good 40 seconds than my own best time. (1'55" as opposed to the 1'43" world record and my own 2'38").

Yet Todesengel included them in her plan for euthanasia.

Thrymheim
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 07:39 PM
Well go back to the initial post, where Todesengel posts the picture of wheelchair-bound people that seem to have little else wrong with them except for being paralysed. Like I said, Stephen Hawking has had enough to add to human thought, and at present people are tackling the 800m at the paralympics a good 40 seconds than my own best time. (1'55" as opposed to the 1'43" world record and my own 2'38").

Yet Todesengel included them in her plan for euthanasia.

Yes their using mechanical assistance, so it cannot be compared equaly you are not a top athelite they are in that field.

Equaly there has to be a ballance for the one person of brilliance, how many drains must a society suffer.
Equally he was not diagnosed until the age of 21 and was at that point only given 1-2 years to live since by then he already had a 1st class degree I think it would be obvious that he was worth saving.

Fortis_in_Arduis
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 08:13 AM
Why make public policy contingent upon your personal situation? It is a vestige of liberal-individualism that you should cleanse from your mind if you have rejected the ideology as such.

Do you have a problem with self-identity?


Lastly, I don't think it is fair to label Todesengel as a Hollywood Nazi.

If you read my post you will see that I did not do that:


If qualities such as hyperlexia, and extreme capacity for abstract thought (or just plain old clear thinking without regard for social concerns) is a problem for Todesengel and the Hollywood Nazi scapegoater-eugenicists, then perhaps they need to take a look in the mirror and think about why.

Hauke Haien
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 08:22 PM
Mentioning both together certainly implied a connection, but you are right, you did not actually say that.

I don't believe the common good is the sum of individual interests (pluralism) and I ascribe no relevance to the latter when discussing the former. I am aware of my individual interests and also of the fact that laws should not be designed to serve them.

Fortis_in_Arduis
Thursday, September 18th, 2008, 03:05 PM
Mentioning both together certainly implied a connection, but you are right, you did not actually say that.


Yes. I am a bitch like that, forum rules being what they are, and you made the connection, not me.

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, September 19th, 2008, 09:44 AM
No, but precluding people from citing hypocrisy by quoting old posts. ;)

The fact is that, in official classification, Asperger's is classed as a high-functioning disorder on the autism spectrum. Its classification as a disabilities, as you know, is the reason why the council decided to pay for my school. ;)


exactly my point, in official classification I am registered disabled with the University. But neither of us has in my opinion a "true" disability and certainly not one that precludes us from benifiting our race.

Yeah, most of these 'mental disabilities' are just a scam. What you subsidize, you get more of. I don't blame you guys personally for getting free schooling, it's because Britain has a socialist system (and Europe, and to some extent the US).

Thrymheim
Friday, September 19th, 2008, 09:52 AM
I don't get anything free as I refuse to have the Dyslexia recognised officially, even though I would be entitled to a laptop etc because in the real world nobody will make any allowance for it so I don't see why I should get used to special treatment

Jäger
Friday, September 19th, 2008, 12:45 PM
Yet Todesengel included them in her plan for euthanasia.
This thread goes further than euthanasia.
The primary thought is that those who cannot live self-determined should not live at all.
If they find others to help them out, well, then it is how it is, and they can leech of the strong.
However in terms of politics, no such weakness and dependency should be supported, the purpose of the state is not to feed those who cannot feed themselves.
So legally it should be allowed to get rid of human cripples and retards, but not be obligatory. And the state certainly has no obligation to deal with them, or even declare them "equally worth living" or any such idiotic thoughts.

Fortis_in_Arduis
Friday, September 19th, 2008, 01:52 PM
OetL1SaONj0

:-O

Nachtengel
Friday, September 19th, 2008, 02:21 PM
Well go back to the initial post, where Todesengel posts the picture of wheelchair-bound people that seem to have little else wrong with them except for being paralysed. Like I said, Stephen Hawking has had enough to add to human thought, and at present people are tackling the 800m at the paralympics a good 40 seconds than my own best time. (1'55" as opposed to the 1'43" world record and my own 2'38").

Yet Todesengel included them in her plan for euthanasia.
Todesengel this, Todesengel that... I think I know what I said, thanks. :P

The fact is, "disabilities" like asocial, antisocial, too introverted, too extroverted and more are not the same thing as being bound to a wheelchair. These people can live without taking mountains of medication and without being sponsored thousands of euros/dollars for wheelchairs. I don't consider such disabilities, it's just doctor scam, to get more money, because the person doesn't fir the "ideal" social pattern. Such people don't need to be pampered or portable toilers. They can get by in life being self-sufficient. Get it? There's a big difference.

Fortis_in_Arduis
Monday, September 22nd, 2008, 12:14 PM
I think that we need a spiritual overhaul of social policy, if there are to be any policies at all.

I took a bus into the City of London yesterday and I found myself in agreement with an organisation with an funny reputation:

The Church of Scientology :D

Scientologists have made enemies in high places by opposing psychiatry, which, they rightfully conclude, began as an atheistic doctrine.

Psyche means 'soul', but psychiatrists do not treat the soul, but merely classify people with diseases, according to behaviours, for which they can provide no pathological evidence whatsoever.

Psychiatrists decided, early on, that there was no point in treating the 'soul' and determined that the source of mental problems was the brain, despite lack of physical evidence, and the ablility to cure the mental illnesses which they have classified and from which they and the drug companies draw their income.

So, psychiatrists, despite not having any pathological evidence or cures prescribe 'medications', electro-shock therapy and restraints for patients they cannot cure.

There are and have been some psychiatrists who could right be regarded as psychiatrists in as much as they have tried to heal the soul of the patient.

This probably warrants a thread all of its own, but we do have a sick society which seeks to apply material solutions to everything, and the worst excrescences of this have been resulted in eugenics and euthanasia, which are inherently gross and disgraceful.

Spiritual solutions should be applied which pre-empt the degradation of society.

I have decided have I have a personal problem with psychiatry, because it has no empirical evidence to support it, cannot cure people, and my own diagnosis, which is rather nebulous if you ask me, could be used by social services to take my future children away.

Psychiatrists are used in divorce cases, to STEAL children from their parents, to imprison political dissendents, to fuel and give ideological weight to conflicts which create profits and power for corrupt governments and arms manufacturers, to enact self-genocide with nations (eugenic euthanasia), genocide proper, to hook children on drugs which are analogous to amphetamines and which stunt growth and cause respiratory disorders (Ritalin!)

The Scientologists may have their own agenda (they wish to promote, as I would, spiritual healing for the mentally afflicted) but their evidence against psychiatry is compelling.

National Socialist, Communistic and atheistic solutions are arrogant and materialistic and have not solved the problems of man and have largely resulted in failure.

Physical sciences with empirical evidence are one thing. Medical science used to treat diabetes and cancer has credibility.

Psychiatry, which was used by National Socialists to justify killing, has no empirical evidence to prove the existence of disease beyond behaviours and to my mind, it appears to be an arrogant Germanic weakspot.

The fact that words like "schizo" and "psycho" can be used as insults, while "cancer-sufferer" or "diabetic" can not implies that the former are subjective insults, and not really diseases at all.