[TWilliam]

[Topic split from "Can the media please stop interviewing Republicans?" thread in America's Discussion Forum.]

Many people believe they have no obligation to contribute to the common good and some think it's actually harmful as it interferes with natural selection. There are grounds to argue that point of view (not that I would).

I think it's important to note that there is a distinction to be made between contributing to the common good of a society and supporting parasites...

[Ludi]

I think it's important to note that there is a distinction to be made between contributing to the common good of a society and supporting parasites...

How do you determine who is a "parasite"?

What percentage of the population are "parasites" and what do you think would be the best policy for dealing with them?

[TWilliam]

How do you determine who is a "parasite"?

What percentage of the population are "parasites" and what do you think would be the best policy for dealing with them?

Both good questions Ludi, and I don't pretend to know the answers, tho' I would think that something along the lines of "one who demonstrates an ongoing pattern of accepting communal welfare (of whatever kind), while also demonstrating little to no interest in becoming self-supporting or in at least contributing in some significant manner" would serve as a baseline reference for answering the first. If such a person has family or friends who wish to support them that's fine, but I feel it is wrong to coerce (tax) those who do not.

As far as 'dealing with them', I think I've made my position in this regard clear elsewhere in this forum. Suffice to say here that I believe we do so at our peril when we attempt to circumvent Nature's laws...

[Ludi]

As far as 'dealing with them', I think I've made my position in this regard clear elsewhere in this forum. Suffice to say here that I believe we do so at our peril when we attempt to circumvent Nature's laws...

So let them die, is that what you're saying, actually?

Wouldn't that be even less pleasant, having a bunch of starving, dying people around, rather than paying taxes to take care of them?

What if they don't just conveniently die? What if they become criminals, wouldn't you then have to pay to support them in prison? Or would you institute a death penalty for any sort of crime?

You say you've already covered this elsewhere but I don't remember where, or what you said. Sorry! And I always want people to remember what I say, and I can't remember what everyone else says!

I'll probably always ask you whenever you toss out the word "parasites"!

[TWilliam]

So let them die, is that what you're saying, actually?

Wouldn't that be even less pleasant, having a bunch of starving, dying people around, rather than paying taxes to take care of them?

I'm not particularly in favor of simply 'letting' them die. Unfortunately, discussion in greater depth regarding what I consider some possible humane approaches to the issue are verboten on this particular forum. I think about the most I can say on the subject is that there was a time in most cultures when elders would voluntarily remove themselves rather than suffer the indignity of survival at the expense of their community.

What if they don't just conveniently die? What if they become criminals, wouldn't you then have to pay to support them in prison? Or would you institute a death penalty for any sort of crime?

I suspect that in most cases at least, if someone is capable of supporting themselves through criminal activity (which in my book, encompasses a much narrower definition of 'crime' than what most legislative bodies define as such), then they are likely just as capable of doing so through productive contribution of some sort. If they don't wish to do that, then remove them to prisons, but make those prisons as self-supporting as possible. There have been more than a few that have followed such an approach, having the inmates grow their own food, for example. It's very simple; if you want to eat, you work.

As far as my overall Darwinistic perspective, I tend to apply that more with regard to things like debilitating genetic defects or premature births. Whatever one's opinions about what 'social injustice' it may be, the fact remains that the vast majority shun genetic defectives (with good reason, from a species survival perspective), and I believe it is extremely selfish, not 'humane', of people to insist on keeping such alive into adulthood, especially ones that clearly will never be self-sufficient. I also believe that pre-mature births, especially those occurring prior to the third trimester, are in effect natural abortions and should be treated as such.

[TWilliam]

]By any definition we are all parasites. How many of us farm and forge the materials for self/family/community support. We all suck off the petroleum teat all day long. Maybe 1 in 1000 farm or extract
resources from the planet. Are they guiltless? No. They rape mother.

Is an infant suckling at its mother's breast raping her? If you wish to retain the metaphor, then obviously we are not 'all' parasites.

You Republicans

I for one am neither Republican nor Democrat. I am an a-political Realist...

[Ludi]

What you say has a certain amount of sense in it, TWilliam. It's just somewhat harder to have that attitude when you're of the "defective" as I and my family are. Both my sister and I have debilitating genetic disorders. She is on SS disability insurance, so is a "parasite" in your view. My stepmother is in intensive care now, being paid for by her health insurance, which is of course a Ponzi scheme like welfare, where the risks of a few are borne by the many. She would also be let die in your scheme.

Though I understand where the"Realists" are coming from, it's not easy for me to see the world through their eyes.

[TWilliam]

What you say has a certain amount of sense in it, TWilliam. It's just somewhat harder to have that attitude when you're of the "defective" as I and my family are. Both my sister and I have debilitating genetic disorders. She is on SS disability insurance, so is a "parasite" in your view. My stepmother is in intensive care now, being paid for by her health insurance, which is of course a Ponzi scheme like welfare, where the risks of a few are borne by the many. She would also be let die in your scheme.

Though I understand where the"Realists" are coming from, it's not easy for me to see the world through their eyes.

I can understand the difficulty that someone in your position has with the perspective, Ludi. I appreciate that you can nevertheless acknowledge that it may hold some merit.

I also hope that you recognize that when I use the term 'defective' in this context that it's not in any way meant as a pejorative. My critique with regard to such is really aimed at parents more than at anyone suffering such challenges anyway. I suspect that as an adult you have as much appreciation of being alive as anyone else, but I should also think that you have just as much of an appreciation of the biases, on many levels, that exist against you as a result of your 'disorders'. Perhaps I'm wrong, and I'm certainly willing to admit that possibility, but I guess I just don't see it as being 'more' humane or compassionate to raise a child into a lifetime of such cultural animosity than it would be to do otherwise.

As far as someone being supported by health insurance, I don't really have a problem with that, so long as the insurance pool does not exist through some compulsory requirement. Ordinarily such a fund is something that people voluntarily contribute to, with the understanding that it exists for all contributors to draw upon if needed. As I said, it's when people are forced to contribute to such funds that I have a problem, or when someone insists on being given support from such a fund when they themselves haven't contributed to it. That is something I view as parasitic...

[Ludi]

I should also think that you have just as much of an appreciation of the biases, on many levels, that exist against you as a result of your 'disorders'. Perhaps I'm wrong, and I'm certainly willing to admit that possibility, but I guess I just don't see it as being 'more' humane or compassionate to raise a child into a lifetime of such cultural animosity than it would be to do otherwise.

Any animosity I experienced in life was due to being a "nerd" and not to being a "nut" - as I didn't exhibit obvious symptoms until well into middle age. I don't think I'd want to counsel nerd parents not to procreate for fear they might produce shy, studious nerd kids! I think nerd behavior is probably mostly learned, and not genetic (don't know for certain though!) However, I think people with serious genetic disorder such as mental illness would do well to soberly consider if they would want to bring a child into a life of suffering such as many mentally ill people face. The suffering I'm talking about isn't social stigma, but the actual physical and emotional pain of the disorder. As far as the pain of social stigma, other cultures have been able to include mentally ill people in the society as seers, shamans, fools, etc. Ours doesn't seem to have that adaptability.

[AlexdeLarge]

other cultures have been able to include mentally ill people in the society as seers, shamans, fools, etc. Ours doesn't seem to have that adaptability.

No we make them President, put them in the Senate for life, pigion hole them in the House of Representatives! We make them taking heads on our news channels!

But what does this of those of us who follow them blindly????????

[TWilliam]

Any animosity I experienced in life was due to being a "nerd" and not to being a "nut" - as I didn't exhibit obvious symptoms until well into middle age.

Then I should think that you had opportunity to contribute to the welfare of your community (however you wish to define it), in which case I would have no problem with your receiving some form of support in return now that you are in need (nor should that community), assuming of course that you did contribute in some form (even if just as a taxpayer). And it seems to me that you still retain some ability to do so, so I see no need to take you out behind the woodshed just yet...

However, I think people with serious genetic disorder such as mental illness would do well to soberly consider if they would want to bring a child into a life of suffering such as many mentally ill people face.

That depends of course on what one defines as 'mental illness'. There are many conditions labeled as such that I suspect are more a manifestation of the larger cultural malaise than of any particular shortcoming of the individual. Obviously those that are genetically-based (severe mental retardation, for example) are another matter. For the sake of this discussion however, I was thinking mainly of congenital physical defects that make it difficult-to-nearly-impossible to function in a self-sustaining manner.

The suffering I'm talking about isn't social stigma, but the actual physical and emotional pain of the disorder.

Oh sorry, of course. I figured that was given, so I didn't mention it specifically.

As far as the pain of social stigma, other cultures have been able to include mentally ill people in the society as seers, shamans, fools, etc.

That is true, but I think if you reflect on it for a bit you'll see that even those limited forms of acceptance still carried a stigma of sorts, even if of a different flavor...

[Ludi]

That is true, but I think if you reflect on it for a bit you'll see that even those limited forms of acceptance still carried a stigma of sorts, even if of a different flavor...

I guess if someone who is seen as "different" or "special" has a stigma, ok, I can see that.

[TWilliam]

I guess if someone who is seen as "different" or "special" has a stigma, ok, I can see that.

Well, I should think that a shaman would certainly be viewed as 'special' or 'different'. And any respect accorded him/her is also frequently accompanied by at least some degree of fear. Which means that s/he will never be perceived as a 'normal' in the eyes of the larger community, and thus held apart.

[Ludi]

A fabulous athlete, musical prodigy, or genius isn't "normal" either, so I guess there's a stigma toward them as well.

I'm not sure about the usefulness of the whole "normal" idea.

But then, I'm not a Realist.

[TWilliam]

A fabulous athlete, musical prodigy, or genius isn't "normal" either, so I guess there's a stigma toward them as well.

There is, actually. Ever notice how the paparazzi never leave them alone?

I'm not sure about the usefulness of the whole "normal" idea.

Yea well... neither am I... But unfortunately for those of us who aren't (and damn glad of it), there seem to be a large majority who seem to think they are sure of its usefulness, particularly when categorizing themselves as distinct from 'others'...

But then, I'm not a Realist.

That's ok, there's still time...

[vision-master]

TW...........

Medical/Professional Relations
Disability Evaluation Under Social Security - Blue Book

This edition of Disability Evaluation Under Social Security, (also known as the Blue Book), has been specially prepared to provide physicians and other health professionals with an understanding of the disability programs administered by the Social Security Administration. It explains how each program works, and the kinds of information a health professional can furnish to help ensure sound and prompt decisions on disability claims.

http://www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/AdultListings.htm

[holmes]

Its so fuking apparent the entities that are driving the greater good into the ground. This "oh the horror it it all" I have no idea who they are I am just so innocent is such a load of BULLSh*T!
This is the idea and will come to fruition once people that are sane and strong are in control and drive out the Gynocracy. You know the ones?! You know who you are. They have created this stye with cheap oil and "saving the world" wether through the capitalist globalist utopia or through the commie hippie sh*t from the 60's. Eventually we will brush aside the old white priveleged woman gynocracy when it comes to survival of the fittest. Yes cease and desist all welfare. Top to bottom and weed em out.
I so ready for sacrifice and getting rid of these selfish aholes. Hahahaha!
Ignore the voices of these dolts. They love to confuse things and take nature and its orderly ways out of the equation. YET THEY RANT ON ABOUT how they are so environmentally friendly and all the other nonsense they spew out. They are 100% against nature and are worse than the right wingers they are so hateful of. LOL. They are part of the the anti environment movement. LOL. Are they just too dumb to understand that? green this. Eco that. Permaculture this. LOL. Band aids and bullsh*t!

[holmes]

This is the analogy I like to use. We chose to pull my uncle off life support after he had his stroke. death wth dignity. I would rather have a peaceful loving pull of the plug than have to shoot him in the head in the backyard. But the gynocracy does not do these things. They fuzzy wuzzy woo woo boo boo cute and cuddley wuddley. Pull the fraking plug. Be a man America. The PONZI needs to be crushed.

[Ludi]

That's ok, there's still time...

No thanks! If I were a Realist, I'd probably kill myself!