Value of Life & Intelligence

[Costanza]

I made this post on the main board and I wanted to put it here to see if anyone had any thoughts:

I just saw the movie I Am Sam the other night, a great movie that raises a lot of questions.

I saw the movie on Saturday, the same day I saw a thread here about a 17 year old girl who broke into her ex-roommate's place, tossed the ex-roommate's kitten into her stove, and then left so she didn't have to hear the cat's anguished cries.

Here were some of the replies in the thread:

whats the big deal when i was 14 me and my homeboy put 4 kittens in a folgers coffee can and poured gas on them and threw a match on them and watched them burn hey i was a mean back then ,but hey it's not like i killed a human right

well gaddamn it's a animal not a human what is wrong with you whites and want be whites

do you eat meat what about cows,pigs,goats,sheep,chickens I'm shore they were alive to at one point before the were chopped up and shipped to a store

She's never going to make it in the NFL. PETA will see to it.

LOL@ being outraged.

Yeah it was fucked up, but it's a fucking Cat.

This dude in my city got 9 years in prison for fucking his dog up. 9 YEARS! People do much worse shit and don't get that much. It's a fucking animal, no one should ever go to prison time just for fucking up an animal.

c/s

I don't understand the outrage from people who eat meat You need to google "Earthlings"

She is a sick crazy coward but doesn't mean she should be put under the jail, she is a minor

it's fucked up

but hey, i grew up in the bronx and we used to duck tape m80's to cats, light em and throw them off roofs...

sick i know

but ahhh the good ole days

what the fuck is wrong with all these white pussy ass people ,this whole convo is stupid ,killing animals dont mean shit about your future iv'e killed cats ,dogs ,puppys or kittens and im no killer and i have done no time or even a traffic ticket it don't mean shit hell i know a lot of cops that love dogs and cats but will stick a plunger up a black mans ass and beat him up side his head until it bust ,but thats okay aslong as they dont hurt no fucking animals man fuck you,and fuck you, and oh yeah you little white in the corner yeah you FUCK YOU

The link between the thread and the movie, for me, is that they each raise questions about the value of life and the treatment of those determined to be inferior.

Eugenics is born out of a desire to "improve" the quality of the human species. As such, retarded people-- an unwanted burden for many-- have been a major target of eugenics in history and abortion today:

In 1883 Sir Francis Galton, an English anthropologist, coined the word eugenics, which he later defined as the study of hereditary factors that "improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations." Inspired by eugenics, a number of U.S. states passed laws in the early 20th century allowing those presumed to have bad genes to be sterilized by government order. In 1927 the case of Carrie Buck, a young woman in a Virginia home for the feebleminded, reached the Supreme Court. Writing for an 8-1 decision, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said society could "prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind ... Three generations of imbeciles are enough." (Buck's mother and daughter allegedly shared her disability.) The Catholic Church condemned sterilization laws in 1930, but the political process backed science, as it was then understood. The mass murder of "unfit" individuals and ethnic groups by the Nazis gave eugenics a black mark that can never be washed off. But the issue marches on; in 2004 a eugenics supporter won the Republican congressional nomination in Tennessee's Eighth District (the GOP disavowed him).​

Most of the above posters were probably just like the little asshole in the movie at the birthday party when they were kids. The irony is that those people are morally inferior to most retards.

We, as "normal humans," have such a sense of superiority. Most look down on other animals and express this sort of belief:

Man is both the most high and the most base of creation...because he can consiously decide to do or not to do a thing on a consistent basis...Freewill!!

These other animals move because their natural hardwiring dictates....that's why when you put them in a enviroment opposed to their natural one...no telling what you will see fro them

We see a cat running in circles chasing its tail and see it as a stupid cat, subject to the dictates of natural hardwiring and so unlike us. But next time you're huddled next to your laptop pulling one of these moves you might stop and ask yourself how advanced you really are.

Deuterion posted this video earlier, which adds to the point:


Maybe we're a little bit smarter than cats; maybe the average person is a little smarter than the average retard... Yet we're not smart enough to live and let live. Its like intelligence is an obstacle to morality-- we think we're so smart and "the most high" and such, but no kitten could never lower itself to the level of some humans. As limited as the Sam Dawson character is in his abilities, he's a much better father than more intelligent deadbeat dads or many distracted careerists.

 

[Costanza]

Here is what was said on this clip, from Bill Maher's old Politically Incorrect show on ABC (this was January 2001, months before he made comments in September 2001 that got the show canceled):

"I have two dogs. I have often said if I had two retarded children, I'd be a hero. And the dogs, who are pretty much the same thing--" Maher was cut off by laughter.

He continued, "What? They're sweet. They're loving. They're kind. But they don't mentally advance at all."

Maher apologized (here) and he was definitely brash and more rude than I could have been but what he's saying isn't too far from what this thread is about.

I don't think having two dogs can be compared to taking care of two retarded people... (Maher sits on the board of PETA, if that lends insight into his perspective.) On the other hand, his comparison does have some merit.

 

[Costanza]

Eugenics is born out of a desire to "improve" the quality of the human species. As such, retarded people-- an unwanted burden for many-- have been a major target of eugenics in history and abortion today:

In 1883 Sir Francis Galton, an English anthropologist, coined the word eugenics, which he later defined as the study of hereditary factors that "improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations." Inspired by eugenics, a number of U.S. states passed laws in the early 20th century allowing those presumed to have bad genes to be sterilized by government order. In 1927 the case of Carrie Buck, a young woman in a Virginia home for the feebleminded, reached the Supreme Court. Writing for an 8-1 decision, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said society could "prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind ... Three generations of imbeciles are enough." (Buck's mother and daughter allegedly shared her disability.) The Catholic Church condemned sterilization laws in 1930, but the political process backed science, as it was then understood. The mass murder of "unfit" individuals and ethnic groups by the Nazis gave eugenics a black mark that can never be washed off. But the issue marches on; in 2004 a eugenics supporter won the Republican congressional nomination in Tennessee's Eighth District (the GOP disavowed him).​

Nixon: The unexpurgated words of a President close to the edge
Recordings from the former US President's ill-fated second term reveal his private views on everything from abortion to the Jews and beautiful women
By David Usborne
Thursday, 25 June 2009

The release of more taped conversations has added to the intrigue that surrounds the story of Richard Nixon

The release of more taped conversations has added to the intrigue that surrounds the story of Richard Nixon

Nixon addicts everywhere are not to be disturbed as they devour one more delicacy served up by the National Archives: 150 more hours of secretly taped conversations from the White House in early 1973 packed with fresh tidbits from the often angry synapses of the late, disgraced president's mind.

The latest installment of Nixonalia, held back until now in part because the poor quality of the under-the-table recordings, is unlikely to change history's perception of the 37th president. Rather, it will re-enforce the national memory of a hard-boiled leader prone to blasphemy, bursts of impatience and views on modern society – notably here on abortion, Jews and women – that were, well, not quite modern.

It was a day after the Supreme Court legalised abortion in its Roe vs Wade ruling, and Mr Nixon wonders aloud about wisdom of the judgement with his senior aide Charles Colson. He worries that abortion "breaks the family" and its legalisation could encourage "permissiveness". On the other hand, he offers: "There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white. Or a rape."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...of-a-president-close-to-the-edge-1718057.html

 

[thoughtone]

So, knowing the direction view of you previous post, you are going to link this to abortion.

 

[Costanza]

So, knowing the direction view of you previous post, you are going to link this to abortion.

Well, if you look at was quoted in the post you're referring to, it was always a part of the subject. But I'm not trying to take the thread in any particular direction; there are a lot of ways this could be talked about.

 

[Costanza]

Ezekiel Emanuel: Death to Those With Dementia, as Useless Eaters

July 21, 2009 (LPAC)-- Ezekiel Emanuel, the top healthcare adviser at Obama's Budget Office and brother of his chief of staff, believes it is "obvious" that people with Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia (estimated as one of three people who live beyond the age of 65) should be denied health-care, since they are "irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens." An essay published in the Hastings Center Report (Nov-Dec 1996) by Emanuel, Norman Daniels and Bruce Jennings, says in part:

"This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity - those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberation - are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/11094

 

[Costanza]

Palin says Obama's health care plan is 'evil'
By MARK THIESSEN, Associated Press Writer Mark Thiessen, Associated Press Writer
Sat Aug 8, 4:07 am ET

ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called President Barack Obama's health plan "downright evil" Friday in her first online comments since leaving office, saying in a Facebook posting that he would create a "death panel" that would deny care to the neediest Americans.

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care," the former Republican vice presidential candidate wrote.

"Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote on her page, which has nearly 700,000 supporters. She encouraged her supporters to be engaged in the debate.

The claim that the Democratic health care bills would encourage euthanasia has been circulating on the Internet for weeks and has been echoed by some Republican leaders. Democrats from Obama on down have dismissed it as a distortion. The nonpartisan group FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania says the claim is false.

The allegation appears to be based on a provision of the House bill that would require Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling sessions, on a voluntary basis, for beneficiaries who want the service. Medicare already covers hospice care. And legislation passed by Congress in 1990 requires that patients be asked if they have a living will.

Obama addressed the controversy during a July 28 AARP-sponsored town hall.

"Nobody is going to be forcing you to make a set of decisions on end-of-life care based on some bureaucratic law in Washington," he said.

An e-mail sent to Palin's spokeswoman to confirm authorship of the Facebook posting was not immediately returned Friday. There was no immediate reply to phone messages left late Friday with the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office seeking comment on Palin's remarks.

Republican criticism has also included claims that the reform plans will lead to rationing, or the government determining which medical procedures a patient can have.

However, millions of Americans already face rationing, as insurance companies rule on procedures they will cover. Denying coverage for certain procedures might increase under proposals to have a government-appointed agency identify medicines and procedures best suited for various conditions.

Palin resigned as Alaska governor on July 26 with nearly 18 months left in her term. She cited not only the numerous ethics complaints that had been filed against her also her wish not to be a lame duck after the first-term governor decided not to seek re-election next year.

Palin, popular with conservatives in the Republican party, has said she wants to build a right-of-center coalition, and there is speculation she will seek the presidency in 2012. In the two weeks since she resigned, Palin has made only one public appearance, giving a Second Amendment rights speech last Saturday before a gun owners group in Anchorage.

Palin or her aides post notes on her Facebook account about once or twice a week, usually to set out policy statements, issue news releases or refute rumors circulating on the Internet.

Palin also has been largely silent before Friday's Facebook post. She was a voracious user of the social networking site Twitter, and promised to keep her supporters updated with a new private account after she left office. But that hasn't happened, leaving some of her fans begging for updates in the past two weeks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_palin_health_care

 

[Costanza]

I'm not posting this because I believe Palin's depiction is accurate or fair but because the subject matter is related. (I'll add that it is a smart card to play politically.)

Sarah Palin: Statement on the Current Health Care Debate

Statement on the Current Health Care Debate
Yesterday at 1:26pm

As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.

Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.

We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back. Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Let’s stop and think and make our voices heard before it’s too late.

- Sarah Palin

Rep. Bachmann's speech can be viewed here:


http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434

 

[QueEx]

I'm not posting this because I believe Palin's depiction is accurate or fair but because the subject matter is related. (I'll add that it is a smart card to play politically.)

Smart? Really?

You think its politically smart to invent or propagate baseless terms and concepts of fear in order to sway people, your way ? ? ? Seriously.

Okay, maybe I missed it somewhere in this "nondebate" debate, but did Sarah Palin say "death panels":

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,”​

Is this what you call politically smart ???

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

I'm not posting this because I believe Palin's depiction is accurate or fair but because the subject matter is related. (I'll add that it is a smart card to play politically.)

Sarah Palin: Statement on the Current Health Care Debate

Statement on the Current Health Care Debate
Yesterday at 1:26pm

"The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."​

From the Alaska Daily News:

The claim that the Democratic health care bills would encourage euthanasia has been circulating on the Internet for weeks and has been echoed by some Republican leaders. Democrats from Obama on down have dismissed it as a distortion. The nonpartisan group FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania says the claim is false.​

Here is the FactCheck article:




<IFRAME SRC="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/">link</A>

</IFRAME>

 

[nittie]

Stop...forget what you heard. Think how our values and opinions are formed. Bascially we are taught to think. Starts at childhood and thru life looking for direction. That being the case human life or any other life has no value except what we assign it. It's a matter of opinion.

 

[Costanza]

Smart? Really?

You think its politically smart to invent or propagate baseless terms and concepts of fear in order to sway people, your way ? ? ? Seriously.

Okay, maybe I missed it somewhere in this "nondebate" debate, but did Sarah Palin say "death panels":

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,”​

Is this what you call politically smart ???

QueEx

Politically smart, yes. Smart shouldn't be confused with substantive, especially with political fortunes decided by a decidedly not smart public.

This is going to connect with evangelicals and pro-life groups. Most individuals aren't going to do the research. "You think its politically smart to invent or propagate baseless terms and concepts of fear in order to sway people your way?" When hasn't it been??? If it turns more people against you than it sways for you, it was a dumb tactic. With a largely uninformed populace, I suspect this will reach and rile up more of the type of people Palin connects with than it will turn people against her who weren't against her already.

 

[Costanza]

Stop...forget what you heard. Think how our values and opinions are formed. Bascially we are taught to think. Starts at childhood and thru life looking for direction. That being the case human life or any other life has no value except what we assign it. It's a matter of opinion.

I'd agree with that. Value is subjective. But we still reach certain societal standards and try to determine right and wrong as a society. The fact that standards can't be concretely proven to be right or wrong-- I couldn't disprove a President saying his own life was worth a million others-- it doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

 

[QueEx]

Politically smart, yes. Smart shouldn't be confused with substantive, especially with political fortunes decided by a decidedly not smart public.

This is going to connect with evangelicals and pro-life groups. Most individuals aren't going to do the research. "You think its politically smart to invent or propagate baseless terms and concepts of fear in order to sway people your way?" When hasn't it been??? If it turns more people against you than it sways for you, it was a dumb tactic. With a largely uninformed populace, I suspect this will reach and rile up more of the type of people Palin connects with than it will turn people against her who weren't against her already.

I understand where you're coming from, however, I think its politically stupid because there are a lot of people who like many aspects of the agenda but can't stomach the evangelicals and the pro-lifers, the right-wing extremist elements of the party. Moreover, if the right wing of the party surges, there is the ever increasing possibility, if not probability, that the party's successes, may be numbered.

So, if you consider playing to the right wing of the party a successful strategy, you may be right. It could be a gain or win for the individual, i.e., Sarah Failin. On the other hand, it could be a loss, overall, for the party.

I would argue that we should look at the example of Michael Steele (though I am not satisfied that he is as politically astute as some may believe). Naming Steele to head the RNC should have been a really good move. It should have meant the pitching of a bigger tent. On the contrary, the Rush Limpdick-led right wing of the party has been nothing but a thorn in Steele's side. Hence, the tent may be pitched and welcome signs hanging, but where are the newcomers standing under it shaking hands with the greeters ???

Smart, or stupid ???

Failin, or the Party ???

QueEx

 

[Costanza]

I understand where you're coming from, however, I think its politically stupid because there are a lot of people who like many aspects of the agenda but can't stomach the evangelicals and the pro-lifers, the right-wing extremist elements of the party. Moreover, if the right wing of the party surges, there is the ever increasing possibility, if not probability, that the party's successes, may be numbered.

So, if you consider playing to the right wing of the party a successful strategy, you may be right. It could be a gain or win for the individual, i.e., Sarah Failin. On the other hand, it could be a loss, overall, for the party.

I would argue that we should look at the example of Michael Steele (though I am not satisfied that he is as politically astute as some may believe). Naming Steele to head the RNC should have been a really good move. It should have meant the pitching of a bigger tent. On the contrary, the Rush Limpdick-led right wing of the party has been nothing but a thorn in Steele's side. Hence, the tent may be pitched and welcome signs hanging, but where are the newcomers standing under it shaking hands with the greeters ???

Smart, or stupid ???

Failin, or the Party ???

QueEx

I also meant to mention in the last post that Palin may not even be aiming at 2012 but, as Levi Johnston says, may just be trying to build up her profile and cash in. In which case it is smart to cater to her fringe following and forget about sounding sensible to outsiders.

Either way, I'm talking entirely about Palin, who already has extremely high negatives and has been figured out by most people who would be offended by this. She has nothing to lose in being irrational when most people who value rationality already have a low opinion of her.

Sarah Palin actually embodies a split in the party-- intellectual conservatives versus the anti-elitist trailer wing of the party which has been snookered into voting against its financial interests for the sake of social issues. The self-described "hockey mom" put this split on display at new levels.

What I think is becoming more obviously stupid is the two-party system... Each party has a stake in branding itself as a "big tent" party which inevitably must sacrifice or promote the interests of differing factions at the expense of others. You mention those who "can't stomach the evangelicals and the pro-lifers, the right-wing extremist elements of the party," but how much of the party is represented by pro-lifers? Who were you supposed to vote for if you were pro-life and anti-war? Its a very logically consistent position. Or if you were pro-gay marriage but also a supporter of the Iraq war??? The two-party system attempts to bundle too many interests together, promoting promise-breaking and ideological disenfranchisement.