Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your thread is a massive fail, and not even remotely funny.
In terms of ethics and morality, you can group each person in Society into one of three categories...
1] those who are productive --- the Givers for the simple-minded; and
2] those who are counter-productive -- the Takers; and
3] those who are neither productive nor counter-productive...the non-productive.
I rode the #78 to the VA hospital this morning, and as always, there were retarded kids heading out to work at Goodwill Industries. At least they try to be productive, which says a helluva lot more than the thugs riding the same bus who haven't produce a single positive thing, yet have managed to cost the restivus more money than we can spare.
The thugs are the animals.....why aren't you aborting them?
You should be aborting the counter-productive, since they're animals as well.
In fact, you ought to be executing prisoners in the same way you do partial-birth abortions -- you can wrap the prisoners in a warm gooey mucus-filled blanket, tie a chain to their ankle and have a winch jerk them out suddenly, shine a bright light in their eyes, then crush their skull and vacuum up their brains.
And if people don't like being condemned for having an abortion, then they ought not have one. The fetus doesn't exhibit brain-waves until about the 12-14 week....if you can't get an abortion in the first three months, then too damn bad.
Anyway, thanks for exposing more Left-Wing hypocrisy...
Mircea
Wait, are we classifying beings based on productivity? We already do that, it's called capitalism and having dollar votes in the ownership of goods. But do we classify all rights based on productivity? I'll let you answer with what the consequences would be of that. I'm claiming that all reasonably intelligent beings, or vertebrates in my belief, have at least the right to a halfway reasonable existence. I don't think many feedlots count as reasonable existence.
But what about the unborn, don't they have the right to a reasonable existence? They do. But here's the way I see it. If you allow a severe special needs child a life, then that is another child, one that is not yet conceived, that does not have a chance at life. There are only so many life slots available on planet earth, so why not fill them up with people who can enjoy them the most? The people working at goodwill are people who can enjoy life. The people who are practically a vegetable and can't communicate or do any real bodily or mental function due to such severe needs I don't believe really enjoy life. THAT was my comparison group. That's the caveat I stated at the beginning that everyone ignored. I have a sister with mild spina bifida, heck, even I have very mild cerebral palsy. So, like I said, as we ALREADY DO extend compassion to individuals like me and my sister, we should extend at least a much smaller amount to a sentient animal.
Mircea, I think your confusing my post to think we should treat special needs kids as animals. What I'm trying to do is say we should hold our view of special needs kids constant and increase our view of animals.
So, I've heard everything when it comes to why people justify why they eat meat.
They say, well, in nature, these animals would have been eaten anyhow. In nature, severe special needs children would have been eaten.
They say, how do you know if an animal feels pain or not, it can't communicate. Neither can severe special needs kids.
They say, animals have lower intelligence. So do severe special needs kids.
... The list goes on. But we don't pen up special needs kids for life and eat them. So why, if you have compassion on these kids, who are in many ways inferior to other humans, do you have no compassion for animals, who are in many ways inferior to other humans? A livestock yard is about as in-compassionate as you could get.
I'm not talking about kids who have a mild disorder. I'm talking the severe cases. You know the differences.
So, I've heard everything when it comes to why people justify why they eat meat.
They say, well, in nature, these animals would have been eaten anyhow. In nature, severe special needs children would have been eaten.
They say, how do you know if an animal feels pain or not, it can't communicate. Neither can severe special needs kids.
They say, animals have lower intelligence. So do severe special needs kids.
... The list goes on. But we don't pen up special needs kids for life and eat them. So why, if you have compassion on these kids, who are in many ways inferior to other humans, do you have no compassion for animals, who are in many ways inferior to other humans? A livestock yard is about as in-compassionate as you could get.
I'm not talking about kids who have a mild disorder. I'm talking the severe cases. You know the differences.
You must have a mouse in that pocket of yours. STOP with the generalizing and maybe read a book or something.
When I see a special needs kids, I have compassion - so I wish for them to enjoy a good meal - steak, bacon, crab legs, clams, elk, goat, whatever fits their desires
This thread just needs to ride off into the sunset.
*taps out
I'm done.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
