Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

The Anonymous Hack

Posted Jan 27, '13 at 9:28pm

Carnage1995

Carnage1995

95 posts

Yes, they would be enrolled in whatever school the parent chooses, the thing is the parents would choose what they take, they wouldn't be forced to take mandated course set by the government. I would take astronomy too, I love science. But my point mainly is, we need to teach people skills to get jobs in those skills. And IMO it would be great if there were place where we could teach skills, that would allow them to get jobs with that skill or skills, instead of learning that skill along with tons of extra, needed stuff.

Don't be deluded? I'm sure we could handle one, provided we still have our weapons. And I don't think there will be one. Why would we?

 

Posted Jan 27, '13 at 10:34pm

wolf1991

wolf1991

3,061 posts

they wouldn't be forced to take mandated course set by the government. I would take astronomy too, I love science. But my point mainly is, we need to teach people skills to get jobs in those skills. And IMO it would be great if there were place where we could teach skills, that would allow them to get jobs with that skill or skills, instead of learning that skill along with tons of extra, needed stuff.

Studies show that people who know more than simply a narrow focus set of skills do better with life. Yes, it seems logical to train yourself for one job only for your entire life, but society isn't that rigid. Also, what if you change your mind? Then you still have skills from another discipline, so it would make your system moot. It is better for people fo focus one what they want when they are mature enough to decide for themselves. Hence university, trade school and college.

 

Posted Jan 27, '13 at 10:53pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,672 posts

Knight

Yes, it would be somewhat taking away their freedom, but on reproducing for example, why would you want a severely autistic person to create another severely autistic person? It makes no sense. I wouldn't consider myself right-wing. I follow classical liberalism. Free Market, freedom, equality, etc...

If you're saying we should take these peoples freedom away then you're not supporting freedom and equality.

And like I said, I mean really mentally ill people. Kids in wheelchairs and can't talk and stuff like that. I guess it's possible they could get a job, somehow maybe, it wouldn't be that good.

Because those who are stuck in wheelchairs and can't talk can't contribute to society if given the chance.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Stephen_Hawking.StarChild.jpg

And by social responsibility, do you mean feeling the need to help everyone? No, not at all. If I was rich I would donate money and give some away, because I'm a nice guy, IMO at least hah. But as I'd have it people would be individualists, they take care of themselves, and can help if they want. Taxes don't need to be abolished, though income taxes do, Taxes need a reform. The Fair Tax seems like a good place to go.

It's fine to be individual and to take care of your self. However there are those who are unable to take care of themselves and require the assistance of others in order to function. There are others still who once had the ability to take care of themselves and no longer can. Doing so is being socially responsible and doing so can allow for these people to not only have a higher quality of life but to possibly contribute as well.

The political platform of the Libertarian Party reflects the ideas of libertarianism,

While you did list some good points to have the totally hands off self regulating method of Libertarianism simply wouldn't work. In a society you can't just look after your self all the time.

favoring minimally regulated markets,

I don't think the amount of regulation matters as much as the quality of regulation.

Parental control of education is the best way to ensure that children will receive an education tailored to their unique skills and abilities -- after all, every child is different, thus one-size-fits-all federal programs must be resisted.

I have to disagree, there are plenty of idiot parents who won't give proper lessons and would very likely provide flat our wrong information. Having standards for education helps to improve the overall quality.

Yes, they would be enrolled in whatever school the parent chooses, the thing is the parents would choose what they take, they wouldn't be forced to take mandated course set by the government.

A child could easily miss out on fundamental requirements they very well may need later in life doing this. Also waiting later in life could make it all that harder for them to pick up those requirements they needed.

 

Posted Jan 27, '13 at 11:17pm

Carnage1995

Carnage1995

95 posts

Good point. When it says minimally regulated markets it means getting all the regulations out. It is absolutely ridiculous the amount of regulations there are for say.. Starting a business. But at the same time, we need some regulation to keep potential corrupt business leaders in line.

It's just my opinion. But I do think a small government with a strong national defense and little to no influence in any other area would be good. It's certainly a good step away from this semi-police/surveillance state we're in now. W/e you want to call it.

And yes, obviously Stephen Hawkings is a genius, it's not like I'm saying, oh you're in a wheelchair, stay home. No, I mean truly retarded people that can't take care/do anything for themselves. Allowing them to reproduce would be a crime against humanity IMO. And you know what I'm talking about, these people walk around clueless and act as if they're 6 years old when they're in their teens or older. I'm not making fun of them, just trying to explain what I mean.

Some parents are bad, but like I said, I don't think the government should be involved in education.

 

Posted Jan 27, '13 at 11:25pm

wolf1991

wolf1991

3,061 posts

And yes, obviously Stephen Hawkings is a genius, it's not like I'm saying, oh you're in a wheelchair, stay home. No, I mean truly retarded people that can't take care/do anything for themselves. Allowing them to reproduce would be a crime against humanity IMO. And you know what I'm talking about, these people walk around clueless and act as if they're 6 years old when they're in their teens or older. I'm not making fun of them, just trying to explain what I mean.

You're digging a hole here. You're coming off as very biggoted.

 

Posted Jan 27, '13 at 11:33pm

Carnage1995

Carnage1995

95 posts

So severely mentally ill people should be able to reproduce to make another person suffer until death? I'd rather spare them the pain.

 

Posted Jan 27, '13 at 11:39pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

You're digging a hole here. You're coming off as very biggoted.

I did some research on this for a paper I wrote, actually. It's a common stigma we have that if someone has a mental illness, they're lesser as people and unable to contribute to society. In addition to that, people who believe this behave as if they think people with mental illnesses could simply choose to not act that way if they really tried, or that there's no helping someone who has a mental illness. Long story short, his views are fairly typical in regards to people with a mental illness.

t's just my opinion. But I do think a small government with a strong national defense and little to no influence in any other area would be good. It's certainly a good step away from this semi-police/surveillance state we're in now. W/e you want to call it.

There's more than one "right" way to have something. Basically, what you want is a good government that is fair to the citizens and won't destroy their lives on suspicion and a whim. HOWEVER, there's no reason a more socialistic government can't fit that criteria.

Some parents are bad, but like I said, I don't think the government should be involved in education.

Honestly, the older I get and the more people I meet, one of the few things I become more and more convinced of is that you cannot trust everyone to do what is best for themselves or others, in any matter. Does that mean we should treat everyone as an idiot who can't think for themselves? No. But having regulations in place helps prevent that, and doesn't hurt anyone either.

No, I mean truly retarded people that can't take care/do anything for themselves. Allowing them to reproduce would be a crime against humanity IMO.

I'm just curious, how much do you think these people with "the mentality of 6 year olds" are reproducing?

While I share a similar sentiment (but quite different in various means) that it would be "best" for people who carry genetic diseases to choose adoption over reproduction, it would simply be inhuman to forbid them from making their own choices in life.

So severely mentally ill people should be able to reproduce to make another person suffer until death? I'd rather spare them the pain.

1) People who are aware that they either have or are a carrier for a genetic disease often do not wish to pass that on to their children. It gets passed on most often when they are not aware of the condition to begin with.

2) As stated above, these "severely mentally ill people" aren't likely to be doing much reproduction if they're as bad off as you make them out to be.

 

Posted Jan 28, '13 at 12:26am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,672 posts

Knight

Some parents are bad, but like I said, I don't think the government should be involved in education.

That would simply result in a far lower quality of education, even by American standards today. I mean how do you insure that two children with similar capabilities receive the same level of education?

What i think needs to change is more emphasis on improved education needs to be made. That included but not necessarily is limited to, more funding, better distribution of funds, improved environment in which the education is given, improved methodology and improved attitudes as a whole on education from the community.

Also keep in mind an improved education isn't just a means to an end at getting a job. It also has social and cultural improvements that come along with it.

1) People who are aware that they either have or are a carrier for a genetic disease often do not wish to pass that on to their children. It gets passed on most often when they are not aware of the condition to begin with.

To add o this many such problems can only occur when both parents have the genes to pass on. So it can be very possible to have a gene that would result in sever mental/physical retardation and never have it become active in your offspring since your partner doesn't have those genes. This means that those genes could get passed on for generations without every showing any signs.

 

Posted Jan 28, '13 at 12:36am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,868 posts

Knight

It's certainly a good step away from this semi-police/surveillance state we're in now. W/e you want to call it.

Semi-police state? Sorry, you don't know what a police state is if you think America is one.

Queer that Americans think their country is so oppressed whilst half the world, and all of the Third World Nations look to it as a model nation and beacon of democracy.

 

Posted Jan 28, '13 at 2:48am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,672 posts

Knight

Queer that Americans think their country is so oppressed whilst half the world, and all of the Third World Nations look to it as a model nation and beacon of democracy.

I was unaware that it was still perceived that way by any country.

 
Reply to The Anonymous Hack

You must be logged in to post a reply!