Cornish politician"disabled children should be put down

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.cornwallcommunitynews.co.uk/ ... -put-down/

This guy is such a reactionary clampet, he puts Nick 'cyclops' Griffin to shame.

story-

That's politicians for you, doesn't matter where they are from apparently....these are the people running the various governments of the world, that is why ideally laws are in place to keep them in check so things like putting down all disabled children cannot become a policy in practice.

With a way with people like his, no wonder he didn't make it in retail.

People like this just shouldnt be listened to. It would make the world a much simpler place if idiots werent catered for.

I think we need more of these guys- he does show the world how britain's austerity is damaging human decency.

Britain may be lost, but the rest of the world can learn from their mistakes.

This is something you just don't joke about because society's impulse toward eugenics is too natural and held back by too little.

@TechStepGeneration

I couldn't agree more. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of historical facts can attest to the catastrophic impact such politics can ultimately lead towards.

The guy was widely condemned in Cornwall. Sadly if this guy was American and running for president he would win over a lot of Trump's supporters as they would view him as even more willing them Trump to be politically incorrect. But he would lose all of this support when he apologized.

Then the obvious solution is to refuse to apologize. His supporters will like him even more with further proof that he won't yield to "political correctness".

Who gets to decide what is "too natural" and "too little"? If the people, "naturally" or not, want eugenics, eugenics is the democratic thing to do. Noöne has any business "holding back" the will of the majority or telling them what to think or feel. If they attack you, you defend yourself. If you succeed, you'll have proven your genes to be, in fact, good enough to be passed on to the next generation.

I vehemently disagree. Popular beliefs that are fueled and derived from prejudice and hatred cause the formation of attitudes that have proven to be historically catastrophic and has resulted in the enormous and wanton suffering of those who are disliked and shunned by society. As a person who is half-Jewish, I too have experienced rejection because of my heritage and background. Therefore I deeply oppose any ideology that claims to be superior than other people or groups. Eugenics is the ultimate evil amalgamation of ignorance and prejudice that has culminated in the destruction of countless people merely because they were different. It must not be allowed to ever occur again.

I think the bigger problem is a culture that's still so badly lacking in self-awareness and rational thought that a lot of its impulses are still along the lines of medieval churl. You notice it in the sheer amount of bullying, not just the standard NT's bulling aspies that often gets discussed around here but the way NT's bully NT's all for the sake of making a machine run (our culture) where the springs are flying out as fast as it's getting plastered up - often faster.

If we got to be, lets say, the old Type I civilization where we'd gotten rid of national security threats, had working economies that weren't going deeper and deeper into debt even when a lot of that only makes living passable, and we knew not only just what genes had what effects but we knew the population sweet-spot for the carrying capacity of the earth and indefinite sustainability - all with a populace groomed and educated to live that program and innovate within its framework - we'd then have a place where we'd have the sanity to tell people who should or shouldn't procreate, sometimes based on genetic stock quality, other times based on abundance or rarity of certain healthy genes, etc. etc.. That would be okay because we'd have the sanity to do something like that with full respect to human dignity.

Are we anywhere near that? Try getting two fully agreeing opinions on exact population cap, global warming pace, proper economic models and economic equilibrium, or which genes are healthy and which ones aren't - and see how much digging you need to do in order to find them.

Also - there's a very big difference between natural selection and cultural pressures against people with disabilities having kids vs. euthanize them.

So a woman was trying to sell him something so to get her off his back, he says something provocative but it backfired because it got taken seriously. Be careful what you say.

Who gets to decide whats natural....;objective dialectics does...and the rise of a conscious species with the capacity to reason suggests that dialectics contemplates a species beyond mere genes.

You are confusing euthanasia with eugenics.

Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve unpleasant or undesired effects of continued living. Suicide is one form of euthanasia. Hitler's "Final Solution" was another.

Eugenics is the idea that one can improve the human race by careful selection of those who mate and produce offspring. This is also called "Selective Breeding". Theoretically, genetically-transferred diseases can be bred out of the human species if genetic screening and involuntary sterilization were enforced.

No one gets euthanized under a eugenics program. People with the genes for sickle-cell anemia would not be lined up and shot; they would simply not be allowed to conceive offspring, for example.

I see nothing wrong with a rationally managed eugenics program, as long as the concepts of "inferior" and "superior" traits are discarded. Genetic traits that are detrimental to the species as a whole should be bred out, in my opinion.

Detrimental traits would include BRCA1, BRCA2, Sickle-Cell Anemia, Cystic Fibrosis, Tay-Sachs Disease, Turner Syndrome, Klinefelter Syndrome, Huntington's Disease, Trisomy 18, Trisomy 13, and Trisomy 21. Keep people with these genetic traits from breeding, and the diseases would likely disappear within a hundred years.

Unless a single genetic marker for ASDs is discovered, Aspies would likely be in no danger of being eliminated from the gene pool.

We do not admit it, but we do have a selection process.

A look at history, killings have been declining, because those so inclined often get killed.

Overall intelligence is slowly rising, much too slowly. The back of the curve dies faster than it reproduces.

Our current medical and questionable ethics has lead to the survival of children who did not live before. Defects were born, and did not draw a first breath. Those who looked normal and later were found to be defective, were poisoned or smothered. They do not exist in history.

It took the wilds of America to produce the likes of the Jukes and Kaliacks, who inbred in one valley, and produced a high percentage of morons, who survived and reproduced. Idiot and moron were degrees of mental function, but the whole story goes beyond intelligence. I recall another group in Australia, a few settlers, and all of their relationships overlapping, including the next generation and the next.

We have good examples that show we are all just a few inbred generations from a freak show.

Our European line starts with some super inbred line. Genetic diversity is limited in Europe. Non related people who have both been living in the same village in Cornwall, may have DNA that seems to be brother and sister. Family tree, they have no common ancestors, but the founders had limited DNA, and that does not count generations.

There are people who should not reproduce, and others who should check their DNA first.

Like English villages, we have ours, isolated for hundreds of years, few founders, with a higher percentage of disabled. Some have genetic time bomb lines, where a study of the secret history shows the younger sister was really the daughter, and her father was her brother or father. She was raised as the youngest daughter, married to someone local and related, and produced genetic monsters. Worse, some normal looking ones that could pass.

Sometimes this pattern was repeated. This genetic subtraction does seem to be the driving force in human evolution, and almost all mutation is very bad.

It is only recently that saying she fell head first into a bucket and drowned is questioned. Infant mortality was high, and parents or nature only kept the pick of the litter.

After that, exposure, they lived without heat, work, starting as soon as they could walk on the farm, and six for a factory or mine job. Walking the Oregon Trail was a test of childhood. Now we raise children who die if lost in the woods for a day.

Pictures of children from a hundred and fifty years ago look like little stressed out adults. As we move forward, they seem younger and younger, Neotony is at work, they retain baby features. Recently Neotony seems to have overcome Puberty. Young adults have baby features.

We or nature must act, we are keeping the disabled, not making the survivors walk to Oregon, and turning out big babies.

What are we selecting for?

Enthanasia is not the same as eugenics and people carry out enthanasia for non eugenics reasons. But enthanasia has been a important element in the eugenics movement
Eugenics, euthanasia and American race improvement