The Political Compass (15 Viewers)

OP
Nzoric

Nzoric

Grazie Mirko
Thread Starter #21
Jan 16, 2011
37,869
  • Thread Starter
    • Thread Starter #21
    goes back to the discussion of how large a level of interference the authorities can have with your life. in a cost/benefit analysis you could claim that through implementing measures which bars people with these diseases to multiply, you can actually eradicate these diseases. individual vs the greater good, the sacrifice of not being able to reproduce for a small percentage of people does good to the race in general in the long haul. problem is that it's a slippery slope to go on banning basic human rights for certain people, really yucky scenario if we get a precedent like that.
     

    Buy on AliExpress.com
    Raz

    Raz

    Senior Member
    #22
    Nov 20, 2005
    12,218
    #22
    Would be interesting to see how some of our americans did the test.

    ---------- Post added 04.04.2012 at 16:26 ----------
    Nzoric said:
    goes back to the discussion of how large a level of interference the authorities can have with your life. in a cost/benefit analysis you could claim that through implementing measures which bars people with these diseases to multiply, you can actually eradicate these diseases. individual vs the greater good, the sacrifice of not being able to reproduce for a small percentage of people does good to the race in general in the long haul. problem is that it's a slippery slope to go on banning basic human rights for certain people, really yucky scenario if we get a precedent like that.
    Click to expand...
    I'm against that, so to me it doesn't go to those lenghts :p I think it's not for us or someone in power to interfere in such private matters.
     
    OP
    Nzoric

    Nzoric

    Grazie Mirko
    Thread Starter #23
    Jan 16, 2011
    37,869
  • Thread Starter
    • Thread Starter #23
    :agree:

    i remember i did this on an other forum. the american liberals ended up looking like moderate conservatives when compared to us european socialists :D
     
    OP
    Nzoric

    Nzoric

    Grazie Mirko
    Thread Starter #25
    Jan 16, 2011
    37,869
  • Thread Starter
    • Thread Starter #25
    i even voted "agree" on the question of a one party system eliminating some of the problems in a democratic rule :snoop:
     
    OP
    Nzoric

    Nzoric

    Grazie Mirko
    Thread Starter #28
    Jan 16, 2011
    37,869
  • Thread Starter
    • Thread Starter #28
    it's not phrased adequately imo. should've been a second question "if yes: in a comparative analysis of the benefits and down sides of a one-party system and representative democracy, which side of the analysis comes out on top?"

    though i interpreted the question in a manner where i incorporated the question above in it, that's how i answered the question.

    also, i'd like to know what good the question "when you have a bad day, is it better to think of more cheerful things or think about the negative". dafuq was that? :lol:

    ---------- Post added 04.04.2012 at 15:36 ----------
    Salvo said:


    Hmm

    ---------- Post added 04.04.2012 at 23:33 ----------

    Whatta lib
    Click to expand...
    blue collar economic values :D
     
    Buck Fuddy

    Buck Fuddy

    Lara Chedraoui fanboy
    #31
    May 22, 2009
    10,883
    #31
    Nzoric said:
    @ buck: moral fall pits in either answer, i can't seem to come out with a definitive answer.
    Click to expand...
    Here's my take.

    When you "know" your child is going to have serious disabilities, it'd be mighty selfish to go on & bring her/him into this world.
    And it's not about mommy or daddy not being allowed to raise or have kids (adoption, anyone?), it's about thinking ahead what kind of life that child will have. And the question did state "serious" disabilities.

    Somewhat related: a week ago or so I was reading some interesting stuff about how many children are born (in Belgium - 100s a year) with disabilities, disfigurements, serious growth issues, etc because of the mother having recurring drug problems / (a)busing drugs during the pregnancy.
    Not only are they a (financial) burden on society, but those kids will also never, ever have a serious or normal life. A good part will never grow old, those that do will most likely end up miserable. Fun for them!
    So now they're starting to raise the question whether or not we should prohibit those people of having children. Yes, obviously.

    Now, I know abusing drugs and having a genetic, involuntary problem is not the same thing, but here's the kicker: Looking at it from the kid's perspective, the reason why you "came out messed up" is completely irrelevant, isn't it?
     
    OP
    Nzoric

    Nzoric

    Grazie Mirko
    Thread Starter #32
    Jan 16, 2011
    37,869
  • Thread Starter
    • Thread Starter #32
    it is completely irrelevant. but you do see the moral pit fall in an established authority stepping into the lives of some citizens and telling them they can't recreate? i do agree that those children shouldn't be brought into the world. but let's say a law gets passed which bans drug abusers from having children. now let's take that scenario to a place where the pregnant, drug abusing, mother wants to keep her child, even though it's against the law. what are you going to do? abortion by force? both the idea of an authoritarian measure like the government telling people they can't have babies, and the way they are going to be forced to uphold that law is enough material for me to have several sleepless nights.
     
    Buck Fuddy

    Buck Fuddy

    Lara Chedraoui fanboy
    #33
    May 22, 2009
    10,883
    #33
    Nzoric said:
    it is completely irrelevant. but you do see the moral pit fall in an established authority stepping into the lives of some citizens and telling them they can't recreate? i do agree that those children shouldn't be brought into the world. but let's say a law gets passed which bans drug abusers from having children. now let's take that scenario to a place where the pregnant, drug abusing, mother wants to keep her child, even though it's against the law. what are you going to do? abortion by force? both the idea of an authoritarian measure like the government telling people they can't have babies, and the way they are going to be forced to uphold that law is enough material for me to have several sleepless nights.
    Click to expand...
    Oh yeah, of course.

    But I looked at this as an abstract question, regardless of how this is going to be arranged or who'll come up with the solution. And I'll always think of the best interests of the child first, parent(s) later.

    So, do you think x people should be allowed to have children: simple no for me.
    Is there a feasible way to actually make it happen: I don't know.


    As for the the BE example I mentioned: they were talking about known drug abusers. People who are tracked & whatnot. Plan would be to sterilize them or forced abortion. I don't see it happening though.
    Honestly, reading some of those horror stories got to me...
     
    OP
    Nzoric

    Nzoric

    Grazie Mirko
    Thread Starter #34
    Jan 16, 2011
    37,869
  • Thread Starter
    • Thread Starter #34
    we agree then. this right here is the beauty of being a uni student. do i think this should be done or is wrong? definitely. how would you fix it? i don't know, i'm not a politician! :D
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 14)