A (Limited) Right to Self-Destruction?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

You might as well add this to it:

<object width="400" height="254"><param name="movie" value="http://web.gbtv.com//shared/flash/video/share/ObjectEmbedFrame.swf?width=400&height=254&content_id=20016767&property=gbtv" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="scale" value="noscale" /><param name="salign" value="tl" /><embed src="http://web.gbtv.com//shared/flash/video/share/ObjectEmbedFrame.swf?width=400&height=254&content_id=20016767&property=gbtv" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" window="transparent" width="400" height="254" scale="noscale" salign ="tl" /> </object>

I know what Glenn means when he says he misses drinking because he could use a good black-out.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

What I found additionally insane, was the phalanx of attorneys, social workers, shrinks, guardian ad litems [law guardians for each of the children], the idiot female Judge, the court officers and clerical personel who all get paid by the taxpayers and are accomplishing absolutely nothing.

Would anyone like to hazard a guess at the total tax dollars that have and are being spent on this family. Do not forget the medical insurance for all the children and the mom.

Adam

[john42t]

Somebody needs to pay for all my children. [...] Somebody needs to be held accountable.

In her mind, that doesn't appear to be her. The typical arrogance of a parasite, I don't know it any different.

What that bitch needs is immaterial and her children surely need foster parents.

Of course we all have choices. I just know that some folk's minds are burnt out, drugged out or were never allowed to grow and choices appear to never appear.

I'm sure you wouldn't say that about an old male who uses children for sexual gratification.

But as long as the person is female and the sexual gratification leads to the production of countless children the rules are different, aren't they?

Then they can breed like rabbits and shove their sense of entitlement into the faces of the taxpayer on TV, and still you would sympathize.

That woman would vote your freedom away without a second thought. As long as she's a citizen with voting rights she's your enemy a thousand times more than any dictator in the middle east.

What I found additionally insane, was the phalanx of attorneys, social workers, shrinks, guardian ad litems [law guardians for each of the children], the idiot female Judge, the court officers and clerical personel who all get paid by the taxpayers and are accomplishing absolutely nothing.

They accomplish the production of more and more of such cases. Which is what (democratic) governments do.

[Selene]

What I found additionally insane, was the phalanx of attorneys, social workers, shrinks, guardian ad litems [law guardians for each of the children], the idiot female Judge, the court officers and clerical personel who all get paid by the taxpayers and are accomplishing absolutely nothing.

They accomplish the production of more and more of such cases. Which is what (democratic) governments do.

John:

Of course we all have choices. I just know that some folk's minds are burnt out, drugged out or were never allowed to grow and choices appear to never appear.

I'm sure you wouldn't say that about an old male who uses children for sexual gratification.

But as long as the person is female and the sexual gratification leads to the production of countless children the rules are different, aren't they?

Are you under the impression that my statement about "sex slaves" is transferable to this woman? It is not.

I do not particularly care about the why's and wherefores that created this particular persons "situation."

Apparently, you chose to transpose my specific statement about one fact pattern to this fact pattern which is not a valid transposition.

Secondly, you have no clue as to what I ..."would say..." about an older male who uses children for sexual gratification, but it would certainly not be the statement about sex slaves.

The emphasis of that comment was on the "slaves" denotation which implies very few choices.

The older male has a plethora of choices. This woman had a plethora of choices. The "sex slave," by definition, has fewer choices. Seems clear to me.

There is a third rail issue here with this women, and the men who regularly engaged in umprotected coitus with her, which has been argued, and put into effect in the US, in the late 1920's, in a famous Virginia Supreme Court case, which is mandatory sterilization.

The 1927 case is Buck v. Bell, here is the wiki link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell , wherein the Progressive eugenicists had pushed through a Virginia mandatory steriliztion law which applied to the "unfit." This statute instituted:

compulsory sterilization

of the unfit, including the

mentally retarded

, "for the protection and health of the state." It was largely seen as an endorsement of

negative eugenics

—the attempt to improve the human race by eliminating "defectives" from the

gene pool

.

The Supreme Court upheld the right of the State to sterilize Carrie Buck.

Now, that is a solution. Rather inexpensive also. It would also be gender neutral.

Adam

[john42t]

Are you under the impression that my statement about "sex slaves" is transferable to this woman? It is not.

No, I wasn't thinking of the "sex slave" thing at all.

I'm more thinking about that Penn State thread were you showed contempt towards a person who gave in to primitive range-of-the-moment urges for sexual gratification.

Is this different because she's a woman, or because her evil produced the children rather than subjecting them to it?

I don't really know where you stand but I sense that in the end you'll side with the "victim", ie. the woman, the child, the dumb, the poor, etc.

The Supreme Court upheld the right of the State to sterilize Carrie Buck.

In the red decade, but that wouldn't stand today.

Now, that is a solution. Rather inexpensive also. It would also be gender neutral.

I object to this, but it surely is less evil than welfare, public schooling or whatever else the state does to make this world a worse place.

[Selene]

I'm more thinking about that Penn State thread were you showed contempt towards a person who gave in to primitive range-of-the-moment urges for sexual gratification.

Is this different because she's a woman, or because her evil produced the children rather than subjecting them to it?

I don't really know where you stand but I sense that in the end you'll side with the "victim", ie. the woman, the child, the dumb, the poor, etc.

I object to this, but it surely is less evil than welfare, public schooling or whatever else the state does to make this world a worse place.

John:

Yes, I showed "contempt" [your word choice] for Sandusky. I would call it moral and legal disapproval and call for punishment since Sandusky used force to take adavantage of those children, allegedly.

Yes, I am showing "contempt" for the Florida woman. I would call her actions immoral, but not illegal. I would also argue for the state not supporting her at all.

I certainly do not perceive her as a victim, any more than the men who did not control their sperm, and left children all over the place.

However, I do not call their behavior illegal.

I understand that you object to madatory sterilization.

What is your solution?

Adam

[john42t]

Yes, I showed "contempt" [your word choice] for Sandusky. I would call it moral and legal disapproval and call for punishment since Sandusky used force to take adavantage of those children, allegedly.

Yes, I am showing "contempt" for the Florida woman. I would call her actions immoral, but not illegal. I would also argue for the state not supporting her at all.

I certainly do not perceive her as a victim, any more than the men who did not control their sperm, and left children all over the place.

However, I do not call their behavior illegal.

Then we're in agreement and I was mistaken to sense anything else.

I understand that you object to madatory sterilization.

What is your solution?

Well, strictly speaking I object primarily to the (democratic) state doing it.

I could say two things here.

First, what would a "good society" be like and second what should one personally support or do given the contemporary one.

To the first issue, I've probably become a child of the 19th Zeitgeist in the sense that I believe that some people just can't provide for themselves and that everyone is, and should, ultimately be selfish. People who can't provide for themselves will have to live under the rule of those who provide for them. They should be free, but if they want to eat more than they are worth, they should be humbled first. This is, of course, a violation of human rights, but I consider those to be evil.

So I'm authoritarian in that sense, but I want all authority to be private, not public.

To the second point, I think that striving for a "good society" is utopian. One should work on oneself, not others. One should concentrate on alleviating the danger to oneself that women like this can pose (moving to a better neighborhood, for example), rather than trying to think about how to prevent that from happening.

I sympathize deeply with the old Puritan thought that you cannot save the souls of others.

[Selene]

Yes, I showed "contempt" [your word choice] for Sandusky. I would call it moral and legal disapproval and call for punishment since Sandusky used force to take adavantage of those children, allegedly.

Yes, I am showing "contempt" for the Florida woman. I would call her actions immoral, but not illegal. I would also argue for the state not supporting her at all.

I certainly do not perceive her as a victim, any more than the men who did not control their sperm, and left children all over the place.

However, I do not call their behavior illegal.

Then we're in agreement and I was mistaken to sense anything else.

I understand that you object to madatory sterilization.

What is your solution?

Well, strictly speaking I object primarily to the (democratic) state doing it.

I could say two things here.

First, what would a "good society" be like and second what should one personally support or do given the contemporary one.

To the first issue, I've probably become a child of the 19th Zeitgeist in the sense that I believe that some people just can't provide for themselves and that everyone is, and should, ultimately be selfish. People who can't provide for themselves will have to live under the rule of those who provide for them. They should be free, but if they want to eat more than they are worth, they should be humbled first. This is, of course, a violation of human rights, but I consider those to be evil.

So I'm authoritarian in that sense, but I want all authority to be private, not public.

To the second point, I think that striving for a "good society" is utopian. One should work on oneself, not others. One should concentrate on alleviating the danger to oneself that women like this can pose (moving to a better neighborhood, for example), rather than trying to think about how to prevent that from happening.

I sympathize deeply with the old Puritan thought that you cannot save the souls of others.

Fair enough.

As to this woman, I agree that private organizations/charities should, and would, "take care of her," the successful ones would do it with "tough love," which in my not humble opinion is the only methodology that works.

The removal of the state from all interactions in this realm is critical to freedom and the growth of a prosperous and free society.

This will, again in my not humble opinion, take place by revolution, or, an Atlas type collapse.

I do not share your hope of the turn around that you see. I hope I am wrong. I will still strive to achieve change through peaceful elections and local actions.

Adam

[john42t]

The removal of the state from all interactions in this realm is critical to freedom and the growth of a prosperous and free society.

We're again largely in agreement then.

This will, again in my not humble opinion, take place by revolution, or, an Atlas type collapse.

By revolution you mean a revolution at the ballot box?

I do not share your hope of the turn around that you see. I hope I am wrong. I will still strive to achieve change through peaceful elections and local actions.

As an American I'd probably be more pessimistic myself.

The major aspect in which Atlas Shrugged has turned out not to be prophetic is what happened to countries other than America. Rand was right about middle and south America, but not Europe and the Far East.

It's America that is more and more dependent on importing goods.

My optimism is primarily for the world, not America, even though I think there's change on the horizon for her as well.

[Selene]

Fair enough.

By revolution, I mean not at the ballot box, but would prefer it be there. Certainly am doing my best there first, but have no problems with the other method if necessary.

Adam