NationStates Jolt Archive

I beleive that sex-ed shouldn't be given to retards. Does anyone hear dissagree with that? I mean, it costs the gov't way to much money to pay for a "handicapped" couples "handicapped" kids, and as long as We don't tell them, they won't figure it out on their own right?

I beleive that sex-ed shouldn't be given to retards. Does anyone hear dissagree with that? I mean, it costs the gov't way to much money to pay for a "handicapped" couples "handicapped" kids, and as long as We don't tell them, they won't figure it out on their own right?
Oh, you poor fucker. You have no idea what shit you have brought upon yourself.

I beleive that sex-ed shouldn't be given to retards. Does anyone hear dissagree with that? I mean, it costs the gov't way to much money to pay for a "handicapped" couples "handicapped" kids, and as long as We don't tell them, they won't figure it out on their own right?
Jesus FUCKING Christ... I'm out of here...

Jesus FUCKING Christ... I'm out of here...
No, stay and watch the bullets fly.

I beleive that sex-ed shouldn't be given to retards. Does anyone hear dissagree with that? I mean, it costs the gov't way to much money to pay for a "handicapped" couples "handicapped" kids, and as long as We don't tell them, they won't figure it out on their own right?

I agree with NK, why be this much of an overt asshole, it's only going to get you a rightly deserved shiting on.

I beleive that sex-ed shouldn't be given to retards. Does anyone hear dissagree with that? I mean, it costs the gov't way to much money to pay for a "handicapped" couples "handicapped" kids, and as long as We don't tell them, they won't figure it out on their own right?
Before you start believing random insane shit, you should at least bother to check out the facts.

Your veiws are like fucking halfarsed nazi wannabes

Before you start believing random insane shit, you should at least bother to check out the facts.

Fucking halfarsed nazi wannabe
You might want to edit that.

Before you start believing random insane shit, you should at least bother to check out the facts.

Your veiws are like fucking halfarsed nazi wannabes

Less flamey...

this thread is... you know... *puke*

No, stay and watch the bullets fly.
I can't wait. I'll pour some fuel on the fire myself...

I can't wait. I'll pour some fuel on the fire myself...
Er, I think we're a little too close. Let's back away and sit here.

*CanuckHeaven brings popcorn for the assembling crowd.

http://www.buttercuppopcorn.com/images/scoop-boxes.jpg

I beleive that sex-ed shouldn't be given to retards. Does anyone hear dissagree with that? I mean, it costs the gov't way to much money to pay for a "handicapped" couples "handicapped" kids, and as long as We don't tell them, they won't figure it out on their own right?
Sex Ed should be thought to everyone. The idea of Sex Ed is to prevent the transmission of sexual diseases, reduce underage pregnancy, increase the understanding of pubescent changes, ensure teenagers make informed choices & understand their rights over their body.

Every human being can benefit from these lessons and to say otherwise is -quite frankly- appalling.

Furthermore, mentally handicapped persons may not have handicapped children. Particularly if their parents do not suffer from the same condition.

Finally, they may discover themselves sexually or become a sexual victim. It is for this reason it is imperative that all children are taught sexual education.

Please leave the neo-Nazi bullshit at the door, I will not have you tracking that stench through the forum.

*CanuckHeaven brings popcorn for the assembling crowd.

YAY!!! :D :D :D

I brought the...http://www.funinprague.com/img/photos/beer-walk.jpg

Okay....who has the tinfoil hats?

Have anybody watched a 20 minute clip "The ABC of Sex Education for Trainables". :D (can't post a linky, the mods will kill me)

Okay....who has the tinfoil hats?me :D

Okay....who has the tinfoil hats?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v209/Dionysus777/22.jpg

Voila!

wait for pic
http://www.justtotheleft.com/images/2005.05.27.tin_foil_hat.JPG

http://www.justtotheleft.com/images/2005.05.27.tin_foil_hat.JPGlooks like a homeless bum.

looks like a homeless bum.
Who's to say it isn't?

Who's to say it isn't?
Me <---Voice of dissent

Why worry about it, I mean who's going to have sex with a retard anyway?

Why worry about it, I mean who's going to have sex with a retard anyway?
Define retard.

I'm not one to say that retards shouldn't have kids. I understand where you are coming from.. but, let em.

Person who I wouldn't have sex with

Person who I wouldn't have sex with
So, do you engage in incest with your mum or is she a retard?

Person who I wouldn't have sex with
So are you planning on celibacy?

There are lots of people that shouldn't have children, but I would put the mentally retarded way down on the list. At the top of the list, I would put pro-eugenic idiots that think all there is to being qualified to have children is having a certain genetic makeup.

Ok, that was my rant.

I beleive that sex-ed shouldn't be given to retards. Does anyone hear dissagree with that? I mean, it costs the gov't way to much money to pay for a "handicapped" couples "handicapped" kids, and as long as We don't tell them, they won't figure it out on their own right?

Depends if they are able to care for themselves. There are varying degrees of mental retardation.
Retarded couples will not necessarily have retarded childeren.

Sex Ed should be thought to everyone. The idea of Sex Ed is to prevent the transmission of sexual diseases, reduce underage pregnancy, increase the understanding of pubescent changes, ensure teenagers make informed choices & understand their rights over their body.

Every human being can benefit from these lessons and to say otherwise is -quite frankly- appalling.

Furthermore, mentally handicapped persons may not have handicapped children. Particularly if their parents do not suffer from the same condition.

Finally, they may discover themselves sexually or become a sexual victim. It is for this reason it is imperative that all children are taught sexual education.

Please leave the neo-Nazi bullshit at the door, I will not have you tracking that stench through the forum.I couldn't have said it better myself,Thank You. I have a vested interest in following this thread because I was born of a retarded mother.

I couldn't have said it better myself,Thank You. I have a vested interest in following this thread because I was born of a retarded mother.
I think we have the answer to our discussion here.

Dude. I mean like the really retarded people. I'm not talking Down's sydrome. I'm talking brain functioning of a 4 year-old retarded, even though they are physically 32. I have met these people because my mom works at a mental retardation facility in Ohio. Many of these people have retarded parents who can't support them, rely on gov't wellfare entirely, and don't recognize their own kids. I know what that's like. It's sad, but I stand by my "ignorant" as some might claim, opinions. I know more about retarded people than most of you liberal douches out their so don't insult me.:mad:

Nice troll.

6/10. I would have said something about licenses to breed.

Sex Ed should be thought to everyone. The idea of Sex Ed is to prevent the transmission of sexual diseases, reduce underage pregnancy, increase the understanding of pubescent changes, ensure teenagers make informed choices & understand their rights over their body.

Every human being can benefit from these lessons and to say otherwise is -quite frankly- appalling.

Furthermore, mentally handicapped persons may not have handicapped children. Particularly if their parents do not suffer from the same condition.

Finally, they may discover themselves sexually or become a sexual victim. It is for this reason it is imperative that all children are taught sexual education.

Please leave the neo-Nazi bullshit at the door, I will not have you tracking that stench through the forum.

First: taught. Not Thought. And I don't mean disease sex-ed. I mean how to have sex-ed. I'm not neo-nazi, in my opinion so stfu. Guess what. They don't figure it out on their own, people shouldn't tell them how either. You sir, have insulted my morals. I know more on the subject than you might think. And your post makes me wonder about you state of mind too.:D

While the guy seems slightly extrimist I do wonder, what would people anti the welfare state or social darwinists do with those type of people, since they do require a lot of support throughout life.

1)I beleive that sex-ed shouldn't be given to retards.
2)Does anyone hear dissagree with that?
3) + 4)I mean, it costs the gov't way to much money to pay for a "handicapped" couples "handicapped" kids,
5)and as long as We don't tell them, they won't figure it out on their own right? (numbering is mine)

first:

yay! finally i have some thread to have a little fun in! [save the day, rather broing till now]

once i'm done, may i come to sit in the watchers' corner and have some of the popcorn, guys?

secondly:

1) as neo-k already asked you to, please do define "retard". a little more extensively then that attempt i already saw.

2) please do improve your spelling. i know i'm the misspelling queen, but at least i do it on purpose.

3) oh yes, these tons of money we would save if "retards" were not to be taught sex-ed. because a) there are so many of them it's unbelievable and b) it costst so damn much.

4)retardation in the sense i understand it does not necessarily have to be hereditary. but if you did specify any single syndroms/diseases/whatever we might get down to that in more detail later.

5) you are very much fooled if you think that people, no matter how "retarded", will not find out how to have sex. call it basic instinct drive or whatever, but not being "educated" on that has never stopped anyone.

incidentally, if you refer to people "with a 4-year-old's brain functioning", you think people with such low cognitive abilities will recall how to do something days, weeks and months after being taught how? rather side-tracked, but that little flaw just occurred to me.

and last but not least, i very much doubt anybody receives any kind of a "how-to" sex-ed, like a manual or hands-on style one, but such will always be a how to prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancies one.

and it would be very much to your will if these "retarded" people would learn how to not procreate unwantedly, now?

1)You sir, have insulted my morals.
2)I know more on the subject than you might think. 3)And your post makes me wonder about you state of mind too.:D (once again, numbering's mine)

p.s.:

1) aww. mind me telling you you have insulted mine, too?

2)oh, you do? would you mind letting that shine through, too? don't hide all that glory, that'd be a shame.

3) oh, don't we all question rotovia's state of mind? i doubt he'll mind, though.

to the OP, I say, yes!! Yes, my friend!! Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!!

I do hear "disagree with that"

:I know more about retarded people than most of you liberal douches out their so don't insult me.:mad:

Since you know so much about 'retards', why do you use that term? :sniper:

You're bluffing.

:

Since you know so much about 'retards', why do you use that term? :sniper:

You're bluffing.

word from the wise: gun smilies do not help anyone

word from the wise: gun smilies do not help anyone

True. But sometimes they're appropriate.

ok. firstly, theres some real liberal usage of the word retard on here, which many will find offensive... i suggest tone it down a bit.

secondly, why should mentally handicapped people be denied the right to have children?

and if they do pass on their disease, it doesn't mean the kids will not lead happy lives. in fact from all the people i've seen who are handicapped, then they look like they're happier than some non-handicapped people.

True. But sometimes they're appropriate.

You'd be right had I said "guns don't help your argument". the smilies are just a bit n00bish.

You'd be right had I said "guns don't help your argument". the smilies are just a bit n00bish.
n00bity is good 4u

I'd have voted for the third option if it hadn't been for the appalling misuse of 'your'.
Of course they should be allowed to have kids. It would cost more to put all their cases through the European Court of Human Rights than it would to pass legislation making it illegal for them to reproduce. And that legislation would be challenged in the ECHR.

This is the end of the post...honest.

This post is a joke (except for the first two sentences). Please do not take it seriously, as misunderstandings were the cause of too many wars in mankind's history. Hitler was a nice guy really.

n00bity is good 4u

lolxorx!11:gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :sniper: :mp5: ;)

To be honest, neo-nazi views like this (the suggestion at the top of the thread) remind me why we still need to fight every day to make the world a better place.

I'd have voted for the third option if it hadn't been for the appalling misuse of 'your'.
Of course they should be allowed to have kids. It would cost more to put all their cases through the European Court of Human Rights than it would to pass legislation making it illegal for them to reproduce. And that legislation would be challenged in the ECHR.

This is the end of the post...honest.

This post is a joke (except for the first sentence). Please do not take it seriously, as misunderstandings were the cause of too many wars in mankind's history. Hitler was a nice guy really.

So, you were joking when you said retards should be allowed kids?

So, you were joking when you said retards should be allowed kids?
Ahem...it's been changed. Sorry.

Ahem...it's been changed. Sorry.

I figured it was just an error. Funny one though, in a warped way

I beleive that sex-ed shouldn't be given to retards. Does anyone hear dissagree with that? I mean, it costs the gov't way to much money to pay for a "handicapped" couples "handicapped" kids, and as long as We don't tell them, they won't figure it out on their own right?

Please explain what you mean by "retartd." Then we might be able to have a discussion.

:

Since you know so much about 'retards', why do you use that term? :sniper:

You're bluffing.

I call them retards because i don't respect them as they do not benefit society, nor do I feel that much compassion for them.:mp5:

After reading through all the posts in this thread, I have concluded about 50% of the people who posted here should not have children. :eek:

After reading through all the posts in this thread, I have concluded about 50% of the people who posted here should not have children. :eek:

Kids are brats anyway.:p

I call them retards because i don't respect them as they do not benefit society

you are becoming increasingly inconsistent in your logic (??). so now, a retard is somebody who doesn't benefit society? pray tell how such is hereditary, then. and/or how such implies not knowing how to have sex. oh, yes.

you are becoming increasingly inconsistent in your logic (??). so now, a retard is somebody who doesn't benefit society? pray tell how such is hereditary, then. and/or how such implies not knowing how to have sex. oh, yes.

Clearly, sex benefits society;)

sure does.think markets, think of all the secondary consumption -> pills, condoms, more washing detergent as more sheets are getting washed more often, more toys, more food (to eplenish energy).

and, you need to consider how it is a nice outlet for all the energy i might otherwisely (ab)use to flame&spite morons on internet forums instead of, er, keeping up a light,civil, er, debate.

[QUOTE=SoWiBi]you are becoming increasingly inconsistent in your logic (??). so now, a retard is somebody who doesn't benefit society? pray tell how such is hereditary, then. and/or how such implies not knowing how to have sex. oh, yes.[/QUOTE/]

You dumbass! I wasn't saying the def. of "retarded", I was saying that people with the mental level of a 4 year old in no way benefit society. And mentally retarded people are more likely to have retarded children, so, stick with me here for a second, they shouldn't have kids. They won't figure it out on their own anyways.

First: taught. Not Thought. And I don't mean disease sex-ed. I mean how to have sex-ed. I'm not neo-nazi, in my opinion so stfu. Guess what. They don't figure it out on their own, people shouldn't tell them how either. You sir, have insulted my morals. I know more on the subject than you might think. And your post makes me wonder about you state of mind too.:D
Sex Ed is not just about biology, so make up your mind before you post. I think you are, and since you are judged be society and not by yourself, you are a neo-nazi. Live with it. Clearly they do. We have at least one Generalite here who is a child of the Mentally Handicapped. My post may make you question my state of mind, but yours' makes me question your very humanity.

I beleive that sex-ed shouldn't be given to retards. Does anyone hear dissagree with that? I mean, it costs the gov't way to much money to pay for a "handicapped" couples "handicapped" kids, and as long as We don't tell them, they won't figure it out on their own right?

Eugenics is so disgusting that I cannot respond reasonably to your post.

Have you learned nothing from history?

I call them retards because i don't respect them as they do not benefit society, nor do I feel that much compassion for them.:mp5:

The rules of this forum prevent me from using the apporpriate lable for you to demonstrate the amount of respect I have for you given how much you appear to benefit society and how much compassion I feel for you.

Posters here seem to have ignored a critical point: morality is not the same as what is best for society. It would probably be 'best for society' if we could torture convicted criminals, send in the army to break up riots, force the country to become ethnically homogenous, obliterate freedom of religion, or recall bad election results - such as Arnold's election in California. It might be 'best for society' if the government was allowed complete control over your daily life, if schools were only available for those who planned to make good use of them, or if people were assigned career paths by the government rather than having to choose one in which they might not be as needed. It might be 'best for society' if government opponents just disappeared, overly powerful politicians were exiled, and military service was compulsory. Yet this still doesn't make it right!

Going back to the original post, the idea is basically this: let's stop all people with an IQ under ____ (unspecified amount) from reproducing because these people are a threat to society. Let me extend this idea a bit further. I know! Let's just shoot them all and relieve society of the burden. That's just ridiculous, right? But why?

Well, the basic principle is that it is immoral because you are inflicting a punishment on people who have done nothing wrong. Simply for living, breathing, and existing, you have determined to make their lives miserable. Whatever that punishment is, and this one is fairly severe, you can't tell me that such an action is morally acceptable against a defenseless and harmless minority. Sometimes you just have to put aside your conception of society's 'needs' or the 'greater good' and remember what society is in the first place: a collection of individuals. These individuals really would like the same rights as everybody else, and, neo-nazis aside, I think most of us are prepared to grant it to them.

Now, I could go on ranting for a few hours about the 'slippery slope' of rights abuses, or the principles of equality and freedom, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. As we like to say down here in the south: it just ain't right. This is the twenty-first century. We shouldn't even be debating about discrimination, I think by now we should realize that it's just plain wrong. When somebody in society needs help, you help them, you don't laugh at them. Retarded members of society already face discrimination from the types that have posted above, have troubles finding work, need help with many of the simplest of daily tasks, and are often left to fend for themselves by unaccepting family members. On top of that, you are proposing to take away what little joy the few that are able to marry have in their lives.

Newsflash: Germany lost (twice).

Ahhh...the keg's gone empty....can we get some more beer and popcorn in here? It's just getting good!

Sex Ed is not just about biology, so make up your mind before you post. I think you are, and since you are judged be society and not by yourself, you are a neo-nazi. Live with it. Clearly they do. We have at least one Generalite here who is a child of the Mentally Handicapped. My post may make you question my state of mind, but yours' makes me question your very humanity.

Well of course there are other options, like a Far-right alien.;) And I didn't mean the "state of mind" thing. You take stuff too seriously.:p

Posters here seem to have ignored a critical point: morality is not the same as what is best for society. It would probably be 'best for society' if we could torture convicted criminals, send in the army to break up riots, force the country to become ethnically homogenous, obliterate freedom of religion, or recall bad election results - such as Arnold's election in California. It might be 'best for society' if the government was allowed complete control over your daily life, if schools were only available for those who planned to make good use of them, or if people were assigned career paths by the government rather than having to choose one in which they might not be as needed. It might be 'best for society' if government opponents just disappeared, overly powerful politicians were exiled, and military service was compulsory. Yet this still doesn't make it right!

Going back to the original post, the idea is basically this: let's stop all people with an IQ under ____ (unspecified amount) from reproducing because these people are a threat to society. Let me extend this idea a bit further. I know! Let's just shoot them all and relieve society of the burden. That's just ridiculous, right? But why?

Well, the basic principle is that it is immoral because you are inflicting a punishment on people who have done nothing wrong. Simply for living, breathing, and existing, you have determined to make their lives miserable. Whatever that punishment is, and this one is fairly severe, you can't tell me that such an action is morally acceptable against a defenseless and harmless minority. Sometimes you just have to put aside your conception of society's 'needs' or the 'greater good' and remember what society is in the first place: a collection of individuals. These individuals really would like the same rights as everybody else, and, neo-nazis aside, I think most of us are prepared to grant it to them.

Now, I could go on ranting for a few hours about the 'slippery slope' of rights abuses, or the principles of equality and freedom, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. As we like to say down here in the south: it just ain't right. This is the twenty-first century. We shouldn't even be debating about discrimination, I think by now we should realize that it's just plain wrong. When somebody in society needs help, you help them, you don't laugh at them. Retarded members of society already face discrimination from the types that have posted above, have troubles finding work, need help with many of the simplest of daily tasks, and are often left to fend for themselves by unaccepting family members. On top of that, you are proposing to take away what little joy the few that are able to marry have in their lives.

Newsflash: Germany lost (twice).

Many good points in these statements. I do not consider myself a neo-nazi, I believe in human rights, but depriving someone of sex is not a punishment! And I don't wan't anyone to get killed, as you imply.:( Anyways, I find that other people here are meaner than I.

I beleive that sex-ed shouldn't be given to retards. Does anyone hear dissagree with that? I mean, it costs the gov't way to much money to pay for a "handicapped" couples "handicapped" kids, and as long as We don't tell them, they won't figure it out on their own right?
Few handicaps are inheritable. :p

The rules of this forum prevent me from using the apporpriate lable for you to demonstrate the amount of respect I have for you given how much you appear to benefit society and how much compassion I feel for you.
Wow!! You stated that so nicely!!

*CanuckHeaven takes notes.

Ignoring 90% of what's gone on, yes, the first post was a bit on the eugenics side, but I do believe that two individuals who are in the care of the state and do not get counted as adults shouldn't be treated as such. I'm sorry, but it's just not the taxpayer's problem. Two people who cannot care for themselves have no right to create another person who they can't care for.

Well of course there are other options, like a Far-right alien.;) And I didn't mean the "state of mind" thing. You take stuff too seriously.:p
God damn right I do. There are certain things I will draw a line in the sand about. This is one of them. Consider this a warning about my no bullshit zone policy.

Many good points in these statements. I do not consider myself a neo-nazi, I believe in human rights, but depriving someone of sex is not a punishment! And I don't wan't anyone to get killed, as you imply.:( Anyways, I find that other people here are meaner than I.
People are not mean. They simply passionately disagree with your position and should have expected as much. The opinion you raised is a neo-nazi one. If you can find another ideology that embraces this opinion, then I will reclassify you.

Depriving someone of Sexual Education is the issue. The one you raised and the one we plan to address.

If you don't want a shock, don't piss on the fence!