Should atheists, agnostics, etc. be allowed to have children?

[Cromlech]

It's easy for anyone to come up with a reason why "those people" shouldn't reproduce.  But what happens when "those people" are in charge, and they say you don't get to reproduce?

Indeed. For a moment here, Religion is irrelevant, let's assume that their is no God/Gods/Higher power (whatever). If we were to let natural selection take place as it does elsewhere in nature (we are mostly above all of that now, at least in the traditional sense), then kids with severe Autism or Cerebral Palsy, and other such afflictions, should be left to their own devices at the same age as other children. The real bad cases need people to do everything for them, including feed them. I am sure that some people would be horrified at the notion of aborting/murdering (whatever) these children, and I can understand why. But, as I was saying (yes this is a long winded rant), by all rights they should not live. We are fighting against 'survival of the fittest'.

That being said, in society/civilisation today, we don't really need individuals to be strong to survive and be considered worth living.

I don't know where I am going with this to be honest, but I felt like a little bit of keyboard mashing. 

[The Rabbi]

It's easy for anyone to come up with a reason why "those people" shouldn't reproduce.  But what happens when "those people" are in charge, and they say you don't get to reproduce?

Indeed. For a moment here, Religion is irrelevant, let's assume that their is no God/Gods/Higher power (whatever). If we were to let natural selection take place as it does elsewhere in nature (we are mostly above all of that now, at least in the traditional sense), then kids with severe Autism or Cerebral Palsy, and other such afflictions, should be left to their own devices at the same age as other children. The real bad cases need people to do everything for them, including feed them. I am sure that some people would be horrified at the notion of aborting/murdering (whatever) these children, and I can understand why. But, as I was saying (yes this is a long winded rant), by all rights they should not live. We are fighting against 'survival of the fittest'.
 

No, I don't know where you're going with it either.  But one civilization did try doing pretty much what you suggest.  Fortunately we decisively crushed them and their views in WW2.

[Cromlech]

Yeah, like I said, I'm off on all kinds of tangents. It was just an agreement with the previous poster, about giving people the power to decide who should be allowed children. Some people could use that power to stop those with certain genetic traits from breeding (in this case, in order to curb genetic disorders), which on one hand is preventing the spread of 'bad' genes, but on the other hand is oppressing those that wish to have a child, even if they wish to devote the necessary time and work in order to care and nurture it.

[Matthew Carberry]

Have all the kids you want, flipper babies or worse, just keep 'em off my lawn and don't force me to help pay for 'em.

[mnrivrat]

I will say that all you believers are intertaining !

I especialy like the quotes from that great book of fiction called the bible , which I'm sure is in the same library location as the Tora and the Koran (sp).

If somebody wrote it down it must be true !  LOL 

OK - You all got the right to believe in whatever turns your crank .  Wether it is god or the easter bunny, ghosts or vampires , it's your right to think your way.  Just have the courtesy to allow others to do the same without trying to convert them and I think all will get along much better.

[The Rabbi]

I didnt see anyone trying to convert anyone else.  I did see people engaging in discussion who were committed to what they believed but treated the other side seriously.  I can't say the same thing for your post, which was made up of equal parts of offensive and childish.

[Perd Hapley]

Just remember, everyone.  Converting anti-gunners to the RKBA side, or converting left-wing Democrats to libertarianism is a beautiful and wonderful thing.  Converting far-right-wing Christian fundamentalists to some other point of view is great, too.  Just don't think you can try to convert anyone to a traditional religious point of view.  That's just not right.   

[CAnnoneer]

The way this thread is going, I may end up convinced that only I should procreate.

Fortunately we decisively crushed them and their views in WW2.

And look where we are now - western civilization is dying demographically, ideologically, politically, and culturally. Some victory. Vivat!

[The Rabbi]

Fortunately we decisively crushed them and their views in WW2.

And look where we are now - western civilization is dying demographically, ideologically, politically, and culturally. Some victory. Vivat!

That qualified as non-sequitur of the week.  Call me to arrange prize pick up.

[CAnnoneer]

That qualified as non-sequitur of the week.  Call me to arrange prize pick up.

You are smart enough to see the connection. But are you brave enough to acknowledge it?

[The Rabbi]

That qualified as non-sequitur of the week.  Call me to arrange prize pick up.

You are smart enough to see the connection. But are you brave enough to acknowledge it?

I would attempt to flesh out exactly what you are proposing.  It appears you think the Nazis were some contribution to Western culture and civilization and their defeat augered ill for same.
I assure you that is not the case.
If that isnt what you meant then I have no idea.  I doubt anyone does.

[CAnnoneer]

It appears you think the Nazis were some contribution to Western culture and civilization and their defeat augered ill for same.

The Nazis were quite pedestrian in culture because it was popular socialist culture - see "totalitarian art". What I maintain is that the war "to crush them" was a Pyrrhic victory to the extreme because it devastated Europe, bled it white of people and energy, allowed communism to spread over half of it, and ultimately bred the multicultural leftism and self-loathing nihilism that has been destroying the west since then.

I'd prefer if the dumbasses in charge had been wiser at Versailles and St Germin in 1919 and had not carved up Germany, thereby fomenting WW2. Failing that, I'd have preferred if the Brits and the French had kept an armed neutrality and let Hitler kill communism, as was his intention in the first place.

[Perd Hapley]

Just when I thought I was the master thread-jacker.   

[The Rabbi]

Just when I thought I was the master thread-jacker.   

Well, that beats being the Master Baiter....

[Strings]

No... I'm pretty sure fistful is still an apprentice-baiter...

 I guess I can KINDA see the connection that CA is making. Seems like a bit of a stretch to me, but I can kinda see it...

 Personally though, I think there were other causes of the spread of multicultural leftism and self-loathing nihilism...

[The Rabbi]

I can't see any connection.  That is like saying Abraham Lincoln is responsible for the epidemic of crack cocaine.  It ignores about a million other conditions.

[CAnnoneer]

The more you think about it, the clearer it will get. Here are some pointers:

1) Leftism is about collectivism, and collectivism is about sacrifice of the individual to the needs of society, exploiting the strong for the benefit of the weak, the many dictating over the few. Conversely, European culture has evolved in the opposite direction - recognizing the individual as the center and thus deriving individual rights and personal freedom. The two world views are inherently incompatible. The Nazis, while ultimately socialist, partly promulgated Nietzsche and the strive to perfection as one of their slogans. Thus the modern leftists think the Nazis were individualist, and since Nazis are bad, so is individualism. If the Nazis did not become radioactive, individualism would not have contracted it either.

2) Many upstanding anti-communists joined the nazis to fight communism and thus died. If they had not, they would be around to offer a great counterweight to leftism taking Europe and America by storm.

3) WW2 and its devastation formed a horrific image in the minds of the sheeple that ANY war is inherently unjust, evil, and unacceptable. They drew the incorrect conclusions and so did culture in general, and the vanquished hawks were not around the counterweigh. We see the failures of this attitude both in Vietnam and Iraq. The same is true for "casualty-tolerance".

4) A great many conservatives and anti-communists, who did not join the nazis, still ended up jailed and killed off by the commies in a "internal security" wave instead of war action. Nobody counts those it seems. They would have been a counterweight in each of their countries.

5) In terms of self-loathing, every time anybody is to express a preference for Europe or western culture above all, he is 50% likely to have "racist" and "nazi" thrown in his face. That alone is damaging enough. Add to that teens that feel compelled to behave like minorities "to blend in" and out of "white guilt", and you will see how the nazi defeat and the rise of multiculturalism have made being a "cracker" essentially radioactive. How can anyone promote/maintain/preserve a culture when there is an immediate negative feedback? Why isn't the same feedback given to the "underprivileged" cultures? All of this is psychological and political fallout of WW2.

[The Rabbi]

That's the most screwed-up analysis I think I've read. It is totally misinformed.  It makes astoundingly unfounded assumptions.  I couldn't begin to unravel all the untruths, half-truths, and misinformation there.
But what do I expect from someone who thinks genocide is a viable option.

[Matthew Carberry]

CAnnon,

In brief, in the perceptions of many, everything and everyone (speaking overly-broadly) anti-socialist, pro-individual, pro-capitalism, pro-freedom, ad nauseum got (mistakenly) lumped in with "Nazism".

Since the perception was thus established, it poisoned the ability of those who were "conservative" (for lack of a better term) to get their points across without being labeled "Nazi" following the war.  In addition, many of those who were actually pro-capitalism/freedom but anti-Nazi were killed by (or with) the Nazi's and the Sovs, so their credible voices were also lost.

Thus leaving the field of ideas skewed in favor of the socialists and statists from that point forward.

Perception shaped reality. 

That I can see in discussions with statist types.  They are blind to their resemblence to the fascists and instead project that label onto me, the classical liberal, because my arguments are perceived as those of the Nazi's.

[roo_ster]

Hmm, interesting.  I would put the start of the West's moral rot to somewhere before WWI (Marx, Freud & Darwin being the three largest instigators).  WWII was more a continuation of WWI and the West's moral rot.

I would put forth the proposition that the most dangerous opponent in WWII was the USSR.  Nazism had limited popularity outside of Germany/Germanic states, seeing as the Nazis tended to commit genocide on non-Germans.  The threat of Japanese hegemony was similarly self-limiting.  Communism was a self-proclaimed global phenomenon.

The German/Russian portion of the conflict was bound to disappoint, as BOTH couldn't lose and be destroyed.

The left supported WWII because their darling, Communist Russia, was at existential risk.  Thye haven't supported a single one of our dust-up since.

[CAnnoneer]

The German/Russian portion of the conflict was bound to disappoint, as BOTH couldn't lose and be destroyed.

Churchill said in the end: "We slaughtered the wrong pig." About damn time for the fat drunk to figure that one out... Roosevelt never did.

The victory of either is no cause for celebration, but I am of the opinion that the Nazis would have been the far lesser evil. They could have won earlier and far less expensively, would have subsequently collapsed faster than USSR, would have been easier to deal with, would have been less damaging to Europe and the West in the long run. On top, there likely would not have been a Cold War, or at least not with the bitterness, length, and fallout of the historical one. 

[The Rabbi]

The victory of either is no cause for celebration, but I am of the opinion that the Nazis would have been the far lesser evil. They could have won earlier and far less expensively, would have subsequently collapsed faster than USSR, would have been easier to deal with, would have been less damaging to Europe and the West in the long run. On top, there likely would not have been a Cold War, or at least not with the bitterness, length, and fallout of the historical one. 

Excuse me while I beg to differ. 

[Werewolf]

That's the most screwed-up analysis I think I've read. It is totally misinformed.  It makes astoundingly unfounded assumptions.  I couldn't begin to unravel all the untruths, half-truths, and misinformation there.
But what do I expect from someone who thinks genocide is a viable option.

That, Rabbi, is your standard answer to every thing on this forum that you disagree with.

Why don't you actually try taking Canoneer's argument apart. Disect it. Provide via fact, logic etc why you disagree. Simply disagreeing is both moral and especially an intellectual copout.

Oh - I almost forgot - you almost always add an ad hominim attack in most of your respones. The one referenced above to Canoneer is no exception.

Besides. You really don't have to tell us you disagree. We already know that. You disagree with almost everything.

[Matthew Carberry]

Rabbi has a dog in this fight...

Rabbi has a dog in this fight...

Rabbi has a dog in this fight...

Rabbi has a dog in this fight...

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually I disagree with you assesment.

I could start by pointing out that Nazism is fascism and the very symbol of fascism suggests collectivism.  Thus communism and Nazism are really two sides of the same coin.
I could continue to say that people were not disillusioned by the slaughter of WW2.  The very opposite.  It was "the just war" and suggested that wars actually do some good.  In fact we fought wars pretty soon after, Korea and Vietnam to name two.  People were disillusioned by the slaughter of WW1.  And there wasnt a major war for 20 years after that.  Look at the DaDa movement for support of that.
Anti-communists did not join the Nazis.  They largely emigrated or were killed as opponents of the regime.  The Nazi supporters were made up of self-aggrandizing people with their own agenda.
I could go on and on.
But have I convinced you now, Werewolf?  Or did you have something else in mind making those comments?