Mental Disabilities

[Double_V]

Indeed. This is why I can't believe euthanasia is illegal...

I believe it's legal in either Holland or Denmark. I recently read an article about twin 40+ year old twin brothers born deaf and now becoming blind excercising that option. It was all so civilized. The said their goodbyes to parents and siblings in the doctors waiting room and then went down the hall to the office and did it.

Also of one the east coast states is considering it now. I think Vermont.

 

[Chad]

Eradicating the diseased and disabled to prevent them from reproducing potentially diseased and disabled people makes sense. Especially when the diseases are hereditary.

The thing that rustles one's jimmies so to speak is when you bring morality into the mix.


My statement is accurate based on your post... It is why I asked for a point.

Its would be more human to sterilize them so that cannot have a linage.

However, even not doing this people who are seriously mentally ill are unlikely to reproduce children unless they are raped or abused. Logically speaking the rapist or abuser is more to blame for this then the mentally ill.

 

[Duxwing]

Once it becomes apparent that someone will not be repaying their debt to society.

Or when nobody will support them on a voluntary basis.

In many cases, the voluntarism would be based upon proximity. And ought we not to demand care-- by force if necessary-- for orphans, for example? They can and will 'repay their debt to society,' but not if they're left starving in the street. Moreover, hungry hands know no bounds.

Or whenever. All I 'know' is that non-conditional support is more wrong than other options. The rest is details (of which I am less certain).

How would we distinguish you from someone who does not deserve support?

-Duxwing

 

[crippli]

Eradicating the diseased and disabled is logically sound. Ethically, it causes al-sorts of issues.

What is the conclusion? You have made the premises clear, but if I am to judge it's validity, I must have what follows too. And what is clear is that inference is deductably valid if there is no situation in which the premises are true but the conclusion false.

 

[Hawkeye]

What is the conclusion? You have made the premises clear, but if I am to judge it's validity, I must have what follows too. And what is clear is that inference is deductably valid if there is no situation in which the premises are true but the conclusion false.

This is where Hitler's vision fell apart. He couldn't decide where to draw the line and slowly but surely gravitated towards his ideal Aryan race.

The vision works only if you take it to the extreme otherwise there is ambiguity and the system crumbles.

 

[Wolf18]

Not to sound rude, but did you read what I said? Stephen Hawking more than pulls his own weight, just not directly. He brings far more to the table than 99.9% of the population IMO, he already has, and will continue to, contribute despite enormous adversity.

That said, if his mind failed and his stocks crashed, then it would be up to those who care to keep him alive. I would not be one of them.

So how do you draw the line? There are people who don't need extra help, but don't contribute at all - in fact, that's most people. What do you say to them? And how do you know if someone has "pulled their weight"? Who determines that? Your system is way too subjective (not to mention unfair).

SW

 

[Duxwing]

What is the conclusion? You have made the premises clear, but if I am to judge it's validity, I must have what follows too. And what is clear is that inference is deductably valid if there is no situation in which the premises are true but the conclusion false.

His point is that killing all people with hereditary illnesses before they reproduce would greatly reduce the prevalence of those illnesses in the general population independently of whether the act would be morally sound.

-Duxwing

 

[Minuend]

So would tying them to a pole and cutting off their legs do.

Regardless of the level of morality.

See where this "logic" fails in this topic?

 

[Duxwing]

So would tie them to a pole and cut off them their legs

And that's why we consider the ethics of what we do, too. Nevertheless, he was only examining the effects of eugenics-- not the ethics.

-Duxwing

 

[Hawkeye]

So would tying them to a pole and cutting off their legs do.

Regardless of the level of morality.

See where this "logic" fails in this topic?

That isn't a failure of logic though. You are trying to apply ethics to the situation.

 

[Minuend]

Then what you are talking about is not an argument. You are just saying that it will decrease sickness, not that this conclusion is desirable or meaningful. I might as well say "if you cut a human in half it will die".

It makes no sense to bring it up in debate.

 

[Hawkeye]

Then what you are talking about is not an argument. You are just saying that it will decrease sickness, not that this conclusion is desirable or meaningful. I might as well say "if you cut a human in half it will die".

It makes no sense to bring it up in debate.

Actually, if you read the topic from the beginning you will find that it is relevant.

 

[Minuend]

Determining that decreased illness is good is a value statement.

My point stands

 

[Hawkeye]

Not everything posted in a thread is an argument. It is silly to think it should be.

My post is relevant, but not an argument.

 

[Duxwing]

Determining that decreased illness is good is a value statement.

He never said that it was good. He said that eugenics would have a certain effect. Nevertheless, he ought to have included ethics.

-Duxwing

 

[Double_V]

His point is that killing all people with hereditary illnesses before they reproduce would greatly reduce the prevalence of those illnesses in the general population independently of whether the act would be morally sound.

-Duxwing

To which I say who is he to play God? And how does he know what is hereditary and what is not?

I hate no mention Hitler, he was so mentally off, but even if we pretended for a moment what he did wasn't wrong .... he killed in the name of supposed "hereditary illnesses" and he was wrong. The illness was not hereditary.

 

[Hawkeye]

Why can't people think straight when you remove ethics from a scenario?

 

[Minuend]

Not everything posted in a thread is an argument. It is silly to think it should be.

My post is relevant, but not an argument.

Then why did you post if only to state the obvious? Such redundancy and trivial presences only cloud and disturb debate. How long-winded and bothersome.

Do you think some people here don't know that dead people cease to exist among us as physical beings?

 

[Hawkeye]

Then why did you post if only to state the obvious? Such redundancy and trivial presences only cloud and disturb debate. How long-winded and bothersome.

Do you think some people here don't know that dead people cease to exist among us as physical beings?

If it's obvious, it wouldn't disturb the debate. Clearly you had no idea what I was talking about and I'm not sure you do now.

I made a point about a quick way to remove disease without ethics and it confuses the hell out of you.

You have to apply ethics for it to make sense for some reason.

Do you think some people here don't know that dead people cease to exist among us as physical beings?

This is also false as a dead body still exists as a physical being albeit a dead one.

 

[Minuend]

Resorting to even more redundant nit-picking.

If you must know, I used the term physical as some believe in the afterlife or the likes.

I made a point about a quick way to remove disease without ethics and it confuses the hell out of you.

Eradicating the diseased and disabled is logically sound

His main objective makes perfect sense when attempting to better humanity from a physical (and mental) perspective.

Eradicating the diseased and disabled to prevent them from reproducing potentially diseased and disabled people makes sense. Especially when the diseases are hereditary.

You are drawing conclusions based on your statement, hence you can't say that you didn't make a value judgement.

Without any value judgements, there is no reason reducing illness is a desirable goal.

Which means you are the one who brought values (ethics) into the statements. You failed to realize this, not me.

 

[Duxwing]

You are drawing conclusions based on your statement, hence you can't say that you didn't make a value judgement.

Non-sequitur:

P->Q
Q
Therefore P

No value judgment there.

-Duxwing

 

[Hawkeye]

I have not added ethics. You are imagining things.

If you must know, I used the term physical as some believe in the afterlife or the likes.

This still makes no sense in the context of the original statement.

 

[Chad]

The argument is limp if you boil it down to Killing ill people reduces the rate of ill people. Primarily because this isn't the only effect of killing ill people. This world view is way to simplistic and illogical. Mostly because scientifically put Eugenics doesn't even produce the desired effect. As nearly all Mentally ill people are born of none mentally ill parents and Mentally ill people why being at greater risk of producing mentally ill people do not always produce mentally ill people. Therefore Eugenics is a failed experiment. It may sound logical but it is flawed because it premise is invalid.

There, I augured against Eugenics without adding a moral value to the argument. Eugenics is invalid for not other reason then its premises are invalid. Do, some research and see for yourself. I have no need to do your homework for you because my opinions are accepted by the governing bodies in my country therefore I have no reason to change this.

 

[Hawkeye]

The argument is limp if you boil it down to Killing ill people reduces the rate of ill people. Primarily because this isn't the only effect of killing ill people. This world view is way to simplistic and illogical. Mostly because scientifically put Eugenics doesn't even produce the desired effect. As nearly all Mentally ill people are born of none mentally ill parents and Mentally ill people why being at greater risk of producing mentally ill people do not always produce mentally ill people. Therefore Eugenics is a failed experiment. It may sound logical but it is flawed because it premise is invalid.

There, I augured against Eugenics without adding a moral value to the argument. Eugenics is invalid for not other reason then its premises are invalid. Do, some research and see for yourself. I have no need to do your homework for you because my opinions are accepted by the governing bodies in my country therefore I have no reason to change this.

I did say it was a very, very crude method that didn't work long-term...

 

[C.Hecker88]

I have no problem with you caring for and supporting people with mental disabilities. I never said I did. Just don't force others to pay for the support of people that are only a burden on an already flailing society.

This.

 

[~~~]

Essentially, I speak from the position of someone who does not practice what he preaches.

Why?

More on point; why not let nature decide?

What happens when then administrative processes go awry? If you have seen the justice system then you know it is not perfect and that this is probably the main reason why societies chose not to have the death penalty (outside of war usually). What happens if the power gets abused as the powerless have little recourse to force as force is usually monopolised by the state?

What about the slippery slope for those against Hadoblado's idea? What do you think about the use of drugs by the State on those incarcerated?

 

[Teohrn]

The argument is limp if you boil it down to Killing ill people reduces the rate of ill people. Primarily because this isn't the only effect of killing ill people. This world view is way to simplistic and illogical. Mostly because scientifically put Eugenics doesn't even produce the desired effect. As nearly all Mentally ill people are born of none mentally ill parents and Mentally ill people why being at greater risk of producing mentally ill people do not always produce mentally ill people. Therefore Eugenics is a failed experiment. It may sound logical but it is flawed because it premise is invalid.

There, I augured against Eugenics without adding a moral value to the argument. Eugenics is invalid for not other reason then its premises are invalid. Do, some research and see for yourself. I have no need to do your homework for you because my opinions are accepted by the governing bodies in my country therefore I have no reason to change this.

As a matter of fact, you happen to be wrong. Firstly, many diseases are hereditary, and some are more prone to such diseases than others. Secondly, that the parents themselves don't have such diseases doesn't imply that they're not more prone to having such diseases.

The logical argument for eugenics (which I personally prefer to call anti-dysgenics) is valid. The ethical may not be. Consider the fact that ethics is not objective. While morals are not objective, we do know why humans, and all animals, are moral creatures. The reason is that morality is evolutionary necessary. So it exists for the sole reason of the propagation of the species. Therefore, morals should be based on the objective criterias of evolutionary utilitarianism. Because eugenics/anti-dysgenics improves the human gene pool, and therefore furthers the human species, it is ethically right.

PS. Somewhat related. http://edge.org/response-detail/23838

 

[Chad]

I am talking about mental illness in general. There are while there are some cases were mental illness is hereditary its not all hereditary. I am not talking about all issues this one in general. I am also talking about the fact that almost all genetic illness are caused by some genetic mutations that can happen without any prior genetic issues. Long term they will all play havoc and there is not way as of right now to eliminate these issues. Base case scenario is better understanding of the genetic flaws in reversing them. This is far more logical then killing someone because they have a illness or they are a carrier for an illness. Mostly because as of right now its almost impossible tell what condition when someone has a genetic flaw or not genetic flaw.

 

[Duxwing]

As a matter of fact, you happen to be wrong. Firstly, many diseases are hereditary, and some are more prone to such diseases than others. Secondly, that the parents themselves don't have such diseases doesn't imply that they're not more prone to having such diseases.

The logical argument for eugenics (which I personally prefer to call anti-dysgenics) is valid. The ethical may not be. Consider the fact that ethics is not objective. While morals are not objective, we do know why humans, and all animals, are moral creatures. The reason is that morality is evolutionary necessary. So it exists for the sole reason of the propagation of the species. Therefore, morals should be based on the objective criterias of evolutionary utilitarianism. Because eugenics/anti-dysgenics improves the human gene pool, and therefore furthers the human species, it is ethically right.

PS. Somewhat related. http://edge.org/response-detail/23838

What is natural is not necessarily good.

-Duxwing

 

[Teohrn]

I am talking about mental illness in general. There are while there are some cases were mental illness is hereditary its not all hereditary. I am not talking about all issues this one in general. I am also talking about the fact that almost all genetic illness are caused by some genetic mutations that can happen without any prior genetic issues. Long term they will all play havoc and there is not way as of right now to eliminate these issues. Base case scenario is better understanding of the genetic flaws in reversing them. This is far more logical then killing someone because they have a illness or they are a carrier for an illness. Mostly because as of right now its almost impossible tell what condition when someone has a genetic flaw or not genetic flaw.

I know you are, and the point still stands. Mental illnesses are hereditary.

Don't you think that if genetic mutations just popped up like that, then it's better to curb down those which already exists, along with said genetic mutations? Genetic mutations do pop up, but hardly the way you present it. Most genetic diseases are preexistant in the genome, that's why they're there and relatively common.

Killing isn't necessary, I just don't think feeble-minded and deranged people should breed, that doesn't require killing.

The problem here is that people equate eugenics with Hitler and the whole Western world at that time. The optimal way of imposing eugenics is through selective pressures (e.g. social stigmas) rather than coercion. Nature often fixes things itself, schizophrenics aren't very likely to have kids f.e.

What is natural is not necessarily good.

-Duxwing

In a way it actually is. As I argued, our morals developed because of a biological process. What we consider altruism is simply our brain being hard-wired towards doing good towards others and expecting them to return the favour. That's basically the foundation of any culture; we scratch each other's backs for survival. The human species can only survive through civilization.

Basically, morals developed for the surival of our species. Ethics is an evolutionary necessity as it is required for culture to develop. That means that whatever furthers the common good, the furthering and improvement of the human species, is ethical. Ethics is a mean towards a goal. We tend to not recognize that morals are simply tools, not something in itself, which we do just to do it. That's because of theism.

What is natural is necessarily good because what is good is natural! Moral is natural. This realization takes a good amount of nihilism.

 

[Hadoblado]

@thehabitatdoctor
Mandatory welfare can exist in a stable mutualistic state, but I do not believe it is efficient to do so. At this moment in time I think it very wise to be thinking of ways we can tighten our belts, or invest in ways so that we do not need to. The governing forces seem to be digging graves for all of us, and while it would be nice to have limitless resources to distribute as we see fit, this is not the case, as will be more than apparent in the future.

@Duxwing
It would be largely correlated with proximity. Orphans are capable of repaying the debt they incur. If they are left starving on the streets then there is no debt to repay. By caring for them and allowing them opportunity, is it not too much to ask to have them become productive members of society? Perhaps they should help take care of the next generation of orphans?

How would I determine if someone deserves support? If you want to support them, you do so. My criteria would include the capacity for them to care for themselves and others at a later date.

@Wolf18
If the people don’t require help then they are not part of the equation. Who cares if they don’t contribute if they don’t owe anything?

How do I know if someone has pulled their weight? I don’t. You make an educated guess as to whether or not they have the capacity to, and then direct your support in such a way as to have them achieve independence. If you think George who has Down’s syndrome has the ability to one day support himself, then he is a better investment of your resources than say Tommy with Cerebral Palsy who has both mental and physical disabilities who (in this instance) will never be able to say the same.
Even then, it’s my investment. If I have a particular fondness for Tommy I can choose to support him regardless. All I’m saying is that you shouldn’t be able to force me to make what I would consider a malinvestment.
The unfairness inherent in this proposed system is not artificial or subjective. It is simply non-interference with natural processes. The whole euthanasia thing is a side not, it’s an attachment to the model to help mitigate an unfortunate side effect (painful death by starvation).

@~~~
As previously mentioned, my position cares little for the actual euthanasia side of things. It is peripheral. The main idea is that there doesn’t need to be administration for you to let people die. There doesn’t need to be anyone making decisions for other people. Compassion will still be a force in the world, but it will be true compassion, not the realisation of personal values through force.

My opinion on eugenics:
The ideas behind eugenics are largely out dated. There are some less invasive methods that could be used to improve the gene pool, such as free vasectomies, but the implementation of large scale eugenic policies is little more than a twisted dream. It pretty much requires a fascist regime to be effective, and the selective processes are unerringly slow. The benefits could not conceivably outweigh the costs, so while it’s fun to think about, it’s entirely idealistic and naïve to actually support a militant eugenic policy.

 

[Duxwing]

@Duxwing
It would be largely correlated with proximity. Orphans are capable of repaying the debt they incur. If they are left starving on the streets then there is no debt to repay. By caring for them and allowing them opportunity, is it not too much to ask to have them become productive members of society? Perhaps they should help take care of the next generation of orphans?

Perhaps a welfare system in which all capable members involuntarily contributed according to ability and received according to need would be most preferable? Contribution would be involuntary simply because one's health, as pertains to accidents and major illness, is an accident of history, and you wouldn't want to be in the position of the unloved orphan.

How would I determine if someone deserves support? If you want to support them, you do so. My criteria would include the capacity for them to care for themselves and others at a later date.

Are those who cannot truly such a burden to society?

-Duxwing

 

[crippli]

This is where Hitler's vision fell apart. He couldn't decide where to draw the line and slowly but surely gravitated towards his ideal Aryan race.

The vision works only if you take it to the extreme otherwise there is ambiguity and the system crumbles.

The drawing of the line is the problem. Logic is a language of and/or. Valid/false. Once Hitler started killing people he removed himself from logic. Logic theory and implementation can never be the same. Besides all humans are diseased. Otherwise we would live much longer.

You don't run into problems only with ethics. But with logic itself. As you would have to eradicate everyone. People wouldn't go along with it. There are many who don't consider themselves to be either diseased or disabled.

His point is that killing all people with hereditary illnesses before they reproduce would greatly reduce the prevalence of those illnesses in the general population independently of whether the act would be morally sound.

-Duxwing

Should it not be if you kill all the people with those illnesses, all those illnesses will be removed? Otherwise the conclusion does not stand up to the premise.

 

[Duxwing]

Should it not be if you kill all the people with those illnesses, all those illnesses will be removed? Otherwise the conclusion does not stand up to the premise.

I don't entirely understand what you mean by "should it".

-Duxwing

 

[crippli]

I don't entirely understand what you mean by "should it".

-Duxwing

Okay, I'll try this way.
I meant that "greatly reduces" does not correspond with "all". Inference will be invalid, so not a logically sound argument. Mine will be logically sound. Killing all humans will eradicate all hereditary human illnesses.

At least for a while, until another ape suffers a genetic mutation.

 

[Duxwing]

Okay, I'll try this way.
I meant that "greatly reduces" does not correspond with "all". Inference will be invalid, so not a logically sound argument. Mine will be logically sound. Killing all humans will eradicate all hereditary human illnesses.

Ohhhhh! I see, now. Now who made the invalid inference, again?

At least for a while, until another ape suffers a genetic mutation.

Indeed, then our robot euthanasia teams will cry "Hooooo Arrrrgh! Cumm to we Deathmoler! Hoooo Arrrgh!"*

-Duxwing

*Or nothing at all, but I like the quote.

 

[Minuend]

I have not added ethics. You are imagining things.

Saying something will be better under certain conditions is making a value statement. Pain and suffering are labelled by humans as something undesirable, you need to add values and own opinions to say otherwise. So when you start talking about things that are better, you are offering an opinion. If you didn't mean to, then you need to be more precise in your writing.

This still makes no sense in the context of the original statement.

If your only purpose was to state the obvious, then the question is sound. Why state the obvious if you do not consider the ones reading retarded banana biscuits?

Well, since you are stating the obvious for the sake of stating the obvious, I made your logical reasoning more interesting to read, but still every ounce as valid as the original quote:

Drowning the diseased and disabled in large pits of squashed pineapple masses whilst the local bachelor townsmen are mooning in front of five virgins who are then so frightened they squeal the national song of Italy, is a logically sound option for reducing illness in the population.

So unless I'm missing something that you are not particularly fond to clarify other than referencing to an earlier vague statement- then the way I see it you initially figured your logic to be sound, but eventually you realized things weren't so simple, but you gradually changed your perspective, probably not consciously, to think that you didn't mean what you did mean initially. And everything you say from this point on will be desperate paddling to avoid being wrong.

 

[Hawkeye]

I will summarise by saying you have missed something. I have only used the word better once in the entire thread (two including this post) which was here:

His (Hitler's) main objective makes perfect sense when attempting to better humanity from a physical (and mental) perspective.

All it is, is a simple method as a means to an end. It has nothing to do with morality and anything you think you see regarding it is pure fantasy. Ethics relates to behaviour regarding right and wrong. I have not said this method is either right or wrong and you appear to think that I have somewhere along the lines.

I find it amusing you have the cheek to tell me to be more precise in my writing when I pulled a part one of your earlier posts because you weren't precise. This one:

Do you think some people here don't know that dead people cease to exist among us as physical beings?

Instead you said I resorted to redundant nit-picking. You then attempted to clarify what you meant, but this still makes the above quote false.

If I am stating the obvious, why are you so confused? Perhaps you are a retarded banana biscuit

Eradicating the diseased to remove the diseased works therefore it is logically sound. The problems arise when you start to think "what classifies as the diseased".

I have mentioned this is where Hitler gradually changed his vision to an Ayran Race

The drawing of the line is the problem. Logic is a language of and/or. Valid/false. Once Hitler started killing people he removed himself from logic. Logic theory and implementation can never be the same.

If you notice in the bit you quoted from me, I do say - "The vision works only if you take it to the extreme otherwise there is ambiguity and the system crumbles."

 

[snafupants]

What are your opinions on mental / learning disabilities and people who have them?

They receive way too much educational funding and public attention.

 

[crippli]

Ohhhhh! I see, now. Now who made the invalid inference, again?

me?

If you notice in the bit you quoted from me, I do say - "The vision works only if you take it to the extreme otherwise there is ambiguity and the system crumbles."

I notised. I wouldn't say it works, there is more to a working system then a few logical premises. It makes equally logical sense to say that healing the diseased and disabled will make them non diseased and non disabled.

 

[Duxwing]

me?


I notised. I wouldn't say it works, there is more to a working system then a few logical premises. It makes equally logical sense to say that healing the diseased and disabled will make them non diseased and non disabled.

Ohhh, OK. Thanks!

-Duxwing

 

[Hawkeye]

I notised. I wouldn't say it works, there is more to a working system then a few logical premises. It makes equally logical sense to say that healing the diseased and disabled will make them non diseased and non disabled.

yes indeed it does make equal logical sense.

 

[Wolf18]

If the people don’t require help then they are not part of the equation. Who cares if they don’t contribute if they don’t owe anything?

How do I know if someone has pulled their weight? I don’t. You make an educated guess as to whether or not they have the capacity to, and then direct your support in such a way as to have them achieve independence. If you think George who has Down’s syndrome has the ability to one day support himself, then he is a better investment of your resources than say Tommy with Cerebral Palsy who has both mental and physical disabilities who (in this instance) will never be able to say the same.
Even then, it’s my investment. If I have a particular fondness for Tommy I can choose to support him regardless. All I’m saying is that you shouldn’t be able to force me to make what I would consider a malinvestment.
The unfairness inherent in this proposed system is not artificial or subjective. It is simply non-interference with natural processes. The whole euthanasia thing is a side not, it’s an attachment to the model to help mitigate an unfortunate side effect (painful death by starvation).

In a neolithic setting, this would be logical and is probably what was done. However, we live in the 21st century, where it is possible to help people with disabilities and still have resources for everyone else. People with disabilities should not be forced to perform to the best of their abilities so that others can analyse them and decide if you are worth saving. People with disabilities should try to contribute for their own sakes, not for your investments. You do not have the right to decide who should live and who should die.

HITLER DID NOTHING WRONG

That's the most disgusting post I've ever seen on this forum. He killed several million people. That is wrong.

SW

 

[Nezaros]

I haven't been following this thread at all.

Welfare for the poor and infirm may be the "good" policy to hold, but it isn't usually sustainable. Society's job is to be sustainable, not "good". Euthanasia is appropriate in some circumstances but it's usually cheaper and easier to just allow those who can't help themselves to die off naturally. Then they won't become a burden to the next generation. In some cases charity can help the disadvantaged back onto their feet, but for the most part all it does is perpetuate (potentially indefinitely) the cycle of helplessness. And it's a waste of resources.

 

[Hadoblado]

You do not have the right to decide who should live and who should die.

You see, that is precisely my point. Who are you to decide who should live and who should die?

I am arguing that people should pick for themselves. I am not saying that we should go and kill anyone. Governments take our wealth, and use it to choose who lives and who dies.

In a neolithic setting, this would be logical and is probably what was done. However, we live in the 21st century, where it is possible to help people with disabilities and still have resources for everyone else. People with disabilities should not be forced to perform to the best of their abilities so that others can analyse them and decide if you are worth saving. People with disabilities should try to contribute for their own sakes, not for your investments.

Your point on having abundant wealth is also fallacious. There are approximately 1,000,000,000 people starving in the world. At least the homeless in first world countries can scrape by off good will. If wealth was infinite, I wouldn't care where it was distributed.

That's the most disgusting post I've ever seen on this forum. He killed several million people. That is wrong.

It's supposed to be an inflammatory joke. It's okay, these thing don't translate well via text.

 

[Hadoblado]

I haven't been following this thread at all.

You begin a thread with a question, it attracts a large number of responses, you ignore them, then you cap it off with your blindly fired opinion? I don't understand...

 

[Nezaros]

You begin a thread with a question, it attracts a large number of responses, you ignore them, then you cap it off with your blindly fired opinion? I don't understand...

I haven't been active on the forum at all for a little while. I skimmed through some of the responses and said something which seemed relevant. What's not to understand?

 

[Happy]

They differ a lot.. some of them are possibly more like personality variants that simply don't fit modern society which has grown a lot quicker than evolution has progressed.

Like ADD/ADHD, Autism (to a certain degree), and some others which I don't remember atm.

I'm an INTP with ADD and I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[Reluctantly]

If they can't be made to pull their weight, they should be euthanised.

Pulling your weight can be interpreted as simply being liked enough for people to sustain you out of good will, but nobody should be forced to care for the weak they have no interest in.

Shit, there goes more than half the INTP population. Or wait, maybe that's a good thing - !!!!!!

WITCHHUNT TIME
HADOBLADO IS AN INTJ.
WE HAVE TO KILL HIM BEFORE HE GETS TOO POWERFUL; OUR FUTURE IS AT STAKE.
OMG

 

[Hadoblado]

Shit, there goes more than half the INTP population. Or wait, maybe that's a good thing - !!!!!!

WITCHHUNT TIME
HADOBLADO IS AN INTJ.
WE HAVE TO KILL HIM BEFORE HE GETS TOO POWERFUL; OUR FUTURE IS AT STAKE.
OMG

It's fine to call me Hitler, but calling me INTJ?


I guess I'll live...