Position testing thread

File: disability-and-poverty.jpg (23KB, 449x359px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 449x359px

Disability is a poverty trap.

In the year 2015, an estimated 32.8 percent (plus or minus 0.51 percentage points) of non-institutionalized persons aged 21 to 64 years with a cognitive disability in the United States were living below the poverty line.
In other words, 2,697,900 out of 8,224,200 non-institutionalized persons aged 21 to 64 years with a cognitive disability in the United States were living below the poverty line in 2015.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability_and_poverty

File: 1473091094009.jpg (140KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1920x1080px

>>37344154
Life consists of two states:
Positive
Negative

None existence is neither positive nor negative

When you conceive a life, there is high probability that it will experience more suffering in life than it will pleasure

None-existence is preferable to suffering

Therefore I conclude that it is immoral to take the gamble and bring life in to this world

>>37344261
>>37344270

I don't really have critiques for these positions but maybe someone else will. Thank you so much for contributing to my thread.

>>37344323
np, thanks for making a decent thread, no one here has the attention span to participate, said sadly

>>37344270
1. This is way too black and white. Most mentally healthy people don't think of things this way.

2. The majority of people not living in poverty are happy. Also, less than half of all people will experience a major depressive episode at least once in their life, which means that happiness occurs more often than not.

Also, I would argue that human happiness is inherently irrelevant and selfish. Only creation and propagation truly matter.

>>37344261
what exactly are you defining a disability as?

Also, what does this chart mean by denial of civil rights? Is it referring to how felons have less rights than regular citizens?

>>37344154
bumping because everything else on this site right now is shit.

>>37344154
I think abortion should be supported because I'd rather children be murdered than be brought into this terrible world. They'll just grow up on welfare and become a criminal.

>>37345434
On the converse, I'm against abortion because we need to punish the roastie whores who have unprotected sex by forcing them to raise children and live their whole lives in poverty.

>>37344270
I think the weakest point of this argument is that you simply state as fact that non-existance is preferable to suffering. I might argue that a lifetime with even a moment of positive existence is worth suffering greatly. That being said, I do find existance painful.

File: 1493561830166.png (444KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 1920x1080px

>>37345363
>what exactly are you defining a disability as?
Cognitive Disability (asked of persons ages 5 or older): Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, does this person have serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions?

the image is not significant I just used it to further iterate the point.

also source of information: http://www.disabilitystatistics.org/reports/acs.cfm?statistic=7

>>37345464
I really do have animosity towards roasties who have ubwantes pregnancies, but we're really punishing the kids thenselves, and the victims of those children's future crimes.

>>37345534
sometimes, you need to take a hard-line stance to make things better. This is one of those times.

>>37345532
summarize it for me.

>>37345434
I agree its wrong to bring children into the world without being able to take care of them, but I think advocating abortion is a way of avoiding a more fundamental problem with relationships / family / etc ...

>>37345587
I do think that there are a lot of things we should be doing to improve the conditions of these people. Prosecuting stat rape might be a good start. In the endgame, I do disagree with abortion, on the grounds that a gentically unique individual has rights that his mother cannot infringe on. A fetus is not a body part, it is a person.

My claim
A belief system can be judged by
1- It's core texts, specifically thise that are still respected and taught from
2-The actions of it's followers considered as a group
By these metrics, Islam is an indefensible religion, and a developed country that wishes to protect its citizens and their rights should not allow it's practice.

>>37345687
>It's core texts, specifically thise that are still respected and taught from

>specifically thise that are still

So not the text themselves but the ones people cherrypick

So your problem isn't Islam, it's the people picking the bad parts
If that's not the case then Christianity is just as bad

>>37345647
The relationship between disability and poverty is seen by many to be especially problematic given that it places those with the greatest needs in a position where they have access to the fewest resources. Researchers from the United Nations and the Yale School of Public Health refer to the link between disability and poverty as a manifestation of a self-fulfilling prophecy where the assumption that this population is a drain of resources leads society to deny them access to avenues of success. Such exclusion of individuals on the basis of their special needs in turn denies them the opportunity to make meaningful contributions that disprove these stereotypes. Oxfam asserts that this negative cycle is largely due to a gross underestimation of the potential held by individuals with disabilities and a lack of awareness of the possibilities that each person may hold if the proper resources were present.

>>37345756
the text says to kill people.

Intrinscally, this wouldn't actually be bad if their were very little Islamic terrorism, and if must muslims repudiated this idea, much like in christianity.

However, as this is not the case with Islam, it is fair to call it a violent ideology, and one which threatens western sovereignty.

>>37345777
this sounds like a retarded ideology. I doubt people with disabilities would actually achieve much if given more funding/resources.

>>37345804
The early onset of preventable deaths has been demonstrated as a significant consequence of disability for those
living in poverty. Researchers show that families who lack adequate economic agency are unable to care for children with special medical needs, resulting in preventable deaths. In times of economic hardship studies show families may divert resources from children with disabilities because investing in their livelihood is often perceived as an investment caretakers cannot afford to make. Benedicte Ingstad, an anthropologist who studied families with a member with disabilities, asserted that what some may consider neglect of individuals with disabilities "was mainly a reflection of the general hardship that the household was living under." A study conducted by Oxfam found that the rejection of a child with disabilities was not uncommon in areas of extreme poverty. The report went on to show that neglect of children with disabilities was far from a deliberate choice, but rather a consequence of a lack of essential resources. The study also demonstrated that services necessary to the well being of these children "are seized upon" when they are made available. The organization thus concludes that if families had the capacity to care for children with special needs they would do so willingly, but often the inability to access crucial resources bars them from administering proper care.

>>37345784
You're contradicting yourself

You're saying the Religion is bad not because of its texts but because of its followers

So, it's not the religion, it's the people

If we were going by the texts they would both be intrinsically bad. The differing factor here are the people

>>37345911
meh. This might just be natural selection desu.

>>37345925
that's correct. But if you want to be a really technical pain in the ass, you would say that christianity and islam are both bad, and muslims are bad, while christians are good. However, that is confusing, so in short it makes sense to say christianity is good and islam is bad.

Also, I don't consider islam bad due to its violence. Rather, i consider it bad due to the fact that it is violent against us. For this reason, I don't consider christianity to be a bad religion (though by the standards of violence vs nonviolence, ultra-nonviolence advocates may consider it to be bad as well).

>>37345804
also, the post you asked me to summarize was a definition of what a cognitive disability means. the url I gave with aforementioned post was just a algorithm for disability statistics, I'm not sure how I'm suppose to summarize the url did you even read the post?

File: BA.jpg (89KB, 640x569px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 640x569px

>>37345983
Don't you find it interesting that the Muslim world was becoming increasingly liberal and western? Practically on the same trajectory as us. Don't you wonder what suddenly changed to make them so extreme and violent towards us?

>>37345804
>>37345935
was literally your entire argument

the term natural selection is indicative of evolution and I don't see the connection between it and my original position. expound?

>>37346053
Yeah, the west interfered in the muslim world by establishing proxy dictatorships/overthrowing the original leaders. This led to muslims becoming more westernized (for a time). Then, amid increasing abuses by the secret police forces of many dictators (such as the shah in Iran) muslim counterreaction revolutions happened to this westernism, where westernism was shunned and strict adherence to islam became the norm. That's what happened.

Regardless of whether or not you personally believe this to be all the fault of the west, the west still can, should and will defend itself from all attacks against itself. This is a fact of life. The same way that the most dominant lions will bite the spinal cords out of weaker lions in order to assert themselves.

>>37346128
people with disabilities are inferior humans, and in times of economic hardship, they consume resources that should be spent on healthier children. To give these resources to children with disabilities would lead to an increase in the disability rate over time, and would be cruel to the non-disabled children by giving away their limited resources to somebody who won't amount to much anyways (in reality).

>>37346185
>people with disabilities are inferior humans
source?

>>37346249
I have eyes, nigga!

>>37346148
>the west still can, should and will defend itself from all attacks against itself. This is a fact of life. The same way that the most dominant lions will bite the spinal cords out of weaker lions in order to assert themselves.

We're in agreement here, at the end of the day might makes right. If don't have the ability to defend yourself you will be taken advantage of.

But the question now is how far the West is capable of going to defend itself and will it do it in time

It only takes ones of these countries to get their hands on a nuke and you could get a WW3

>>37346266
a man goes to war to fight for your freedom to call me a nigger. he gets his leg blown off, and subsequently ends up homeless and poor because he's disabled. he's not an inferior human being anon. more like a product of his environment.

>>37346375
yeah, but what you're talking about are children born with disabilities. Stop shifting goal posts!

>>37346412
actually what I initially mentioned >>37344261
was cognitive disability (i.e. physical, mental, or emotional condition.)

done yet?

>>37346500
well, that's not what I was talking about, so argue my point, rather than making a poor man's excuse for an argument.

>>37346652
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Eugenics

I'm going to let you take from this what you want if you decide to read it because I'm not sure whether or not eugenics is a pseudoscience or not ... if all of man evolved essentially from the same source how could there be some kind of genetic inferiority?

>>37344154
Abortion is probably murder, and until we know enough to say that it definitively is not (or at what stage of development an embryo becomes a human being), we should hold off on aborting.
(sorry about the rambling writing style, I'm kinda just spitting off the top of my dome here, and fixing up autocorrect mistakes as I go)

The issue here is finding the point at which something changes from a "bundle of cells" and becomes a human being. I don't personally believe this is the moment of conception, because the argument for potential implies that contraception is murder, which seems ridiculous. Is it when the baby has a heartbeat? Well no, putting a pump and motor into a doll doesn't make that doll human. How about brain activity? Again, I'm not convinced - brain activity is found all around nature, but we don't call these creatures human, and we don't value their lives as much as human lives. Finally, we reach awareness. The next step up from brain activity is specific types of brain activity - so why don't we say that it's not ok to kill (abort) anything which is intelligent enough to display self-awareness? This is a stance I've heard people state, and it seems like a reasonable one.
The problem is that this includes babies up to 2-3 years old. Obviously, it's morally abhorrent to kill babies, so there's a flaw in the proposition. Since babies are people, somewhere along the way we crossed the line from cells to human being, and there doesn't seem to be a point where we can definitively pin it down. It falls then to the pro-choice crowd to explain: at what point is it no longer ok to abort?

>muh body muh choice
You made the choice to have intercourse, and choices have consequences. You know that there's a pregnancy risk every time you take a ride on the cock carousel, so you consent to the responsibility of bearing a child, should that come to pass. A rubber's like 20c, just be a grown-up.

>>37346866
eugenics doesn't assert that. It just claims that eugenics can prevent genetic inferiority that doesn't exist yet from becoming prominent in humans, and that some undesirable traits that were allowed to exist in the past (such as unintelligence) can be weeded out of people.

>>37344270
>When you conceive a life, there is high probability that it will experience more suffering in life than it will pleasure
>It's another '/r9k/ is edgy teenagers' episode
I feel more pleasure than pain every single day, jealous?

>>37346892
>>37346249
>>37346266
his argument and point were vague and he didn't give any sources as to why people with disabilities are genetically inferior so provide proof of that info with source whenever you're ready kiddo

>>37346960
who are you talking to right about now?

File: Cairngorms119.jpg (680KB, 1920x2560px) Image search: [Google]

680KB, 1920x2560px

>>37346904
I wonder if (OP) is still here.

>>37345434
I'm kinda torn on abortion. I'm all for killing babies, but I don't think women should have the choice.

This is an old joke, but I legitimately hold this view. Let me explain:
Abortion is a really good way to prevent babies being born with various disabilities. Civilization is inherently dysgenic as it removes various selection pressures and therefore allows negative traits - susceptibility to illness, genetic defects, lessened intelligence and aggression in men, etc. This creates and ever increasing class of humans who are a net drain on society's resources. Eugenics is therefore not just required to "improve" society, it's needed to maintain it healthy. Abortion with genetic screening is one of the least damaging and intrusive methods of going about actually preventing births (positive incentives don't discourage the bad, they only encourage the good).

The problem is, abortion and birth control in general removes the incentives for women to be careful in their mate choice. When the risk is getting knocked up, shunned from society and living in the street with your mulatto bastard, suddenly letting the football team run a bareback train on you doesn't seem like a very good idea anymore. Sluttier behaviour in women results in lower rates of stable marriages, paradoxically higher single motherhood, negative overall population growth and higher relative crime, etc. Overall, not a good idea.

I think abortion should be applied in a eugenic fashion, but not allowed as a get-out-of-jail-free card for whores.

>>37346992
I was talking to >>37346892 about >>37346185
hence: >>37346960

>>37344270
A simplistic dichotomy between suffering and pleasure does not do justice to the value or meaning in a human life. People often love or seek out things that are painful, and negative emotions like anger, grief, and fear are so enjoyable that we trigger them in ourselves on purpose and sing about them. Suffering constitutes part of the meaning and value in life.

Moreover, an individual life which consists of more suffering than pleasure but which amounts to an overall moral good (like a trauma surgeon who works long shifts, or somebody who is greatly wronged and prevents others from being hurt the same way, or somebody with chronic pain who does something worthwhile) is conceivable.

We ought to have a lot more nuclear power plants.

It would diversify our methods of energy production, it's a technology that we know is efficient enough to be viable, and on the whole, it's not that dangerous.

People's fears regarding nuclear power are because of the spectacular nature of its dangers, not the scale of them. On the whole, fossil fuels do more damage to the planet per year than nuclear, but it's spread out enough as to be imperceptible to most. On the other hand, nuclear meltdowns are localized and frightening enough that they come with a name and a headline that make them memorable.

>>37345756
Originator of that point here. I probably should have put that part in two parts
1.1- What the texts say
1.2- How they are interpreted and what parts are widely taught and often referenced
By both of these metrics, I think there is a very strong argument that Christianity is much better suited to Western ideals and modern society than Islam. It doesn't matter really, but I'd like to say that I'm not Christian and I wasn't raised with any religion.