With the goal of survival and advancement, do disabled people deserve to live?

[root]

LOGIC:
Premise 1:
The goal of a community is to survive and advance
Premise 2:
Disabled people do not contribute to a community's survival or advancement.
Therefore:
Disabled people do not deserve to be a part of the community.
-------------------------------------------------------------

In a hypothetical community, there are people who will aid its survival and there are people who will hinder it.

In terms of survival, people who will negatively affect or slow it down would be the disabled people.

Disabled people rely on the help of able-bodied people. They do not contribute to the survival of the community as a whole. They leech off the work of other people yet they do nothing themselves.

Their existence, is in fact, a complete waste of space. They're just dragging everybody down.

Yet in our society, we protect disabled people. It makes no sense to.
Some of you will probably be like, "Some disabled people are geniuses..."

But take a kid with down syndrome. They do nothing for the advancement of society and they do nothing to benefit its survival.

So the question is, if the goal of a community is to survive and advance, do disable people deserve to live?

[Aidan]

LOGIC:
Premise 1:
The goal of a community is to survive and advance
Premise 2:
Disabled people do not contribute to a community's survival or advancement.
Therefore:
Disabled people do not deserve to be a part of the community.
-------------------------------------------------------------

In a hypothetical community, there are people who will aid its survival and there are people who will hinder it.

In terms of survival, people who will negatively affect or slow it down would be the disabled people.

Disabled people rely on the help of able-bodied people. They do not contribute to the survival of the community as a whole. They leech off the work of other people yet they do nothing themselves.

Their existence, is in fact, a complete waste of space. They're just dragging everybody down.

Yet in our society, we protect disabled people. It makes no sense to.
Some of you will probably be like, "Some disabled people are geniuses..."

But take a kid with down syndrome. They do nothing for the advancement of society and they do nothing to benefit its survival.

So the question is, if the goal of a community is to survive and advance, do disable people deserve to live?


I cant get much into the hypothetical - but I know disabled people who make a huge conrtibution to society - perhaps your definition of contribution and advancment is to narrow.


I live in a care home - we have one guy who is disabled - he was a teacher prior to a car accident. He comes 3 nights a week stays for 2 hours and helps us all with schoolwork or mostly sets us mini assignments or projects. All the boys here have benifited from this man - he is a volunteer - he goes also to a care home for adults and helps them with literacy skills.

[Human]

Maybe in a primitive society, but it depends on your definition of 'disabled', people with savant syndrome are often prodigies but can have a massive physical or other mental disability.
I'd say they aren't a waste of space.

[Gigablue]

I disagree with your second premise. Many people with disabilities are still productive members of society. What disabilities do you think should exclude someone from the right to life?

[Manjusri]

In terms of survival, people who will negatively affect or slow it down would be the disabled people.

Disabled people rely on the help of able-bodied people. They do not contribute to the survival of the community as a whole. They leech off the work of other people yet they do nothing themselves.

Their existence, is in fact, a complete waste of space. They're just dragging everybody down.

But take a kid with down syndrome. They do nothing for the advancement of society and they do nothing to benefit its survival.

Ouch, you're an asshole.

Disabled people do plenty to help advance the human race. One of those things is to help make others tolerant to other people/cultures. Saying that we should genocide the disabled so that the "non-disabled" can advance really puts a damper on humanity.
Its actually quite disturbing, that you'd make a topic like this. It seems to me that you just aren't accepting of the mentally handicapped.

I go to a public school, and in the public school systems there are many, many, autistic children/other mentally handicapped kids. Some of those kids, are so unbelievably smart. There is a freshman autistic boy, who carries around a calculus book.

Mentally handicapped people help very much with the advancement of society. I don't understand how you could be so blind and ignorant to something like that.

[Irishboy15]

The Paralympics are starting... Watch them, then tell us that disabled people do not contribute to society. There are people in the paralympics who would be much more useful In society then many others.

For example, the riots in London last year, are you telling me those able bodied people that killed people, destroyed shops, ruined lives and cost the taxpayer millions of pounds contribute more to society than the people who can do marathons with prosthetic limbs!? And what about those soldiers who have lost limbs protecting YOU, do they not deserve to be part of a community?

And where does it stop? What about mental illnesses? Should everyone who suffers depression be classed as useless? And what about things such as dyslexia, Albert Einstein had dyslexia, did he advance society? And Stephen Hawking while I don't agree with some of his views, you cannot seriously say he has not advanced the human race.

[Jean Poutine]

LOGIC:
Premise 1:
The goal of a community is to survive and advance
Premise 2:
Disabled people do not contribute to a community's survival or advancement.
Therefore:
Disabled people do not deserve to be a part of the community.

How in the hell do disabled people not contribute to advancement? Even if you see it from a totally pragmatic point of view, disabled people contribute to general knowledge because they can be studied. They allow others to advance and gain in understanding. There was and is much to be gained in many fields just by studying people with Asperger's Syndrome, for example.

Then compare a piece of shit, able-bodied waste of food stamps redneck to Stephen Hawkings or even just the guy with Downs who has enough heart to rise up each day to go mop the floor at a McDonalds and do the jobs others don't want to do, and you'll see eugenics lack any justification whatsoever.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

In a primitive society no
in a first-world country it doesn't matter. Life is quite the value.

[Bath]

From the stance of science and natural selection, no, but they shouldn't be "put down." That wouldn't be natural selection.

From the stance of humanity and consideration, obviously we should take care of them. I believe they deserve to live. But that's just me.

[root]

The Paralympics are starting... Watch them, then tell us that disabled people do not contribute to society. There are people in the paralympics who would be much more useful In society then many others.

For example, the riots in London last year, are you telling me those able bodied people that killed people, destroyed shops, ruined lives and cost the taxpayer millions of pounds contribute more to society than the people who can do marathons with prosthetic limbs!? And what about those soldiers who have lost limbs protecting YOU, do they not deserve to be part of a community?

And where does it stop? What about mental illnesses? Should everyone who suffers depression be classed as useless? And what about things such as dyslexia, Albert Einstein had dyslexia, did he advance society? And Stephen Hawking while I don't agree with some of his views, you cannot seriously say he has not advanced the human race.
Lol, I was in London. i was watching football though.

[root]

From the stance of science and natural selection, no, but they shouldn't be "put down." That wouldn't be natural selection.

From the stance of humanity and consideration, obviously we should take care of them. I believe they deserve to live. But that's just me.

So you're saying that we have a moral obligation to protect disabled people?

[WickedWeekend]

As previously said, disabled people do indeed deserve the right of life. A human right is the right to live (is it not?) and they are indeed human. I hope I'm not blinded by bias since my motherfucking BROTHER has autism. If the government had put down Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, etc. (as previously said) where the heck would we be today? I'm not exactly trying to attack you, but only a completely heartless person would bring up this argument.

[Manjusri]

So you're saying that we have a moral obligation to protect disabled people?

I can't speak for Bath, i'm not sure what she was implying.

However no, there is no moral obligation to protect the lives of the disabled. But you started this thread saying "disabled people are a burden to society, why should we keep them around?" Disabled people are not a burden on society or the advancement of society, in fact they help it, therefore they do not deserve to be killed.
No moral obligation there, just common sense.

[root]

I can't speak for Bath, i'm not sure what she was implying.

However no, there is no moral obligation to protect the lives of the disabled. But you started this thread saying "disabled people are a burden to society, why should we keep them around?" Disabled people are not a burden on society or the advancement of society, in fact they help it, therefore they do not deserve to be killed.
No moral obligation there, just common sense.

but in general, they are a burden. Maybe i should rephrase and say that their existence 'serves no purpose'. I don't believe in mass genocide.

[Gigablue]

I think that it's a mistake to lump all people with disabilities together. Many disabilities affect functioning in one specific aspect of life, but don't prevent someone from being valuable in society. There aren't many disabilities that would make someone completely unable to contribute to society. Saying everyone with a disability is unable to contribute to society is a big over-generalization.

If someone can contribute productively to society, it is not advantageous to society to get rid of them.

There is also the issue that many able bodied people don't contribute to society. Should we get rid of all of them as well?

Some people with disabilities are unable to contribute to society. This doesn't necessarily mean they don't get the right to live. The debate over this issue isn't solely a matter of logic, but also a matter of ethics. It depends on how you value human life.

[Mob Boss]

LOGIC:
Premise 1:
The goal of a community is to survive and advance
Premise 2:
Disabled people do not contribute to a community's survival or advancement.
Therefore:
Disabled people do not deserve to be a part of the community.
-------------------------------------------------------------

In a hypothetical community, there are people who will aid its survival and there are people who will hinder it.

In terms of survival, people who will negatively affect or slow it down would be the disabled people.

Disabled people rely on the help of able-bodied people. They do not contribute to the survival of the community as a whole. They leech off the work of other people yet they do nothing themselves.

Their existence, is in fact, a complete waste of space. They're just dragging everybody down.

Yet in our society, we protect disabled people. It makes no sense to.
Some of you will probably be like, "Some disabled people are geniuses..."

But take a kid with down syndrome. They do nothing for the advancement of society and they do nothing to benefit its survival.

So the question is, if the goal of a community is to survive and advance, do disable people deserve to live?


So, do you propose we alienate them because of their disabilities? And when you say disabilities that could mean a wide range of problems, both mental and physical. So, clarifying would be good. Disabled people do contribute to society and the advancement of society. Stephen Hawking is one of the great minds of our time, and what? Are we supposed to just write him off? What about those that have the ability to contribute, but don't? What about the love the disabled ones contribute their family? Society is a lot more than a large building and the corporate rat race. And how can you deem who contributes more or less in society when it is not really the disability that indicts them? It's the person, and the will and strength of that person. I know plenty of perfectly healthy individuals who don't do their share in the world, and I also know those who are disabled and do their weight in gold. I don't think anyone is a "dead weight" to society, and writing anyone off because they don't fit into the "survival of the fittest" viewpoint is just ridiculous. It sounds like you have an issue with those that are handicapped. And, no, we don't have an "obligation" to them, but until society's resources start dwindling, I see no point whatsoever why you would think they were a burden.

Here's a little side note: I know you've made it known to EVERYone that taking other's feelings into consideration was too much work for you, but do you think just once you could try to show consideration to others. Some people may have siblings or other family members with disabilities and might find what you say offensive.

[FreeFall]

While logically it makes sense, and I'm sure if we were in a world of dinosaurs and had to run far distances I'd say yes they're in our way of survival, I'll have to disagree.

I personally think some disabled are a prime example of survival.
Let's say some guy named John for some reason or another if born without legs. We know life with legs, Johnny has none and has a different world. John must figure out ways to live without legs, to survive. John survives, he teaches others without legs how to do so as well.
Sandy had legs. She lost them do to illness or something. Sandy not only survived the illness that took her legs, Sandy must also find out how to adapt from having known a world with legs to this new life. Sandy manages and survives. Her immune system's stronger and she's living life just fine.

There's a blind boy in real life that "hears" things way before anyone with sight can. He gets out of the roads minutes before a car turns the corner, his sighted friends move once they actually see the car. He clicks and knows when something's in his path, he's perfectly capable without his sight.

Those are sad little examples but the disabled scope is large, still my opinion stands for most, not all, of the psychically, hearing and visually disabled.
The mentally disabled I don't have an opinion on.

[Irishboy15]

I know you've been banned (hopefully for this disgusting thread) but I'm not finished, because I haven't stopped thinking about this all evening.

Who counts as "disabled" well that basically means not having a specific ability, or the loss of an ability. So is memory loss a disability? From that definition, yes. What about losing the ability to speak? According to that definition, yes. We are not a society of exclusive elites. Nearly everyone has some sort of condition, a stutter, dyslexia or something more debilitating. Do you serve no purpose if you can't speak perfectly?

And then what about people who have HIV/AIDS? Are you telling me they serve no purpose? People with ADD have no use? Asthma? Someone who breaks a leg etc. and doesn't have full use of it? I'm not going to continue writing.

[Drew5]

I know you've been banned (hopefully for this disgusting thread) but I'm not finished, because I haven't stopped thinking about this all evening.

Who counts as "disabled" well that basically means not having a specific ability, or the loss of an ability. So is memory loss a disability? From that definition, yes. What about losing the ability to speak? According to that definition, yes. We are not a society of exclusive elites. Nearly everyone has some sort of condition, a stutter, dyslexia or something more debilitating. Do you serve no purpose if you can't speak perfectly?

And then what about people who have HIV/AIDS? Are you telling me they serve no purpose? People with ADD have no use? Asthma? Someone who breaks a leg etc. and doesn't have full use of it? I'm not going to continue writing.

I agree. Getting rid of people who aren't perfect was what Hitler was gonna do and that didn't turn out to well for him or his followers.

[War-Is-Real]

Incredibly incorrect, for disabled people allow for scientific to cure or prevent disables in the future.

[Korashk]

Premise 2 is fatally flawed considering one of the largest and most significant contributors to the scientific community is about as disabled as you can get without being dead.

[Thunderstorm]

LOGIC:
Premise 1:
The goal of a community is to survive and advance
Premise 2:
Disabled people do not contribute to a community's survival or advancement.
Therefore:
Disabled people do not deserve to be a part of the community.
-------------------------------------------------------------

In a hypothetical community, there are people who will aid its survival and there are people who will hinder it.

In terms of survival, people who will negatively affect or slow it down would be the disabled people.

Disabled people rely on the help of able-bodied people. They do not contribute to the survival of the community as a whole. They leech off the work of other people yet they do nothing themselves.

Their existence, is in fact, a complete waste of space. They're just dragging everybody down.

Yet in our society, we protect disabled people. It makes no sense to.
Some of you will probably be like, "Some disabled people are geniuses..."

But take a kid with down syndrome. They do nothing for the advancement of society and they do nothing to benefit its survival.

So the question is, if the goal of a community is to survive and advance, do disable people deserve to live?

My mom works at a State Rehabilitation facility, and I can assure you that disabled people are not useless in thsi society. They can succeed even better than some non-disabled people. And their are some non-disabled people who are more uselesss in this society then disbaled people. Before Gov.Cuomo was the Governor of NY, Patterson was, and he was 90% blind. And look what he achieved? Look at all the Paralympics stars. You're just being totally judgemental.

[Syvelocin]

No life is useless. Whether it's a disability like being in a wheel chair to down syndrome. It is a very black and white concept to believe the only point of life is survival and advancement.

I have an aunt who has down syndrome, and though she's had a stroke that has accompanied a surge of extreme OCD behaviours and anxiety that's making it difficult to deal with her, she's still the light of the family. We know when she passes away (and it won't be long now, I believe she's in her forties or so) the entire family will fall apart because of what she brought to it. This central happiness, a reason for all these people who hate each other's guts to see each other now and again. Her life is so incredibly meaningful. More so than any of us able people. I'm half jealous, to be a person who means so much to so many people.

And I won't even get started on my cousin with down syndrome.