JRC and other places of cruelty must be shut down!

The sterilization of the mentally retarded- wasn't this rendered moot by laws determining that the mentally retarded can't legally "consent" to sex with another adult?

(I've known one person that has high-functioning mental retardation and has, in effect... had sex and possibly even conceived a child with an average-of-intelligence woman -a teen, to be exact.)

I support the framework of eugenics in the sense of "building Overman" as much as I am opposed to eugenics via genocide and forced sterilization.

I foresee a day where it is possible to create a 'SuperAutieMan' or 'SuperAspieMan'; a person who has all or most of the collective 'benefits' of classically-defined neurodiversity (autism) with none of the downsides or "comorbids". I believe that most genetcally-unaltered humans would be envious of such an individual's augmented neurology and all of the 'benefits' that would come with such a neurology.

edit;In short, I agree with and 'sign' your memorial, even if I don't fully agree with wording.

I am not sure as to the law on this.  I think that this is often covered through case law and precedent rather than statute.  I am not a lawyer, however (thankfully).

In any case, getting back on message, I think that a memorial to these victims may seem symbolic.  However, it sets a tone as to what we will tolerate as a society and what we will not tolerate.  Symbolism is important to our NT friends, and frankly it might be to us as well.

No.

Sadly, Kapkao may be right in the US.  Buck v Bell still stands as precedent.  Sad, but true.  It has never been formally overturned even if it *APPEARS* to be dead letter.  The rights of the disabled exist as statute (Americans with Disability Act) and not stully as Court doctrine until that precedent is overturned.  

That is why I will plug the memorial idea again.  It sets a cultural tone that society disapproves of sterilization (and by extension other forms of cruelty).  As society evolves, there is a better chance of a reversal of that precedent.

There is a strange fact that is ominous in my mind.  Malthus desired a radical increase in population, leading to a culling of the herd in the name of what would later be called "eugenics."  In our world now, population has gone through the roof.  Now, the UN and elites are calling for a cull of the herd.  The parallel of the modern world with Malthus is too glaring.

I have noticed that contempt for life has permeated the culture.  "Survivor" as a television program deals with voting people off of the island.  This is a direct reference to conditioning people to accept mass death.  Note how Khaddafi was essentially executed live, a head of State.  No international law, nothing.  Today a head of State.  Tomorrow that could be anyone.

Just a few thoughts.

His position as "Head of State" (or "Leader of the Revolution") was imminent to dissipate anyhow.

World v. Arab Spring

Hmm...I don't think Malthus was ever a head of State and he lived long before the Arab Spring.

His position as "Head of State" (or "Leader of the Revolution") was imminent to dissipate anyhow.

World v. Arab Spring

Then I guess he is teh old, wrinkly bastid lololz

Where can I learn about him?

Thomas Malthus?  I figured you would know about him...

He is the father of nineteenth century biologism.  He has influenced both Right and Left.  The idea is that there are limits to population (true) and that such limits require that the poor be thought of as a great big herd to be culled whenever the ruling classes want (false).  

Donald Rumsfeld is probably a Malthusian, but so might Paul Ehrlich.  Darwin read Malthus, although Malthus himself was a clergyman.

What is scary is that elites now have unprecedented control of the genome.  This process began as control of Nature, sadly sanctioned by the father of the Scientific Method, Francis Bacon.  He was admirable in many respects as a philosopher, but his "Go ahead and abuse Nature because she gets off on it" philosophy has wrecked western culture.  Some sources suggest that Bacon may have embraced vegetarianism at some point, suggesting perhaps that his views may have changed.  Sadly, though, the "animals are biological machines" meme survived him regardless of whether or not his views changed.

Now, the control of the genome is nearing perfection.  This means that we are also going to see control of humans.  It is the inevitable next step.  Totalitarians like Hitler and Stalin came close, but could never quite make it.  My sad feeling is that the real creation of a global Panopticon will all be done in the name of "democracy."  What will really happen is that our DNA itself becomes owned by corporate interests more than by governments per se.  But, DNA owned implies that we become property.  Once a gene is patented (already legal in US law!) we become property by definition.

The issue of eugenics is relevant today.  It is as relevant as it ever was.

The elites of the planet are trying to merge themselves with machines, or else to alter their genes, all for the sake of immortality.  This is Kurzweil.  What they are *ACTUALLY* doing is cutting off their own seed.  Think about it.  If your children have altered genes, then in a sense your line is cut off.  This is the ultimate stupidity.  It is why Nature will never be conquered.

If we abolish social stratification, gene modification won't matter.  

Of course we should abolish patenting genes.  Just more ways intellectual property is shunted away from individuals and over to corporations.