Interesting moral dilemma

[Broomstick]

Um... shouldn't you ask the man's opinion about this? Maybe HE would prefer to live, even immobile. This would appear to be a situation where you can actually ask the person in question his preferences so I can't see how you can justify making this decision for him without consulting him first!

? His decision to live would causes inconvinience to a whole city. His answer is worthless, unless he is worth more than the whole city.

First of all - if he wants to die that certainly helps resolve the issue, doesn't it?

Second - anyone who is handicapped is inconvenient. We don't execute people based on convenience.

Third - the inconvenience is to the user of that subway line, NOT the whole city (unless it's a really odd sort of city).

Fourth - it's not a matter of whether he's "worth more than a whole city" or not, because keeping him alive doesn't destroy the city.

Fifth - a great deal of my objection is that Darth Yoshi said "kill him" based NOT on how it affects the city or affects others but because Darth Yoshi doesn't think live is worth living if one is immobile. By that reasoning, we should execute all quadriplegics. After all, Stephen Hawking lives a pointless existence and is of no use to society because he can't move, right?

[Darth Ruinus]

So you would be happy with the city authorities basically telling this guy to fuck off and die because commuters will be inconvenienced?

No, I wouldn't feel happy about it, but yes, I would think this course of action would be the best. Let him die.

What are your criteria for determining the value of inconvenience that off-sets the sound viability of a person's life?

The man's own net worth. As he contributes nothing to society, and on the contrary, he is taking up resources, his worth is in the negative range. Therefore, his life means nothing.

[Akkleptos]

Quite frankly, any situation where some guy is pinned but would survive and be stable for a ridiculously extended period of time sounds like a situation where they could just move him and a small portion of the surrounding area if need be.

And that would be a viable alternative if it weren't physically impossible.

The whole scenario is physically impossible - if you get run over by a train in that manner you're going to either die if they don't get you to a hospital, or maybe die even if they do get you to a hospital.

Well, yeah. You die either way. Even if you don't get hit by anything you still die... eventually. The thing here is that if the organs in the abdominal cavity are still fully functional, then in theory the poor bloke could still live for quite some time. If any of your major organs is disabled, then it's a grim scenario. Doctors have a name for such condition: uncompatible-with-life injuries. That means that you die within minutes' time.

So, if -as per the OP- the guy can still live, it must mean that he only got his legs or his lower hip crushed, which means that attempts can be made at amputating the legs or (if the lower hip section was affected) the lower torso altogether. This could be done by clipping the arteries that provide blood-flow to the affected area shut, then attempting a really quick surgical-ablation (not too much unlike a field amputation in a war zone). A lot of blood units should be available for transfusion, as well as an Intensive-Care-enabled vehicle, preferably a helicopter.

Of course, there's no guarantee this would be successful, but -as far as the crushed guy is concerned- sure beats the lot of alternatives.

So, as to the moral side of the case, given a minimum of the requisite resources, there's no dilemma. Let the poor fellow get out, or -literally- die trying, if he so desires.

[Darth Ruinus]

First of all - if he wants to die that certainly helps resolve the issue, doesn't it?

Of course.

Second - anyone who is handicapped is inconvenient. We don't execute people based on convenience.

Not if they contribute to society.

Third - the inconvenience is to the user of that subway line, NOT the whole city (unless it's a really odd sort of city).

I think Lusankya had about the right description with what would happen if this guy if left there.

Fourth - it's not a matter of whether he's "worth more than a whole city" or not, because keeping him alive doesn't destroy the city.

No, but keeping him there drains resources, and would lower his net worth to zero, or negative. Unless he can keep on contributing to society in some way. And even then, simply compare how much money he makes at his new job, compared to the money the subway generated if it functioned normally.

Fifth - a great deal of my objection is that Darth Yoshi said "kill him" based NOT on how it affects the city or affects others but because Darth Yoshi doesn't think live is worth living if one is immobile. By that reasoning, we should execute all quadriplegics. After all, Stephen Hawking lives a pointless existence and is of no use to society because he can't move, right?

That's something you should take up with him, not me.

[Admiral Valdemar]

No, I wouldn't feel happy about it, but yes, I would think this course of action would be the best. Let him die.

It isn't a case of "let him die". It involves positive action, or at the very least, total apathy until the man dies from thirst and hunger, which would be manslaughter.

The man's own net worth. As he contributes nothing to society, and on the contrary, he is taking up resources, his worth is in the negative range. Therefore, his life means nothing.

This line of reasoning is specious. You could just as well replace this man with any child or disabled person and arrive at the same conclusions, so this cannot be your actual gauge for whether to essentially murder a man for the sake of convenience.

Furthermore, if he is able to live a life as ordinary as one could without mobility, how do you conclude he is adding nothing to society? We all take up resources, and it is evident that a person who is mobility impaired can also add a net contribution to society in any number of ways, so again, your line of reasoning is flawed.

[Darth Ruinus]

It isn't a case of "let him die". It involves positive action, or at the very least, total apathy until the man dies from thirst and hunger, which would be manslaughter.

Not let him die in the literall sense of "Leave him there till he kicks the bucket." I mean that if you can't save him, your obviously not going to inconvinience alot of people for a man that literally becomes dead weight, let him go peacefully with drugs, whatever.

This line of reasoning is specious. You could just as well replace this man with any child or disabled person and arrive at the same conclusions, so this cannot be your actual gauge for whether to essentially murder a man for the sake of convenience.

Yes, I could easily replace him with a baby or an disabled person. The baby takes up resources anway, and at that point (at least to me) is only special in that it is someone else's property. At that point, the mother/father's net worth is considered. When more resources are expended than the parents are reasonable able to pay back, let the baby die too.

The disabled person's disability is irrelevant. Only his net worth. Again, once more resources are expended than the person puts in and is able to pay back, let him die to. I don't care if he can't walk, or whatever, at some point, you cut your losses.

Furthermore, if he is able to live a life as ordinary as one could without mobility, how do you conclude he is adding nothing to society?

Depends on his work, and how much that is worth. Compare that with how much he takes up, how many people are inconvinienced due to his continued existance.

We all take up resources,

That we do. We however, can pay them back. People who pay back those resources are benefits, people who take them up are negatives.

Althought I concede that we probably don't pay back all of the money/energy/whatever spent on us, as long as it is within, say 10% of the total cost then it is ok. A negligible loss.

and it is evident that a person who is mobility impaired can also add a net contribution to society in any number of ways, so again, your line of reasoning is flawed.

Yes, except they aren't impaired in such a ridiculous way as the whole "keep him on the tracks" as the OP suggests. Or more realistically, their impairment doesn't impair anyone else but themselves. That they can't walk, see, hear, whatever isn't relevant as far as their job goes, and thus doesn't really matter compared to how much they are worth.

Of course, using my line of reasoning it would be fully possible for a disabled person to be worth more than a fully able bodied man.

[SCRawl]

Second - anyone who is handicapped is inconvenient. We don't execute people based on convenience.

Not if they contribute to society.

Wait, what? If a handicapped person contributes nothing to society, then we put them to sleep? Where do you live, again?

Fourth - it's not a matter of whether he's "worth more than a whole city" or not, because keeping him alive doesn't destroy the city.

No, but keeping him there drains resources, and would lower his net worth to zero, or negative. Unless he can keep on contributing to society in some way. And even then, simply compare how much money he makes at his new job, compared to the money the subway generated if it functioned normally.

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit here. According to your line of reasoning, a single person on welfare without a job is of negative value, and can be discarded at will. This might be true in a libertarian's idea of the ideal society, but, thankfully, not anywhere that actually exists these days.

[Darth Ruinus]

Wait, what? If a handicapped person contributes nothing to society, then we put them to sleep? Where do you live, again?

Is this person handicapped to the extent that they simply cannot work? Are they in a coma or something similar? At this point, they are similar to children, and as such, we don't go in and kill them because they, like children, are someone else's property. You don't go around destroying other people's investments.

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit here. According to your line of reasoning, a single person on welfare without a job is of negative value, and can be discarded at will. This might be true in a libertarian's idea of the ideal society, but, thankfully, not anywhere that actually exists these days.

Depends on why the person is on welfare. If they simply don't want to work, then don't kill them. Just kick them out of your state, whatever. If they can't work for health reasons or other circumstances, and are on welfare temporarily, then they still have a net worth (based on their prior earnings, decreasing every month by subtracting their expenses). They are also now investments of the government. The goverment is putting money into them with the hopes of the person getting on their feet and paying it back, being a productive member of society.

Also, I'm not saying kill people with negative net worths, simply don't spend more money attempting to save them than they are already worth and can be expected to pay back.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Is this person handicapped to the extent that they simply cannot work? Are they in a coma or something similar? At this point, they are similar to children, and as such, we don't go in and kill them because they, like children, are someone else's property. You don't go around destroying other people's investments.

Are you saying your only moral objection against infanticide is the infringement of property rights?

Depends on why the person is on welfare. If they simply don't want to work, then don't kill them. Just kick them out of your state, whatever. If they can't work for health reasons or other circumstances, and are on welfare temporarily, then they still have a net worth (based on their prior earnings, decreasing every month by subtracting their expenses). They are also now investments of the government. The goverment is putting money into them with the hopes of the person getting on their feet and paying it back, being a productive member of society.

Also, I'm not saying kill people with negative net worths, simply don't spend more money attempting to save them than they are already worth and can be expected to pay back.

How do you calculate net worth in your example? What are the limits whereby summary termination of benefits and/or life support is considered viable?

[Darth Ruinus]

Are you saying your only moral objection against infanticide is the infringement of property rights?

Yes.

How do you calculate net worth in your example? What are the limits whereby summary termination of benefits and/or life support is considered viable?

Money. Say the man is worth $10USD. The train generates, say $50. Thus, keeping him there causes a loss of $50. At this point, his net worth is -$40. Say, they move all his work equipment to the train tracks, so he can work again. Still his net worth is -$40 (his beneficial worth minus his liabilities).

What I'm saying is dont go around killing people who are in the negative, simply don't spend more money attempting to save them than they are worth. Don't spend $100 dollars trying to save someone who is worth, say $5. Of course, if the family comes in and wants to spend their own money, go ahead, but the government shouldn't.

Probably also the importance of his work, as say, he is working on a cure for cancer or something, boosts his worth up.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Yes.

When does a child suddenly become his/her own person and attain the indisputable right to life?

Money. Say the man is worth $10USD. The train generates, say $50. Thus, keeping him there causes a loss of $50. At this point, his net worth is -$40. Say, they move all his work equipment to the train tracks, so he can work again. Still his net worth is -$40 (his beneficial worth minus his liabilities).

What makes the man "worth" $10USD? Does this account for currency valuations? Would you permit the total cessation of support for people in an industry that was barely breaking even, or even failing, to the point that should certain members require medical or social aid worth more than their comparative worth in the markets, they would be unable to acquire it?

What I'm saying is dont go around killing people who are in the negative, simply don't spend more money attempting to save them than they are worth. Don't spend $100 dollars trying to save someone who is worth, say $5. Of course, if the family comes in and wants to spend their own money, go ahead, but the government shouldn't.

Probably also the importance of his work, as say, he is working on a cure for cancer or something, boosts his worth up.

What if the work is unquantifiable in traditional monetary terms? Do you rescind any and all support, or err on the side of maintaining a certain default level of support? If the latter, on what basis do you calculate this?

[SCRawl]

Depends on why the person is on welfare. If they simply don't want to work, then don't kill them. Just kick them out of your state, whatever. If they can't work for health reasons or other circumstances, and are on welfare temporarily, then they still have a net worth (based on their prior earnings, decreasing every month by subtracting their expenses). They are also now investments of the government. The goverment is putting money into them with the hopes of the person getting on their feet and paying it back, being a productive member of society.

Also, I'm not saying kill people with negative net worths, simply don't spend more money attempting to save them than they are already worth and can be expected to pay back.

You have forced me to shake my head in disbelief. Kudos.

Let me give you a for instance. A married couple exists, such that one partner is healthy and able to work, at least nominally, and the other partner is chronically ill, and will never work again in any capacity. This is not a couple for which financial security is something about which they'll never have to worry. Let's say that something awful happens, and, for whatever reason, the first partner is no longer able to support the second partner. The second partner will never be able to be self-supporting, in financial terms. In such a utilitarian society as you imagine exists, what should happen to the second partner?

(You might recognize this as a familiar relationship, but I bring it up only because I believe it to be a useful example.)

[Darth Ruinus]

When does a child suddenly become his/her own person and attain the indisputable right to life?

I don't care when they turn into persons, when they stop being persons, etc etc. If someone is a dependant of someone else, then to me, it would only be wrong to kill them because they are essentially someone else's property/investment. It would be wrong to destroy someone else's investments because that would be money and time/energy lost.

Everyone has the right to life, it simply isn't "indisputable" when it comes to the resources required to save them. It is entirely dependant on their worth.

What makes the man "worth" $10USD?

How much he earns, plus how much they have saved up. This man, when he barely began to work, gets paid an initial salary of $2 per year. Thus, as soon as he begins to work, his worth is $2. He saves up a quarter of his yearly salary, so that 16 years later he is worth the $10 at the time of the accident. (16 years means he has saved up $8, plus his salary of $2 which he has yet to spend or save)

He also probably receives boosts to his worth depending on other factors.

Does this account for currency valuations?

Why wouldn't it?

Would you permit the total cessation of support for people in an industry that was barely breaking even, or even failing, to the point that should certain members require medical or social aid worth more than their comparative worth in the markets, they would be unable to acquire it?

If their industry is failing, then simply their annual salaries goes down, or ends completely if they are out of a job. However, their value is also based on how much money they have saved up. For instance, if the $2s are paid by the automobile industry, which does poorly, drops to $1 at the time of his accident he is worth $9. This is because he still previously saved up a quarter of his annual salary of $2 over the course of 16 years, plus his new (lower) annual salary of $1.

If at this point he requires medical/social aid then he is automatically entitled to $9 of that aid. After that, when the government/medical/social aid programs have paid up that $9 worth of aid, and his net worth is effectively $0 then he can continue to receive aid only up to the point of the inverse of his total life worth. That is to say, -$9. Sure, it will now take him probably the rest of his life to pay this off, but at that point it is no different than current day medical systems with expensive surgery/medical costs.

That the competition is doing better is irrelevant, so long as the person/s in question where smart enough to save up money.

What if the work is unquantifiable in traditional monetary terms? Do you rescind any and all support, or err on the side of maintaining a certain default level of support? If the latter, on what basis do you calculate this?

How would it be unquantifiable? If he is an artist or a book writter, then he still has a net worth. He gains money from selling his art, selling his books. If you mean that he is a scientist, and as such may or may not be paid as much as a CEO (even though he may be working on something far more important) then the nature of his work is looked at. If he works on a cure for a disease that affects a wide reaching population, then he receives a bonus. That bonus would be determined by whoever it is that is funding the research project or whatever.

[Darth Ruinus]

You have forced me to shake my head in disbelief. Kudos.

Let me give you a for instance. A married couple exists, such that one partner is healthy and able to work, at least nominally, and the other partner is chronically ill, and will never work again in any capacity. This is not a couple for which financial security is something about which they'll never have to worry. Let's say that something awful happens, and, for whatever reason, the first partner is no longer able to support the second partner. The second partner will never be able to be self-supporting, in financial terms. In such a utilitarian society as you imagine exists, what should happen to the second partner?

Nothing should happen to the second partner.

If they never had to worry about finances, then they have money in the bank right? They have money saved up, so they should be fine. Even if they didn't, nothing would happen to them. They would probably lose the house or sell it, lose the car or sell it, etc etc. They may have to move into a small apartment. All the same things that happen now when people lose their jobs.

Again, I'm not saying that we should go out of our way to kill people with negative worth, but that people should only expect to receive medical/social/government aid that is equal to their worth. Once their worth is 0, they can expect to be loaned an amount that is directly opposite their positive worth.

For instance, your couple is at, say $100. The first partner receives a huge amount of money, he has saved up a large amount of money, and after deducting the costs of supporting the second partner, still have $100. Thus, he can expect to receive help equal to $200.

The first $100 worth of aid drops his worth down to 0, and the next $100 drops it to -$100. After that, he is on his own. His family or friend can step in, I don't realy care, but at that point, he can no longer expect help from the goverment or any company that supplied that help.

[Broomstick]

Wait, what? If a handicapped person contributes nothing to society, then we put them to sleep? Where do you live, again?

Is this person handicapped to the extent that they simply cannot work? Are they in a coma or something similar? At this point, they are similar to children, and as such, we don't go in and kill them because they, like children, are someone else's property. You don't go around destroying other people's investments.

Uh, dude - I know California is often regarded as a very different place from the rest of the US, but even there you can't own other people. Children are NOT the property of anyone, not even their parents.

Where the FUCK did you get the idea that children were property? Man, that is completely fucked up. Not to mention wrong and illegal.

[Broomstick]

You have forced me to shake my head in disbelief. Kudos.

Let me give you a for instance. A married couple exists, such that one partner is healthy and able to work, at least nominally, and the other partner is chronically ill, and will never work again in any capacity. This is not a couple for which financial security is something about which they'll never have to worry. Let's say that something awful happens, and, for whatever reason, the first partner is no longer able to support the second partner. The second partner will never be able to be self-supporting, in financial terms. In such a utilitarian society as you imagine exists, what should happen to the second partner?

Nothing should happen to the second partner.

If they never had to worry about finances, then they have money in the bank right?

Try for some reading comprehension fuckwad. That's NOT what he said. Admittedly, SCRawl could have phrased that in much better terms, but he said the couple DID have to worry about finances.

They have money saved up, so they should be fine. Even if they didn't, nothing would happen to them. They would probably lose the house or sell it, lose the car or sell it, etc etc. They may have to move into a small apartment. All the same things that happen now when people lose their jobs.

Again, I'm not saying that we should go out of our way to kill people with negative worth, but that people should only expect to receive medical/social/government aid that is equal to their worth. Once their worth is 0, they can expect to be loaned an amount that is directly opposite their positive worth.

For instance, your couple is at, say $100. The first partner receives a huge amount of money, he has saved up a large amount of money, and after deducting the costs of supporting the second partner, still have $100. Thus, he can expect to receive help equal to $200.

The first $100 worth of aid drops his worth down to 0, and the next $100 drops it to -$100. After that, he is on his own. His family or friend can step in, I don't realy care, but at that point, he can no longer expect help from the goverment or any company that supplied that help.

^ That has rendered me speechless. Will someone else please rip this guy a new asshole for me? I don't think I could make a reply that wouldn't result in my being penalized by the board authorities. I'm sorry, this hits way too close to home and I can't be objective about it. I'm bowing out now.

Oh, and Darth Ruinus - you're a complete and total asshole.

[Darth Ruinus]

Uh, dude - I know California is often regarded as a very different place from the rest of the US, but even there you can't own other people. Children are NOT the property of anyone, not even their parents.

Where the FUCK did you get the idea that children were property?

I'm still not seeing what is so fucked up about considering children the property/investments of their parents. Children are minors, they can't vote, they have to have their parent's permission to sign any type of legal documentation, they are very often not afforded the same rights as adults. Children are resource drains on their parents. Children are awarded to parents in divorce trials, and judges award people visitation rights based on how much time the parent (owner) thinks they deserve. To me it seems ridiculous to think that children aren't the property of their parents. Of course, they still have rights, but they are property anways.

Not to mention wrong and illegal.

How?

[Darth Ruinus]

Try for some reading comprehension fuckwad. That's NOT what he said. Admittedly, SCRawl could have phrased that in much better terms, but he said the couple DID have to worry about finances.

Oh, I missed the "not" up there. My mistake. In that case my answer is:

"Nothing should happen to the second partner."

[SCRawl]

Try for some reading comprehension fuckwad. That's NOT what he said. Admittedly, SCRawl could have phrased that in much better terms, but he said the couple DID have to worry about finances.

Oh, I missed the "not" up there. My mistake. In that case my answer is:

"Nothing should happen to the second partner."

...which is the same as your answer when you thought that the situation was different. I apologize to all who misunderstood for the confusing double negative.

Just to be clear, your solution to the situation I described would be for the second partner to hang on for a short time while the government would provide the necessities of life, and then be left to the whims of providence. Again, in the interest of clarity, it's likely that such a person would become homeless in such a situation, and then, well, you know. Is that what you feel would be a fair and just outcome? Honestly?

There's a reason that first world nations have, for the most part, a decent social safety net. In case you don't already know, it's because some people really can't provide for themselves, and in some cases will never be able to do so. We as a society believe that it's worthwhile to look after such people not because it makes sense on the balance sheet, but because we can, and it's the right thing to do.

That has rendered me speechless. Will someone else please rip this guy a new asshole for me?

Alas, asshole-ripping isn't my forté; my preference is death by a thousand cuts. I'll leave it for my betters, as I agree that a new orifice is in order.

[Darth Ruinus]

I described would be for the second partner to hang on for a short time while the government would provide the necessities of life, and then be left to the whims of providence.

Yes. I don't think the government should spend more money on people than they are worth, or than they can be expected to pay back in any reasonable amounts. Other projects need funding too.

Again, in the interest of clarity, it's likely that such a person would become homeless in such a situation, and then, well, you know. Is that what you feel would be a fair and just outcome? Honestly?

No, it wouldn't be. But again, I do not think money should be spent on something that won't return that money.

There's a reason that first world nations have, for the most part, a decent social safety net. In case you don't already know, it's because some people really can't provide for themselves, and in some cases will never be able to do so. We as a society believe that it's worthwhile to look after such people not because it makes sense on the balance sheet, but because we can, and it's the right thing to do.

If for some reason the government took my line of reasoning, someone who lost their job would be receiving FREE aid, untill the amount of free aid is equal to their entire life's income. After that, THEN they have to pay.

Still, I still cannot shake the feeling that at some point, helping someone out simply isn't worth it anymore. That a person is undeserving of help. That any help expended on a person is a lost cause because the person has, based on prior actions, shown they are not worth it, or that they will not return the favor. All I am doing is actually attempting to put a limit on that.

[Erik von Nein]

I'm still not seeing what is so fucked up about considering children the property/investments of their parents. Children are minors, they can't vote, they have to have their parent's permission to sign any type of legal documentation, they are very often not afforded the same rights as adults.

They can't vote because it's been ruled that they don't have the background to, not because they are or are not property. Same for signing legal documents. What rights, pray-tell, are they not awarded because they are children? Fair trial? Freedom of speech?

Children are resource drains on their parents. Children are awarded to parents in divorce trials, and judges award people visitation rights based on how much time the parent (owner) thinks they deserve.

They're not drains, they're investments. The parents invest in the children's lives until the children are capable of taking care of themselves and contribute to society, often taking over when the parents themselves are incapable of working. Does this mean that the parents then become the property of the children? Also, the children enrich the parents' lives through emotional satisfaction and fulfilling biological imperatives.

During custody trials the parents are awarded the right to take care of the child, not legal ownership of them. Just as schools get temporary custody of the children (duty of care for those kids) during school hours. If they were considered property child cruelty/child labor laws would be null and void. But, since children are ruled as people, just people who are also see as incapable of taking care of themselves due to a lack of understanding and/or background in life, they are most certainly not property.

Hell, teenager's can be awarded custody of themselves if they can successfully plead their case to a judge.

Also, you bass-ackwards philosophy would mean every since Downs Syndrome person in existence, or every single person in a assisted-care living, no longer has the right to life and can be killed at a whim with no repercussions.

To me it seems ridiculous to think that children aren't the property of their parents. Of course, they still have rights, but they are property anways.

You keep stating it as if it's fact, yet you're only evidence is "they don't have all the rights adults do." That does not make them property.

How?

Well, for starters, they aren't considered property under any first world nation's laws. For the second just read all the replies to your posts so far.

[Sriad]

Darth Ru:

The primary flaw with your (appallingly brutal utilitarian) thinking is that there is considerable psychological value to the knowledge that if one fucks up, the government is not going to let you die in the cold.

What about criminals? Do they automatically earn the death penalty when the cost of their incarceration passes their gross lifetime earnings? How do you stop the state from cooking the books and deciding arbitrary costs to kill where they want?

Hell, let's make this concrete: how would you feel about the USA murdering 300,000 young African American men being held on petty drug trafficking charges? Once you grant the state the power to say when a life ceases to have value, the opportunities for corruption, blackmail, harassment, etc multiply a thousand fold. Don't try a "Well if we do it my way everything will be fine!" line of bullshit: if EVERYTHING went according to plan, any system of government could work perfectly.

Communism works perfectly except that people are greedy and corruptible.
Authoritarianism works perfectly except that people are greedy and corruptible.
Anarcho-syndicalism works perfectly except that people are greedy and corruptible.
Can you guess what would make your Utilitarian Wonderland turn into a cesspit of human misery and Kafkaesque abuse within a generation?

[Admiral Valdemar]

I have to wonder, is Darth Ruinous pro-death penalty also? It would certainly tie in with the kind of thinking being evidenced here such as the objectification of minors despite there being no slave trade in children within civilised society (the same reasoning being seen here was also used to allow white men to trade black men on an open market).

If you allow the state such powers to be used arbitrarily and with the fallible nature of a human construct, then you invite some serious problems. Who decides if a disabled or otherwise "unfit" person, in the eyes of those judging, is worthy of life or not? Either you have a right to live, or you don't. There are no grey areas.

[Broomstick]

Children are awarded to parents in divorce trials, and judges award people visitation rights based on how much time the parent (owner) thinks they deserve.

Actually, it's decided in the best interests of the child, which is why non-custodial parents and relatives are often granted visitation rights the custodial parents does not want them to have.

Parents can lose all parental rights if they fail to take care or abuse their children. On the other hand, no one gives a fuck if you destroy your own property.

To me it seems ridiculous to think that children aren't the property of their parents. Of course, they still have rights, but they are property anways.

Property doesn't have rights, you moron.

Not to mention wrong and illegal.

How?

Are you fucking retarded or something? Section one of the thirteenth amendment to the constitution bans slavery. You know, the ownership of humans beings.

You are not only heartless, you're fucking ignorant.

[Broomstick]

I can only assume Darth Ruinus is not only young and inexperienced in life, but he himself is healthy and fit and apparently everyone in his family is as well and thus he has absolutely zero experience - or knowledge - from which to generate a valid stance on these issues. I would also assume he has zero experience with poverty, want, misfortune, unemployment (of either himself or his parents/"owners") and the like. In which case he is in for a truly rude awakening during these economic times.

Given his beliefs about children, I can only hope he never, ever has children of his own. I wouldn't wish a Darwin award on him, of course, but there's always sterilization.

His general lack of empathy is truly disturbing, reducing people to "net worth" and no more. I suppose if he fucks up at 18 he would have no objection to us simply tossing him into the nearest dumpster? The arrogance is astonishing.