A lot of the retards I know actually have jobs, so yea -- they pay their own way. or they have parents that take care of them. That's why I said, "Retarded cripple" because even retards can work jobs and do things unless they are really bad or have some further problem.
It's just hard to imagine somebody who's so fucked up that they will never be able to work or do anything useful in their entire life and they will always be a constraint on the government/tax payers.
And wouldn't the "cost/benefit" analysis for persons such as this say that it would be cheaper to just kill them?
Quote:
|
That's probably where we're different, but discussing this further seems a bit futile with comments like this
|
You're the one who thinks that taking care of people means we should give everybody free abortions.
Quote:
|
I guess this is the cynical kind of jargon that makes a guy popular at a place like i-mockery dot com, and I wonder if this is really your sentiment in real life - in which case I doubt you've ever worked with or dealt with or even remotely known a "retarded cripple" - but either way, I kind of get an idea of what the popular consensus is in America now
|
Do you think it was wrong to pull the plug on terry shiavo? (also I'm not very popular)
The whole point of our government and social justice isn't just taking care of people who can't take care of themselves, but to help alleviate social inequalities so that those who weren't born with an innate social advantage (i.e. being born white and rich) can have equal advantages and social mobiliity. The other reason we take care of people, like prisoners and insane persons, is to protect society from them.
Historically, the only role our government was supposed to play was as the Mediator. Basically, to protect people from each other and nature. There's nothing in the constitution that says that it is our job to take care of people who can't take care of themselves with our tax money.
Threaded Mode
