PDA

View Full Version : Retards


Pages : [1] 2

Holly
January 15th, 2009, 07:21 AM
No, not a thread about psychologicalshock & Jett, maybe another time.

I was reading this article this morning about parents who have badly retarded children and how it ruins everyones lifes, and obviously they are a complete drain on society. They often become violent, and can not do even a basic chore for themselves or others.
They are a drooling lump of flesh, something went wrong in the creation.
Bad situation, I know for myself I would have no trouble doing the right thing and putting this poor creature out of its misery very early if I was unlucky enough to have one, of course this is not legal which leads to my poll question.

Should it be legal to put down infants like this, and do you think you would do it if it was yours ?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Why can't we face the truth? Having an autistic child wrecks your life ...

By Carol Sarler

Last updated at 8:06 AM on 15th January 2009

Thanks to a moment of everyday terror, I think I knew before anyone else. My friend's two-year-old had climbed upon a chair from which, with customary toddler clumsiness, he fell.

Like all children, he managed a second of stunned silence - then howled like a banshee. Like all adults, I rushed to pick him up, to cuddle, to soothe.

What was unexpected was his response: visibly fearful of my touch, he kicked my belly, disengaged himself and ran away.

I added that to the list I was already mentally composing: no eye contact, ever. Not even with his mum. No shred of attachment to toys, pets, people. Obsessive, repetitive behaviour. Crazed by the sight of other children. Hmm.

By his fourth birthday, still with nappies, but without speech, everyone else knew, too.

Tom was - I mean is, and always will be - autistic. I've been thinking a lot about Tom, who's now seven, as the debate rages over the possibility of a prenatal test for autism, with abortion then optional.

And, so far, most of the argument leans towards such a test being undesirable and unethical.

Brave and devoted mothers - notably Charlotte Moore, whose book, George And Sam, about her two autistic sons, is immensely powerful - have clung to the positives brought into their lives by their children.

Backing the emphasis on the positive have been those who point to the frequently high intelligence of the autistic savant, as if we are talking about phalanxes of Mozarts and Einsteins.

How much poorer we would be without, say, the astonishing brain of Dustin Hoffman's Rain Man!
Who would or could babysit this child?

Well, maybe. But not as poor as Tom's family: three generations of lives - I include his own - wrecked, for ever, by his cussed condition.

His parents, let us call them Cath and John, bear the brunt. Immediately after diagnosis, she beat herself senseless with blame; so many theories, each making it her fault.

Should she have allowed her son to have had the MMR jab? Was it, as some said, a behavioural disturbance caused by 'bad' parenting?

Once, she even convinced herself (from something she'd read) that it was mercury poisoning from eating tuna during her pregnancy.

Theories, however, were soon to defer to practicalities. They strove for a normal life: simple things, such as going shopping together.

But with the best will in the world, how many shops - or, indeed, how many customers - are going to tolerate a child who screams, bites, defecates and destroys everything within reach?

Besides, dangers lurk. Last time I bumped into them in a supermarket car park, Tom was bawling hysterically. Why? Because he had seen a bird. So, mostly, Cath and John stay at home.

Both their careers are over - not, as for many with small children, on hold for a few years. Each knows that neither will work full-time again.

There have been attempts with special schools, but none succeeded. Sanity is preserved by each parent having a hobby (fishing and tennis), so one babysits while the other takes a break.

They rarely go out together, for who else - other than one plucky grandmother - would, or even could, babysit this child?

Worst of all, the other babies, of whom Cath and John had dreamed, have been ruled out.

First, because they simply do not have the time to give to another child. And second - I admire them for thinking of this - they do not feel it would be fair to raise a child already programmed to be guilt-tripped, whether by itself or by others, into taking on the role of carer when Cath and John are no longer capable. Or dead.

This, then, is their life sentence: to worry, every hour of every day, what will happen to Tom when they are gone.

Meanwhile, Cath's parents - both exceptionally youthful at 60 - have had their own plans turn to dust.

They had looked forward to more time together in retirement; in fact, they have less.

Granny Helen spends all the time she can, maybe more than is good for her, trying to help out: a little childcare here, a spot of shopping there.

The carefully saved nest egg, intended for the small luxuries that make ageing more enjoyable, is rapidly depleting.

With Cath and John unable to hold down proper employment, it is Helen who chips in for the unexpected bill, the car repair or the TV licence.
Tom had ripped out a handful of her hair

And, please, don't ask about state benefits for carers: these are so meagre that if it were not for Helen, Cath could not even afford the mobile phone she must have with her every time she steps outside her front door.

The trouble is that Grandpa Bill is not quite as happy as Granny Helen for their money to be spent this way - so there are new tensions there, at a time in life when they need them least.

Yet of the three generations, it is Tom who suffers most. And he's getting worse. As Helen said, only last week: 'We used to have a little autistic boy who was often happy. Now we have one who never is.'

All three generations set off in a bold attempt at a holiday over Christmas. Not a resort, bustling with strangers; quite impossible. But a rented house, just the five of them, to let Tom feel the warm sun on his face. Well, it was a nice thought.

I phoned with New Year good wishes. Helen answered, in tears. Her head hurt, she said; Tom had ripped out a handful of her hair by the roots. Bit her, too. But I couldn't hear what she was saying for the insistent shrieking in the background.

Waaah! Waaah! Waaah! Goodness, I said. How long has he been doing that? Since they left home, two weeks earlier: through the airport, on the plane and 18 solid hours a day.

They had to have him sedated just to get him home again, which Cath hates doing. So that's it for holidays, breaks, respites or breathers. Again, for ever.
Autistic children are not all the same

And the question they are starting to ask is too terrifying for words. If this amazingly beautiful child (they often are), possessed by misery and rage that no amount of expertise has relieved, is this destructive and violent at seven, then how much worse will he be at 17, when he's that much stronger?

Last year, I gave them Charlotte Moore's book, thinking, foolishly, that it might afford comfort.

It actually meant nothing; they simply could not see Tom in George and Sam. Autistic children, like any other children, presumably reserve the right not all to be the same.

But if there's a chance of a Tom, and a chance of a test to indicate his condition, then - with the obvious proviso that it never be mandatory - I would urge its opponents to think less of Mozart and Einstein and more of otherwise everyday people: Cath, John, Helen, Bill. And Tom.

I would not be impertinent enough to ask Cath if she wishes she'd had such a chance.

In any case, that is a difficult question after the event: it is hard for a mother retrospectively to wish away a living child who, come what may, she loves.

But looking on, as a relatively dispassionate observer; looking at the damage done, the absence of hope and the anguish of the poor child himself, do I think that everyone concerned would have been better off if Tom's had been a life unlived?

http://tinyurl.com/8n6f8c

Maxine Grey
January 15th, 2009, 07:29 AM
I would hate to make the choice, but yes I would. Its not life for them what so ever.

Holly
January 15th, 2009, 07:29 AM
Oh by the way I do not mean that you would bash in its head or strangle it with a sock, but like they do it for poor dogs you know, in a clinic.

RabbitNoMore
January 15th, 2009, 08:27 AM
I gotta side with the Man himself here. He knew that severe mental or even physical retardation was no kind of quality or happy life for anyone involved, and that such a thing was in fact a burden upon the rest of society, especially when coddled in large numbers. Euthanasia is the only humane choice.

What's the difference weather or not you are aborting your unborn child?

Many women seem to have no moral compunction at all about doing exactly that to a healthy fetus, due to their own poor choices, so it should be doubly effortless should the fetus be defective in this way.

It saddens me to think just how much long term pain and misery could be avoided, had the mobs of liberal douche bags clogging this land, the critical thinking skills and the intestinal fortitude to even consider the alternative to raising a retarded child.

Sadly, they aren't interested in anything but wanting to feel good right now, about themselves first and foremost, and so jewy Jerry Lewis lives high on the hog, telethoning it, every now and again, when the funds get low.


Sick.

**

Nick Succorso
January 15th, 2009, 08:29 AM
You want us to look like heartless monsters?

Define retarded.

Would you also kill your grandparents because they're senile?

Ideally all severely retarded babies would be aborted early, but failing that there's nothing more to do except let them live out their life, no matter how poor its quality is.

Life should be respected.

psychologicalshock
January 15th, 2009, 08:42 AM
No, not a thread about psychologicalshock & Jett, maybe another time.


Hey that's a low blow, don't associate me with Jett.

Would you also kill your grandparents because they're senile?
Typical argument but the thing is they have already lived fulfilling and quality lives, there's a difference between one who has and one who can't, a huge difference.

RabbitNoMore
January 15th, 2009, 09:02 AM
You want us to look like heartless monsters?

Come on now Nick, haven't you been paying attention?
We already are monsters with a capital "racist".
That you can thank the jew for.
As far as those of a differing opinion than ours are concerned we practically are Hitler himself.
Might as well embrace some of His better ideas, and this was certainly one of his best.

Define retarded.
Obviously a predetermined set of conditions would apply for the definition of "retarded" to apply to one's fetus, as would conditions gauging the severity of the defective fetus in question. In plain English; all kinds of fucked up would be the general criteria for termination of pregnancy.

Would you also kill your grandparents because they're senile?

You may be surprised how many here would answer that in the affirmative, my friend.

Ideally all severely retarded babies would be aborted early, but failing that there's nothing more to do except let them live out their life, no matter how poor its quality is.

Exactly, and with today's medical and technological advances, it should be a small and easy affair to detect such things early on. The only thing preventing this, are the liberal douche bags I mentioned earlier, feeling good about their own 'morality', and literally and figuratively, blocking the way.

Life should be respected.

Define both 'life' and 'respect'.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but I'm still gonna eat beef, and I'm still gonna harvest my garden, and compost the left overs when it's all done. And best of all, I'm going to enjoy every minute of it. Does that mean I don't respect the cow that died so I could eat? Or the living tomatoes that I 'murdered'? Of course not.

When a human is retarded to the point where he really is no more than a living vegetable, wouldn't he be happier on the compost heap? Wouldn't the rest of his group be happier that way?

I admit that it is in fact a seemingly heartless stance, but then again, ain't life enough of a bitch anyway? It must suck to be all kinds of fucked up, to boot.

**

Nick Succorso
January 15th, 2009, 09:28 AM
Off topic but how do you go about making multiple quotes of the same post like that?

Elizabeth Fragale
January 15th, 2009, 09:50 AM
Holly, you say you'd have no trouble killing your retarded infant, but I think you're underestimating your maternal instinct. From what I've been told, once you have a child the urge to protect the child is so strong nothing can lessen it. That would explain why white mothers still love the abominations they create through racemixing. Your eugenic ideals will take a backseat if you were ever placed in that situation, I'm almost certain.

I'm not sure how I feel about the situation myself.

Nick Succorso
January 15th, 2009, 09:53 AM
Eugenics isn't an issue here, retards don't get laid very often.

Karl Von Clausewitz!
January 15th, 2009, 09:57 AM
Off topic but how do you go about making multiple quotes of the same post like that?

Highlight a portion of the text you want to quote then press the "Quote tags" which looks like a text scribble next to "insert image" which is the yellow square with two triangles...lol.

do you

And presto.

Nick Succorso
January 15th, 2009, 10:09 AM
Highlight a portion of the text you want to quote then press the "Quote tags" which looks like a text scribble next to "insert image" which is the yellow square with two triangles...lol.

I think the two triangles are supposed to be mountains.


And presto.


Thanks! You learn something every day. :)

Troy Alexander
January 15th, 2009, 10:21 AM
yes. but the family has to do it themselves and not be pussies and leave it to the gov. same goes to mothers who want a non-interracial abortion.

if this was the law, necessary measures can take place but at the same time society won't easily become heartless.

BryanVP
January 15th, 2009, 11:01 AM
Yes. I'd take it a step further, not just people who are legally retarded, but act retarded as well. Too many stupid people are procreating.

Retards, Mongrels, Elderly, and everyone on death row should be euthanized.

People in prisons for violent crimes should be as well. Hospitals are full of people on life support that have no chance of recovery. Pull the plug already.

Bob R.
January 15th, 2009, 11:04 AM
Should it be legal to put down infants like this, and do you think you would do it if it was yours ?


To not do so is just a sort of cowardice, blind enforcement of the traditional laws of civilization against homicide, without any sense of spirit to it. It's like letting a horse live with it's legs broken, to let them live is unbelievable, silly, cruel, stupid, passive. People stupid enough to not put the horse out it's misery are probably candidates themselves for euthanasia.

If Everything in nature tends to demonstrate the nature of God, God himself creates life which destroys the weak, immediately. Nature ends the suffering of the weak, while civilized people let the weak live , out of mercy, only to despise them everyday and make them wish they were dead everyday.

George Witzgall
January 15th, 2009, 11:05 AM
Yes. I'd take it a step further, not just people who are legally retarded, but act retarded as well.

I can't stand people who tell retarded jokes. euthanasia is too good for these people.

Bob R.
January 15th, 2009, 11:08 AM
I can't stand people who tell retarded jokes. euthanasia is too good for these people.

It's obvious why you take it so personally.

People make a pretense of morality for the sake of status, it gives them a higher status within a group. Status is vitally important because a person's place in the pecking order has for millenia determined breeding rights within the group, also feeding rights on kills.

When crazy bitches squeal and scream at white racists, it's because they believe they can edge them out in the pecking order, and get more food and gain sexual rights.

George Witzgall
January 15th, 2009, 11:09 AM
It's obvious why you take it so personally.

People make a pretense of morality for the sake of status, it gives them a higher status within a group. Status is vitally important because a person's place in the pecking order has for millenia determined breeding rights within the group, also feeding rights on kills.


people who believe they are possessed need to be executed at once.

Bob R.
January 15th, 2009, 11:14 AM
people who believe they are possessed need to be executed at once.

You are possessed you just don't know it because you are retarded. It's easy to possess retards like you. I'll prove it.

This is, indeed, one very, ,very strong argument for eugenics, the proneness of stupid people to the influence of demonic alien life forms.

Horseman
January 15th, 2009, 11:15 AM
I am fascinated to understand what autism is exactly. It's sad that, like the article says, the many of these kids are unusually beautiful and/or gifted. I've heard that it could be a form of extreme ADD, a condition associated with higher than average intelligence. If you correlate better looks and higher intelligence, than this makes this theory seem more likely. In that case, these autistic kids are not "Retards" but in fact have higher potential than average, but cannot develop it because of the disabilities of their condition. All that makes the idea of euthanasia hard to do I suppose. It also triggers the paranoid side of me that knows that an enemy would target the most beautiful and talented (the whole vaccine thing, and who knows what else).

George Witzgall
January 15th, 2009, 11:15 AM
You are possessed you just don't know it because you are retarded. It's easy to possess retards like you. I'll prove it.


oh no you don't.

BryanVP
January 15th, 2009, 11:19 AM
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a75/kschmic/exorcist_vomit.jpg

George Witzgall
January 15th, 2009, 11:24 AM
the reason for the people voting no is they've been brainwashed by the pro-lifers. they would hate to see a defective embryo aborted. if you re-word the proposition to exclude embryos, say only apply it to adult retards, they would be all for execution.

Marse Supial
January 15th, 2009, 11:24 AM
I can certainly understand the rationale of people who would support such a thing as this. But I can't, because whether there is a God or not, I believe that there is a plan, and that all humans, no matter how undesirable they may be are a part of it, and that we are acting above our pay-grade in deciding who should and shouldn't have life. Capital punishment and self defense excepted.

The goat-lady in the Cold Mountain movie said it well:

"See, I think there's a plan. There's a design for each and every one of us. You look at nature. Bird flies somewhere, picks up a seed, shits the seed out, plant grows. Bird's got a job, shit's got a job, seed's got a job. And you've got a job. "

Troy Alexander
January 15th, 2009, 11:25 AM
I am fascinated to understand what autism is exactly. It's sad that, like the article says, the many of these kids are unusually beautiful and/or gifted. I've heard that it could be a form of extreme ADD, a condition associated with higher than average intelligence. If you correlate better looks and higher intelligence, than this makes this theory seem more likely. In that case, these autistic kids are not "Retards" but in fact have higher potential than average, but cannot develop it because of the disabilities of their condition. All that makes the idea of euthanasia hard to do I suppose. It also triggers the paranoid side of me that knows that an enemy would target the most beautiful and talented (the whole vaccine thing, and who knows what else).

its when the right and left side of the brain are not connected properly. they find it hard to put their thoughts into action. But on the other hand they have a real talent for detail and can put facts together which people with normal but systematc brains would never be bale to do.

I think uncle adolf had something like this; but if h ad the proper help hs talent would have gone to waste as an architecht.

RabbitNoMore
January 15th, 2009, 11:27 AM
I can certainly understand the rationale of people who would support such a thing as this. But I can't, because whether there is a God or not, I believe that there is a plan, and that all humans, no matter how undesirable they may be are a part of it, and that we are acting above our pay-grade in deciding who should and shouldn't have life.



If this were really true, then wouldn't the 'soul' of the aborted unborn go right back to 'God" to continue with His plans through another unborn anyway?

Or can't "God" do that?
Just sayin' is all...

**

Nick Succorso
January 15th, 2009, 11:30 AM
The kill the retards attitude is a fruitless ideological stance, it merely earns us scorn and has no eugenic benefits whatsoever.

It's such a minor issue in the scheme of things anyway.

George Witzgall
January 15th, 2009, 11:33 AM
The kill the retards attitude is a fruitless ideological stance, it merely earns us scorn and has no eugenic benefits whatsoever.

sometimes the retards find other retards to marry. then they can reproduce. it happens.

Oy Ze Hate
January 15th, 2009, 11:34 AM
Determine if they're retarded in the first or second trimester, then have mandatory abortion.

Bringing a retard into the world is not good for any of the parties involved: the family, society, and the child in question.

There's no cruelty involved, just good common sense. It's too bad a bunch of religious gobbledygook has determined otherwise.

George Witzgall
January 15th, 2009, 11:35 AM
If this were really true, then wouldn't the 'soul' of the aborted unborn go right back to 'God" to continue with His plans through another unborn anyway?

Or can't "God" do that?
Just sayin' is all...

**

are you questioning Pat Robertson? who do you think you are?

BryanVP
January 15th, 2009, 11:37 AM
The kill the retards attitude is a fruitless ideological stance, it merely earns us scorn and has no eugenic benefits whatsoever.

It's such a minor issue in the scheme of things anyway.

I agree it earns us scorn, even though it's not just white nationalists that feel that way.

For now it's a minor issue, or seems that way atleast -- but in the future when resources are running low it will not be. Sooner or later the population is going to need thinning, the only question left is where the thinning is done. Of course there are other more suitable ideas. Just hopefully white people are the ones calling the shots when that time comes.

Elizabeth Fragale
January 15th, 2009, 11:39 AM
the reason for the people voting no is they've been brainwashed by the pro-lifers. they would hate to see a defective embryo aborted. if you re-word the proposition to exclude embryos, say only apply it to adult retards, they would be all for execution.

I'm the opposite. The best solution to this problem would be to abort early, as soon as the defect is detected. That would be the most humane option. I just find it hard to imagine killing a human baby who has already breathed, seen the world, etc. What's done is done.

Troy Alexander
January 15th, 2009, 11:40 AM
The kill the retards attitude is a fruitless ideological stance, it merely earns us scorn and has no eugenic benefits whatsoever.

It's such a minor issue in the scheme of things anyway.

On a chimpanzee level, white people support WN because they believe it will do in the competing non-white packbut not them. Any talk of getting retards- which will include whites- will change this notion. white people will view WN as an equal oppourtunity killer.

human instincts are not sophisticated: little qualifications like retards, will destroy the notion that we are pro-white.

anyway whites are not genetic machines. They are sentimental, and want a movement that helps both the weak and strong.

They want warriors who are irrationally kind to their own

http://www.aceros-de-hispania.com/image/robin-hood-sword/robin-hood-sword.bmp

not scientific killers
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/hol-pix/himmler2.jpg

we do not have to follow are ancestors on ths issue. If we had a health service thousands of years ago, the issue of killing retards would never have been heard of ever.

WN must play to human instinct and not play to historical and genetic models; that is wht commies do.

Mike Mazzone of Palatine
January 15th, 2009, 01:01 PM
anyway whites are not genetic machines. They are sentimental, and want a movement that helps both the weak and strong.

They want warriors who are irrationally kind to their own
The rationale to for sentimental racial collectivism is understandable. The goal is white supremacy. Hail victory. :swastikasmiley:

Sándor Petőfi
January 15th, 2009, 02:24 PM
On a chimpanzee level, white people support WN because they believe it will do in the competing non-white packbut not them. Any talk of getting retards- which will include whites- will change this notion. white people will view WN as an equal oppourtunity killer.

human instincts are not sophisticated: little qualifications like retards, will destroy the notion that we are pro-white.

anyway whites are not genetic machines. They are sentimental, and want a movement that helps both the weak and strong.

I suppose if you're a "White Nationalist", that makes sense.

we do not have to follow are ancestors on ths issue. If we had a health service thousands of years ago, the issue of killing retards would never have been heard of ever.

Says your crystal ball.


WN must play to human instinct and not play to historical and genetic models; that is wht commies do.

Did your crystal ball tell you that too? That infanticide isn't natural because it has been practiced in all cultures, and was in our own until the zealots of some peculiar religious notions convinced everyone that some spooks don't look kindly upon it?

Retards are all but absent in nature. That should tell you something about instinct.

Sándor Petőfi
January 15th, 2009, 02:35 PM
I believe that there is a plan,

A plan for what? To do what?

and that all humans,

Well, there's a problem. Is some creature with 21 chromosomes really of the same species as I am?

no matter how undesirable they may be are a part of it,

Does that include Ted Bundy? Seriously, can you explain what roles some creature in a semi-vegetative state has to play in this grand plan?

and that we are acting above our pay-grade in deciding who should and shouldn't have life.


We do that every time we rush someone into the emergency room. Deciding that someone should live when the fates decided otherwise. As for pay-grades, how do you know what this plan is and that it doesn't include euthenasia?

Capital punishment and self defense excepted.

You've just contradicted yourself. And infanticide may be a form of self-defence. It was for the Spartans.

Troy Alexander
January 15th, 2009, 02:47 PM
Ruins WN's unioversal white image

what you are forgetting is that anyone can pop out a retard. just because
your healthy looking doesn't mean it can't happen to you.

and since it can happen to anyone it should not play a part in an ideology which will only get to power if it supports ALL WHITE PEOPLE
-----------------------------
Infanticide is anti science. just like slavery and other ancient bullshit

Infanticide also negates medical discovery. In this day and age we should be concentrating on evolution of technology and not the evolution of our bodies.

it sickens me to think of kids in the past who were killed because they had a cleft pallet.

if we dealt with medical problems just by killing we wouldn't have discovered penicillin which protects against microbes which can kill even the strong.
-------------------------------
fruit of suffering

WN should not wipe out all suffering. It is suffering that makes us noble. The retard may be a waste of space, but think of the woman who brings him up. Think of the shining example she will give to shallower girls with no problems in their lives.
-------------------------
Woman:

Women's urge to help and show compassion is the same as man's to got war.

If everyone is healthy she will be bored stiffless.

Troy Alexander
January 15th, 2009, 03:03 PM
Retards are all but absent in nature. That should tell you something about instinct.[/QUOTE]

the reclinable thumb or whatever they call it and languauge is also absent.

have you seen the famous footage of the cape buffalo protecting its young. It did not think how weak it was or just did it. you will protect your dna know matter how shit it is, because it is all have got.

Sándor Petőfi
January 15th, 2009, 03:08 PM
Ruins WN's unioversal white image

Yeah ... White Nationalism ... what can I say ...


what you are forgetting is that anyone can pop out a retard. just because
your healthy looking doesn't mean it can't happen to you.

All the more reason to allow for infanticide. I wouldn't want to raise a retard.

and since it can happen to anyone it should not play a part in an ideology which will only get to power if it supports ALL WHITE PEOPLE

Well I don't support "all white people" so I don't want support from "all white people".

-----------------------------
Infanticide is anti science. just like slavery and other ancient bullshit

So what?

Infanticide also negates medical discovery.


In this day and age we should be concentrating on evolution of technology and not the evolution of our bodies.

Why? Why "should" we be doing that?

it sickens me to think of kids in the past who were killed because they had a cleft pallet.

People with cleft pallets sicken me.

-------------------------------
fruit of sufferingWN should not wipe out all suffering. It is suffering that makes us noble.

That's Christianity speaking.

The retard may be a waste of space, but think of the woman who brings him up. Think of the shining example she will give to shallower girls with no problems i their lives

I call that a shining example of stupidity. Like the female baboon who carries bout the rotting corpse of her former infant.

Sándor Petőfi
January 15th, 2009, 03:10 PM
have you seen the famous footage of the cape buffalo protecting its young. It did not think how weak it was or just did it. you will protect your dna know matter how shit it is, because it is all have got.

You're conflating ideas. A young organism is not weak in the same sense as a defective organism is weak.

Holly
January 15th, 2009, 03:14 PM
You want us to look like heartless monsters?

Define retarded.

Would you also kill your grandparents because they're senile?

Ideally all severely retarded babies would be aborted early, but failing that there's nothing more to do except let them live out their life, no matter how poor its quality is.

Life should be respected.

Well for the purpose of a forum debate I am not sure it needs to define, let us just say a mental or physical condition which prevents the glob of life from ever caring for itself, from ever doing anything productive and to be a complete drain on its family and society.
Is it harsh yes, and we find ourselfs in a bad condition precisely because whites have turned their backs on harsh measures that are needed to insure a healthy productive white society.
Where does your logic stop ? Should those with AIDS, many of them just gay scum and still passing on their disease, be cuddled also ?

As for a senile adult, that is different because they were once very productive people, the fact that we are even here shows our grandparents did their natural duty, I think they should be cared for in their old age of course, as they once cared for their children and grandchildren - The same can not be said of a drooling mental case whos biggest accomplishment was shitting all over the TV and slaughtering a hamster.

That said, the - quality of life for some old folks gets so bad that they themselves wish to end it, I think that should be considered, yes.

Holly
January 15th, 2009, 03:21 PM
Holly, you say you'd have no trouble killing your retarded infant, but I think you're underestimating your maternal instinct. From what I've been told, once you have a child the urge to protect the child is so strong nothing can lessen it. That would explain why white mothers still love the abominations they create through racemixing. Your eugenic ideals will take a backseat if you were ever placed in that situation, I'm almost certain.

I'm not sure how I feel about the situation myself.

No, I am very confident I would do it, my racial instinct over ride a sense of humanity & motherhood, of course it can not be said 100% certain either way.
I know me, I am cold and logical, I was born that way.
White mothers caring for baby miscreants is no good example, if they devalue themself enough to have a relation with a non white then obviously their moral standard is not very high.

A bit late but I realize there may be some here with mental defective children/adults in the family, I mean no offence by wanting to exam this subject, it is a hard question which must be faced and the article itself says many of the families wonder the same very question.

psychologicalshock
January 15th, 2009, 03:25 PM
Ruins WN's unioversal white image

what you are forgetting is that anyone can pop out a retard. just because
your healthy looking doesn't mean it can't happen to you.
Yes and that is why we all have to agree to keep it out of our community, because any of us might have to do it.

and since it can happen to anyone it should not play a part in an ideology which will only get to power if it supports ALL WHITE PEOPLE
I don't support couch potatoes, Kwans, EuroKwans or any other form of unWhite behavior, why should I support those who are literally living the life of a suffering beast?

Infanticide is anti science.
Anti-Science? What is anti-scientific about it?
Biology says that the strongest survive, the weakest die and become food for the strongest of another species or their own. That is not a belief but an observation of a system we call Evolution and if we are to desire the perfection of humanity we have to find ways to simulate it. Curing those who are faulty is not one of them (We don't cure their genes).


just like slavery and other ancient bullshit
No relationship between eugenics and slavery.


Infanticide also negates medical discovery.
Just because you could doesn't mean you should. We can nuke the shit out of the moon but we don't , does that negate the power of weaponry capable of mass destruction?


In this day and age we should be concentrating on evolution of technology and not the evolution of our bodies.
Why? Id prefer to be a better person than to have a cooler gadget while having all my limbs fall off from being weak and my brain crumbling from stupidity.


it sickens me to think of kids in the past who were killed because they had a cleft pallet.

Less cleft pallets in the next generation.


if we dealt with medical problems just by killing we wouldn't have discovered penicillin which protects against microbes which can kill even the strong.
Which was why it was created - to protect good genetics.


fruit of suffering

WN should not wipe out all suffering.
Says you

It is suffering that makes us noble.
Says Christianity, suffering makes us wretches. When I see a person bed bound from arthritis I don't see someone noble, I see a ghost of a former person. What makes them noble is what they got to do before their condition.


The retard may be a waste of space, but think of the woman who brings him up. Think of the shining example she will give to shallower girls with no problems in their lives.
Sandor said it best, I can't say it better.

Holly
January 15th, 2009, 03:28 PM
I am fascinated to understand what autism is exactly. It's sad that, like the article says, the many of these kids are unusually beautiful and/or gifted. I've heard that it could be a form of extreme ADD, a condition associated with higher than average intelligence. If you correlate better looks and higher intelligence

Better looks ? Most of them look like they have been smashed in the face with a frying pan.
And higher intellegence ? I am aware that some of them have a superior memory, some are gifted with music, but they can not tie their own shoe, say their name or make a sandwhich for themself, not my idea of intellegent.

Troy Alexander
January 15th, 2009, 03:45 PM
Yeah ... White Nationalism ... what can I say ...


[QUOTE]All the more reason to allow for infanticide. I wouldn't want to raise a retard

you only form this opinion beause the carers of retards dos uch a bad job of it. A person with intelligence will asses what talents and faults the retard has and act accordingly.

They will also look to expell any jewish notions of parenting. A good beating will stop some of the more spaz behaviour. reminding them they are spaz's will make them more humble and stop public displays of retardism.

look at roald dahls effort: he did not give up

When he was four months old, Theo Dahl was severely injured when his baby carriage was hit by a taxi in New York City. For a time, he suffered from hydrocephalus, and as a result, his father became involved in the development of what became known as the "Wade-Dahl-Till" (or WDT) valve, a device to alleviate the condition.[9][10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_dahl#Family





Well I don't support "all white people" so I don't want support from "all white people".

you don't want clean streets. you want food to rot and not be delivered. And you expect all people to abide by the law and basic decency if the ones applying it do not give a shit about all people.




People with cleft pallets sicken me.

I agree with you when it is non-whites. But it will affect me if I saw white child with this condition.

That's Christianity speaking.

It is christianity and tolerant Rome in the classical era which laid the foundations of Europe.

Rome had the power to wipe out every Briton or many other European tribes: think what we would have missed or if we would have been alive if it wasn't for ther @weakness".

Writing people off and killing them instead of cooperating with them was Ghenghis Khans approach: and isn't Central Eurasia the height of civilisation.

emotion is not something artificial which white men should throw aside. it may lead down wrong avenues, but without it we will not find the rigt ones either.


I call that a shining example of stupidity. Like the female baboon who carries bout the rotting corpse of her former infant


Maybe the baboon could not have gone on with its life without this therapy. Maybe it made her stronger and less likely to throw herself to a leopeord

Hugo Böse
January 15th, 2009, 03:49 PM
For the sake of the child in many cases it should be done, being retarded or otherwise gravely handicapped is a shitty life to live, I’ve seen individuals who have been severely handicapped since birth, it is heartbreaking, I think letting really bad cases live no matter what is a form of middle age Christian sadism and child abuse.

Jett Rink
January 15th, 2009, 03:54 PM
I know me, I am cold and logical, I was born that way.


Perhaps you are autistic. That could be considered retardation.

Troy Alexander
January 15th, 2009, 03:57 PM
For the sake of the child in many cases it should be done, being retarded or otherwise gravely handicapped is a shitty life to live, I’ve seen individuals who have been severely handicapped since birth, it is heartbreaking, I think letting really bad cases live no matter what is a form of middle age Christian sadism and child abuse.

I am talking about the simpleton or people with mere cosmetic irregularites.

perfecton will lead to apathy. As goethe refers, one needs a certain amount of drama in life for things to happen in it and us to learn. people like simpletons do this.

Troy Alexander
January 15th, 2009, 04:11 PM
Why? Id prefer to be a better person than to have a cooler gadget while having all my limbs fall off from being weak and my brain crumbling from stupidity.


.

it is the funding of the medical industry which will allow us to become perfect people, not press ups or stud famrs. you've heard of stem cells of course.

look around you. Good comes from Good (but not vain do-goodering). but sometimes it is vey hard to tell:

Did hippocrates realise the happiness he would bring in the future when he laid the groundworks and institutionalised the medical profession.

Van Gogh was never appreciated in his lfetime, but his work exploring the beauty of the mundane was good, and he achieved fame far greater than his rivals posthumously.

Hitler would have been greater than Caesar if only he treated Ukranians with humanity.

we wouldn't be discussing this shit (on my part tortuously) if it hadn't been for nobles deciding on mass education and literacy, (many of whom did so for genuine reasons)

on another thread you were talking about how shit afghanistan is. The reason why is that, despite their vain protestations of faith, they are no good.

Europe is no good, because its ideolohy, liberalism, nature or god adjudges to be no good.

Holly
January 15th, 2009, 04:23 PM
yes. but the family has to do it themselves and not be pussies and leave it to the gov. same goes to mothers who want a non-interracial abortion.

if this was the law, necessary measures can take place but at the same time society won't easily become heartless.

No, there must be govt control in a clinic, what you propose is anarchy, there will not be people flushing retards down a toilet or feeding them to pit bulls.
The law will be very limited and specific.

Troy Alexander
January 15th, 2009, 04:25 PM
No, there must be govt control in a clinic, what you propose is anarchy, there will not be people flushing retards down a toilet or feeding them to pit bulls.
The law will be very limited and specific.

it will filter out the people who need to be put down and those that don't. its not easy kill a relative by yourself.

it will also teach them a lesson in life.

if girls had to self-abort, albeit in a clinic, they will be much wiser people

Jett Rink
January 15th, 2009, 04:43 PM
No, there must be govt control in a clinic, what you propose is anarchy


Yes, because as everyone can plainly see, the government is moral and does everything better than anarchist individuals or groups of individuals.

Holly
January 15th, 2009, 04:53 PM
Perhaps you are autistic. That could be considered retardation.

Ha ha, must you disrupt a serious topic ?
FYI I do not drool, tie my own shoes, cook dinner and can touch my ears with my toes, show me a savant who can do all that.


Yes, because as everyone can plainly see, the government is moral and does everything better than anarchist individuals or groups of individuals.

I speak of a future government

George Witzgall
January 15th, 2009, 04:56 PM
Yes, because as everyone can plainly see, the government is moral and does everything better than anarchist individuals or groups of individuals.

so do you think the govt should have the right to say it is illegal for you to kill your severely mentally disabled child?

Brett Quinn
January 15th, 2009, 04:59 PM
I've worked with retards and they lead a hard life. Firstly, it is true that they can do menial jobs. The problem is their life ultimately sucks. They can not drive, go to parties, meet people. They can not have a natural social aspect. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong, all they will be able to produce is some Oprah special where everyone goes bowling with a tard. Fact is, the average tard's life is nothing like this. The hardest part is when they hit their 20s-30s and are unable to find an intimate partner. This is when they become a threat to society.

Troy Alexander
January 15th, 2009, 05:04 PM
I've worked with retards and they lead a hard life. Firstly, it is true that they can do menial jobs. The problem is their life ultimately sucks. They can not drive, go to parties, meet people. They can not have a natural social aspect. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong, all they will be able to produce is some Oprah special where everyone goes bowling with a tard. Fact is, the average tard's life is nothing like this. The hardest part is when they hit their 20s-30s and are unable to find an intimate partner. This is when they become a threat to society.

what i hate is all this money being spent on carers and special olympics when it should go on drugs to make them better.

i think a third of the wages of parents of retards and retards should be taken away to be spent on a cure.

the retard will live uncomfortably but at least they will have hope.

the parents will simply be doing their duty as parents. They won't complain of thigher taxes when their country is at war.

Hugo Böse
January 15th, 2009, 05:43 PM
What has always pissed me off is that there is always money for the fucking nonwhites but when it comes to our own handicapped and retarded there always seems to be a shortage in money, aid and sympathy.

Troy Alexander
January 15th, 2009, 05:45 PM
What has always pissed me off is that there is always money for the fucking nonwhites but when it comes to our own handicapped and retarded there always seems to be a shortage in money, aid and sympathy.

same goes with tramps who have nothing wrong with them apart from drugs.

send them to a gulag in the falkand islands and a year later they will come back self-sufficient people.

but that will go against uk plc's false and political self-serving image.

psychologicalshock
January 15th, 2009, 06:04 PM
it is the funding of the medical industry which will allow us to become perfect people, not press ups or stud famrs. you've heard of stem cells of course.
No it wont, it might help with organ transplants and a few diseases however the medical industry will likely never be able to make a person better than nature can. Humanity as of yet has nearly no understanding of the brain and probably wont for the next couple of centuries . Nature is a better engineer than humans will likely ever be. Eugenics are the only way to cost-effectively optimize a population, medicine is a completely unrealistic way to make things better. Even if stem cells could do a miracle (And they cannot) it would be impossible to administrate to more than a small portion of the population.


look around you. Good comes from Good (but not vain do-goodering). but sometimes it is vey hard to tell:
Good is a concept that is relative. By letting an idiot live you do evil onto others by forcing them to pay for this idiot whether monetarily or emotionally. You do the greater evil out of petty feelings and emotions.


Did hippocrates realise the happiness he would bring in the future when he laid the groundworks and institutionalised the medical profession.
The medical profession's job isn't to determine who is to live. That is society's job, medicine is merely there to help those deemed worthy of being helped. Medicine is purely scientific in that its simply an application of knowledge, it makes no judgment whether someone should live or not.


Van Gogh was never appreciated in his lfetime, but his work exploring the beauty of the mundane was good, and he achieved fame far greater than his rivals posthumously.

Hitler would have been greater than Caesar if only he treated Ukranians with humanity.
How does any of this relate to idiots needing to be put out of their misery?


we wouldn't be discussing this shit (on my part tortuously) if it hadn't been for nobles deciding on mass education and literacy, (many of whom did so for genuine reasons)

on another thread you were talking about how shit afghanistan is. The reason why is that, despite their vain protestations of faith, they are no good.
Afghanistan blows simply because it's genetically filled with scum, no other reason.

Karl Von Clausewitz!
January 15th, 2009, 06:12 PM
I didn't vote on this issue, I don't think that any of the options quite suit the way I see this. I agree that we should be more merciful to people with severe deformities and severe retardation, some of these genetic mutations are extremely painful, medicating the poor kid for 40 years whilst he lives in constant pain is nothing short of inhumane.

Sometimes being humane means being merciful that is reality, when a dog suffers we consider ourselves humane for putting him at ease, why should we give our own any less dignity?

On the other hand mild retards can be functional, I knew one who obtained his drivers lisence and worked (it wasn't a grand job it was menial but he worked and was able to look after himself). But these should be castrated, simply because there's too great a chance of it continuing in the next generation.

psychologicalshock
January 15th, 2009, 06:13 PM
what i hate is all this money being spent on carers and special olympics when it should go on drugs to make them better.

i think a third of the wages of parents of retards and retards should be taken away to be spent on a cure.
Uh right thanks, make society AND the parents pay for something neither of them wanted and all for what? There wont be a cure, you can't cure the lack of a chromosome or having too many. You cannot cure what is a genetic disorder because it is programmed in. And even if there was it's even a larger waste of money and effort on what could have been spent helping valuable members of society. A retard is not a valuable member of society, an unwilling parasite that leads a miserable existence. I have no doubt that if there was such an operation as to reprogram a person's DNA it would cost a fortune.

At any rate there is no reason to attempt to help them other than your tender morality and emotions. The reality is society would be better off without wasting so much man power and resources on a cure for a disease that has long been cured.

Troy Alexander
January 15th, 2009, 06:20 PM
[QUOTE=psychologicalshock;918630]


How does any of this relate to idiots needing to be put out of their misery?

QUOTE]

what seems logical does not always work out in the long run.

In a eugenical sense it was logical for Hitler to enslave the Ukranians, but hindsight showed he was wrong.

more can go wrong if you apply logic than if you deal with a situation using spiritual values.

psychologicalshock
January 15th, 2009, 06:23 PM
what seems logical does not always work out in the long run.

In a eugenical sense it was logical for Hitler to enslave the Ukranians, but hindsight showed he was wrong.
I have to say I disagree I find nothing logical in the Hitlerite's treatment of Slavs and ultimately feel that their defeat was fully deserved and hinged exactly on that policy.

Troy Alexander
January 15th, 2009, 06:29 PM
I have to say I disagree I find nothing logical in the Hitlerite's treatment of Slavs and ultimately feel that their defeat was fully deserved and hinged exactly on that policy.

his purpose was the superrace and prosperity.

for this pupose to be fulfilled you need helots: and their was alot already forced into that condition in the ukraine.

Conisdering hitlers super race purpose an illogical spiritual position would have been to work with the Ukranians.

psychologicalshock
January 15th, 2009, 06:31 PM
his purpose was the superrace and prosperity.

Laughable considering Ukranians were more blond and tall and thus more ideally "Nordic", it has to be the most pathetic excuse I have ever heard for killing people.

Troy Alexander
January 15th, 2009, 06:36 PM
Laughable considering Ukranians were more blond and tall and thus more ideally "Nordic", it has to be the most pathetic excuse I have ever heard for killing people.

Ok hitler's purpose was not logical but it was also not spiritual (as in lacking such things as selflessnes). And it was the lack of spiritual value which did most to lose the war.

As regards the retards, you are right but only if they are non-functional.

Regards the functional ones, I think they need discipline. They should be brought to training camps to be disciplined to normal life, as recruits are disciplined for war.

The Barrenness
January 15th, 2009, 06:42 PM
Yes. The parents should have every right to decide to end their child's life when that child is never going to have much of a life because of a disability of this type. Yes, I would personally choose this option if I had a retarded child.(I realize this is easy to say when it is not actually a choice that is before me at this time)

The Barrenness
January 15th, 2009, 07:00 PM
[QUOTE][QUOTE=Nick Succorso;918235]

Define retarded.


Someone who has little self awareness. I realize that is difficult to measure. In defining retarded I would just go by the standard definition of an IQ below a certain level, but you can't measure that in babies. The only thing we are left with for a defintion that fits in this case would be someone who is surely or likely going to be unable to care for themselves.


Would you also kill your grandparents because they're senile?

If my grandparents asked me to assist them in death because of a certain condition I would consider it. Otherwise I would care for them, myself if need be and allow them to live out the remainder of their natural life as comfortable as possible. These people at one time cared for one of your parents in a similar manner.

psychologicalshock
January 15th, 2009, 07:09 PM
If my grandparents asked me to assist them in death because of a certain condition I would consider it. Otherwise I would care for them, myself if need be and allow them to live out the remainder of their natural life as comfortable as possible. These people at one time cared for one of your parents in a similar manner.

The thing is you cannot treat elderly like that, nobody wants to live knowing once they're old they'll be killed. That's an inhumane way of rewarding someone for decades of hard work, the elderly need to be treated well even if they are not well. Its one thing to take out those who cannot live, it's another when it's those who have lived. Its principally not comparable .

cillian
January 15th, 2009, 07:45 PM
If we didn't have to pay to house all those niggers and spics on welfare or the prison system there would be enough money to have long term care facilities for these tards, and the ones that are not drastically disabled could be used for, bagging groceries, sorting garbage at the dump, other such menial work.

Jett Rink
January 15th, 2009, 08:10 PM
so do you think the govt should have the right to say it is illegal for you to kill your severely mentally disabled child?

The question is irrelevant.

Retarded kids can be eliminated through genetic testing in the womb and early abortion. You would never need to destroy an infant for retardation.

Mike Jahn
January 15th, 2009, 08:18 PM
The question is irrelevant.

Retarded kids can be eliminated through genetic testing in the womb and early abortion. You would never need to destroy an infant for retardation.

There is an easier way, Holly could just continue to refuse to have sex with you. :p

psychologicalshock
January 15th, 2009, 08:21 PM
There is an easier way, Holly could just continue to refuse to have sex with you. :p

I am pretty sure Holly would create mini-Terminators.

Jett Rink
January 15th, 2009, 08:31 PM
I am pretty sure Holly would create mini-Terminators.

I don't think Holly is as tough and cold as she pretends to be.

I think she is just a spoiled brat who's stern yuppie German-immigrant parents never hugged her enough.

It can be cured.

Holly
January 15th, 2009, 08:45 PM
I would be happy to create mini-Terminators and teach them to go back into time and destroy a select few people.
Ok now the big group hug of the 3 amigos is out of the way maybe we can get back on topic, there are enough pure goof threads to troll in.

psychologicalshock
January 15th, 2009, 08:57 PM
I don't think Holly is as tough and cold as she pretends to be.

I think she is just a spoiled brat who's stern yuppie German-immigrant parents never hugged her enough.

It can be cured.

You're free to try, I value my limbs.

I would be happy to create mini-Terminators and teach them to go back into time and destroy a select few people.
Ok now the big group hug of the 3 amigos is out of the way maybe we can get back on topic, there are enough pure goof threads to troll in.

Cute, anyways the topic has been already driven into the ground, 75% of the demographic agreed, then we got into morality (as usual) and now there's not much more.

brutus
January 15th, 2009, 09:14 PM
There will come a time when White people will be in control of not only the medical profession but also in charge of medical research and the honest dissemination of factual information regarding the sciences of the mind whereby we'll all be able to make better informed decisions on these matters.

As it stands now, many are looking through the murky lense of jew science and ethics that permeates our society and this unfortunate reality makes it difficult to come to the right conclusions even with an Aryan moral compass.

.

Jett Rink
January 15th, 2009, 09:42 PM
maybe we can get back on topic, there are enough pure goof threads to troll in.

Email me, Holly.

psychologicalshock
January 15th, 2009, 09:49 PM
Email me, Holly.

Why so obsessed?

Jett Rink
January 15th, 2009, 10:08 PM
Why so obsessed?


I've got a tip where Sarah Connor might be.

psychologicalshock
January 15th, 2009, 10:22 PM
I've got a tip where Sarah Connor might be.

To be honest I don't think the gain is worth the risk. I am sure if you get past that ice all you'll find is a typical female.

Sean Gruber
January 15th, 2009, 10:32 PM
The question really is: should the cash, time, energy, future, and lives of healthy people be sacrificed to severely defective people?

Only Christianity confuses people so that they consider that question a moral quandary.

The Nazis had it right. "Life unworthy of life" is what they called it. Not only unworthy of life in its own right, but also unworthy of taking the lives of the healthy.

Makes no difference to me whether it's a fetus or born.

As for elder dysfunction, oldsters lived their lives and either saved money and/or had children for whom they did a lot and who now should reciprocate. An elder is not the same as a petri dish or a two-year-old.

As for "God's plan": God's plan is clearly for the thing to die. Modern medicine is fighting that. Letting nature take its course can't be against God's plan, since God created nature (if you believe in stuff like that).

Holly
January 15th, 2009, 10:36 PM
Email me, Holly.

Lol, please, there are already enough humor threads here already.
The subject is RETARDS try to stay with it.

cillian
January 15th, 2009, 10:39 PM
The question really is: should the cash, time, energy, future, and lives of healthy people be sacrificed to severely defective people?

If one out of 10,000 people have down syndrome, then what is the expense of testing the other 9,999? More or less than the cost of caring for the 10,000th who may or may not be able to work a menial job and pay for his own expenses? They only live 30 years or so...

Sándor Petőfi
January 15th, 2009, 10:43 PM
Van Gogh was never appreciated in his lfetime, but his work exploring the beauty of the mundane was good, and he achieved fame far greater than his rivals posthumously.

Van Gogh was a retard with a paintbrush. Nobody will remember him in a hundred years.

http://www.scituate.k12.ma.us/docent/Van%20Gogh%27s%20Room%20at%20Arles.JPG

He can't even get the hang of perspective. The he colours in his scribbles like a down syndrome kid with with a crayon and a colouring book. Unless he cheats by painting these flat landscapes so you don't notice it.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/11_01/VanGoghES_700x533.jpg

Holly
January 15th, 2009, 11:20 PM
I must agree Van Gogh was pure crap, I think his fame was the result of people wanting a painting done by the nut who chopped off his ear.

Erik Fitzgerald
January 15th, 2009, 11:28 PM
I must agree Van Gogh was pure crap, I think his fame was the result of people wanting a painting done by the nut who chopped off his ear.

He lobbed off his ear because the prostitute he gave it to looked like his mother. I would heed this caution if I were you, Holly, maybe Jett has this care package waiting for you. :D

Kind Lampshade Maker
January 16th, 2009, 04:23 AM
...Would you also kill your grandparents because they're senile?...It's been known that children have decided for an old folks home to allow the natural process to speed up a bit, so that the costs of convalescent care doesn't eat up the entire heredity

Jess_Smith
January 16th, 2009, 04:28 AM
Holly, you say you'd have no trouble killing your retarded infant, but I think you're underestimating your maternal instinct. From what I've been told, once you have a child the urge to protect the child is so strong nothing can lessen it.

Only a person who is devoid of all emotion could even think of killing a child they have carried for nine months, given birth to and loved.

Wanting to kill your own child because it is far from perfect is nigger behaviour.

Kind Lampshade Maker
January 16th, 2009, 04:34 AM
I think she meant aborting it at an early stage?

Jess_Smith
January 16th, 2009, 04:37 AM
I think she meant aborting it at an early stage?

I think not. :eek:

Oh by the way I do not mean that you would bash in its head or strangle it with a sock, but like they do it for poor dogs you know, in a clinic.

http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=918217&postcount=3

Holly
January 16th, 2009, 05:02 AM
Only a person who is devoid of all emotion could even think of killing a child they have carried for nine months, given birth to and loved.

Wanting to kill your own child because it is far from perfect is nigger behaviour.

So vote no then and move on, what is the big problem drama queen ?
I can understand a variety of views of this, but calling a teaching of National Socialism "nigger behaviour" is a pretty bad step for you to take here.

The weak & useless should not be cuddled, obviously not.
You are selfish, you say "because it is mine then I will not do it, even though it will be useless and a drag on society, even though it will never contribute anything to race or country" Working citizens will have to sacrifice to pay for its care, their sweat and labor will pay for your precious miscreant to live its useless life drooling in front of the TV, while you clean its shit stains from the floor - And most of all, you will waste your life caring for this useless blob of flesh that will never pass on genes,, you have then failed the prime purpose of life ,,,, And for what ?
Cheap emotion, I can not agree.

Misfits in nature do not survive a day, it should not be any other way with humans.
A mother deer will have no problem walking away from a legless calf, why should you ?

Jess_Smith
January 16th, 2009, 05:13 AM
I can understand a variety of views of this, but calling a teaching of National Socialism "nigger behaviour" is a pretty bad step for you to take here.

I find it hard to understand how any human being could kill their own child.


you will waste your life caring for this useless blob of flesh that will never pass on genes,

If I created a "useless blob of flesh" then I (not the state) should be responsible for it.


A mother deer will have no problem walking away from a legless calf, why should you ?

Because I am a woman and a mother - with emotions.

Jess_Smith
January 16th, 2009, 05:15 AM
A mother deer will have no problem walking away from a legless calf, why should you ?

Some animals eat their young.

Would you?

Holly
January 16th, 2009, 06:06 AM
Some animals eat their young.

Would you?

Now you are getting stupid, eating your own kind is not in natures order.
Nature does not evolve repeating rare examples, or then the examples would not be rare in the first place.
Nature repeats what is a sucess, what works the best - I think you can see that savants and crippled do not fit this category.

Where does your charity stop then ?
Is all human life precious ?

Jett Rink
January 16th, 2009, 06:27 AM
What if you had 4 children and the 5th was retarded. Did you "then fail the prime purpose of life"?


Holly, you either sound like a real psycho or you have absorbed a lot of anti-nazi propaganda about their treatment of the retarded and handicapped.

Jett Rink
January 16th, 2009, 06:28 AM
Some animals eat their young.

Would you?


Holly didn't give a firm no to this question. :eek:

George Witzgall
January 16th, 2009, 06:49 AM
I think the real question you must answer Holly is if you were pregnant and crash landed on a deserted island and gave birth to a retard, would you eat it?

Sándor Petőfi
January 16th, 2009, 07:46 AM
Only a person who is devoid of all emotion could even think of killing a child they have carried for nine months, given birth to and loved.

Only a self-serving moral hypocrite would hang on to a useless suffering retard so as not to offend herself.

Wanting to kill your own child because it is far from perfect is nigger behaviour.


That explains why it was a common Aryan practice.

IceQueen
January 16th, 2009, 08:00 AM
It would depend on how severe the retardation. If I gave birth to a child who was so mentally incapacitated it was harming itself, and others, and had no chance of success or improvement in life, I would end it's suffering. You cannot tell me the severely retarded are happy, or have a chance at happiness. Slightly retarded or "slow" is another story. They can potentially go on to lead a normal life with therapy and intervention.

I think castrating them is a bit extreme; they could be allowed to reproduce through non-natural ways if they have viable eggs or sperm which do not contain retard genes. Remember not all retards are born that way, some become that way due to brain damage.

As for the elderly, if they no longer have an acceptable quality of life they too should be allowed to let go. Watching Alzheimer patients mindlessly fold towels all day long, or take care of dolls they think are real babies is utterly pathetic. Would you want your grandparents to live that way? Would you want to live that way?

I feel it should be legal for the individuals effected, and/or their families to let their moral compass guide them to the right time to put a loved one down. There would of course be interviews with medical professionals, and everything would be regulated and controlled. There would be some who would abuse the law, but the minority should not cause the majority to suffer. The minority who abuse their rights will have to face their own conscience, and perhaps answer to a higher power.

I have a hard enough time putting my animals down when it is time. I cannot even imagine having to make that decision with a grandparent or child. With my animals I get to the point where I know it must be done, and I think my people would be similar. Its sad to see couples with severely ill children prevented from having healthy children.

I'm just wondering - is there any legal option for parents with children like Tom to make them wards of the state?

Sándor Petőfi
January 16th, 2009, 08:03 AM
I have a hard enough time putting my animals down when it is time. I cannot even imagine having to make that decision with a grandparent or child.

That's why the decision didn't lie with women, but with the patriarch of the family.

Sándor Petőfi
January 16th, 2009, 08:05 AM
Idiot

Says the alcoholic lout who doesn't know history from her left foot.

RabbitNoMore
January 16th, 2009, 08:06 AM
I can see a lot of emotionalism taking control of this thread.
As per usual, the bulk of it is coming from certain females and manginas.

These are not unlike the liberal douche bags I mentioned earlier, blocking the way.
As I mentioned previously, the decision to abort an unborn fetus is a female's alone, thanks to the inundation of anti-White Fatherhood mania, brought upon all of us by the jew, and many females today have absolutely no problems or moral dilemmas with this at all, even when it's a 'normal', healthy fetus.

Why should it be any more difficult to abort a birth defect?

I'm not talking about murdering a fully developed and delivered child, retarded or not, and I'm not sure how that idea got mixed up in the mish mash here.

This pertains only to the unborn.

So what's the problem?

Morals? Don't make me laugh.

Conscience? Bitch, please. As if.

No, the real reason for such an emotional, irrational dismissal of the whole concept, out of hand, is purely and simply your own vanity at work.


I have to agree that casting a moral judgement upon another because one is offended by the other's choice of method, with which to curb a real problem, is very niggardly behavior indeed.

**

Sándor Petőfi
January 16th, 2009, 08:11 AM
I find it hard to understand how any human being could kill their own child.

It's not killing. Killing is active, not passive. If one refuses to care for something that will never be able to care for itself, that's not ones fault or ones problem.


If I created a "useless blob of flesh" then I (not the state) should be responsible for it.


Last time I checked, you were a useless blob of flesh.

Sándor Petőfi
January 16th, 2009, 08:14 AM
I can see a lot of emotionalism taking control of this thread.

http://llamabutchers.mu.nu/archives/king%20leonidas%20pretty%20pissed.jpg

These guys knew what to do with the imperfect. If they hadn't practised eugenics, we probably wouldn't be here today. Do you think three hundred kwans could have held the pass at Thermopylae?

IceQueen
January 16th, 2009, 08:39 AM
That's why the decision didn't lie with women, but with the patriarch of the family.

It would be both parents decision. Read my post again - I would know when it was time. Why is the concept of making decisions TOGETHER or AS A FAMILY so foreign to some of you? In normal, healthy White relationships this is done all the time.

RabbitNoMore
January 16th, 2009, 08:47 AM
Why is the concept of making decisions TOGETHER or AS A FAMILY so foreign to some of you?

Because the jew has slowly removed that right from White Fathers, or didn't you care enough to know about that?
The White Father ( as if there could be any other kind) of today has absolutely no say whatsoever, before or after a womyn decides to abort their fetus ( I just call it hers, anymore), and there is no legal recourse for him one way or the other once she's done with it.

Tough luck, Jack.

If He wants to abort, and she doesn't, too bad Jack, pay up for the next 18 or more years.
If He wants to keep it and she doesn't, too bad Jack, guess you should have found a different female then the one you thought you knew.

Either way, it's still her decision and Jack's shitty luck, isn't it?

Do I need to thank the jew again, or should that go to the oh so willing womyn who helped us to usher in this glorious age of "independent strength and empowerment for those poor oppressed wymyn folk"?

This shit happens to White Fathers every day in the kwa, but mention it to most wymyn, and their eyes glaze over.

Seems they are pretty fucking A-okay with that, apparently.

Reproductive rights are not rights Men share with womyn anymore, and they haven't been for decades.

Or again, didn't you care enough to know about that?

**

brutus
January 16th, 2009, 10:58 AM
It's always the jew promoting the exceptions in order to make the rules for the majority, and too many are willing to allow the tail to wag the dog.

The fundamental righteousness of a White life to exist above all others should be paramount to the White race, save when that White life seriously diminishes the quality of life for the majority. It's when we debate amongst ourselves where to draw that critically important line when the jew sneaks it's talmudically-honed beak into the fray with it's second-guessing devil's advocate nonsense.

The litmus test must be - "Is it good for the White race?....And whatever the jew says about this is to be ignored."

.

Sándor Petőfi
January 16th, 2009, 11:37 AM
It would be both parents decision. Read my post again - I would know when it was time. Why is the concept of making decisions TOGETHER or AS A FAMILY so foreign to some of you? In normal, healthy White relationships this is done all the time.

Err ... no. Maybe that happens amongst "whites", whoever they are supposed to be, but in Aryan tradition, the only normal and healthy way of life for Aryans, power of life and death over members of the family lies with the patriarch, not the husband or wife. It is the patriarch who has the life of an adulterous daughter forfeited, and it is the patriarch who decides to expose an infant which isn't worthy of his bloodline.

Jett Rink
January 16th, 2009, 02:38 PM
I'm sure the vast majority here believe Hitler went house to house collecting retards to send to the gas chambers, right? And you agree with it, cuz your hardcore, right?

RabbitNoMore
January 16th, 2009, 02:47 PM
I'm sure the vast majority here believe Hitler went house to house collecting retards to send to the gas chambers, right? And you agree with it, cuz your hardcore, right?


Um, like no and stuff or something.

Isn't that in fact, what you really believe Jett?

**

Jett Rink
January 16th, 2009, 03:02 PM
Um, like no and stuff or something.

Isn't that in fact, what you really believe Jett?

**

Why would I believe that, do I have a big swazi for my avatar and collect american nazi propaganda to view religiously?

Why don't you make a poll. I'm sure you would be surprised how many here believe Hitler/thenazis went house to house collecting the retarded and handicapped to execute them.

RabbitNoMore
January 16th, 2009, 03:11 PM
Why would I believe that, do I have a big swazi for my avatar and collect american nazi propaganda to view religiously?

What does that have to do with this?

I'm sure the vast majority here believe Hitler went house to house collecting retards to send to the gas chambers, right? And you agree with it, cuz your hardcore, right?

Why would you ask a question so jewy and then dodge and change the subject like a jew when it's flipped back on you? I wonder.

Why don't you make a poll.

Why don't you?

I believe that's more your style anyway.

I'm sure you would be surprised how many here believe Hitler/thenazis went house to house collecting the retarded and handicapped to execute them.

Prove it, and let me decide for myself how surprised I am. Till then all I'm hearing from you is jewish memes.

**

Jett Rink
January 16th, 2009, 03:27 PM
Turning the fact that I do not believe Hitler went around killing retards back on me.

Isn't it a wonder most people consider this board full of retards.

Nick Succorso
January 16th, 2009, 03:30 PM
Turning the fact that I do not believe Hitler went around killing retards back on me.

Isn't it a wonder most people consider this board full of retards.

http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=86021

Jett Rink
January 16th, 2009, 03:36 PM
Right on cue. ↑


Isn't it a wonder most people consider this board full of retards.

Holly
January 16th, 2009, 03:38 PM
What if you had 4 children and the 5th was retarded. Did you "then fail the prime purpose of life"?


Holly, you either sound like a real psycho or you have absorbed a lot of anti-nazi propaganda about their treatment of the retarded and handicapped.

There are a lot of what ifs, if it will help you I will restate the specific question - Should it be legal to put down a badly retarded infant, I say yes.

I am not sure what anti-Nazi propaganda you speak of, I would think you would know it much better than I.
show it, where is it at ?
I do not need anything to guide me in this matter but common sense and logic, if that common sense and logic happen to agree with NS principles, fine, if not that is fine too.

Jett Rink
January 16th, 2009, 03:42 PM
Holly, you stated in a previous post that you were a National Socialist. How long have you been one and how did you first start learning about it? (I could ask you this in an email but you wont send me one.)

cillian
January 16th, 2009, 03:43 PM
There are a lot of what ifs, if it will help you I will restate the specific question - Should it be legal to put down a badly retarded infant, I say yes.

I am not sure what anti-Nazi propaganda you speak of, I would think you would know it much better than I.
show it, where is it at ?
I do not need anything to guide me in this matter but common sense and logic, if that common sense and logic happen to agree with NS principles, fine, if not that is fine too.

He means the idea that it is a NS principle to kill genetically defective people, when the reality is that these people would have been sterilized and taken care of by the state in long term facilities. National socialism is socialism for the natives of a country. Destroying ones the state deems defective is a marxist principle.

cillian
January 16th, 2009, 04:10 PM
That explains why it was a common Aryan practice.

Wasn't that more for physical deformities rather than retardation? Retards would be sent off to a monastery or to work for someone else. Retards can handle simple tasks, farm work or cleaning a house etc with supervision.

psychologicalshock
January 16th, 2009, 04:12 PM
I think castrating them is a bit extreme; they could be allowed to reproduce through non-natural ways if they have viable eggs or sperm which do not contain retard genes. Remember not all retards are born that way, some become that way due to brain damage.
Most retardation is genetic and even if it isn't the genes might have been damaged at some point.

There are a lot of what ifs, if it will help you I will restate the specific question - Should it be legal to put down a badly retarded infant, I say yes.

I am not sure what anti-Nazi propaganda you speak of, I would think you would know it much better than I.
show it, where is it at ?
I do not need anything to guide me in this matter but common sense and logic, if that common sense and logic happen to agree with NS principles, fine, if not that is fine too.

I think that such a decision, even if correct would be difficult for anyone to make. Human life is difficult to take no matter what.

Jett Rink
January 16th, 2009, 04:17 PM
Most retardation is genetic and even if it isn't the genes might have been damaged at some point.

I thought you were studying to be a scientist? How can genes be damaged at some point if they were born with undamaged genes? (barring exposure to radiation of course)

psychologicalshock
January 16th, 2009, 04:39 PM
I thought you were studying to be a scientist? How can genes be damaged at some point if they were born with undamaged genes? (barring exposure to radiation of course)

If you weren't aware there are viruses that cause damage to genetic code as well as errors within the code itself, this doesn't show up once the organism has become non-totipotent since the mutated cells generally simply die off in time.

These disorders have their own name instead of inherited genetic disorders they are called congenital.

There's also no guarantees that an individual who was damaged hormonally will be able to create healthy sperm cells since that is directly controlled by multiple organs and hormones, if any of those aren't in working order you might imagine what will happen.

Conclusion: Don't let retards reproduce, period.

Jett Rink
January 16th, 2009, 04:47 PM
So those viruses you speak of do not affect the sperm/egg? Or do they?

psychologicalshock
January 16th, 2009, 04:56 PM
So those viruses you speak of do not affect the sperm/egg? Or do they?

There are many viruses that target humanity, they can cause the problem at the father/mother (By screwing up the cells producing gametes) or they can screw up an organism at its prenatal stage. Those are especially vulnerable points in human reproduction. Generally they target the RNA which then produces faulty DNA.

I don't know about sperm/eggs, its probably possible. It's likely not a big problem for sperm because the chance is so small and my guess is that the virus wouldn't attack a developed egg since it wouldn't gain anything there.

Holly
January 16th, 2009, 08:04 PM
Holly, you stated in a previous post that you were a National Socialist. How long have you been one and how did you first start learning about it? (I could ask you this in an email but you wont send me one.)

Let us just say NS is in my genes, I was born in the wrong era. I look to yesterday to guide me today, so that tomorrow may be better.
Why, are you starting a new ideology to compete with it ?

Kind Lampshade Maker
January 16th, 2009, 08:19 PM
...I know me, I am cold and logical, I was born that way...http://www.geocities.com/epjacobs4/irma3.jpg

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/bergenbelsen/OldPhotos/SSwomanguard.jpg

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapBook/DachauPhotos/OldPhotos/BuchenwaldLampshade.jpg

Jett Rink
January 16th, 2009, 08:22 PM
Let us just say NS is in my genes,

You too?


I was born in the wrong era.

And maybe the wrong body according to some of your posts.


I look to yesterday to guide me today, so that tomorrow may be better.

Maps work good too. But make sure they aren't from too yesterday. Some of those streets change and highways get by passed.


Why, are you starting a new ideology to compete with it ?

Why yes. Codename: Jettianity....

IceQueen
January 16th, 2009, 08:26 PM
http://www.geocities.com/epjacobs4/irma3.jpg

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/bergenbelsen/OldPhotos/SSwomanguard.jpg

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapBook/DachauPhotos/OldPhotos/BuchenwaldLampshade.jpg

Irma Griese - The Beautiful Beast.

Kind Lampshade Maker
January 16th, 2009, 08:30 PM
http://www.geocities.com/epjacobs4/irmagresephoto.jpg

Holly
January 16th, 2009, 10:05 PM
You too?
And maybe the wrong body according to some of your posts.
Maps work good too. But make sure they aren't from too yesterday. Some of those streets change and highways get by passed.
Why yes. Codename: Jettianity.... Blah blah blah

If there is a point you are trying to make then come out with it, I can do without the chit chat.
I note you have no vote yet, undecided or the subject does not concern you ?

Mike Mazzone of Palatine
January 16th, 2009, 10:16 PM
I was born in the wrong era.
If you're mother had your attitude, your retarded ass would've never been born.

psychologicalshock
January 16th, 2009, 10:21 PM
If you're mother had your attitude, your retarded ass would've never been born.

You're one to talk Mazzone, if we had decided for this policy before your birth guess where you'd be.

Mike Mazzone of Palatine
January 16th, 2009, 10:23 PM
You're one to talk Mazzone, if we had decided for this policy before your birth guess where you'd be.
I thank god for all those who have opposed the kike's medical industrial complex and their systemic white genocide. Hail Eric Rudolph!

Mike Mazzone of Palatine
January 16th, 2009, 10:31 PM
Only a person who is devoid of all emotion could even think of killing a child they have carried for nine months, given birth to and loved.

Wanting to kill your own child because it is far from perfect is nigger behaviour.
This attitude right here is part of why WNS stands far above the crowd off women at VNNF.

brutus
January 16th, 2009, 10:33 PM
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/bergenbelsen/OldPhotos/SSwomanguard.jpg

Nearly as charming as my first wife.

.

psychologicalshock
January 16th, 2009, 10:56 PM
I thank god for all those who have opposed the kike's medical industrial complex and their systemic white genocide. Hail Eric Rudolph!

Mike, the medical industrial complex is more interested in keeping retards alive which is probably why you are alive in the first place. :D

Mike Mazzone of Palatine
January 16th, 2009, 11:00 PM
Mike, the medical industrial complex is more interested in keeping retards alive which is probably why you are alive in the first place. :D
Fuck you. Fuck being a shill for the kikenvermin who commit murder and call it "medicine". This is what they'll get.

:hangnig::hangnig::hangnig::hangnig::hangnig::hangnig::hangnig::hangnig::hangnig::hangnig:

psychologicalshock
January 16th, 2009, 11:27 PM
Fuck you. Fuck being a shill for the kikenvermin who commit murder and call it "medicine". This is what they'll get.


If you want to try that Mike you're going to have to get all your butt buddies to help out but don't expect many of you surviving. You might only take me when my arms are too tired of doing the work nature didn't get to.

At any rate, if you didn't live in a fantasy world you would have long learned to accept that the weak perish.

Mike Mazzone of Palatine
January 16th, 2009, 11:39 PM
At any rate, if you didn't live in a fantasy world you would have long learned to accept that the weak perish.

Baby killers are weak. Fucking die.

psychologicalshock
January 16th, 2009, 11:41 PM
Baby killers are weak. Fucking die.

Mazzone why don't you take your pills? I am sure you'll feel better after your schizophrenia dies down. Also quit derailing every topic, we already know that you feel connected to retards, they're your people, we get it. Why don't you go to a forum for retards?

Mike Mazzone of Palatine
January 16th, 2009, 11:43 PM
Mazzone why don't you take your pills? I am sure you'll feel better after your schizophrenia dies down.
I'll shove pills down your throat until you choke on them to death you fucking kike.:hangnig:

psychologicalshock
January 16th, 2009, 11:44 PM
I'll shove pills down your throat until you choke on them to death you fucking kike.:hangnig:

You see this is what happens when you DONT take them.

Mike Mazzone of Palatine
January 16th, 2009, 11:46 PM
You see this is what happens when you DONT take them.
Kikes fucking die. It's a good thing.:)

psychologicalshock
January 16th, 2009, 11:50 PM
Kikes fucking die. It's a good thing.:)

If you weren't mentally deranged I would at least try to tell you that you're making a huge mistake but you're a pitiful loony so I guess that's useless. It's rather showing of what you really are - a pitiful , raging retard. At least you finally broke a rule by screaming kike with no proof whatsoever, I however doubt that Varg will do anything about you. I doubt he would do anything if you had a sock puppet, I am pretty sure your attitude is the outcome of you trying out the waters and seeing there is no danger in acting like the deranged idiot you are.

Mike Mazzone of Palatine
January 16th, 2009, 11:52 PM
If you weren't mentally deranged I would at least try to tell you that you're making a huge mistake but you're a pitiful loony so I guess that's useless. It's rather showing of what you really are - a pitiful , raging retard. At least you finally broke a rule by screaming kike with no proof whatsoever, I however doubt that Varg will do anything about you. I doubt he would do anything if you had a sock puppet, I am pretty sure your attitude is the outcome of you trying out the waters and seeing there is no danger in acting like the deranged idiot you are.

My anger is directed at the supporters of white genocide. The kikes are responsible. I scream KIKE. Here's my fucking proof, nigger.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm

Leshrac
January 16th, 2009, 11:55 PM
A life is a life, deficient or not.

Mentally retarded people should be taken care of but not allowed to reproduce.

Mike Mazzone of Palatine
January 16th, 2009, 11:57 PM
A life is a life, deficient or not.

Mentally retarded people should be taken care of but not allowed to reproduce.

I bet retards won't even fuck you anyway.:rolleyes:

cillian
January 16th, 2009, 11:58 PM
A life is a life, deficient or not.

Mentally retarded people should be taken care of but not allowed to reproduce.

Agreed, and it would have the same result on the gene pool as killing them.

psychologicalshock
January 16th, 2009, 11:59 PM
My anger is directed at the supporters of white genocide.
Uh yeah a handful of completely disabled people is not genocide.


The kikes are responsible. I scream KIKE. Here's my fucking proof, nigger.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm
Did you even read it you dick head?

A life is a life, deficient or not.

Mentally retarded people should be taken care of but not allowed to reproduce.

Why? If someone takes care of me I will take care of them in the future, with a retard its a one way street.

Mike Mazzone of Palatine
January 17th, 2009, 12:01 AM
Uh yeah a handful of completely disabled people is not genocide.
A handful isn't enough to satisfy the kike's lust for white genocide. Fuck making light of baby killing niggers.

Leshrac
January 17th, 2009, 12:04 AM
I bet retards won't even fuck you anyway.:rolleyes:

You'd be surprised :o

But then again i consider most people retarded anyway so... meh... :D

Why? If someone takes care of me I will take care of them in the future, with a retard its a one way street.

Yeah you definitely shouldn't raise kids either because they might die in an accident and never take care of you when you'll be a senile old fuck...

psychologicalshock
January 17th, 2009, 12:04 AM
You'd be surprised :o

But then again i consider most people retarded anyway so... meh... :D

Said Leshrac and then went back to playing in his sand box.

Jett Rink
January 17th, 2009, 12:05 AM
If you're mother had your attitude, your retarded ass would've never been born.

This is a gem. How true. How true.

I'll Rep you for it when the system allows me.

Mike Mazzone of Palatine
January 17th, 2009, 12:06 AM
You'd be surprised :o

But then again i consider most people retarded anyway so... meh... :D
You know who determines who gets labeled a retard and who doesn't? Employees of the medical industrial complex. Kikendox.:jew::hangnig::swastikasmiley:

Leshrac
January 17th, 2009, 12:08 AM
This is a gem. How true. How true.


The gem is the spelling...

You know who determines who gets labeled a retard and who doesn't? Employees of the medical industrial complex. Kikendox.

I'm merely comparing the 'Age / Knowledge' equation. 90% of the people i talk to are older and know less, therefore yes, by pure comparison i can call them 'retarded' to some extent.

psychologicalshock
January 17th, 2009, 12:10 AM
The gem is the spelling...

Holly is apparently mother to herself? :confused::confused:

Does not compute, dividing by zero.. *Universe collapses* :(

Yeah you definitely shouldn't raise kids either because they might die in an accident and never take care of you when you'll be a senile old fuck...
That's an if proposition of low probability , with a retard it's 100%. Just because it might happen does not mean I should plan on it happening.

Jett Rink
January 17th, 2009, 12:11 AM
If there is a point you are trying to make then come out with it, I can do without the chit chat.
I note you have no vote yet, undecided or the subject does not concern you ?

The subject is pointless because retarded kids can be screened for before they are born. Your infanticide question is pointless.

You could you some chit chat, Holly.

cillian
January 17th, 2009, 12:12 AM
Something else to consider for those in favor of screening every baby.


The DSEI research, which authors admit is only an "estimate" of the number of deaths of non-Down children, is backed up by findings published last year by Dr. Hylton Meire. Meire calculated that for every 50 children with Down syndrome successfully identified and killed by abortion, 160 non-affected babies are lost by miscarriage after the test.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091801.html

Mike Mazzone of Palatine
January 17th, 2009, 12:15 AM
You could you some chit chat, Holly.
Indeed, she would benefit from establishing intimacy with a confident white man. One who is ready, willing, and able to instruct her how to reason with Aryans. She needs help eliminating the jewspeak in her head that says killing white babies is good.

Leshrac
January 17th, 2009, 12:17 AM
I'm for killing some white adults, does that make me a jew ?

Fucking morons... :rolleyes:

psychologicalshock
January 17th, 2009, 12:18 AM
I'm for killing some white adults, does that make me a jew ?

Fucking morons... :rolleyes:

Mike Mazzone should have his own TV show... inside a padded room.

Mike Mazzone of Palatine
January 17th, 2009, 12:44 AM
I'm for killing some white adults, does that make me a jew ?

Fucking morons... :rolleyes:

Pulling weeds is Aryan. http://www.vnnforum.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

Mike Mazzone should have his own TV show... inside a padded room.
Jewr all watching now. http://www.vnnforum.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

Jenna Christensen
January 17th, 2009, 12:57 AM
I have no children, but I think if I was pregnant, and after the first ultrasound, found out my fetus was deformed or retarded and no chance at a normal productive life I may consider aborting the pregnancy. BUT I have yet to be in that situation so can't really say for sure what I would do.

Holly
January 17th, 2009, 12:59 AM
A life is a life, deficient or not.

Mentally retarded people should be taken care of but not allowed to reproduce.

I could live with that, however they are still a drag on society and they still ruin the lives of some decent folk who could otherwise be raising a youngster with some promise, so I think the option to get rid of them should be there.

How much is it worth to you to keep something like this alive ?

http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq116/hollyws/tard.gif

psychologicalshock
January 17th, 2009, 01:05 AM
I could live with that, however they are still a drag on society and they still ruin the lives of some decent folk who could otherwise be raising a youngster with some promise, so I think the option to get rid of them should be there.

I had the same thought.

Mike Mazzone of Palatine
January 17th, 2009, 01:24 AM
they are still a drag on society and they still ruin the lives of some decent folk who could otherwise be raising a youngster with some promise
Jewr promise for jewr death.:hangnig:

psychologicalshock
January 17th, 2009, 01:28 AM
Jewr promise for jewr death.:hangnig:
Uh yeah, look its not necessary to threaten someone just because you don't agree with them. Especially not a woman.

Mike Mazzone of Palatine
January 17th, 2009, 01:31 AM
Uh yeah, look its not necessary to threaten someone just because you don't agree with them. Especially not a woman.
Kike baby killing advocates don't like the taste of their kike medicine. Fucking niggers.

cillian
January 17th, 2009, 01:34 AM
Melcur was banned for less than this...

Kind Lampshade Maker
January 17th, 2009, 03:51 AM
I have no children... BUT I have yet to be in that situation so can't really say for sure what I would do.The best way to avoid getting knocked up with a Downer Tard is to not pair up with an older male, if you're already an older female. Obstetricians keep a closer watch on expectant mothers, when the sum of both expectant parents added together then divided by two superceed a certain number

Amy
January 17th, 2009, 04:38 AM
Until I became pregnant, I had always thought I was in agreement with the first poll option.

It's a pretty nerve racking time, waiting for your first ultrasound results.. waiting to find out if your pregnancy is "viable," and wondering what you would really do if it was not what you were hoping for.

Luckily for me, my baby had no markers, but I'm sure that I'll still have the same worries and fears with all future pregnancies.

psychologicalshock
January 17th, 2009, 10:22 AM
Melcur was banned for less than this...

Just shows that the law only applies when it likes to.

Holly
January 17th, 2009, 02:50 PM
Melcur was banned for less than this...

I agree, he is in full troll mode, and with the attention he is now getting from Jett is getting worse with every post.
What could have been a good thread with a variety of opinions is wrecked by only a couple of people who rant about anything but the topic, someone tard this guy.

Summer
January 17th, 2009, 03:31 PM
If there was a way, without harming my fetus, to tell if my child would be born with down syndrome, then I would abort the child.

But to go through 9 months of hell then labour to find out a year later my child is not all there, then kill him/her, I don't know if I could do that. I think I would die myself. Once you see the face of your child the thought of murder just is not there.

Mike Mazzone of Palatine
January 17th, 2009, 04:06 PM
If there was a way, without harming my fetus, to tell if my child would be born with down syndrome, then I would abort the child.

But to go through 9 months of hell then labour to find out a year later my child is not all there, then kill him/her, I don't know if I could do that. I think I would die myself. Once you see the face of your child the thought of murder just is not there.
Why abort? A retard baby would enjoy playing in your zoo with your lizards. Perhaps develop a showbiz career.

Jack
January 17th, 2009, 04:37 PM
You want us to look like heartless monsters?



I don't want us to be heartless monsters.

Only a heartless monster would force parents to be enslaved to some severely retarded creature with no hope of anything even resembling a normal life.

Only a heartless monster would "save" a severely brain damaged person, only to see that person live the next several years or decades with a severe degrading disability.


Define retarded.

A being that is so brain damaged that speech, mobility and intellect are severely impaired.


Would you also kill your grandparents because they're senile?

Becoming senile or disabled is common and can sometimes be expected with the progression of old age. On the other hand, being retarded or severely disabled from cradle to grave is not natural at all and can only do harm to the family and society as a whole.

Ideally all severely retarded babies would be aborted early, but failing that there's nothing more to do except let them live out their life, no matter how poor its quality is.

At what price? To have retards live out their lives at all costs doesn't make sense from a practical, moral or financial point of view.

Life should be respected

I agree. When a person suffers severe brain damage that significantly effects speech mobility and intellect, you respect that life by ending it! Not prolonging the suffering of that person and their family.

Troy Alexander
January 17th, 2009, 04:56 PM
if we are to look after retards we must put some effort andthought into it.

we must see their care as a mission and a serious effort and not a burden.

giving a retard a meaningful life should be seen as a matter of glory for the aryan race like sending a person to the moon.

There is nothing left to explore on this earth. there is little avenue for tradtional heroics.

if we managed to come up with a programme which would allow even the greatest turnip to be happy before his last breath, that would be an achievment as great as limbing everest.

Non-aryans will look upon us with fear and jealousy: just like the athenians to the war like spartans/ non-whites will look at as superhuman angels of mercy.

Anne
January 17th, 2009, 05:17 PM
Non-aryans will look upon us with fear and jealousy: just like the athenians to the war like spartans/ non-whites will look at as superhuman angels of mercy.

Very true, Troy. Aryans have the burden of bringing light to the world. We also have the capability of bringing death and must be prudent with this power.

psychologicalshock
January 17th, 2009, 05:23 PM
Bla bla
Glorifying suffering is sickening.

Troy Alexander
January 17th, 2009, 05:26 PM
Glorifying suffering is sickening.

then don't celebrate bo mathews. don't celebrate thegreat patriotic war.

Holly
January 17th, 2009, 06:33 PM
Retards are down 35 to 14, there appears no hope for them.

psychologicalshock
January 17th, 2009, 06:35 PM
then don't celebrate bo mathews. don't celebrate thegreat patriotic war.

Wtf? . The patriotic war is celebrated as a victory , that is a military and human triumph against almost insurmountable force. No one celebrates or glorifies plagues or wars one lost. Victory isn't the celebration of suffering but the overcoming of it. A retard can overcome nothing, he is suffering until his death .

Sándor Petőfi
January 17th, 2009, 10:37 PM
Once you see the face of your child the thought of murder just is not there.

http://justsickshit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/baby-with-2-faces.jpg

Which face?

brutus
January 17th, 2009, 10:43 PM
My ex-wife was two-faced as well.

.

Karl Von Clausewitz!
January 17th, 2009, 10:45 PM
Non-aryans will look upon us with fear and jealousy: just like the athenians to the war like spartans

Spartans rejected their tards.

cillian
January 17th, 2009, 10:59 PM
Spartans rejected their tards.

They also lost that war to the Athenians. They had a serious problem with their birth rate, not just retarded, and deformed, but also the small were killed, because none of them were seen to be fit warrior types. Even though a small baby can grow to be a large man, and a big baby can grow to be a small man. And even if they don't someone has to make the swords and spears and feed those warriors. But the spartans had slaves for that. They were similar to the romans but even more focused and therefor less flexible and less successful.

The spartans are a good example of what not to do. It might work as a military but not as a nation.

Sándor Petőfi
January 17th, 2009, 11:20 PM
if we managed to come up with a programme which would allow even the greatest turnip to be happy before his last breath, that would be an achievment as great as limbing everest.

Non-aryans will look upon us with fear and jealousy: just like the athenians to the war like spartans/ non-whites will look at as superhuman angels of mercy.

Greeks? They detested ugliness. They decried it as evil.

http://askmomsheknows.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/thumb_juliana461.jpg

http://www.yancey-gamecock.com/Juliana2.jpg

http://www.homeworking.ws/children/julianna.jpg

That is horrific. It is a blasphemy to humanity.

http://www.homeworking.ws/children/tami.jpghttp://www.homeworking.ws/children/thom.jpg

Corrupted by Christianity.

The doctor told us that we needed to make a decision as to whether or not we were going to continue the pregnancy. Thom and I looked at each other, then quickly back at the doctor. We both said there was no decision to be made. This is our child no matter what ...

They decided to bring this creature into the world. Tami and Thom Wetmore, child abusers.

http://www.homeworking.ws/children/kendra.jpg

Does their daughter Kendra, and example healthy, abundant life, get a website? No, they want to show off what good do-gooders they are to the world.

http://www.julianawetmore.net/index.php

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1315/761031814_50ba680e3f_o.jpg

Your were so blessed when Juliana was born. She has touched the hearts of people all over the world, you must be the proudest of all parents.

See, they weren't blessed when Kendra was born. Christianity. Kendra Wetmore, neglected daughter. Neglected because she is beautiful.

If you look long enough into the void the void begins to look back through you. Nietzsche. The damage done to the soul of this girl by having to look at that thing every day of her little life must be unimaginable.

Leshrac
January 17th, 2009, 11:30 PM
The damage done to the soul of this girl by having to look at that thing every day of her little life must be unimaginable.

Wrong. Kids have no notion of what is pretty or disgusting, what is good or what is bad. These are societal concepts that are jammed into their heads by society's 'standards'. Else we wouldn't all have played with shit or set random stuff ablaze while we were young right ?

All they are able to discern is a vague concept of 'normality' by making instinctive comparisons that don't go much further than friendly-unfriendly anyway.

Edit: It's all trial and error. How many adults are scared of spiders or even birds for that matter ? Probably the 1/2 of the population who isn't afraid of spiders got to 'experience' them while young and therefore subconsciously recognizes them as 'friendly' or 'harmless' while the other half instinctively identifies them as 'threat' or 'unfriendly'.

Magog
January 17th, 2009, 11:32 PM
We could use this law to put down nig-lets.

Marse Supial
January 17th, 2009, 11:33 PM
Until I became pregnant, I had always thought I was in agreement with the first poll option.

Even after birth, you're not out of the woods. One day you have a perfectly normal, healthy, bright-eyed kid. The next day he chases a ball into the road; Or falls out of a tree and lands the wrong way; Or takes a dive into a shallow lake; Or gets between to warring nigger drug gangs.

Then you've got a "tard" on your hands, as it was so crudely put, if you are lucky. A dead child if you are not.

Sándor Petőfi
January 17th, 2009, 11:40 PM
They also lost that war to the Athenians.

What the hell are you talking about? Sparta practically annihilated Athens in the Peloponnesian War.


They had a serious problem with their birth rate, not just retarded, and deformed, but also the small were killed, because none of them were seen to be fit warrior types. Even though a small baby can grow to be a large man, and a big baby can grow to be a small man. And even if they don't someone has to make the swords and spears and feed those warriors. But the spartans had slaves for that. They were similar to the romans but even more focused and therefor less flexible and less successful.

Spartans refers only to the ruling caste of "Spartan" society, like the Kshatriya of Vedic India. They had a large working class and had no more need for slaves than Rome or America had.


The spartans are a good example of what not to do. It might work as a military but not as a nation.

Rubbish. Sparta is an example of what not to do militarily. That is, wage continual warfare of hundreds of years until your population is depleted beyond recovery. The problem was never births, but deaths. Early deaths of Sparta's men in battle.

psychologicalshock
January 17th, 2009, 11:44 PM
Your were so blessed when Juliana was born. She has touched the hearts of people all over the world, you must be the proudest of all parents.

See, they weren't blessed when Kendra was born. Christianity. Kendra Wetmore, neglected daughter. Neglected because she is beautiful.

If you look long enough into the void the void begins to look back through you. Nietzsche. The damage done to the soul of this girl by having to look at that thing every day of her little life must be unimaginable.

Powerful post Sandor and drives the point. My only reaction is revulsion that something like that can live and even more revulsion for the parents who torture their healthy daughter so.

George Witzgall
January 17th, 2009, 11:45 PM
well, Juliana isn't retarded (at least I didn't read that she was). she needs a feeding tube and trach, but they might be able to perform future surguries on her to mitigate or eliminate this need. of course she will have a tremendously challenging and painful childhood and adulthood, since no amount of surgury will prevent people from recoiling at the sight of her.

I believe the parents should have aborted at 30 weeks when they knew something was terribly wrong, and I think it was tremendously misguided and reckless and selfish for them not to have. however, the Juliana of today is not a candidate for euthanasia by any means. she shows all the signs of being able to be self-sufficient as an adult, unlike severely autistic or severely retarded kids.

Sándor Petőfi
January 18th, 2009, 12:00 AM
Wrong. Kids have no notion of what is pretty or disgusting, what is good or what is bad.

Social constructivist nonsense. You are just a leftist troll Leshrac. Every now and then you pop in to throw in some similar garbage. Defending social miscreants or pushing postmodernist bullshit are staples.

Newborn Infants' Preference for Attractive Faces: The Role of Internal and External Facial Features (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a785034226~db=all)

Several previous experiments have found that newborn and young infants will spend more time looking at attractive faces when these are shown paired with faces judged by adults to be unattractive. Two experimental conditions are described with the aim of finding whether the “attractiveness effect” results from attention to internal or external facial features, or both. Pairs of attractive and less attractive faces (as judged by adults) were shown to newborn infants (mean age 2 days, 9 hours), where each pair had either identical internal features (and different external features) or identical external features (and different internal features). In the latter, but not the former, condition the infants looked longer at the attractive faces. These findings are clear evidence that newborn infants use information about internal facial features in making preferences based on attractiveness. It is suggested that when newborn (and older) infants are presented with facial stimuli, whether dynamic or static, they are able to attend both to internal and external facial features.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1803419

Research on infant face perception has shown that infants' preferences for attractive faces exist well before socialization from parents, peers, and the media can affect these preferences. Four studies assessed a cognitive explanation for the development of attractiveness preferences: cognitive averaging and infant preferences for mathematically averaged faces, or prototypes. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated that both adults and 6-month-old infants prefer prototypical, mathematically averaged faces. Studies 3 and 4 demonstrated that 6-month-olds can abstract the central tendency from a group of naturalistic faces. Taken together, the studies suggest that infants' preferences for attractive faces can be explained by general information-processing mechanisms.

Early aesthetic choices: Infant preferences for attractive premature infant faces
(http://jbd.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/3/212)

Previous studies have shown that when newborn and young infants are shown attractive and unattractive adult faces they will look longer at the attractive faces. Three studies with infants ranging from 5 months to 15 months were conducted to examine whether this attractiveness effect holds for infants looking at infant faces. A standard preferential looking technique was used in which infants were shown pairs of colour slides of upright (Experiments 1 and 2, n = 16) or inverted (Experiment 3, n = 16) infant faces previously rated by adults for attractiveness. Although Experiment 1 did not reveal an attractiveness effect, this effect did become manifest in Experiment 2 after increasing stimulus exposure time and replacing three of the original stimulus faces. The attractiveness effect was lost when faces were presented upside down. Findings are discussed in relation to the feature-based vs. configural processing debate in the face processing literature and in relation to the notion that attractiveness is based on presexual maturity rather than "cuteness".

Preference for attractive faces in human infants extends beyond conspecifics (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2566458)

Human infants, just a few days of age, are known to prefer attractive human faces. We examined whether this preference is human-specific. Three- to 4-month-olds preferred attractive over unattractive domestic and wild cat (tiger) faces (Experiments 1 and 3). The preference was not observed when the faces were inverted, suggesting that it did not arise from low-level image differences (Experiments 2 and 3). In addition, the spontaneous preference for attractive tiger faces influenced performance in a recognition memory task involving attractive versus unattractive tiger face pairings (Experiment 4). The findings suggest that infant preference for attractive faces reflects the activity of general processing mechanisms rather than a specific adaptation to mate choice.

Beauty is not learned. Beauty is not arbitrary.

These are societal concepts that are jammed into their heads by society's 'standards'.

Apart from being completely wrong, this begs the question of the origin of these standards. They are hardwired into the brain by the mechanisms of evolution.

Else we wouldn't all have played with shit or set random stuff ablaze while we were young right ?

Illogical. Irrelevant.

Leshrac
January 18th, 2009, 12:09 AM
The fact that i'm not adhering to some questionable HYPOTHESISES doesn't make me a leftist.

You should renew your vocabulary. Calling people leftists or commies isn't scaring anyone anymore.

Edit: And herm... dude... Before calling me a leftist/jew/whatever you should read what 'science' your so-valued 'studies' are based on.

Relying on something you ardently denounce as a jewish scam to try to dismiss my point. WELL DONE ! :confused:

Sándor Petőfi
January 18th, 2009, 12:14 AM
however, the Juliana of today is not a candidate for euthanasia by any means.

Yes it is. Nobody should have to suffer the inconvenience of having to see that walking down the street. A society which tolerates this sort of morbidity is sick to its very soul.

http://www.yancey-gamecock.com/Juliana2.jpg

It looks like a rotting corpse in a dress.


Antinoüs flétris, dandys ŕ face glabre,
Cadavres vernissés, lovelaces chenus,
Le branle universel de la danse macabre
Vous entraîne en des lieux qui ne sont pas connus!

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/pictures/2008/08/21/gana460.jpg

Apparently humans are just stupid apes.

Leshrac
January 18th, 2009, 12:20 AM
Yes it is. Nobody should have to suffer the inconvenience of having to see that walking down the street. A society which tolerates this sort of morbidity is sick to its very soul.


If by society you mean 'what the majority of people think', nowadays they see white nationalists as evil, sick and harmful to society.

Using your bullshit 'logic' they should exterminate us for the common good right, since it's what 'society doesn't tolerate' ?


Apparently humans are just stupid apes.

Ironic...

cillian
January 18th, 2009, 12:22 AM
What the hell are you talking about? Sparta practically annihilated Athens in the Peloponnesian War.
You're right, I messed up.


Spartans refers only to the ruling caste of "Spartan" society, like the Kshatriya of Vedic India. They had a large working class and had no more need for slaves than Rome or America had.The helots were essentially slaves, though peasant would also be fairly accurate. A spartan could have been denied citizenship but there was no way for a helot to earn it.



Rubbish. Sparta is an example of what not to do militarily. That is, wage continual warfare of hundreds of years until your population is depleted beyond recovery.I agree with you there, I was referring to the structure of their society not their aims.

The problem was never births, but deaths. Early deaths of Sparta's men in battle.The deaths caused there to be less born the following generation, as did abandoning small yet healthy spartan babies, and failure to earn citizenship would cost that whole genetic line to be cut off from the ruling class (less and less spartans). I'm just suggesting the spartans over did it.

A lion can kill a dog easily, but a pack of dogs would kill a lion. This is why we are loosing ground to niggers and muslims and chinese and spics.

Sándor Petőfi
January 18th, 2009, 12:25 AM
The fact that i'm not adhering to some questionable HYPOTHESISES doesn't make me a leftist.

What is an HYPOTHESISES?

Wrong. Kids have no notion of what is pretty or disgusting, what is good or what is bad. These are societal concepts that are jammed into their heads by society's 'standards'.


That sounds like an hypothesis to me. And it is more than questionable. Liar. Hypocrite. Babbler of self-contradictions.

Pushing social constructivism does make you a leftist.

On the other hand, there are no hypotheses involved with my assertion. It is an empirical fact that infants show a preference for beautiful faces and it is an impossibility that this is due to "enculturation" of "social constructs".

You should renew your vocabulary. Calling people leftists or commies isn't scaring anyone anymore.


You should try acquiring one.

Edit: And herm... dude... Before calling me a leftist/jew/whatever you should read what 'science' your so-valued 'studies' are based on.

Cognitive and neuroscience. Not "behaviourism" or "psychonanlysis". Idiot.

Relying on something you ardently denounce as a jewish scam to try to dismiss my point. WELL DONE ! :confused

What have I denounced that I rely upon? Quotations please. You don't have a point to dismiss. You made an empirically unfounded assertion which draws its inspiration from a postmodern pseudo philosophy.

Sándor Petőfi
January 18th, 2009, 12:29 AM
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0bGMacrewEckp/340x.jpg

Belgians should be euthenased.

Leshrac
January 18th, 2009, 12:33 AM
What is an HYPOTHESISES?


Didn't check to see if it was a valid word; just a random guess at making 'hypothesis' plural.


Belgians should be euthenased.

1: Spell it right.
2: It's a German flag on that picture, dumbass.

Sándor Petőfi
January 18th, 2009, 12:38 AM
If by society you mean 'what the majority of people think', nowadays they see white nationalists as evil, sick and harmful to society.

What's your point and how is connected to the discussion at hand?

No, I don't mean "what the majority of people think". That is not the definition of society. That's not how you have used it either, or your sentence would read "If by society you mean 'what the majority of people think', nowadays they see white nationalists as evil, sick and harmful to 'what the majority of people think'."


Using your bullshit 'logic' they should exterminate us for the common good right, since it's what 'society doesn't tolerate' ?

Really? Why don't you spell out the argument I supposedly made in symbolic logic and show that you can also arrive at that conclusion using my supposed set of premises and my supposed argumentative structure.

Of course, I never made an argument. I simply stated that A society which tolerates this sort of morbidity is sick to its very soul. I never said that a society should exterminate what it does not tolerate simply by virtue of the fact that it does not tolerate the thing.

Lechrac? Obfuscator or idiot? You decide.

Karl Von Clausewitz!
January 18th, 2009, 12:41 AM
I'm just suggesting the spartans over did it.

And you have a valid point, unless we're talking midgets here. I was born a small baby, and I grew up to be 6 feet tall.

I eat my Mielie pap.

A lion can kill a dog easily, but a pack of dogs would kill a lion. This is why we are loosing ground to niggers and muslims and chinese and spics.

Going to have to be a lot of dogs.

Sándor Petőfi
January 18th, 2009, 12:44 AM
1: Spell it right.

Euthenased is the correct spelling.


2: It's a German flag on that picture, dumbass.

15 months ago: Members of the Flemish nationalist group Voorpost burn a Belgium flag during a demonstration for independence for the Flemish part of Belgium in Rhode-Saint-Genest, near Brussels, 07 October 2007

Since when does the "German" flag have yellow bordering on black?

http://ensapro.com/images/flag-brd.jpg

http://www.33ff.com/flags/XL_flags/Belgium_flag.gif

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0bGMacrewEckp/340x.jpg

That is a Belgian flag. Haven't you just made a right arse of yourself.

Leshrac
January 18th, 2009, 12:47 AM
That is a Belgian flag. Haven't you just made a right arse of yourself.

The big 'thing' on the front cannot be clearly identified, it could be part of something else; The little flag in the background looks CLEARLY German to me...

Really? Why don't you spell out the argument I supposedly made in symbolic logic and show that you can also arrive at that conclusion using my supposed set of premises and my supposed argumentative structure.


Your main method of attack while arguing with someone is always to try and drown people under your jibberish. Ain't falling for it buddy.


Of course, I never made an argument.


Damn, i thought you even had a structure for it !


I simply stated that A society which tolerates this sort of morbidity is sick to its very soul.


Yeah right, you're perfectly fit to judge what is sick and what isn't. Anyone digging for a few minutes in some of your posts would be deeply convinced of that i'm sure...


I never said that a society should exterminate what it does not tolerate simply by virtue of the fact that it does not tolerate the thing.


You've been IMPLYING it since you first set foot in this thread... Of course not directly, that'd be mean, no, you hide behind bullshit 'symbolic logic', 'supposed set of premises', 'supposed argumentative structure' and try to fake a moral high ground while wishing you had the balls to say plainly :

" I WANT TO KILL THEM ALL "

Jett Rink
January 18th, 2009, 12:50 AM
Belgians should be euthenased.

http://www.thephora.net/forum/images/smilies/bitchfight3ag.gif

Jett Rink
January 18th, 2009, 12:53 AM
15 months ago: Members of the Flemish nationalist group Voorpost burn a Belgium flag during a demonstration for independence for the Flemish part of Belgium in Rhode-Saint-Genest, near Brussels, 07 October 2007




I take it you're a Walloon?

Leshrac
January 18th, 2009, 12:55 AM
I take it you're a Walloon?

I am :)

Message too short @#%

Sándor Petőfi
January 18th, 2009, 01:00 AM
Your main method of attack while arguing with someone is always to try and drown people under your jibberish. Ain't falling for it buddy.

It's only "jibberish" to you because you're too dull, uneducated and inept at the English language to understand it.

Yeah right, you're perfectly fit to judge what is sick and what isn't. Anyone digging for a few minutes in some of your posts would be deeply convinced of that i'm sure...

I'm judging what is sick by the objective standards of the definition that I use.

You've been IMPLYING it since you first set foot in this thread...

No I haven't.

My argument is:

Retards are harmful to race, culture, society, state, civilisation etc. Whatever is harmful to these should be eliminated. Therefore retards should be eliminated.

My argument is not (as you put it):

Society should exterminate whatever it does not tolerate. Society does not tolerate retards. Therefore retards should be exterminated.

That is idiotic, not least of all since society does tolerate retards.

Of course not directly, that'd be mean, no, you hide behind bullshit 'symbolic logic', 'supposed set of premises', 'supposed argumentative structure' and try to fake a moral high ground while wishing you had the balls to say plainly :

Tell me what is "bullshit" about the expressions set of premises (http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22set+of+premises%22&btnG=Search&meta=),symbolic logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_logic) and argumentative structure (http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22argumentative+structure%22&btnG=Search&meta=) . The fact that you have never even learned the most basic concepts of logic does not make them meaningless.

Leshrac
January 18th, 2009, 01:04 AM
My argument is:

Retards are harmful to race, culture, society, state, civilisation etc. Whatever is harmful to these should be eliminated. Therefore retards should be eliminated.

My argument is not (as you put it):

Society should exterminate whatever it does not tolerate. Society does not tolerate retards. Therefore retards should be exterminated.


:rolleyes:

The fact that you have never even learned the most basic concepts of logic does not make them meaningless.

If 'the most basic concepts of logic' yield such 'products', i'd rather avoid them at all costs and stick to MY way of reasoning...

By the way, why are you using the south african google ?

Jack
January 18th, 2009, 01:09 AM
Even after birth, you're not out of the woods. One day you have a perfectly normal, healthy, bright-eyed kid. The next day he chases a ball into the road; Or falls out of a tree and lands the wrong way; Or takes a dive into a shallow lake; Or gets between to warring nigger drug gangs.

Then you've got a "tard" on your hands, as it was so crudely put, if you are lucky. A dead child if you are not.

WRONG!! It's the other way around.

After the damage is done, then you got a dead child on your hands, if you are lucky. A tard if your not!

Marse Supial
January 18th, 2009, 01:09 AM
One of the things I find odd, is that people who will vehemently object to me killing an animal (i.e. a deer) for food, have no objection to killing a human for the sake of convenience. I.e. an abortion or a retard killing.

"I mean, we used to go on a cruise every year. Then this little retard was born because you stuck your dick in crooked, or something. And now we have responsibilities and shit." "I want a divorce and I want you to pay alimony."

You know, I know I'm not the first to have said it, but I'll repeat it: The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.

GREL

Leshrac
January 18th, 2009, 01:13 AM
WRONG!! It's the other way around.

After the damage is done, then you got a dead child on your hands, if you are lucky. A tard if your not!

Selfish moron. Your contempt for saying you prefer a dead child over a retarded/handicapped child -even if it is entirely accidental- just reveals what kind of trash you really are.

Edit (because i couldn't resist):

http://i41.tinypic.com/2cwnaf7.gif

Truth hurts. :D

Sándor Petőfi
January 18th, 2009, 01:16 AM
What? No comeback for "that's a German flag"?

psychologicalshock
January 18th, 2009, 01:18 AM
What? No comeback for "that's a German flag"?

It's a German flag that has been cut up and glued back together as a Belgian flag and then burned. Makes sense to me.

Sándor Petőfi
January 18th, 2009, 01:18 AM
Selfish moron. Your contempt for saying you prefer a dead child over a retarded/handicapped child -even if it is entirely accidental- just reveals what kind of trash you really are.

Who's judging according to arbitrary societal standards he's had drummed into his head now?

Ever the self-contradictor. Ever the hypocrite.

Jack
January 18th, 2009, 01:25 AM
Selfish moron. Your contempt for saying you prefer a dead child over a retarded/handicapped child -even if it is entirely accidental- just reveals what kind of trash you really are.

D

Your willingness to desecrate a human life by accepting a hideous transformation from a healthy productive life to a slobbering retard shows that you are both evil and stupid!

On this issue, I'm the compassionate one!! YOU are the malevolent asshole!!

Leshrac
January 18th, 2009, 01:37 AM
Who's judging according to arbitrary societal standards he's had drummed into his head now?

Ever the self-contradictor. Ever the hypocrite.

Wrong again. I am judging solely on MY set of values/standards; What society thinks matters little to me.

If you weren't so damn clueless you would have at least realized that on this particular issue, most of society would AGREE with you...

Your willingness to desecrate a human life by accepting a hideous transformation from a healthy productive life to a slobbering retard shows that you are both evil and stupid!

On this issue, I'm the compassionate one!! YOU are the malevolent asshole!!

You can't judge the productivity of a life you sad imbecile; A life is a life and that's it. The way it's perceived by YOU is YOUR problem.

What you try to pass out here is that 'productive' should mean 'that contributes or is beneficial to ME'.

Again, you're a selfish idiot.

Bassanio
January 18th, 2009, 01:54 AM
A society that accepts retards is just a step away from accepting niggers and homosexuals.

Two hundred years ago this would be a non-issue. Just because we've advanced technologically along the way, doesn't mean we ought to start diverting our technological advances away from nature's successes to nature's mistakes.

A tax dollar spent on a retard is one less tax dollar spent on education, culture or athletics (in a hypothetical WN society, of course).

Jett Rink
January 18th, 2009, 01:59 AM
Now the title fits the thread and the thread fits the title.

Jess_Smith
January 18th, 2009, 02:00 AM
What? No comeback for "that's a German flag"?

What? No comeback for:

By the way, why are you using the south african google ?

Sándor Petőfi
January 18th, 2009, 02:01 AM
Wrong again. I am judging solely on MY set of values/standards; What society thinks matters little to me.

They just happen to coincide and happen to have been taught to you. "All human life is of equal value". Sure. It's a humanist credo. It's too bad you can't even define human, life, equal or value in this regard.

If you weren't so damn clueless you would have at least realized that on this particular issue, most of society would AGREE with you...

Are you fucking kidding me? Statistics please.

You can't judge the productivity of a life you sad imbecile;

Yes one can. We are doing it. Quod erat demonstrandum. One could even quantify productivity.

A life is a life and that's it.

What's that supposed to mean? No two lives are identical, so it's obviously false on the face of it. Formally it's a tautology, so it isn't saying anything in that regard. So, what is it supposed to mean?

Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. Ludwig Wittgenstein

Leshrac
January 18th, 2009, 02:09 AM
No two lives are identical

Yes they are. You're either alive or dead, there's nothing to quantify.


Yes one can. We are doing it. Quod erat demonstrandum. One could even quantify productivity.


Again your bullshit concepts are based on SOCIETAL CONSTRUCTS. How many more times will I have to repeat it ?

(Throwing Latin around in an effort to look intelligent after saying you can 'quantify' the value of a life doesn't make you look very bright by the way...)

Sándor Petőfi
January 18th, 2009, 02:26 AM
http://www.flynetonline.com/home/uploaded_images/jabbaTheHut-770934.jpg

Apparently Jabba the Hutt had Treacher Collins.

Sándor Petőfi
January 18th, 2009, 02:38 AM
Yes they are.

No, they are not. Organisms are not identical in body, mind, behaviour or anything else.

You're either alive or dead,

Another meaningless tautology.


there's nothing to quantify.

Productivity exists and can be quantified. That's pretty obvious.

Again your bullshit concepts are based on SOCIETAL CONSTRUCTS.

Meaningless gabbling.

My judgements are based upon assessments of empirical data with regard to conformity to a set of phenomena referred to by the word productivity. There is nothing "arbitrary", "subjective", or whatever other sophistic catchphrases you people like to use, about it.


How many more times will I have to repeat it ?

You can repeat it until the cows come home. It's meaningless. Social constructivism is a "social construct". If "social constructs" are to be dismissed, then so is social constructivism. Go figure.

(Throwing Latin around in an effort to look intelligent after saying you can 'quantify' the value of a life doesn't make you look very bright by the way...)

I didn't say value can be quantified. I said productivity can be quantified. Liar liar, pants on fire. How much did your government pay you in that deal you struck with them to play obfuscator on VNN? Or did they just unfreeze your assets?

George Witzgall
January 18th, 2009, 02:39 AM
Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. Ludwig Wittgenstein

homosexual jew. T.J.B.

bmwbiker
January 18th, 2009, 02:56 AM
It is hard to kill a bad man who deserved, more harder is to kill child.

we have saying: all children are angels to 7. year old...children dont know how to lie.

Problem of retards is resolved with special institutions in my country, and is very good solution, in that institutions retards are working simple things like wallets, bags, pottery. They have some animation and care there.

It is very hard to have some autist in family, but he must go to institution to live (if he was hard autist) or he can be during day in institution than go to home for sleep if it is easier case of autism.

The fact about retards is that they dont live long, max to 35 year of life for easier types of retardation, hard one dont live to teenager ages. Nature is setting thing.

We agried that child can be killed just as fetus, when doctors descover deformation and then is abortion needed,most hard deformation is discovered in early fase of pregnancy, but if child is borned then is staying for few or less years in familly then child is going to institution.

But you must know one thing about autism - child can be borned normal, but in few years it can become autist, i know guy whos child was autist in 4. yer of life, before that it was normal child.

Sándor Petőfi
January 18th, 2009, 03:08 AM
homosexual jew. T.J.B.

Ad hominem. Who he was or was not is of no consequence to his work in analytic philosophy, and if you knew anything about the latter, you would understand the profound truth of the statement.

However, a few facts are in order.

The evidence for his homosexuality consists of "W. W. Bartley's claim to have found evidence of not only active homosexuality but in particular several casual liaisons with young men in the Wiener Prater park during his time in Vienna. Bartley published his claims in a biography of Wittgenstein in 1973, claiming to have his information from "confidential reports from... friends" of Wittgenstein, whom he declined to name, and to have discovered two coded notebooks unknown to Wittgenstein's executors that detailed the visits to the Prater." i.e. there is no evidence, there is only the word of one man.

http://books.google.co.za/books?id=EbojYABTBdIC&pg=PA118&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U1b-IHrZukRVA3VVqTaHDFX7kjw1g&w=575
http://books.google.co.za/books?id=EbojYABTBdIC&pg=PA119&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&ots=3bobIAQP1O&sig=ACfU3U24r7oGPF30ShKC_JmDunYmsIF2AA&w=575


He had sexual relationships women, apparently, although he was generally a celibate type. So if the accusations were true you would have to call him "bisexual".

He was an Aryan and Jewish Mischling. He maintained that he was three-quarters Aryan and one-quarter Jew. Bartley, again, is the one who claims it was the reverse.

He was baptised a Catholic and remained a Catholic.

He was an anti-Semite; that is to say, if I wrote some of the things he had written, I would be called one for it; read Culture and Value. He was heavily influenced by the self-hating Jew Otto Weininger, who wrote such lines as

"A genius has perhaps scarcely ever appeared amongst the negroes, and the standard of their morality is almost universally so low that it is beginning to be acknowledged in America that their emancipation was an act of imprudence"


and

"Greatness is absent from the nature of the woman and the Jew, the greatness of morality, or the greatness of evil. In the Aryan man, the good and bad principles of Kant’s religious philosophy are ever present, ever in strife. In the Jew and the woman, good and evil are not distinct from one another ... It would not be difficult to make a case for the view that the Jew is more saturated with femininity than the Aryan, to such an extent that the most manly Jew is more feminine than the least manly Aryan."

diabloblanco92
January 18th, 2009, 04:15 AM
I can't stand people who tell retarded jokes. euthanasia is too good for these people.



Premature burial is too good for you, White child killing faggot freal, your homosexual stench of stale Ernst Rohm beer, semen and shit seeps right through my speakers KILL FAGGOTS NOT WHITE CHILDREN

Holly
January 18th, 2009, 04:40 AM
Now the title fits the thread and the thread fits the title.

No, now we are seeing decent debate instead of your usual stuttering chit chat and 1 liners, I am glad to see it.

It is not often I will agree with Sándor Petőfi, I think his position on this is very well stated.
Also Bassanios comment of "A tax dollar spent on a retard is one less tax dollar spent on education, culture or athletics (in a hypothetical WN society, of course)" I perfectly agree with.
We must use the resource we have to promote the healthy and those with something to give, not the useless, not the pathetic and lame.
"feelings" are so much part of the present bad situation in white homelands, we must over come this misplaced charity and apply it to something with a promise, not a drooling blob of flesh.

Jett Rink
January 18th, 2009, 04:52 AM
No, now we are seeing decent debate instead of your usual stuttering chit chat and 1 liners, I am glad to see it.

Maybe you enjoy seeing it because you are all a bunch of virgins to this stuff. I've seen these debates over and over. Been there done that.



Also Bassanios comment of "A tax dollar spent on a retard is one less tax dollar spent on education, culture or athletics (in a hypothetical WN society, of course)" I perfectly agree with.

You would because you are a socialist, which is half way to becoming a Marxist. Government has no right to steal money from me or anyone else and call it a tax. If the government needs money let people volunteer it.

If someone wants to raise a retard, that is their business unless they force me to pay for it, then it would become my business. If rich people want to give thier own money to people to pay for retards, thats their private matter. Not mine.


We must use the resource we have to promote the healthy and those with something to give, not the useless, not the pathetic and lame.

Government has no right or claim to my resources.


"feelings" are so much part of the present bad situation in white homelands, we must over come this misplaced charity and apply it to something with a promise, not a drooling blob of flesh.

"Feelings" are not the problem. The problem is a certain segment of the population exploiting White peoples inborn "feelings" to exploit them.

Summer
January 18th, 2009, 06:29 AM
http://justsickshit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/baby-with-2-faces.jpg

Which face?

I thought we were speaking about mentally retarded kids, not something like this, that generally happens to minorities from countries that live in mud and have polluted water. That I would not keep. But the likelihood of a white child being born like that is extremely slim compared to minorities, is it not?

Mike Mazzone of Palatine
January 18th, 2009, 06:33 AM
I thought we were speaking about mentally retarded kids, not something like this, that generally happens to minorities from countries that live in mud and have polluted water. That I would not keep. But the likelihood of a white child being born like that is extremely slim compared to minorities, is it not?

http://kidshealth.org/parent/system/ill/birth_defects.html

Like most expectant parents, you probably alternate between fantasies about a healthy baby and worries that your baby will have a health problem. Or perhaps you've been told through prenatal screening that your baby may be born with a birth defect.

Many parents assume that all birth defects are severe or even fatal, but the fact is that many are treatable, often immediately after birth — and sometimes even before the baby is born.

It's especially important to know the risk factors involved and how to prevent birth defects. However, it's also important to realize that most babies born with congenital defects are born to two healthy parents.
About Birth Defects

Birth defects are defined as abnormalities of structure, function, or body metabolism that are present at birth. These abnormalities lead to mental or physical disabilities or are fatal. There are more than 4,000 different known birth defects, ranging from minor to serious, and although many can be treated or cured, they're the leading cause of death in the first year of life.

According to the March of Dimes, about 150,000 babies are born with birth defects each year in the United States. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) says that 3 out of every 100 babies born in the United States have some kind of major birth defect.

Birth defects can be caused by genetic, environmental, or unknown factors.

Structural or metabolic defects are those that result when a specific body part is missing or formed incorrectly or when there is an inborn problem in body chemistry. The most common type of major structural defects are heart defects, which affect 1 in 100 babies in the United States.

Other common structural defects include spina bifida and hypospadias, a condition in which the opening of the male urethra (where urine exits from the penis) is in the wrong place.

Metabolic defects affect 1 in 3,500 babies and usually involve a missing or incorrectly formed enzyme (a protein necessary for processing chemical substances in the body). This type of defect can be harmful or even fatal, but doesn't usually cause any visible abnormalities in the child. Metabolic defects include Tay-Sachs disease, a fatal disease that affects the central nervous system, and phenylketonuria (PKU), which affects the way the body processes protein.

Defects caused by congenital infections result when a mother gets an infection before or during the pregnancy. Infections that can cause birth defects include rubella (German measles), cytomegalovirus (CMV), syphilis, toxoplasmosis, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, parvovirus, and, rarely, chickenpox. None of these affect 100% of babies whose mothers are infected during pregnancy. If the mother is infected during early pregnancy, rubella carries the highest risk for birth defects (approximately 20%).

Other causes of birth defects include alcohol abuse by the mother and Rh disease, which can occur when the mother's and baby's Rh factors (the "positive" or "negative" part of a person's blood type) are different.

Although a few medications can cause problems, none of the 200 most commonly prescribed drugs are associated with a significant risk of birth defects.
Causes

Most babies with birth defects are born to two parents with no obvious health problems or risk factors. A woman can do everything her doctor recommends to deliver a healthy child and still have a baby with a birth defect.

In fact, according to the March of Dimes, about 60% of birth defects have unknown causes. The rest are caused by environmental or genetic factors, or some combination of the two.

Genetics play a role in some birth defects. Every cell in the body has chromosomes containing genes that determine a person's unique characteristics. One missing or faulty gene can cause a birth defect; this is significant when you consider that we each have about 25,000 genes per cell determining everything from the length of our toes to the color of our eyes.

Where do the faulty genes come from? A child inherits one of each pair of chromosomes (and one of each pair of the genes they contain) from each parent. Sometimes, a disease or defect can occur if only one parent passes along the gene for that disease (even though the child receives a normal gene from the other parent); this is called dominant inheritance and includes birth defects such as achondroplasia (a form of dwarfism) and Marfan syndrome (a disorder characterized by abnormally long fingers, arms, and legs).

Some birth defects occur only when both parents (who are healthy) each pass along a faulty gene for the same disease to the child; this is called recessive inheritance and includes conditions such as Tay-Sachs disease or cystic fibrosis.

Finally, some boys inherit disorders from genes passed on to them by their mothers. These defects, which include conditions such as hemophilia and color-blindness, are called X-linked because the genes are carried on the X chromosome. Because males have only the one X chromosome they receive from their mothers (females have two X chromosomes — one from each parent), a faulty gene on the X chromosome they receive will cause a problem because they don't have a normal copy of the gene on the other X chromosome that females have.

The number or structure of chromosomes can also cause birth defects. An error during the formation of an egg or sperm can cause a baby to be born with too few or too many chromosomes, or with a damaged chromosome. Birth defects caused by chromosome problems include Down syndrome. The risk of this type of birth defect often increases with the age of the mother.

Environmental causes of birth defects have more to do with the mother's health and exposure to chemicals or diseases. When a mother has certain infections, such as rubella, during pregnancy, it can cause birth defects. Alcohol abuse by the mother causes fetal alcohol syndrome, and certain medications taken by the mother can cause birth defects.

Multifactorial birth defects are caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors and include neural tube defects and cleft lip and palate.

Although you can take steps to prevent birth defects, a birth defect can happen even if you or your partner have no history of birth defects in your families or if you've had healthy children in the past.
Common Birth Defects

Cleft lip and/or palate occurs when the tissues of the mouth or lip don't form properly during fetal development. A cleft lip is a long opening between the upper lip and the nose. A cleft palate is an opening between the roof of the mouth and the nasal cavity.

In the United States, oral clefting occurs in 1 in 700 to 1,000 births, making it one of the most common major birth defects. Clefts occur more frequently in children of Asian, Latino, or Native American descent; it's believed that a variety of environmental and genetic factors cause clefting, but it's unknown exactly which ones. Clefting is a birth defect that can be surgically repaired after birth.

Neural tube defects (NTDs) occur in the first month of pregnancy when the structure that develops into the brain and spinal cord is forming. Normally, this structure folds into a tube by the 29th day after conception. When the tube doesn't close completely, the baby has an NTD; many babies with these defects are stillborn or die soon after birth.

The two most common forms of NTDs are:

* Spina bifida, which happens when the spinal column doesn't close completely around the spinal cord. It ranges from mild to severe and can be associated with loss of bladder and bowel function, paralysis, and, in some cases, death.
* Anencephaly, which occurs in 3 out of 10,000 births, involves the lack of development of parts of the brain.

NTDs are multifactorial defects, which according to the March of Dimes occur in about 2,500 babies a year in the United States, or 1 out of every 2,000 live births. Studies have shown that many of these defects may be prevented when the mother gets enough folic acid before and during pregnancy, especially during the first trimester.

Women must make sure to receive enough folic acid before they become pregnant because the neural tube closes about 1 week after the first missed menstrual period — so mothers cannot wait to start folic acid when they first realize they're pregnant. For this reason, it is recommended that women take folic acid throughout their reproductive years.

Heart defects occur when any of the parts of the heart fail to develop properly. They include:

* Atrial and ventricular septal defects, which are holes in the walls that separate the heart into left and right sides.
* Patent ductus arteriosus, which is present when the tubular blood channel that allows the blood to bypass the lungs while the baby is in the womb doesn't close (as expected) after birth.
* Aortic or pulmonary valve stenosis, which are narrowings of the valves that allow blood to flow from the heart to the lungs and other parts of the body.
* Coarctation of the aorta, which is a narrowing of the aorta, the major blood vessel carrying blood from the heart to the rest of the body.
* Transposition of the great arteries, which is the reversal of the connections of the aorta and the pulmonary artery with the heart.
* Hypoplastic left heart system, which is when the side of the heart that pumps blood to the body is underdeveloped or nonexistent.
* Tetralogy of Fallot, which is a combination of four heart defects that involves restriction in the flow of blood to the lungs.

These are among the most common defects, occurring in as many as 1 in 100 births. The specific cause of most heart defects isn't known, although multiple factors may alter the development of the heart during the first 8 to 9 weeks of fetal growth.

Exposure to certain medications (such as the antiseizure drug phenytoin, thalidomide, and chemotherapy drugs) during the first trimester of pregnancy may play a role in causing heart defects. Other causes include maternal alcohol abuse, rubella (German measles) infection, and diabetes during pregnancy.

Cerebral palsy usually isn't detected until weeks to months after birth, depending on the severity of the condition. The term actually refers to a group of conditions affecting control of movement and caused by brain damage. People with cerebral palsy have difficulty controlling the motions their muscles make — which muscles and how severely they are impaired varies from person to person.

About 70% of people with cerebral palsy also have other disabilities, most often mental retardation. Some children may have trouble walking; others may not be able to swallow or speak. Cerebral palsy occurs in 2 to 6 of every 1,000 births; about 10,000 children born in the United States each year develop cerebral palsy.

In most cases, the cause of cerebral palsy isn't known, but some causes include:

* rubella (German measles) infection during pregnancy
* Rh disease (a blood problem in the baby that results from a difference in the mother's and infant's blood types)
* prematurity
* brain damage during the last trimester of pregnancy or around the time of birth

Cerebral palsy can also have a genetic cause or may be due to head injuries or meningitis that occur after birth. Therapy to improve motor skills, surgery, and braces and other types of equipment and assistive technology can help improve mobility and muscle control. Speech therapy and occupational therapy can help as well.

Clubfoot is a term used to describe a group of structural defects of the foot and ankle in which the bones, joints, muscles, and blood vessels are formed incorrectly. These defects range from mild to severe and may affect one or both feet. Feet affected by this defect point down, turn in, and usually have a limited range of motion.

This is a relatively common birth defect, affecting about 1 in 735 babies born each year in the United States. Boys are affected almost twice as often as girls. The cause is unknown, but it can be treated by applying a cast immediately after birth. This works about 95% of the time; if it doesn't, surgery and further casting are usually required.

Congenital hip dislocation occurs when the round upper end of the thighbone doesn't sit inside the socket of the pelvis properly. This can happen in one or both hips. It happens in about 1 or 2 in 1,000 births, more often in girls, and tends to run in families, although the exact cause is unknown. Usually it is detected at birth and treated immediately by placing the baby in a soft sling for 6 to 9 months. If it's not recognized and treated early, surgery may be necessary.

Congenital hypothyroidism, which occurs in about 1 in 3,000 to 4,000 births, results when the baby's thyroid gland (located in the front of the neck) is absent or underdeveloped at birth. This causes the infant to be unable to produce adequate amounts of thyroid hormone, which is important for supporting normal growth and brain development.

Developmental delay and permanent mental retardation can result if the condition is not recognized and treated (with oral thyroid hormone) within the first few weeks of life. Because of this, every state in the United States and most other developed countries routinely screen all newborns for the condition with a blood test performed shortly after birth.

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a disease mainly affecting the respiratory and digestive systems. An inability to carry chloride (one of the chemicals in table and body salts) from the cells that line organs such as the lungs and pancreas to their outer surfaces causes the body to produce a thick, sticky mucus. Children with CF can have trouble breathing and digesting food; symptoms include chronic respiratory problems and pneumonia, bulky stools, and poor weight gain.

This defect is genetic — 1 in 4 children with two parents who carry the gene for CF will get the disease; 1 in 31 people in the United States carries this gene. It affects approximately 30,000 people in the United States, most of them Caucasians. Treatment includes therapy to control infections and maintain lung function and adequate nutrition.

Gastrointestinal defects are structural defects that can occur at any point along the gastrointestinal tract, which is made up of the esophagus, stomach, small and large intestines, rectum, and anus. The incomplete or abnormal development of any of these organs can cause obstructions or blockages that can lead to swallowing difficulties, vomiting, and problems with bowel movements.

Some of these defects are:

* esophageal atresia, or incomplete development of the esophagus
* diaphragmatic hernia, a defect in the layer of muscle separating the chest from the abdomen that allows some of the abdominal organs to protrude up into the chest
* pyloric stenosis, a condition in which the muscular wall of the passage carrying food from the stomach to the small intestine is abnormally thick and the passage narrow, forcing food back out through the esophagus (vomiting)
* Hirschsprung's disease, in which a section of the large intestine is missing the nerves that control its contractions, resulting in severe constipation and sometimes bowel obstruction
* gastroschisis and omphalocele are defects in the abdominal wall allowing the intestine and other abdominal organs to protrude
* anal atresia involves lack of or incomplete development of the anus, causing it to be absent or smaller than it should be, often with the opening in the wrong place
* biliary atresia, in which the bile-carrying ducts in the liver either didn't develop or developed abnormally

The frequencies of these disorders vary, ranging from 1 in 32,000 births to 1 in 10,000 births. Genetics play some role in all these defects, but it is unclear exactly what role or to what degree. Early detection and treatment of these defects is important, as they can lead to serious health problems and even death if left untreated. Surgery is usually necessary to repair these defects.

Down syndrome is a group of abnormalities that occur in children who are born with an extra (third) copy of chromosome number 21 in their cells. Children with the syndrome have mental retardation and distinctive facial and other physical features; these problems are often accompanied by heart defects and other health problems.

The severity of symptoms varies widely from person to person, with the degree of mental retardation ranging from mild to moderate to severe. Down syndrome is a relatively common birth defect, affecting between 1 in 800 and 1 in 1,000 births. The chances of having a baby with Down syndrome increase dramatically with the age of the mother; a woman who's 35 has a 1 in 350 chance of having a baby with Down syndrome, and a woman who's 45 has a 1 in 30 chance.

Although some of the health problems caused by Down syndrome (such as heart defects) may be treated through medication and surgery, there is no cure.

Phenylketonuria (PKU) is a disease that affects the way the body processes protein; it can cause mental retardation. A baby born with PKU appears normal, but if the disease isn't treated, the child will suffer from developmental delays that are apparent by the first birthday. About 1 baby in 10,000 to 25,000 in the United States is born with PKU.

This is a genetic disorder; if both parents carry the gene, there's a 1 in 4 chance a child will be born with it. Fortunately, it is usually detected within a few days after birth by a screening blood test that is routinely performed on infants in the United States and other developed countries. If the child is promptly treated with a special diet, retardation can be prevented.

Fragile X syndrome is characterized by mental impairment, ranging from learning disabilities to mental retardation, autistic behaviors, and attentional problems and hyperactivity. Physical characteristics of children with Fragile X include a long face, large ears, flat feet, and extremely flexible joints, especially fingers.

Boys are affected more often than girls, and are more likely to have mental retardation rather than milder learning impairment. Both boys and girls are likely to have emotional and behavioral problems. Recent studies suggest that Fragile X affects about 1 in 2,000 males and 1 in 4,000 females of all races and ethnic groups.

Fragile X is a genetic disorder that's passed on by men who carry the abnormality to all of their daughters but none of their sons. Each child of a carrier woman has a 50% chance of inheriting the genetic abnormality. This means that the Fragile X can be passed through generations in a family before a child is affected by the syndrome. There is no cure for Fragile X, although researchers are exploring ways to prevent it through gene therapy.

Muscular dystrophy is a general term that's used to describe more than 40 different types of muscle diseases, all of which involve progressive weakness and degeneration of the muscles that control movement. Heart muscles and some other involuntary muscles are also affected in some forms of muscular dystrophy, and a few forms involve other organs as well. The disease is genetic and cannot be cured. Treatment includes physical and respiratory therapy, the use of assistive technology, and medications.

Sickle cell disease is a disorder of the red blood cells in which an abnormal shape of the cells results in chronic anemia (low blood count), periodic episodes of pain, and other health problems. The disease is genetic; if both parents carry the gene, their child has a 1 in 4 chance of having it. In the United States, sickle cell anemia affects mostly African Americans and some Latinos. The disease occurs in about 1 in every 500 African-American births and 1 in every 1,000 to 1,400 Latino-American births.

Treatment for sickle cell disease may include taking antibiotics to prevent infection, blood transfusions, and bone marrow transplantation. Parents can be tested to see if they're carriers of the gene; most U.S. states now routinely perform a screening blood test for the disease on newborns.

Tay-Sachs disease affects the central nervous system, causing blindness, dementia, paralysis, seizures, and deafness; it's usually fatal within the first few years of life. Babies with this disease appear normal when they are born; the symptoms develop during the first few months of life.

It is genetic and occurs most often in Jews of central or eastern European descent; when two parents are carriers, a child has a 1 in 4 chance of having it. Although there isn't any treatment for this disease, there's a test to help parents determine if they are carriers of the gene.

Fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) is characterized by slowed growth, mental retardation, abnormalities in facial features, and problems with the central nervous system. Every year between 2,000 and 12,000 babies in the United States are born with defects caused by alcohol. FAS cannot be cured or treated, but can be prevented by avoiding alcohol intake during pregnancy.

Infections during pregnancy can cause a variety of birth defects. Examples include:

* Congenital rubella (the infection posing the highest risk for fetal damage) syndrome is characterized by vision and/or hearing loss, heart defects, mental retardation, and cerebral palsy.
* Toxoplasmosis infection of the mother can result in eye infections that threaten vision, hearing loss, learning disabilities, enlarged liver or spleen, mental retardation, and cerebral palsy in the infant.
* Genital herpes virus infection of the mother can cause brain damage, cerebral palsy, vision or hearing impairment, and death of the baby if the virus is transmitted to the infant before or during the birth.
* Fifth disease can cause a dangerous form of anemia, heart failure, and, in some cases, fetal death,
* Congenital varicella syndrome, which is caused by chickenpox, can lead to scars, defects of muscle and bone, malformed and paralyzed limbs, a smaller-than-normal head, blindness, seizures, and mental retardation. This is an uncommon occurrence in pregnant women who become infected with chickenpox.

Talk to your health care provider about ways to avoid these infections while you're pregnant and what you should do if you're exposed to any of them.
Diagnosing Birth Defects

Routine prenatal screening can do two major things: it can help determine if the mother has an infection or other condition that is dangerous to the fetus, and it can help determine if the fetus has certain birth defects.

Defects that may be detected through prenatal screening include:

* neural tube defects (spina bifida, anencephaly)
* Down syndrome
* other chromosome abnormalities
* inherited metabolic disorders
* congenital heart defects
* gastrointestinal and kidney malformations
* cleft lip or palate
* certain birth defects of the limbs
* congenital tumors

It's important to remember that screening identifies only the possibility that a baby has a defect. It's possible to give birth to a healthy baby after a screening test shows that a defect may be present. You aren't required to have any prenatal screening; talk to your doctor about any tests he or she thinks you should have.

Your baby will be tested after birth (with your permission) to screen for certain birth defects that require treatment soon after birth. Exactly what your baby will be tested for varies from state to state (you can ask your health care provider or the hospital nursery which tests your state performs routinely), although all states screen for PKU and congenital hypothyroidism.

A new testing technique called tandem mass spectroscopy can screen for many additional disorders of metabolism on a small blood sample; it's being used by many states' newborn screening programs.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommends that all African-American babies be tested for sickle cell disease; about 40 states currently do so.

Other disorders that your state may test newborns for include:

* cystic fibrosis
* congenital adrenal hyperplasia (an inherited disorder of the adrenal gland that can cause severe illness in newborns if not diagnosed and treated within the first few weeks of life)
* hearing loss

If you have a concern about another specific birth defect, you may be able to have your baby tested for it. Talk to your health care provider about this before the baby is born.
Can Birth Defects Be Prevented?

Many birth defects can't be prevented; however, you can take some precautions before and during pregnancy:

Before you get pregnant: Women who are planning to become pregnant should make sure their vaccinations are up to date, that they don't have any sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and that they get the daily recommended dose of folic acid. One way to ensure this is to start taking prenatal vitamins as soon as you begin trying to conceive.

It's generally best to avoid unnecessary medications during pregnancy, so make sure you talk to your doctor about any and all over-the-counter and prescription medicines you're taking before you get pregnant; you'll want to stop taking any that aren't vital to your health. Don't do this without talking to your doctor, however.

If you or your partner have a history of any kind of birth defects in your family, if you've already had a child with a birth defect, or if you are part of a high-risk group (because of your age, ethnic background, or medical history), consider consulting a genetic counselor before you get pregnant. More is being learned about the genes and other factors involved in birth defects all the time and genetic testing and gene therapy are becoming increasingly useful aspects of prepregnancy planning and pregnancy. A genetic counselor can give you advice about prenatal testing and help you deal with any concerns or fears you might have.

While you're pregnant: The best thing that pregnant women can do to increase their likelihood of having a healthy baby is to make sure they take care of their bodies during pregnancy by:

* not smoking and avoiding secondhand smoke
* avoiding alcohol
* avoiding all illicit drugs
* eating a healthy diet and taking prenatal vitamins
* getting exercise and plenty of rest
* getting early and regular prenatal care

Talk to your health care provider about other precautions you can take to protect the health of your baby — don't be afraid to ask questions if you're concerned.

Reviewed by: Linda Nicholson, MS, MC
Date reviewed: October 2007

Summer
January 18th, 2009, 06:40 AM
You either post junk or your threads are as long as a book. Shorten them up.

Mike Mazzone of Palatine
January 18th, 2009, 06:49 AM
You either post junk or your threads are as long as a book. Shorten them up.
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/wwe0791l.jpg

brutus
January 18th, 2009, 11:00 AM
Our most ancient European ancesters had altuistic behaviors inculcated into their cultures by exposure to their environment. The harsh ice ages made it imperative that they extend charity toward one another for the sake of their very survival. This tendency may very well be a genetic predisposition at this time.

The jew has taken our natural tendency to care for one another and expanded it via dogmatic brainwashing to mean taking care of others not of our clan as well as putting the infirm and deformed above our own.

It's unnatural for a man or woman to forsake his children's welfare or diminish it in any way for that of another's offspring. We take care of our own. Nature demands this for the survival of our species and in this case subspecies.

Only the jew rails against nature and ever tries to convince us that we must do the same. And when we follow the jew's suggestions, we slowly die.

.

Holly
January 18th, 2009, 07:34 PM
Maybe you enjoy seeing it because you are all a bunch of virgins to this stuff. I've seen these debates over and over. Been there done that.

Ok so you are the retard debate pro, I will grant you that, you still have said not much of use on the subject and have not even voted. I do not post at multiple forums, this is pretty much it for me.



You would because you are a socialist, which is half way to becoming a Marxist. Government has no right to steal money from me or anyone else and call it a tax. If the government needs money let people volunteer it.

Like religion most ideology at its root has much in common, but I am about as marxist as you are polka dot.


If someone wants to raise a retard, that is their business unless they force me to pay for it, then it would become my business. If rich people want to give thier own money to people to pay for retards, thats their private matter. Not mine.

I think it must be a fact that the majority of the care for these "special people" are paid by hard working tax payers, that is what I will assume until you prove different.
A pure drag on society, people who contribute nothing or worse yet only take, that is everyones affair.[/QUOTE]



Government has no right or claim to my resources.

Well Ok good luck with that, no matter what system there is of government a claim will be made, if it can be spent wisely for the benifit of the population then this is progress, if it is wasted on worse than useless misfits then it is a scandal.



"Feelings" are not the problem. The problem is a certain segment of the population exploiting White peoples inborn "feelings" to exploit them.

So then people are vulnerable to being used, cure it.
Mastering "feelings" would be a very good start, and to do this on a large scale proper leadership is necessary.

Jett Rink
January 18th, 2009, 07:42 PM
So then people are vulnerable to being used, cure it.
Mastering "feelings" would be a very good start, and to do this on a large scale proper leadership is necessary.

Leadership is nothing without followers.

Right now the people are organized by which corporation they are devoted to.

Corporations rule their lives.

If you want people to lead you are going to have to organize them locally and build it up. You just can't come sweeping in from above like Hitler did because you do not have jews paving the way for you to set you up to knock you down.

Holly
January 18th, 2009, 09:34 PM
I agree "Leadership is nothing without followers" & "If you want people to lead you are going to have to organize them locally and build it up" of course.
NS is a guide not a blueprint, the conditions which led to the mass success in Germany so many years ago will not be repeated, we must work with what we have, set goals and attract proud people with conviction and a strong will to make dreams become reality in all western nations.

Some would argue that Hitler did not "sweep in from above" but from below - A true man of the people whos iron will moved mountains and shook the earth.

Mike Mazzone of Palatine
January 18th, 2009, 09:55 PM
Corporations rule their lives.
I'm always happy to lead the path to liberty under the auspice of corporatism.

http://www.neocorporatism.com/ :swastikasmiley:

Kind Lampshade Maker
January 19th, 2009, 03:15 AM
...[I]15 months ago: Members of the Flemish nationalist group Voorpost burn a Belgium flag during a demonstration for independence for the Flemish part of Belgium...Why should they be euthanized for that? Or did you imply that the Flemish shouldn't be euthanized. But, those who consider themselves "Belgian" should?My ex-wife was two-faced as well...Did you take advantage of her deformity for menage a quatre sessions?
In any case, you could have sold her in Pakistan, as a goddess
http://justsickshit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/baby-with-2-faces.jpg

Leshrac
January 19th, 2009, 04:34 AM
Why should they be euthanized for that? Or did you imply that the Flemish shouldn't be euthanized. But, those who consider themselves "Belgian" should?

IMHO Flemishs should be euthanized or at least separated from Wallonia.

Ungrateful inbred sons of bitches who leeched off the south for over 80 years and now have the nerve to say that 'we cost them' while allying with every jew there is in their 'nationalist' parties...

Flanders has been jewed (or was from the start ? leeching while whining seems pretty jewish to me).

Jack
February 2nd, 2009, 03:15 AM
Define retarded.

.

This picture defines retard better than words.

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/1582/uglyretardyg4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Ovidio C.
February 2nd, 2009, 07:07 PM
Not only should it be illegal, it should be the second law of the land. The first being non permittance of jews, blacks, and other undesirables into the nations.

Whenever a child is born, it might be directly and physically yours, but the interests of the state, however little or big, kick in. The distribution of resources should not be wasted on it and this is one thing we do not need eating at the trough. Not only that, but a mothers physical and mental time could be used in raising her healthier children and turning them into productive citizens instead of cleaning drool and playing catch after he is 30.

For those of you who want to save it, I suggest buying an island and living happily ever after with retardo.

A.S.
February 2nd, 2009, 07:42 PM
Euthanasia is the most compassionate thing to do. Retards, the severely deformed, primordial dwarfs, etc. That people allow these poor creatures to live and suffer horribly is the true crime. Add to this list the huge lard asses that get up to 700+ pounds and become bedridden and can no longer take care of themselves... they end up feeding off the public dole. Sick. Truly sick.

A.S.
February 2nd, 2009, 07:45 PM
I think "autism" is another fake disease since it's definition is very vague and it's diagnosis is based solely on behaviour and nothing physical.

Sam Reeves
February 2nd, 2009, 08:01 PM
I think "autism" is another fake disease since it's definition is very vague and it's diagnosis is based solely on behaviour and nothing physical.

I tend to agree with this.

bmwbiker
February 3rd, 2009, 01:04 AM
I think "autism" is another fake disease since it's definition is very vague and it's diagnosis is based solely on behaviour and nothing physical.


autists is the worst retards....but as all retards, they live up to 30 years old, nature is providing for it...there is no need to speed things up, and blood yours hands, as i say nature fixing that real good

Kind Lampshade Maker
February 3rd, 2009, 04:02 AM
I'd probably vote on the poll, if there was no likelyhood I might someday get confronted wth such a decision, myself. Imagine voting for euthanasia. Then, eventually parenting a tard. Either born so or tarded through accident