Sport0 min ago
Sometimes, Even With The Right To Free Speech And All...shouldn't Some People Just...keep Some Things To Themselves?
What on Earth did he think he was going to achieve?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Did you read the full transcript though Naomi? It certainly doesn't appear that way, and if you take public office you should have more sense than to make a remark so foolish and inflammatory, so he can go on the basis that he's an idiot if not a bigot, that alone makes him unsuited for public office.
I think Godwins Law is a useful law. It was framed essentially to highlight the number of times people will draw extreme or absurd analogies to Hitler or the Nazis, in an attempt to further their case.
In a conversation about euthanasia however, Godwins Law does not apply simply because euthanasia was part of the Nazi programme and is therefore very relevant.
As for this councillor - A couple of points. As an experienced councillor, used to dealing with lobby groups, members of the public and speaking in public, he was very unprofessional voicing his comments in public the way he did, especially to the people he expressed it to. Secondly - reading the transcript, he sounds very confused to me. On the one hand, he appears to be suggesting that it would be acceptable to him if some severely disabled children were to be euthanised - "just like farmers with their sheep, running around with 2 heads or 5 legs"- because they represented too great a burden in terms of financial support to them and their carers. On the other hand, he says that he is "against abortion" and "could not kill a fly" or words to that effect.
Even the suggestion that we should euthanise children because of profound disability is morally and ethically repugnant. These are humans beings we are talking about, not a farm animal like sheep. The mark of any civilised society- the mark of any civilised human being- is to support the halt and the sick and the lame.
He may have misspoke, but I believe he holds such a view, muddled though it is from his own transcript, and I am quite surprised myself he was re-elected.
In a conversation about euthanasia however, Godwins Law does not apply simply because euthanasia was part of the Nazi programme and is therefore very relevant.
As for this councillor - A couple of points. As an experienced councillor, used to dealing with lobby groups, members of the public and speaking in public, he was very unprofessional voicing his comments in public the way he did, especially to the people he expressed it to. Secondly - reading the transcript, he sounds very confused to me. On the one hand, he appears to be suggesting that it would be acceptable to him if some severely disabled children were to be euthanised - "just like farmers with their sheep, running around with 2 heads or 5 legs"- because they represented too great a burden in terms of financial support to them and their carers. On the other hand, he says that he is "against abortion" and "could not kill a fly" or words to that effect.
Even the suggestion that we should euthanise children because of profound disability is morally and ethically repugnant. These are humans beings we are talking about, not a farm animal like sheep. The mark of any civilised society- the mark of any civilised human being- is to support the halt and the sick and the lame.
He may have misspoke, but I believe he holds such a view, muddled though it is from his own transcript, and I am quite surprised myself he was re-elected.
@Jim Why should humans be treated as cattle? Are you arguing that all animals deserve the same rights as human beings?
It is morally acceptable, at least to me, to euthanise a sheep or a lamb, disabled or not, simply because we are growing them to kill them for food anyway. Allowing them to struggle on without care and assistance to speak of sound crueller than humanely putting them down.
It is not morally acceptable to humanely kill a disabled child precisely because they are human. Different moral and ethical standards apply.
It is morally acceptable, at least to me, to euthanise a sheep or a lamb, disabled or not, simply because we are growing them to kill them for food anyway. Allowing them to struggle on without care and assistance to speak of sound crueller than humanely putting them down.
It is not morally acceptable to humanely kill a disabled child precisely because they are human. Different moral and ethical standards apply.
I'm not really sure what I'm arguing for. Except perhaps that moral standards should certainly not be dictated by economic concerns. If it's the best thing to euthanise a sheep then it should be best for the sheep, and not for our wallet. Similarly for the baby born with a disability. We should keep it alive, or not, because that is the right thing to do.
I think this is a fine example of why free speech is important. He said what he said and is now facing the consequences. I'm sure he will realise now that his remarks were unacceptable to most decent folk and, if nothing else, he has revealed himself as a vile, despicable moron. At least people will have this knowledge about him when he is next up for election.
Better we know than not IMO.
Better we know than not IMO.
chrisgel...The problem is with Mr Brewer is that he made his stupid remarks, resigned from the Council, then stood again, and got elected a second time.
Again I must ask why enough people thought that what he said about putting down disabled children was OK enough to be elected twice ? That the bit I don't understand.
Again I must ask why enough people thought that what he said about putting down disabled children was OK enough to be elected twice ? That the bit I don't understand.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.