Cruelty
Offline ....Okay: Who can honestly claim that they did not laugh at the above video?
Perhaps not happily, I'll admit that had me in fits of laughter (...a few other ones too that came-up during a Skype conversation; I'll avoid posting them all as, while I don't mind damaging my character, completely obliterating it isn't something I'm game for just yet).
Why do we do this? Why do we laugh at such horrendous deformities? I'd like to think that there's more to it than the old mentality of 'putting someone down to make myself feel better', given that I have no contact with the girl in order to put her down yet still found the visage itself funny (for whatever morbid reason). Are certain shapes and distortions just 'funny' to humans, like the emotional evokations of certain sounds? Is there a specific advantage we used to glean from amusing ourselves with the ostracization of the deformed? Is it some combination of the two things?
Moreover... is there a strategy for defeating this kind of reaction? I'm not particularly proud of finding amusement in another's physical deformation (and the 'lulz' comments laid thereupon).
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
In otherwords, you don't like me, so you object to my position.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Gattaca?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
No, you've got it all wrong. It's "and I object..."
But it's not lost on me that you pick out whatever helps you dismiss it as ad hom, thus avoiding a discourse that would demand adapativeness or creativity on your part. Your evasion makes me feel deprived in the same way I do when my shoe misses unseen dog shit.
But I feel the same about you, Kevin, that you do about suffering people. I don't particularly care. I like to argue. But you really are sounding like an asshole with this, and your equally glib and monstrous comments about the New Orleans storm victims. My only solace is that I don't think you have any real courage of your convictions. Though you sound like a sociopath, I think you're just a sheltered and bitter person.
Succinct. Good.
Magilum,
If Hawking could somehow reverse his condition, don't you think he would do so? The fact of the matter is that unless you have deep seated religious convictions, then the pro-choice stance heavily favors abortion as the choice for couples on the grounds of an infant being born deformed or disabled. I have read countless articles on the joys of raising a child with Down Syndrome and how they would enrich parents lives. Down Syndrome children are very kind and giving. They reflect our highest moral standards. How could any parent choose to abort a child with Down's? And those Down Syndrome advocates (who are extremely Christian) carelessly don't mention the following:
1. Congenital heart defects
2. Early dementia
3. Blood dyscrasias
4. Atlanto-occipital dislocation (essentially hanging without a noose)
5. Moya Moya syndrome ie. predisposed to recurrent strokes
And many more....
And add to this, little chance for marriage or a normal life. The Hawking argument IMO is not convincing.
You do realize that, unless I am severly mis-informed of sexual anatomy, homosexual couples cannot produce children right?
I actually had a friend in high school with a physical deformity (both his hands..). Haven't seen him since I graduating (I was two years older than him..) but he was a funny guy and I liked being around him.
I have a speech impairment (I used to sound like a female Daffy Duck..) It's better now (I still have trouble with 's' and 'r' sounds..) Yeah people laughed and imitated my voice, people also thought I was extremely weird, but I never wanted to kill myself.
I would just rail them in the testicles and say 'Now who talks funny mother fucker?'. No, I actually didn't but I wanted to.
I had some friends in high school, they liked me as a person.
Granted that it may not be as severe as other deformities but still.
I don't think I would date anyone period.
You seemed to suggest that social interaction and getting laid (which I don't engage in..) as something to be desired concepts I am not familar with. I never desired either.
would it be epic lulz?
Are we still talking about snuffing it? It'd be great if we could fix genetic predispositions before they become an issue, though this does introduce elective artificialities which could, if abused, reduce genetic diversity.
I'm not agreeing with them, just saying it's their prerogative, not mine, to decide whether they're happy with the situation. Just as it's the concern of the individual to decide whether they're happy or not. Your list is wasted on me.
A similar argument has been made against abortion (e.g. "an aborted fetus could have been the next JFK"
. But to say that it's unconvincing toward depriving women of reproductive rights isn't to say it's absolutely wrong, just that it's treating the exception as the rule. But, under the circumstances, the fact remains we'd be deprived of many cool people if we snuffed them based on pedigree alone. My concern is if genetic alteration or eugenics become a routine. The potentialities of an ideologically informed genome bothers me.
Ostensibly, this idea sounds pleasant. It appears to be an excellent idea in the same way that instantly making the entire Earth one country seems good. I don't want to sound like a paranoid, end-of-the-world theorist, but perhaps we are missing a line of inquiry here. What about the long term implications of this? If we commenced aborting all fetuses that are deformed or disabled, what do you suppose might happen? Please define: deformed. Define: disabled
After all, don't stop the list there, what about a baby that has/will have...
- Sickle Cell Anemia?
- Mental Retardation?
- All cancers and autoimmune diseases?
- Missing a limb? (missing a hand? A finger?!?!)
- Allergies.
Certainly, there are situations where euthanizing the individual in question is the best decision. However, if we take this route much further, I would hope that humanity establishes a place to draw the line.
{MOD EDIT: QUOTES}
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
There does not appear to be any mechanism by which the entity in picture one could breathe.
PS Magilum: Only higher level mods can access the mod logs. They are not public domain. Even if you were editing Kevin's posts, he wouldn't know unless he was told. So, the mods still retain power of arbitration. They can do as they wish. The only possible reason we would have to consult the mod logs is if we recieved complains of post destruction or random thread deletions.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Just to expand here a tad:
* This topic was actually born out of a conversation I had in Skype with a few regulars here, and was - incidentally - not even sparked by me. I just thought it would be fun to open it to the forums. The 'ballsy move for pathetics loners' was initially made by a pair of members who certainly have none of my current problems with isolation / social self-mutilation.
...Says the fellow who came trotting-in and began their content-free lulzor diatribe?
Oh, wait. I forgot. You're proud about your double-standards.
What 'discourse' is there to evade, by chance? I asked you for an argument, if you'll recall, and you refused to present one. Apparently w'ere to have an argument on how much I suck, or the volume of lulz that've been brought, or what a dweebish loner I am, or something.
So I struck I nerve with my insensitivity toward people with the breathtaking stupidity required to set-up a home in the footprint of hurricanes, I guess? Given that my criticism was largely centered around those screaming for sympathy and aid after the fact, I don't see what 'strength of conviction' would be required on my part to be apathetic to their plight, but whatever.
My 'sheltered' life has involved on one occassion walking home from work to find blood from a dismembered murder victim having seeped through my apartment ceiling and pooled on my bathroom floor, being jumped and mugged on my way home from doing canvassing for Plan Canada, running for Town Council when I lived in Sylvan Lake, right out of high school (didn't even come close to winning a seat; I scored just over a hundred votes, and it was a rather charged municpal election), while living with punk-rocker roomates attempting to start a music career (whom eventually formed 'The Smash'n'Grab Ladies' and 'The Scurvies', both of which I believe are defunct. For now, anyway).
My 'bitterness' was apparently no bar against my ACE certification these past weeks fo teaching English as a Second Language (a certification I intend to apply over in South Korea), my ability to find 40 sponsors over 14 days (earning 'Rookie of the Month' in the canvassing firm I worked for) for Plan Canada or my ability to maintain a friendship at one time strained over a large ($500.00; substantial at the time, just a year outside of high school) debt that was owed.
But, no doubt you've got some side-splitting lulz counter-punch, so why hold you up any longer.
Let's hear it, maggie.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
His views are hypothetical. *WINX0RS*
They can and do procreate, however. Moreover, you'll note that many (most?) homosexual couples also exhibit the desire to have a family and so either adopt or undergo artificial insemination (sp?).
Did you date him?
In otherwords, it still made you bitter. And consider, Cap'n, how minor a deformity that is in comparison to, say, having a deformed face like the unfortunate girl in the second video I posted.
Cap'n, if that's actually true, it's anomalous. If you're as well read as you imply (you have read Selfish Gene, correct?), you should know that. People (well, animals in general) are all about getting laid / procreating.
I don't know. The private conversation in question is one about me asking for dating advice, and not contradictory to te sentiment I expressed in the quote maggie isolated.
Would the confidential conversation you and Hamby had be epic lulz?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Perhaps they'll rescue your thread.
Regarding what? Was it a request, or your usual whining?
Thanks for your self-serving and one-dimensional appraisal. There was a bit more to that thread.
Right, all about you, either bragging or whining, and none of which appears relevant to the topics handled most glibly.
Canadian punk... hehe.
Hopefully provincial girls still want North American citizenship, amirite.
That's a bizarre assortment of statements to which I should feel what now?
I only mentioned it for effect, DG. I have no intention of doing something to his posts that would only be redundant.
I did, however, fuck with David Mabus's thread. Because, well... there's no reason not to.
Do the prospects of our ideologically based economies, laws, markets, food production, educational institutes, etc, bother you as well, then? What about the process of natural selection, which is largely based on genetic 'ideology'?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Either you're deliberately obscuring the point, or you're an AI descending the uncanny valley.
That, or you refuse to present an argument because your interest here is to insult me rather than actually have a discussion.
But anyway...
DG: The image, amazingly enough, is not a fake. It's a picture of Jose Mestre (as Jill already pointed-out), who refused treatment for his tumor (resulting in it's growth across his face).
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I do recall saying I have no desire to date anyone. So no.
People get made fun of all the time. It's called life. Come on people never made fun of you? People made fun of the guy with the deformed hands. He just made some smartass comment. He seemed like a happy person.
And maybe I am just a bitter person in general. After all, I'm rarely snarky/snide/sarcastic.
No, I've never read the Selfish Gene. The only Dawkins book I have is The God Delusion which I will get to after I finish the other books on my list.
And I'm not an idiot that I think that other people don't want social interaction, my point was that you can live a life without it. That people shouldn't be forced to it.
I was more social in high school, but soon lost interest.
Yes, he submitted himself to Christ and promised a thread of repentance and asking of forgiveness for spreading the Satanist lies of evolution.
It should show up soon.
At least you're consistent in your willingness to distort.
No, it isn't!
Personal freedom means that one can decide for him or herself what the purpose of life is and what goals they'll try to achieve. Of course, there are numerous problems with deformity, as your examples show life can be cruel and harsh.
However, we should never decide that the value of life can be quantitively measured since it cannot be objectively measured. Suggesting killing people because they do not meet your standards of what life should be like, is quite scary.
Some 75 years ago a Austrian Painter had simular ideas to end all suffering by "weeding out" those who did not meet his view of a perfect nation. Murdering those who had no place in this nation was the final solution to the problem of social unrest..
Of course I have no intention to compare you to Hitler, I'm just trying to state this as an example of the dangers involved.
Euthanasia should only be allowed if it's a personal choice of an individual to end his own life and only if it's to avoid suffering without relief. It should not be a tool to cause suffering, neither should it be an easily accessable escape-route for people with mental problems.
"I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them."
- Galileo Galilei -
Uh-huh. So, looking back through this thread and seeing that every single one of your posts involves taking a jab at me and perhaps 2 or 3 have content appropriate to the topic, that doesn't jive with this...
...At all?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I'm absolutely insulting you, but that doesn't explain why you ignore the content you admit is there. Just because I think you're a petty, selfish worm, and beneath all contempt, doesn't mean I've lost the topic. What's confusing is how you can say you think people should be put to sleep if they don't fit your standard of adequacy (and therefore can neither be valued, or find value), while getting distracted by a few swipes at your weak and awful character. Wanting people to die usually trumps rudeness, but hey, I'm not Canadian, so maybe that's N/A.
You said that it should be allowed as a personal choice to avoid suffering without relief. Someone who's made the decision to die over emotional and mental health issues is seeking that very thing. Why the double standard?
Given availability of mental health services (which are currently scarce and often not available to folks with debilitating mental health issues) to treat those who haven't actually reached "suicidal", what would be wrong with assisted suicide for those who would succeed at ending their own life anyway?
"Human life is precious" is not innate. It extends from our personal instinct to survive and tacit social agreement not to slaughter one another as a survival tactic. For some, life is distilled suffering and we're not currently able to do much for them. Life is not so precious that it's necessary to force them to suffer for it. Because of that, I can no more advocate forcing someone to live than I can advocate forcing someone to die.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Unless I'm mistaken, you're implying that those couples who decide to abort a fetus on the grounds of severe deformity are engaging a cultural stance that is a slippery slope to the Nazi death camps? I would ask everyone on this post whether I stated killing anyone. If you perceive abortion of an in utero pregnancy as killing then you condemn all those women as murderers when they terminate a pregnancy after prenatal diagnostic testing. Your argument is the anti-thesis of personal freedom. If a woman does not want to give birth to deformed child she is expressing her freedom of choice and self-righteous individuals such as yourself who are in no rush to marry someone who is deformed and retarded would place that woman on a spectrum that includes Adolf Hitler. I think the the rightwing fascist fundies would love you!!
Might I be so bold as to interject, good citizens?
I wonder, sir, on what experimental evidence to you base your behavioral hypothesis? You seem rather certain as to how you would behave in this given situation, and I am curious as to whence you have procured said certainty.
Um...
Several observations
1) This is the stupidest argument I've seen between Mag and Kev, and that's saying a lot. Couldn't you guys just get a room and be done with it?
2) What the fuck are you talking about, mag? Epic Lulz in private forum? Where might that be?
3) Pineapple, you need to get over this idea you seem to have that I give a damn about making you look bad.
4) Does anyone here even know what the topic is anymore?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I've never said anything that resembles that in this thread.
Good question, it would seem that I do have a double standard. However, I do not think that I have, please allow me to explain.
What I meant with this part, isn't that people with mental problems or disorders should not be allowed access to euthanasia. I meant that it should not be an easily accessable escape-route.
I believe that we as a society, should protect those that are in need of help. It's obvious that an 8 year old kid should not be allowed the option of euthanasia if he's heart-broken because his lolly fell into the river. However, those who are in excruciating mental or physical pain or discomfort should have the option of a painless death.
Nothing wrong with that. The point I was trying to make in the previous post as well as this one is that I believe that euthanasia should be allowed, but with restrictions. What those restrictions should be, well, I haven't really figured that one out yet, but I'm working on that.
Euthanasia should not become a solution to the mental problems and disorders that some people have, it should be an option to end suffering. It would be a shame if people threw their life away because they thought they had no other option then euthanasia. In that case I really don't see it as a choice anymore.. then it would be an escape-route.
So basically I'm arguing that euthanasia is more than just an individual's right it's also a responsibility for society.
Exactly, that is precisely why I believe that euthanasia should be available because the individual should have the option to end life (and thereby suffering). It's not for me to decide wether one should live or die. However, it's also a responsibility of society to provide more alternatives then just ending life, such as available mental health services.
@Jillswift,
Thank you for your response, it made me think about my argumentation which is always a good thing!
"I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them."
- Galileo Galilei -
Well, quite frankly you are mistaken.
In my opinion, you're stating that you believe that it would be best if the man in the picture and (deformed) people like him were aborted before birth. That's quite a statement to make don't you think?
It could be just me, but isn't that weighing the life of deformed people as less valuable then those who are not deformed? In your eyes there are people who are worthy of living and those who are not based on physical fitness? You state that because they will never be able to have a "normal" social life they are less valuable, not even worthy enough to live.
Isn't that the start or a stationpost on a very slippery road to fascism? I clearly stated that I did not want to compare anyone to Hitler, the reason I added the "Austrian Painter" is simple: Hitler wasn't born a judgemental fascist. He became one by being self-centered and intolerant towards others.
What about people who are incapable of having normal social relationships for other reasons?
Even more so, couples who decide to abort a fetus on the basis of severe physical deformity have every right to do so. I don't think that I wrote that abortion is the same as killing, it's the right of the individual to decide the value of life, and couples have every right to abort a fetus on whatever reason they please.
"I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them."
- Galileo Galilei -
So, I really don't see the difference in our positions. All I stated was that abortion on the grounds of deformity is an act of kindness as a personal opinion. I'm sure that many people feel the same way. It is the notion that a parent who does not want any potential suffering for a potential life (unless you regard a fetus identical to an infant after birth). Even you don't want your child to be born with a single eye situated below his/her nose (a condition called Trisomy 13). Furthermore, that child will only live for up to 10 days after birth. Practically 100% of women opt for abortion in this case. This is far, far different from what you are alluding to which is eugenics which is imposed elimination of a phenotype that is deemed inferior typically by a totalitarian government.
None of the disfigured individuals seen on all the images posted are in any way inferior to me or anyone. I merely stated that abortion is a justifiable compassionate means for a woman to prevent the realistic possibility that her disfigured unborn will endure a life of suffering. That is all I was implying. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this stance. If an atheist has moral qualms over this, then I'd like to here a reasoned secular stance and not an emotional sermon.
If atheists can give me a rational secular argument as to why it is in the best interest of the child to be born severely deformed and retarded, I'd like to here it. But if you give me statements like "the slippery slope to Nazism" or the religious equivalent of "we're all God's children and all life is precious" then you're statements are a strawman for the very reasons I have stated above.
So I ask you MeshaM, Pineapple. How is aborting a fetus who will be born with cyclopia morally equivalent to the Jews being sent to the gas chambers? Can you give me a rational answer?
First I'm not the one that said the 'slippery slop to Nazism'.
Second, another issue I have is that you just compared a condition that the baby will die 10 days after birth, in that case I see no reason to carry on the pregnancy.
But you're comparing apples and oranges.
I don't think that people will not be socially integrated or getting laid is a good indication of whether or not somebody should live.
Would you date a girl that sounded like Daffy Duck?
Notice what Kevin said about the guy with the deformed hands? He asked if I would have dated him. He was a happy person and had more friends than me, yet if he couldn't get a date, than that would have been what mattered.
The point is that you shouldn't decide if a life is worth living, it's the person living the life that does.
Wait... why's that again?
What Would Kharn Do?
I find women of a variety of shapes, sizes and voices to be attractive. And yes, if I was single, even if a woman sounded like Daffy Duck I would date her if there is any chemistry between me and her. My current squeeze has a peculiar laugh and I hope we'll live to see our grandkids.
I hope you fully understand that I am referring to termininating a pregnancy and am not referring to a "living person." Unless of course you think that a developing fetus is a "living person" capable of deciding whether it wishes to live or die. If you do, then please prove it. In the absence of a developed nervous system let alone a mind, this is simply not possible.
Women who have abortions decide if a life is worth living. It's called being pro-choice. Why shouldn't a woman have the choice to decide if that "life" should live? Why do you think it is morally wrong for a woman to abort a fetus because it is severely disfigured? Are you against abortion in this circumstance? What if the abortion took place at the moment of conception and it was known in advance that the developing fetus would have a genetic defect to cause a severe disfigurment? Would you therefore be against abortion of a fertilized ovum in this circumstance if it's a woman's choice? Can you give me a rational explanation why?
Or let's take the argument one step further. What if a couple both harbor an autosomal recessive gene that causes a severely disfiguring disorder if a child inherits the gene from both parents. That is, there is a 25% chance that their offspring will develop that disorder. The couple therefore chooses not to have children of their own and that they may pursue adoption. Do you have moral qualms with this couple?
Speaking as a former fetus I can truthfully say that I would have preferred to have been aborted.