{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/23/2017 11:07:23 AM
28
As much as I agree with what you're saying in this post, I find it hard to take seriously because of the author.
So tell me - why is one form of discrimination wrong, and yet others are perfectly fine?
English
-
Edited by LiamCDM: 6/24/2017 4:42:25 AMI have never said discrimination is ever right, but nice try at slander. [spoiler]If you're hinting at my well established belief that the rich should pay more taxes than the poor, that is not discrimination, that is making sure everyone has a chance to succeed in society. They are not being jailed, harassed or threatened for being who they are. If you're hinting at my views on disability, I do not believe the disabled should have less rights than the able bodied, (especially since I AM disabled), I just don't buy into the myth that for example I as an autistic individual, am equal genetically or as a person to a non-disabled person. Does that mean I deserve to have less rights? Absolutely not. Sadly in our world some people are superior than others, and some are inferior to others. That's merely a position taken from an objective standpoint, and hardly is controversial to a rational person. [/spoiler]
-
Edited by Ghostmime: 6/24/2017 9:05:00 AM[quote]I just don't buy into the myth that for example I as an autistic individual, am equal genetically or as a person to a non-disabled person.[/quote] Is racism not the belief that one's own race is superior to all others? This is the same, just with the disabled instead. [quote]That's merely a position taken from an objective standpoint, and hardly is controversial to a rational person.[/quote] It's not objective. Who determines worth? Certainly not you, I, nor any other human being. Edit: fixed formatting.
-
Well no. Race and disability are two different concepts. Race itself isn't very important in society and only is so because of racism. The disabled are objectively inferior to the able bodied, as they are unable to do things the able bodied can. Again I will reiterate that this doesn't mean I think the disabled should have less rights or anything of the sort, but it is a falsehood to believe all life is of equal value. Would you rather have an intelligent, physically fit child, or would you rather have an autistic child with various learning disabilities and physical limitations?
-
[quote]Well no. Race and disability are two different concepts. Race itself isn't very important in society and only is so because of racism.[/quote] You know exactly what I meant by that comment, so don't pretend to be an idiot. [quote]The disabled are objectively inferior to the able bodied, as they are unable to do things the able bodied can.[/quote] This is in no way exclusive to disabled vs able bodied. Can Stephen King sing? Can Liam Neeson dance? It doesn't make those people inferior. [quote]Again I will reiterate that this doesn't mean I think the disabled should have less rights or anything of the sort,[/quote] Except you fully believe all disabled people should be euthanised. Is life not a right? [quote]but it is a falsehood to believe all life is of equal value.[/quote] I'll ask again because you ignored me - who determines that value? [quote]Would you rather have an intelligent, physically fit child, or would you rather have an autistic child with various learning disabilities and physical limitations?[/quote] I wouldn't give a shit, because every single person has strengths and weaknesses. Would you rather have a disabled child who goes on to be a scientist, or an able bodied child who goes on to murder hundreds?
-
No I don't. Quit assuming. It should be an option for the familes of disabled children to make that decision. Objective reality. It's a fact that not every life is of equal value. It's common sense. My closing sentence in my last post confirms that. To adress your last point, I don't know the future. I'm not an oracle. However just as a woman can with abortion, a family should be able to euthanize their disabled children.
-
Edited by Ghostmime: 6/25/2017 10:47:02 AM[quote]No I don't. Quit assuming.[/quote] More lies. You have said in the past that the life of someone with a disability is worthless because, in your own words, "they sap money out of the goverment and don't give anything to society." [quote]It should be an option for the familes of disabled children to make that decision.[/quote] No, it shouldn't. Would you also give them that option for a child that is rude to people? You shouldn't be allowed to just kill someone because you don't like them. [quote]Objective reality.It's a fact that not every life is of equal value. It's common sense.[/quote] I have addressed this point three times and you still haven't explained your own beliefs on it. Also: [quote] My closing sentence in my last post confirms that. [/quote] No it doesn't. [quote]To adress your last point, I don't know the future. I'm not an oracle. However just as a woman can with abortion, a family should be able to euthanize their disabled children.[/quote] Again, you knew exactly what I was saying with that point, so again, don't pretend to be an idiot. Edit: this was the closing sentence on your last post: [quote]Would you rather have an intelligent, physically fit child, or would you rather have an autistic child with various learning disabilities and physical limitations?[/quote] How does this "confirm" shit?
-
Edited by LiamCDM: 6/25/2017 12:20:42 PMThey do, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have rights. It isn't because they "don't like them." It's the same as pulling the plug on someone in a vegetative state or aborting a fetus with a birth defect. It has the potential to save the financial situations of many citizens, alongside ending the suffering of both them and many disabled individuals. I have? No you didn't. Assuming what I know is not an argument. At best it is a sophist approach to one. It confirms that not all life is inherently equal. Everyone should have equal rights, but that doesn't make everyone equal in worth to one another. A less controversial example could be that a Nobel Laurate scientist with a PhD from Harvard is superior to a working class person in the Rust Belt. One is a world class academic and thinker that has contributed so much to their field, that they were given the most prestigious award on the planet, whereas the latter example is merely an average Joe.
-
[quote]It confirms that not all life is inherently equal. Everyone should have equal rights, but that doesn't make everyone equal in worth to one another. A less controversial example could be that a Nobel Laurate scientist with a PhD from Harvard is superior to a working class person in the Rust Belt. One is a world class academic and thinker that has contributed so much to their field, that they were given the most prestigious award on the planet, whereas the latter example is merely an average Joe.[/quote] I'm ignoring everything but this paragraph because your format is so frustrating to follow. You've all but admitted here that the important thing is what someone does, and not what they are, so why is it so hard for you to admit it elsewhere? There is absolutely no reason why someone with a disability cannot achieve something, and it is only because of the attitudes of people like you that they feel they can't even try. Most of the best workers on the planet are autistic. If you are autistic as you say, you would know this. You'd also know that Albert Einstein, Michael Jackson, Bill Gates and probably more famous thinkers and creators had autism. So why should a foetus with autism be aborted? More importantly, why should an already living individual be killed, just for having autism? You haven't confirmed anything except you don't know what you're talking about. There is no objective worth or value - just admit you're wrong, or give an actual reason and actual proof.
-
Edited by LiamCDM: 6/26/2017 9:20:26 AMI never singled out autism exclusively, but disability in general. However on the subject of the Autism spectrum, there is a significant fraction of them that are low functioning and almost completely non-functional. This is the prime reason why I do not exclude Autism from the equation here. I have provided facts, however you have chosen to ignore them. My main argument on this front has been very clear: the disabled are genetically inferior to the non-disabled by the very nature of disability. This is a fact. A person with Down Syndrome is demonstrably inferior to a person absent genetic or chromosomal defects. You have yet to try to refute this, and instead use blatant appeals to emotion and at times pure sophistry as a substitute to an actual logical argument.
-
[quote]I never singled out autism exclusively, but disability in general.[/quote] I know that. Again - don't pretend to be an idiot. It's obvious you have some intellugence, so stop making these idiotic points. [quote]However on the subject of the Autism spectrum, there is a significant fraction of them that are low functioning and almost completely non-functional. This is the prime reason why I do not exclude Autism from the equation here.[/quote] As far as I'm aware, it's nigh impossible to tell the difference until they're much older than a baby, maybe around 4 years it would become clear they have autism - so about 6 you could tell the difference. Besides, what is "non-functional"? They're not catatonic. [quote]I have provided facts, however you have chosen to ignore them.[/quote] Again, don't pretend to be an idiot. I didn't ask for facts in my last post. I asked for proof and explanation. [quote]My main argument on this front has been very clear: the disabled are genetically inferior to the non-disabled by the very nature of disability. This is a fact. A person with Down Syndrome is demonstrably inferior to a person absent genetic or chromosomal defects.[/quote] I -blam!-ing know. This is the point I have repatedly asked you to explain and prove, and you have yet to do so. [quote]You have yet to try to refute this, and instead use blatant appeals to emotion and at times pure sophistry as a substitute to an actual logical argument.[/quote] *cough* hypocrite *cough*
-
How about you stop making assumptions? I'm aware of the age; hence euthanasia. What I mean by non-functional is when a child with severe autism cannot speak, has profound learning disabilities, has violent outburst and the list continues. If I knew I was to live such a life, rather than having the mild functioning state I am in now, I'd want to be euthanized, Again, quit making assumptions. Facts are a form of proof, and I have done more than enough explanation, but you seem to be too caught up in appeals to emotion and fallacious reasoning to see this. I already have. Disability is by definition, a form of inferiority, as a disability is a condition which impedes or completely prevents certain actions that the rest of the population can do. The proof is directly within the definition of disability itself. I'm not the one trying to sander my opponent through blatant assumptions, so...
-
I've only made one assumption during this conversation - that you're not an idiot. I'm willing to accept it was wrong. OR - you can start explaining your point properly, and answer my damn question. What. Determines. Worth?
-
Worth is determined by what an individual can produce and contribute to society. This is why a NASA scientist for example has more worth than probably 99.9% of the population, whereas a non-functioning disabled person is not contributing anything to society and therefore should be euthanized: similar to how a pet is put down.
-
[quote]Worth is determined by what an individual can produce and contribute to society. This is why a NASA scientist for example has more worth than probably 99.9% of the population, whereas a non-functioning disabled person is not contributing anything to society and therefore should be euthanized: similar to how a pet is put down.[/quote] First of all - thank you for [i]finally[/i] answering my question and explaining your point. However, as I've already addressed, the disabled can, do and will continue to provide for society. Plus, what counts for "providing" is subjective as well as objective. Also, why should the disabled be punished for, according to your values, not providing, when there are able bodied people who also do not provide, according to your values.
-
Those who are able bodied can still provide to society. If they don't, that's their choice. However the severely disabled cannot produce anything to society. I've been in special needs classes for well over a decade. They drool, babble, cannot walk, and go to group homes to live out their lives at the expense of others. This pathetic scenario is why euthanasia should be a option for the families to decide.
-
Again, what counts as providing is subjective. Also, "living at the expense at others" should not be a valid excuse for killing someone. If I had killed my childhood bullies, would that be justified? As long as people still outlaw killing murderers - so too should they outlaw killing innocents, surely.
-
Well no, it isn't subjective. What you can produce for society is an objective measure of worth. How have you contributed to your society and your economy through activism and labour? The severely disabled cannot do any of that, sadly.
-
It is subjective though, whether you want to admit it or not. You say scientists are the most important people on the planet. A large group of people would agree, but a very large group of people (particularly evident in the American users here) say soldiers are the most important. Both of these groups of people provide for society in very different ways. Then there are bankers, politicians, emergency services workers. What about artists - painters, authors, musicians? They provide in different ways again. None of these groups of people give less than any others, therefore, their worth is subjective, as the quantity they provide is subjective. Besides, claiming that level of intelligence is correlational with worth is as ridiculous as claiming level of physical strength is.
-
I never said scientists being the most important is an objective fact. However in my mind every profession, every job, every career is important, but not equally important.
-
That seems like a contradiction.
-
No it isn't.
-
You did say that NASA scientists are more important than 98% of the population. You also said that it isn't subjective as to who has more worth than who. You've since said both of those things are untrue. I think you need to figure out what you believe before engaging in such controversial discussions.
-
Now you're just making things up. Every profession is important, but not equally important. Professions that advance the human race, like scientists, are among the most important by far. However that doesn't make all other professions worthless.
-
This discussion is pointless, because you deny everything you said and are very closed minded. I'm going to hold it off until you can admit your claims instead of denying them. Enjoy having the last word.
-
Edited by LiamCDM: 6/29/2017 12:58:09 PMThat isn't an argument. Facts are facts. They don't care about your feelings, nor your subjective view of demomstrably inferior individuals.
