flumpy
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 385
Joined: Mar 27, 2009
|
#106 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 4:55 am
|
shasarak said:
But the severity of the problem is entirely irrelevant, anyway. If you find it easier to understand as an analogy, then ask yourself: what is the moral distinction between deliberately conceiving a deaf child and taking a child with normal hearing and deliberately causing it to become deaf?
Quite frankly, that depends on how any one individual would view deafness. You are entirely missing my point.. You are right, "how deaf" is entirely irrelevant, but you cannot decide that it is morally wrong for someone else. You do not know how they perceive being deaf, and it would be entirely wrong to make that decision for someone else no matter what your views are. For you, it is lonely and isolating. For some, it may define them as a person and they may even see it as a positive trait.
shasarak said:You presumably accept that the latter is a form of genuine abuse? Presumably you wouldn't be comfortable with two people looking after a child if their idea of childcare was to deliberately and irreparably damage its hearing?
There is an entire world of difference between going naturally deaf (even if it was avoidable) and forcing something into someones ear to make them deaf. Surely you are not drawing a comparison?
shasarak said:
What you then have to ask is how much useful difference there is between making a child deaf on purpose and making a child deaf through negligence. I am actually willing to accept that injuring someone through negligence may be less bad than doing it on purpose, but negligence still implies culpability. I don't feel that people who cause a child to become deaf through their own negligence should be allowed to get away with it.
Again this would depend on how you would view deafness. If you see it as a massive detrimental trait, then yes, fine. If you see it as being a good thing, even a defining trait, then no.
shasarak said:
flumpy said:What I object to, and what it seems everyone else here also objects to, is that someone could have the right to tell me that I cannot have a deaf or otherwise disabled child.
No one is suggesting that.
yes, that is what you are suggesting...
shasarak said:
But there is a world of difference between being a person who wants to care for the disabled and being a person who actively wants people to become disabled so that they can care for them. The first of those things is admirable, the second is an abomination that should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
I think I see some of your point. It is a fine line, there is no world of difference. If the parents are willing to accept blind (no pun intended) fate then generally its ok. If they want a deaf child then that affliction is not actually *that* bad. If they want the child to be disabled terribly as to cause the child pain and suffering, then perhaps no. But that is their decision, not ours or yours. You cannot tell them "no", it is not your right.
shasarak said:
(It is also, incidentally, a profound misconception to imagine that adhering to a eugenic philosophy means that the value of a disabled person's life will somehow be diminished. It isn't. It's simply seen as desirable to prevent people from becoming disabled wherever possible.)
And how would you make the decision, on a general basis, that these unborn disabled children would not have any positive effect on society? You cannot. That is a decision to be made by the individual.
|
Last edited Jun 27, 2009, 7:32 am by flumpy
|
|
Igabod
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 969
Joined: Jul 23, 2008
|
#107 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 5:14 am
|
This thread has nothing on that evolution thread I am responsible for starting. At least in that thread nearly everybody took the debate seriously and provided some insightful contributions to the debate. I kinda gave up reading this thread back on page 4 when someone (DH maybe? I forgot already) mentioned the evolution thread. I think this thread has changed topics a couple times at least and therefore I lost interest when it became a "Scandum is an idiot" thread.
I'm still proud of how that evolution thread went. 300+ posts and 21 pages with very little arguing and plenty debating is indeed a spectacular feat on any forum.
|
.........................  Join the rest of the Dark Warriors in the struggle to be the greatest.
Bored?? Click THIS and you too can build your own mini city.
Every man has his follies, and often they are the most interesting thing he has got - Josh Billings
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. - Albert Einstein
I have a love interest in every one of my films... a gun. - Arnold Schwarzenegger
Recession is when a neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. - Ronald Reagan
I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me. - Fred Allen
|
|
flumpy
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 385
Joined: Mar 27, 2009
|
#108 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 6:04 am
|
Igabod said:This thread has nothing on that evolution thread I am responsible for starting. At least in that thread nearly everybody took the debate seriously and provided some insightful contributions to the debate. .....
I'm still proud of how that evolution thread went. 300+ posts and 21 pages with very little arguing and plenty debating is indeed a spectacular feat on any forum.
Amen to that, so to speak ;) It was a very insightful and interesting thread. This one is not so good I agree.
Igabod said:
I kinda gave up reading this thread back on page 4 when someone (DH maybe? I forgot already) mentioned the evolution thread. I think this thread has changed topics a couple times at least and therefore I lost interest when it became a "Scandum is an idiot" thread.
Did anyone say he was an idiot? His views are slightly to the extreme and based on quackery - which is what I disagree with. However he is perfectly entitled to think whatever he likes. Just expect people to react to extreme views with, well, extreme reactions..
|
|
|
aidil
Magician
Group: Members
Posts: 73
Joined: Feb 9, 2009
|
#109 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 7:19 am
|
shasarak said:
Presumably you're not deaf, and therefore have no idea how profoundly isolating it is, even no idea of the sense of loss involved at no longer being able to properly listen to the kind of music I enjoy.
The glass is half empty vs the glass is half full.
I'm not deaf, I am however visually impaired, not blind, but 'bad' enough to not be able to drive a car, needing some provisions to be able to use a computer, not being able to watch movies in a cinema, more annoyingly, not being able to recognize people untill they are really close.
I'm also not the only one in my family with such a condition, and there is a genetic component to it.
So, I could look at everything I can't do because of this, but, I can also look at what I have and make good use of that. Your 'usefulness' doesn't depend on what you can't do, but on how well you do the things you can do.
Anyway, if I follow you, it would have been better if you, me, certain members of my family and presumably your family would never have been born.
That is what you are saying, right?
|
|
|
Tyche
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,059
Joined: May 23, 2006
|
#110 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 7:25 am
|
Igabod said:This thread has nothing on that evolution thread I am responsible for starting.
I find it notable that those arguing for evolution on that thread are arguing for intelligent design on this thread. ;-)
|
.........................   
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
|
|
aidil
Magician
Group: Members
Posts: 73
Joined: Feb 9, 2009
|
#111 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 7:41 am
|
Tyche said:Igabod said:This thread has nothing on that evolution thread I am responsible for starting.
I find it notable that those arguing for evolution on that thread are arguing for intelligent design on this thread. ;-)
*lol*
I'm afraid the intelligent component may need some discussion.
Igabod said:
I'm still proud of how that evolution thread went. 300+ posts and 21 pages with very little arguing and plenty debating is indeed a spectacular feat on any forum.
Amen to that.
|
|
|
Sandi
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 622
Joined: Jun 17, 2006
|
#112 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 8:41 am
|
"Scandum is an idiot"? Asocial by choice or compulsion, perhaps, but hardly an idiot. It's just that when his teacher wrote home, "Plays well with others.", she meant he was using them as toys. 
|
......................... The Witch of Tir na nOg
www.tnnmud.com
tnnmud.com 6789
|
|
Chris Bailey
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 499
Joined: Sep 13, 2008
|
#113 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 9:55 am
|
lol @ Sandi
I just don't understand why people can't stop from interfering. These extremely complicated and difficult to understand and/or implement programs would occur naturally if every aspect of it were left completely alone. That doesn't mean leaving it the way it is now, it means removing programs currently in place that interfere and then allowing nature to take it's course. Our design, regardless of how it came to be, is very well implemented. It can govern itself.
|
......................... If what Proust says is true, that happiness is the absence of fever, then I will never know happiness. For I am possessed by a fever for knowledge, experience, and creation.
Quote:[ichat] Twisol@Talon: Do me, do me.
|
|
David Haley
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 5,730
Joined: Jun 30, 2007
|
#114 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 1:23 pm
|
flumpy said:
David Haley said:Note that you can encourage a reduction in the number of children by doing it with carrots and sticks instead of outright forbidding it. You can provide tax breaks to those who have only one child, and fewer tax breaks to those who have "too many" (however many that is).
Isn't that what China does?
wikipedia said:The policy is enforced at the provincial level through fines that are imposed based on the income of the family and other factors. Population and Family Planning Commissions (Chinese: 计划生育委员会) exist at every level of government to raise awareness about the issue and carry out registration and inspection work. Despite this policy, there are still many citizens that continue to have more than one child.
I mean, I just thought it was discouraged to have more than one child. I mean heavily discouraged sure, but only discouraged.
The same wikipedia page talks about forced abortions, infanticide, sterilizations. It's true that the official line in some places is to use incentives and penalties, but the reality doesn't always match. I'm talking about an implementation that doesn't resort to anything beyond straight incentives and penalties at fiscal levels.
Chris Bailey said:These extremely complicated and difficult to understand and/or implement programs would occur naturally if every aspect of it were left completely alone. That doesn't mean leaving it the way it is now, it means removing programs currently in place that interfere and then allowing nature to take it's course. Our design, regardless of how it came to be, is very well implemented. It can govern itself.
Your argument assumes that medicine and other technology in general do not exist to prevent nature from taking its course in the first place. Many centuries ago, people outside the norm of physical ability would be likely to die very young; today such people can live long, healthy lives. It doesn't make sense to speak of "nature correcting itself" in this state. Still, I have a bigger problem with this kind of argument ("nature is best", "let nature do its thing", etc.) because it is usually made by people perfectly happy to use all kind of technology and especially medicine, therefore clearly demonstrating their belief that "the natural way" is in fact not their preference in all things.
The "natural way" is often frankly dangerous. Would you rather that your wife give birth at a hospital or in a bathtub? Some people answer the latter and that is their prerogative I suppose (as long as it's the woman's decision!) but empirically it is quite clear that the vast majority of people would rather avoid or at least mitigate the myriad risks related to child-birth to whatever extent possible.
So really, I don't agree that we can let nature take its course, or that we even should. We have been improving our condition ever since we were able to. That still doesn't mean that a single defect, or even two or three or twenty, suffice to rule out a child as unworthy of life. There is a world of difference between improving and helping on the one hand, and outright denial of life on the other.
|
|
|
aidil
Magician
Group: Members
Posts: 73
Joined: Feb 9, 2009
|
#115 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 2:04 pm
|
David Haley said:Your argument assumes that medicine and other technology in general do not exist to prevent nature from taking its course in the first place. Many centuries ago, people outside the norm of physical ability would be likely to die very young; today such people can live long, healthy lives.
Curiously, this would have given them less or no chance to procreate, yet that didn't weed out people outside the norm of physical ability.
|
|
|
|
|
Kayle
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 979
Joined: Nov 27, 2006
|
#117 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 2:51 pm
|
Why we continue to have these kinds of discussions on a MUD related forum astounds me...
And again...
Drama Llamas
[Edit:] To remove offending apostrophe. ;)
|
......................... Owner/Coder Coder
Malevolent Whispers Star Wars: The Sith Wars
{Development Phase - Not accepting players} Open Alpha - Players Welcome - Full System Re-writes Imminent.
IMC2 Contact: Kayle@MW
FUSS Project Team Lead
SmaugMuds.Org - The Smaug MUDs Community Center
Last edited Jun 27, 2009, 4:02 pm by Kayle
|
|
Chris Bailey
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 499
Joined: Sep 13, 2008
|
#118 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 3:05 pm
|
DH - I was referring explicitly to the topic of limiting the number of dependent people around today, in the same context as I mentioned earlier. I'm not talking about medicine or science. I'm talking about not dumping the burden of unproductive society on productive society. I also have a hard time explaining myself. =)
EDIT: Basically, if we stop taking care of those that can't take care of themselves, they won't be around anymore, or they will learn to take care of themselves.
|
......................... If what Proust says is true, that happiness is the absence of fever, then I will never know happiness. For I am possessed by a fever for knowledge, experience, and creation.
Quote:[ichat] Twisol@Talon: Do me, do me.
Last edited Jun 27, 2009, 3:06 pm by Chris Bailey
|
|
aidil
Magician
Group: Members
Posts: 73
Joined: Feb 9, 2009
|
#119 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 3:38 pm
|
Chris Bailey said:DH - I was referring explicitly to the topic of limiting the number of dependent people around today, in the same context as I mentioned earlier. I'm not talking about medicine or science. I'm talking about not dumping the burden of unproductive society on productive society. I also have a hard time explaining myself. =)
EDIT: Basically, if we stop taking care of those that can't take care of themselves, they won't be around anymore, or they will learn to take care of themselves.
Well, being able to take care of oneself or not is not exactly the same as being a productive member of society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
|
|
|
flumpy
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 385
Joined: Mar 27, 2009
|
#120 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 3:47 pm
|
Chris Bailey said:DH - I was referring explicitly to the topic of limiting the number of dependent people around today, in the same context as I mentioned earlier. I'm not talking about medicine or science. I'm talking about not dumping the burden of unproductive society on productive society. I also have a hard time explaining myself. =)
EDIT: Basically, if we stop taking care of those that can't take care of themselves, they won't be around anymore, or they will learn to take care of themselves.
First reaction: seems a bit inhumane.
Second response; since I really cannot think you mean that we should leave people to die on the streets because they cannot feed themselves is: what exactly do you mean by that and how would it work?
David Haley said:Recessive genes, perhaps...? 
perhaps genetic mutations, as explained by evolution? hang on... here we go again..
|
Last edited Jun 27, 2009, 3:49 pm by flumpy
|
|
