what i saw today

[Peter_Kropotkin]

I was born handicap, hearing loss, and the challenges are great for everyone.
My younger sister still harbors anger toward me because I was always being
taken to one medical appointment after another or to speech therapy. She
has said, I took all my parents time away from her. Her anger was
great enough we didn’t talk for many years. My parents felt guilt and so
I was treated different than the other kids. My older sister who in fact
did cause my hearing loss treated me very badly during childhood.
I can’t say I have ever forgiven her, but I don’t hold it against her
as she was 6 when she gave my mom german measles,
which created the birth defect which caused my hearing loss.
As for me, when I see a similar handicap child, in wheelchair or whatever,
I feel bad because chances are the family is dysfunctional.
no one wins when a child is born handicap and I suspect everyone
knows that. so I think people lie to themselves and call such children
“Special”. No, they are not special, they are extra work and in a real
way, a major, major burden. I wouldn’t wish a handicap child on anyone.

Kropotkin

[Helandhighwater]

@felix dakat

And you, of course, are a connoisseur of fine design that qualifies you to judge the creation or the universe or whatever. You get the final word on it, right? Too bad you didn’t come around until the post-production phase. Then the creator was listening to Sophia, whom we now find out was giving less than hellandhighwater sage advice.

That’s not an argument that’s an ad hominem. You should know better. I don’t get the final word on anything; but meaningless babble that just attacks me personally and not my argument, well that advances nothing. Try again is my advice without just attacking me personally. Couldn’t hurt. If I did that, just attacked someone and not their argument, you would be posting: keep to the topic please and stop making ad hominems or I would throw warnings out, you do it, well you are allowed to get away with it. Please don’t do that again. I am not high and mighty, so show me how my argument is flawed, acting all high and mighty about it just tells us that you are flawed.

This is half the problem with moderation, they just don’t think the rules apply to them when they get in that position, please realise that you are as subject to the rules as anyone else, and don’t throw out ad homs like you are the king of the world. You’re not, people will care more for your position if you realise you should follow the rules more than us. Not less.

[felix_dakat]

@Helandhighwater

That’s not an argument that’s an ad hominem. You should know better. I don’t get the final word on anything; but meaningless babble that just attacks me personally and not my argument, well that advances nothing. Try again is my advice without just attacking me personally. Couldn’t hurt. If I did that, just attacked someone and not their argument, you would be posting: keep to the topic please and stop making ad hominems or I would throw warnings out, you do it, well you are allowed to get away with it. Please don’t do that again. I am not high and mighty, so show me how my argument is flawed, acting all high and mighty about it just tells us that you are flawed.

This is half the problem with moderation, they just don’t think the rules apply to them when they get in that position, please realise that you are as subject to the rules as anyone else, and don’t throw out ad homs like you are the king of the world. You’re not, people will care more for your position if you realise you should follow the rules more than us. Not less.

My argument was directed toward the hubris of your argument. Without more information, there is no basis upon which to criticize nature except an anthropocentric one. The result is a narrow humanism. Without actually knowing how the parents and the intellectually disabled child feel about their situation how can you judge it?

[Helandhighwater]

@felix dakat

@Helandhighwater

That’s not an argument that’s an ad hominem. You should know better. I don’t get the final word on anything; but meaningless babble that just attacks me personally and not my argument, well that advances nothing. Try again is my advice without just attacking me personally. Couldn’t hurt. If I did that, just attacked someone and not their argument, you would be posting: keep to the topic please and stop making ad hominems or I would throw warnings out, you do it, well you are allowed to get away with it. Please don’t do that again. I am not high and mighty, so show me how my argument is flawed, acting all high and mighty about it just tells us that you are flawed.

This is half the problem with moderation, they just don’t think the rules apply to them when they get in that position, please realise that you are as subject to the rules as anyone else, and don’t throw out ad homs like you are the king of the world. You’re not, people will care more for your position if you realise you should follow the rules more than us. Not less.

My argument was directed toward the hubris of your argument. Without more information, there is no basis upon which to criticize nature except an anthropocentric one. The result is a narrow humanism. Without actually knowing how the parents and the intellectually disabled child feel about their situation how can you judge it?

You insulted me personally and frankly it was extremely patronising too and you know it. You should probably not try and worm your way out of it either, I am pretty sure everyone knows what you meant and said, and it was an ad hominem you are suggesting that someone else is more sage than I am and hence their argument carries more weight. at no point did you ever attack my argument either, clearly then my shortcomings are what you find to be the most significant aspect of what I said rather than any detail in what I said or if my argument could stand alone on the basis of its own merits (actually as no doubt everyone is aware the argument is originally Richard Dawkins argument, by which I don’t mean to suggest it has any more or less rigour by being his incidentally).

The other one has bells on you know.

The eternal catch-22 of being a moderator you do fuck up but you are never wrong.

[felix_dakat]

@Helandhighwater

@felix dakat

@Helandhighwater

That’s not an argument that’s an ad hominem. You should know better. I don’t get the final word on anything; but meaningless babble that just attacks me personally and not my argument, well that advances nothing. Try again is my advice without just attacking me personally. Couldn’t hurt. If I did that, just attacked someone and not their argument, you would be posting: keep to the topic please and stop making ad hominems or I would throw warnings out, you do it, well you are allowed to get away with it. Please don’t do that again. I am not high and mighty, so show me how my argument is flawed, acting all high and mighty about it just tells us that you are flawed.

This is half the problem with moderation, they just don’t think the rules apply to them when they get in that position, please realise that you are as subject to the rules as anyone else, and don’t throw out ad homs like you are the king of the world. You’re not, people will care more for your position if you realise you should follow the rules more than us. Not less.

My argument was directed toward the hubris of your argument. Without more information, there is no basis upon which to criticize nature except an anthropocentric one. The result is a narrow humanism. Without actually knowing how the parents and the intellectually disabled child feel about their situation how can you judge it?

You insulted me personally and frankly it was extremely patronising too and you know it. You should probably not try and worm your way out of it either, I am pretty sure everyone knows what you meant and said, and it was an ad hominem you are suggesting that someone else is more sage than I am and hence their argument carries more weight. at no point did you ever attack my argument either, clearly then my shortcomings are what you find to be the most significant aspect of what I said rather than any detail in what I said or if my argument could stand alone on the basis of its own merits (actually as no doubt everyone is aware the argument is originally Richard Dawkins argument, by which I don’t mean to suggest it has any more or less rigour by being his incidentally).

The other one has bells on you know.

The eternal catch-22 of being a moderator you do fuck up but you are never wrong.

Yes well anyone who makes the argument has the same problem and that was the point of my response. But if you insist on seeing it as an ad hom, then put me down in your book as duly warned. You still haven’t responded to it by showing how your argument is anything but arbitrary crap however. Neither you nor Dan knows what the value of those people lives are or what they are suffering or what their joys are. All we have is fucking words in a post. So, accusing me of an ad hom is just your way of dodging the question.

[Hobbes_Choice]

An all powerful , all seeing, all knowing god.
Has to be all responsible.

That includes cancer, mosquitos, earthquakes and butterflies…

The concept is so stupid it pains me to think of it.

[Arcturus_Descending]

@Dan~

I saw two parents today. Their son was born handicapped mentally and physically. Their son was in a wheel chair. I tried not to feel pissed off. I let myself feel sorry for them a bit. I think if they had the power to cure their son they would. If he had the power to not be f-ed he would not want to be f-ed. So the three of them basically lack the power. Do they believe in an all powerful friend up in heaven? I didn’t ask them, but how can someone possibly believe in that shit?

That might depend on the kind of power that you’re talking about.
Perhaps they are much too busy exercising their power within in order to care for their child to care one way or the other about whether or not a god is omnipotent.

If there is a god or something, perhaps omnipotent doesn’t necessarily mean all powerful in all ways but only in some like insuring that gravity continues to do its work or that the sun does not leave its course by even the slightest bit, insuring that we do not freeze to death in a instant.

You have no idea - perhaps they feel better off than you do. You never know. Now that is real power.

[Helandhighwater]

@felix dakat

Yes well anyone who makes the argument has the same problem and that was the point of my response. But if you insist on seeing it as an ad hom, then put me down in your book as duly warned. You still haven’t responded to it by showing how your argument is anything but arbitrary crap however. Neither you nor Dan knows what the value of those people lives are or what they are suffering or what their joys are. All we have is fucking words in a post. So, accusing me of an ad hom is just your way of dodging the question.

Ok seems fair you start by actually addressing what I said instead of me and I will respond by addressing your criticism of my argument rather than me. Is that fair?

Break down my argument for me dude, or rather Richard Dawkin’s, let’s see how the seemingly bad design of nature, it is of course a means that seems to lead to extinction 99.9% of the time, will be broken down by the seeming perfection of Gods creation which should of been right in the first place? I know I am asking you to completely disregard every argument Richard made, but it would be nice if you tackled his points in the first place. We can of course start a thread where we discuss The Blind Watchmaker if you want, but what you did is apologetics for what you did. You were never attacking my argument you were demeaning me and you know it.

In his choice of the title for this book, Dawkins refers to the watchmaker analogy made famous by William Paley in his book Natural Theology. Paley, arguing more than fifty years before Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, held that the complexity of living organisms was evidence of the existence of a divine creator by drawing a parallel with the way in which the existence of a watch compels belief in an intelligent watchmaker. Dawkins, in contrasting the differences between human design and its potential for planning with the workings of natural selection, therefore dubbed evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker.

In order to dispel the idea that complexity cannot arise without the intervention of a “creator”, Dawkins uses the example of the eye. Beginning with a simple organism, capable only of distinguishing between light and dark, in only the crudest fashion, he takes the reader through a series of minor modifications, which build in sophistication until we arrive at the elegant and complex mammalian eye. In making this journey, he points to several creatures whose various seeing apparatus are, whilst still useful, living examples of intermediate levels of complexity.

In developing his argument that natural selection can explain the complex adaptations of organisms, Dawkins’ first concern is to illustrate the difference between the potential for the development of complexity as a result of pure randomness, as opposed to that of randomness coupled with cumulative selection. He demonstrates this by the example of the weasel program. Dawkins then describes his experiences with a more sophisticated computer model of artificial selection implemented in a program also called The Blind Watchmaker, which was sold separately as a teaching aid (open source implementations are currently available,[1] as are more advanced versions of the idea[2]).

The program displayed a two dimensional shape (a “biomorph”) made up of straight black lines, the length, position, and angle of which were defined by a simple set of rules and instructions (analogous to a genome). Adding new lines (or removing them) based on these rules offered a discrete set of possible new shapes (mutations), which were displayed on screen so that the user could choose between them. The chosen mutation would then be the basis for another generation of biomorph mutants to be chosen from, and so on. Thus, the user, by selection, could steer the evolution of biomorphs. This process often produced images which were reminiscent of real organisms for instance beetles, bats, or trees. Dawkins speculated that the unnatural selection role played by the user in this program could be replaced by a more natural agent if, for example, colourful biomorphs could be selected by butterflies or other insects, via a touch sensitive display set up in a garden.
“Biomorph” that randomly evolves following changes of several numeric “genes”, determining its shape. The gene values are given as bars on the top.

In an appendix to a later edition of the book (1996), Dawkins explains how his experiences with computer models led him to a greater appreciation of the role of embryological constraints on natural selection. In particular, he recognized that certain patterns of embryological development could lead to the success of a related group of species in filling varied ecological niches, though he continued to maintain that this should not be confused with the ideas associated with group selection. He dubbed this insight the evolution of evolvability.

After arguing that evolution is capable of explaining the origin of complexity, near the end of the book Dawkins uses this to argue against the existence of God: “a deity capable of engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution … must already have been vastly complex in the first place …” He calls this “postulating organized complexity without offering an explanation.”

In its preface, Dawkins states that he wrote the book “to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian world-view happens to be true, but that it is the only known theory that could, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence.”

There’s his argument, the argument I based mine on, I apologise whole heartedly for plagiarising him although we all knew what I was referring to. Now you attack the actual argument not my divine right to be right. Let’s take it as my argument if you want, but for God’s sake don’t patronise me again and use ad hominems.

If anyone’s argument is arbitrary crap it’s yours, because you threw out an attack on my person instead of attacking my argument, yours is the hubris. Well know you did, it’s now up to you to prove that you can actually tackle the argument as it was made, not just me and my supposed hubris in light of yours. You insulted me and patronised me, you put me down. This is an ad hom we all know what it was intended to be. Attack my argument or don’t but don’t patronise me.

[felix_dakat]

@Helandhighwater

The beauty of discussion sometimes the silliest points provoke the most interesting of arguments. In this case I am not betting on it but that renders the point no less relevant.

I can however not bear to comment on the OP, in as much as the whole subject of some peoples lives being horrible being just how badly humans were designed, if by God he’s worse than a blind watchmaker, if there is a point, it’s get better tools when you are making shit and buy some decent glasses or make some eyes. A bad workman always blames his tools, there is no excuse for what God did, unless he didn’t do it and it was evolution, then it makes sense, things tend to work badly if there’s no designer, just like over 4 billion years half assed trillions of attempts that failed ultimately worked, cause sticking square pegs in round holes will eventually make the hole square. Creationists are mental.

Here’s your argument again. My original point which I have restated several times without receiving an answer, is that neither you nor Dawkins nor Dan or anybody else is in a position to judge the parents and child in question failures without letting them speak for themselves about whether their experience has value or not. To disregard their subjectivity is to objectify them and render them less than human.

[Hobbes_Choice]

@felix dakat

@Helandhighwater

The beauty of discussion sometimes the silliest points provoke the most interesting of arguments. In this case I am not betting on it but that renders the point no less relevant.

I can however not bear to comment on the OP, in as much as the whole subject of some peoples lives being horrible being just how badly humans were designed, if by God he’s worse than a blind watchmaker, if there is a point, it’s get better tools when you are making shit and buy some decent glasses or make some eyes. A bad workman always blames his tools, there is no excuse for what God did, unless he didn’t do it and it was evolution, then it makes sense, things tend to work badly if there’s no designer, just like over 4 billion years half assed trillions of attempts that failed ultimately worked, cause sticking square pegs in round holes will eventually make the hole square. Creationists are mental.

Here’s your argument again. My original point which I have restated several times without receiving an answer, is that neither you nor Dawkins nor Dan or anybody else is in a position to judge the parents and child in question failures without letting them speak for themselves about whether their experience has value or not. To disregard their subjectivity is to objectify them and render them less than human.

I agree with this, yet I think the argument does not judge the parents, but judges claims about god in the light of such an event as the birth of a disabled child.
I think it would be a tragedy for the parents to blame themselves (in light of a thought about god’s judgement).
There is no doubt in my mind that they are blameless, and only deserving of support and understanding, not shame and blame that has accompanied such parents for the majority of time in the Christian era.

[Moreno]

@Hobbes Choice

I agree with this, yet I think the argument does not judge the parents, but judges claims about god in the light of such an event as the birth of a disabled child.
I think it would be a tragedy for the parents to blame themselves (in light of a thought about god’s judgement).
There is no doubt in my mind that they are blameless, and only deserving of support and understanding, not shame and blame that has accompanied such parents for the majority of time in the Christian era.

It seems to me that christianity, despite its many faults, some horrendous, actually supports the parents of handicapped children, and certainly has nothing in its tenets to indicate that they should have a stigma. It would encourage strangers and family members alike to act with compassion to both the parents and the child, to consider the care being given to that child to be equally important as the care given to non-handicapped children, and to consider that child to have a full and complete soul, just like any other child. Whether one believes in souls or not, does not take away from how this conception bypasses the stigmas based on physical abnormalities.

[Arcturus_Descending]

@Amorphos

Some would say:
Its a test: ~ one which consumes all their lives and doesn’t ever get better until death [heaven] perhaps.
God made the universe as it is, and doesn’t intervene.

The problem with omnipotence is that my penis is more handsome than gods face

You dweeb!
And pray tell, what does this so-called god’s face look like to you?
Aside from that and subjectively speaking, Amorphos, who but yourself and perhaps the female who might be totally engrossed and sooooooo soooooooooo in love with you, would feel and think that?

Okay, I’m going to leave it at that…this is getting stupid.

[felix_dakat]

@Hobbes Choice

I agree with this, yet I think the argument does not judge the parents, but judges claims about god in the light of such an event as the birth of a disabled child.
I think it would be a tragedy for the parents to blame themselves (in light of a thought about god’s judgement).
There is no doubt in my mind that they are blameless, and only deserving of support and understanding, not shame and blame that has accompanied such parents for the majority of time in the Christian era.

To assess blame based on the info we have from Dan on the situation is a mistake. “Disabled” is always a relative term. We are all more or less disabled compared to others with greater or lesser abilities. The critical variable is how we ourselves view our situation. There are parents of children with Down’s Syndrome who claim that they feel blessed by the child and would not change anything about him/her. How we judge says more about ourselves than the situation itself. The self assessment of the person trumps others considerations. We don’t know what the child or the parents think or feel so we don’t have enough info.

[felix_dakat]

@Moreno

@Hobbes Choice

I agree with this, yet I think the argument does not judge the parents, but judges claims about god in the light of such an event as the birth of a disabled child.
I think it would be a tragedy for the parents to blame themselves (in light of a thought about god’s judgement).
There is no doubt in my mind that they are blameless, and only deserving of support and understanding, not shame and blame that has accompanied such parents for the majority of time in the Christian era.

It seems to me that christianity, despite its many faults, some horrendous, actually supports the parents of handicapped children, and certainly has nothing in its tenets to indicate that they should have a stigma. It would encourage strangers and family members alike to act with compassion to both the parents and the child, to consider the care being given to that child to be equally important as the care given to non-handicapped children, and to consider that child to have a full and complete soul, just like any other child. Whether one believes in souls or not, does not take away from how this conception bypasses the stigmas based on physical abnormalities.

In so far as Christianity actually does that as opposed to the lip service often paid to those values on the political scene, they have the moral high ground.

[Hobbes_Choice]

@Moreno

@Hobbes Choice

I agree with this, yet I think the argument does not judge the parents, but judges claims about god in the light of such an event as the birth of a disabled child.
I think it would be a tragedy for the parents to blame themselves (in light of a thought about god’s judgement).
There is no doubt in my mind that they are blameless, and only deserving of support and understanding, not shame and blame that has accompanied such parents for the majority of time in the Christian era.

It seems to me that christianity, despite its many faults, some horrendous, actually supports the parents of handicapped children, and certainly has nothing in its tenets to indicate that they should have a stigma. It would encourage strangers and family members alike to act with compassion to both the parents and the child, to consider the care being given to that child to be equally important as the care given to non-handicapped children, and to consider that child to have a full and complete soul, just like any other child. Whether one believes in souls or not, does not take away from how this conception bypasses the stigmas based on physical abnormalities.

Actually there is plenty in its ideology that employs the idea of stigma. It is only recently that such a thing has become rare for other to chastise individuals, but it is still quite common for people to feel responsible, and chastised by god when not chastised by others.

[Hobbes_Choice]

@felix dakat

@Hobbes Choice

I agree with this, yet I think the argument does not judge the parents, but judges claims about god in the light of such an event as the birth of a disabled child.
I think it would be a tragedy for the parents to blame themselves (in light of a thought about god’s judgement).
There is no doubt in my mind that they are blameless, and only deserving of support and understanding, not shame and blame that has accompanied such parents for the majority of time in the Christian era.

To assess blame based on the info we have from Dan on the situation is a mistake. “Disabled” is always a relative term. We are all more or less disabled compared to others with greater or lesser abilities. The critical variable is how we ourselves view our situation. There are parents of children with Down’s Syndrome who claim that they feel blessed by the child and would not change anything about him/her. How we judge says more about ourselves than the situation itself. The self assessment of the person trumps others considerations. We don’t know what the child or the parents think or feel so we don’t have enough info.

Down’s syndrome has undergone a massive transformation in my lifetime.
For thousands of years they were seen as half-wits and simpleton condemned to incarceration or exposure.
Right up until the 1970s Down’s kids were often dumped in institution and termed spastics; frustrated and uncared for.
In Europe, maybe the US too, things have changed.
Now with the right sort of guidance and tailored “special” education they are not able to live happy and fruitful lives.
I doubt this has anything to do with the thread. It’s more to do with leftie psychological revisionism, and careful study of the syndrome.

I understand that a new gene therapy is soon to become available to mitigate against the chromosome 21 defect which causes it.

As far as Dan’s description goes, I don’t think he was describing Down’s.

[felix_dakat]

@Hobbes Choice

@felix dakat

@Hobbes Choice

I agree with this, yet I think the argument does not judge the parents, but judges claims about god in the light of such an event as the birth of a disabled child.
I think it would be a tragedy for the parents to blame themselves (in light of a thought about god’s judgement).
There is no doubt in my mind that they are blameless, and only deserving of support and understanding, not shame and blame that has accompanied such parents for the majority of time in the Christian era.

To assess blame based on the info we have from Dan on the situation is a mistake. “Disabled” is always a relative term. We are all more or less disabled compared to others with greater or lesser abilities. The critical variable is how we ourselves view our situation. There are parents of children with Down’s Syndrome who claim that they feel blessed by the child and would not change anything about him/her. How we judge says more about ourselves than the situation itself. The self assessment of the person trumps others considerations. We don’t know what the child or the parents think or feel so we don’t have enough info.

Down’s syndrome has undergone a massive transformation in my lifetime.
For thousands of years they were seen as half-wits and simpleton condemned to incarceration or exposure.
Right up until the 1970s Down’s kids were often dumped in institution and termed spastics; frustrated and uncared for.
In Europe, maybe the US too, things have changed.
Now with the right sort of guidance and tailored “special” education they are not able to live happy and fruitful lives.
I doubt this has anything to do with the thread. It’s more to do with leftie psychological revisionism, and careful study of the syndrome.

I understand that a new gene therapy is soon to become available to mitigate against the chromosome 21 defect which causes it.

As far as Dan’s description goes, I don’t think he was describing Down’s.

Down’s is just an example. The same would apply to any limitation perceived by a third party without finding out the perspective of the person in question. We don’t have the critical information. We’re kibitzing without knowledge. And since we don’t know and Dan’s intention was to show God blame-worthy, we may just as well conclude that God is praise-worthy.

[Hobbes_Choice]

@felix dakat

@Hobbes Choice

Down’s syndrome has undergone a massive transformation in my lifetime.
For thousands of years they were seen as half-wits and simpleton condemned to incarceration or exposure.
Right up until the 1970s Down’s kids were often dumped in institution and termed spastics; frustrated and uncared for.
In Europe, maybe the US too, things have changed.
Now with the right sort of guidance and tailored “special” education they are not able to live happy and fruitful lives.
I doubt this has anything to do with the thread. It’s more to do with leftie psychological revisionism, and careful study of the syndrome.

I understand that a new gene therapy is soon to become available to mitigate against the chromosome 21 defect which causes it.

As far as Dan’s description goes, I don’t think he was describing Down’s.

Down’s is just an example. The same would apply to any limitation perceived by a third party without finding out the perspective of the person in question. We don’t have the critical information. We’re kibitzing without knowledge. And since we don’t know and Dan’s intention was to show God blame-worthy, we may just as well conclude that God is praise-worthy.

I’m not 100% sure what kibitzing is, but I think you are doing it mentioning Down’s

I’m just going on the information he gave “Their son was born handicapped mentally and physically. Their son was in a wheel chair”
And what I know about parents in difficult situations.
The parents he saw are not in discussion as far as I am concerned. I am concerned about the equation that includes a all powerful god of love and suffering.
If god is all powerful then he is ipso facto blameworthy.

[Arcturus_Descending]

@Amorphos

I haven’t seen either one …THANK GOD!

Lol

hope folks excuse my jesting on such a serious topic, but I jest because I am sometimes aghast at the vulgarity and immorality of the world. I cannot find a solution and so I piss on god.

Sorry god ~ if you exist, but if you do, most of us are better people than you.

well, if there is a god, and there is a hell, which i doubt, you and I may share some place in hell. We’ll be able to catch up though so that’s a good thing right?

yeah, pissing on god would be the easy way out.

[Amorphos]

Hi miss not-talkalotti

well, if there is a god, and there is a hell, which i doubt, you and I may share some place in hell. We’ll be able to catch up though so that’s a good thing right?

yeah, pissing on god would be the easy way out.

If there is a personified side to divinity, I stake my life n soul on it, that he/she/it wouldnt be so small minded, can take a joke and would see my causal reasoning.
…but yea, if God is a dumb snob then i’ll happily see you and all my friends in hell. Come to think of it, a heaven full of small minded people would be my hell!