The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Merry Christmas everyone!

Here is a 'holiday special' post (because this issue matters a great deal to me and I can't not respond to it)


People who are severely mentally or physically disabled are a burden. A huge burden. As are the elderly and most children for that matter (I'll leave that there for reasons that should be obvious) A massive part of my old job was acting in a medical-legal capacity with children who were severely disabled. I have first hand experience of the family difficulties and the support difficulties surrounding this. I have allocated funding, medical treatment, respite care and long term residential care. I've communicated with those who can communicate. I've appointed legal advocates for them. I have went to court for them.

It's taxing and ludicrously expensive. You can love someone to the point you'd do anything for them, but they are still a burden. Saying someone is a 'burden' or a 'strain' says nothing and implies nothing with respect to how you actually view that person. Pretending otherwise, or feigning obliviousness is in fact, a backhanded insult. If you couch a 'burden' in neutral 'loving' terms, that leads to people not taking your requirements and your needs for help and assistance seriously. Because 'didn't you say they weren't a burden?' We're already seeing this (in the UK at least) when it comes to residential provision. I'm sorry Nathan, but saying that caring for someone who can't care for themselves is a 'privilege and honor' is nothing but wank. It's not. It's a duty. It's a burden. And if you're doing it or thinking about it as some form of self reflection of penance then you'd last 5 minutes either caring for a loved one or for others in a voluntary or professional capacity.

That's point one. Point two, and on a different line of thought entirely, is that those who have an debilitating or inhibitive disability that is hereditary and that they would not wish upon their childrenas much they are able to deal with it in themselves, tend to be the most supportive of ways and means to mitigate this. Which pro-life fetishists tend not to have much time for because that involves both the act of termination and the use of embryology (founded as it is on the destructive study of embryos in the first instance, and the selective manner of implantation) as factors. The alternative is not having biological children; surrogacy or adoption. And while all of these are wonderful and noble things to do, it is a slap in the face to someone who can use these means in order to have their own biological children.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Gender, unlike sex, is a social construct with little to no basis in human biology. So the obvious answer is number 4.

Well I would quibble with that. I'm pretty sure that though the means by one which expresses their gender is a construct, gender identity is rooted in biological reasons. When children with indeterminate genitals at birth have been raised as the opposite gender (including an infamous case of psychological mispractice) they often in adolescence display signs similar to Gender Dysphoria in trans individuals.

Anyway, my instinct is that I have little inclination to be thrown into an asylum or whatever (I have enough problems with self-esteem without having to wear hospital gowns all day :/ ) so I lean against the second option. The bathroom debate makes me cringe. Mostly at the GOP seeing as the average Republican congressmen is probably a sex predator themself, so it feels a bit like projecting.

added an I(bolded) for readability.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Merry Christmas everyone!

Here is a 'holiday special' post (because this issue matters a great deal to me and I can't not respond to it)


People who are severely mentally or physically disabled are a burden. A huge burden. As are the elderly and most children for that matter (I'll leave that there for reasons that should be obvious) A massive part of my old job was acting in a medical-legal capacity with children who were severely disabled. I have first hand experience of the family difficulties and the support difficulties surrounding this. I have allocated funding, medical treatment, respite care and long term residential care. I've communicated with those who can communicate. I've appointed legal advocates for them. I have went to court for them.

It's taxing and ludicrously expensive. You can love someone to the point you'd do anything for them, but they are still a burden. Saying someone is a 'burden' or a 'strain' says nothing and implies nothing with respect to how you actually view that person. Pretending otherwise, or feigning obliviousness is in fact, a backhanded insult. If you couch a 'burden' in neutral 'loving' terms, that leads to people not taking your requirements and your needs for help and assistance seriously. Because 'didn't you say they weren't a burden?' We're already seeing this (in the UK at least) when it comes to residential provision. I'm sorry Nathan, but saying that caring for someone who can't care for themselves is a 'privilege and honor' is nothing but wank. It's not. It's a duty. It's a burden. And if you're doing it or thinking about it as some form of self reflection of penance then you'd last 5 minutes either caring for a loved one or for others in a voluntary or professional capacity.

That's point one. Point two, and on a different line of thought entirely, is that those who have an debilitating or inhibitive disability that is hereditary and that they would not wish upon their childrenas much they are able to deal with it in themselves, tend to be the most supportive of ways and means to mitigate this. Which pro-life fetishists tend not to have much time for because that involves both the act of termination and the use of embryology (founded as it is on the destructive study of embryos in the first instance, and the selective manner of implantation) as factors. The alternative is not having biological children; surrogacy or adoption. And while all of these are wonderful and noble things to do, it is a slap in the face to someone who can use these means in order to have their own biological children.

Post something that deserves to be here. Not your disgusting opinions, which you posted on that thread, which were backed up in this not bad but still morally awful post.

That was literally from a month ago.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Merry Christmas everyone!

Here is a 'holiday special' post (because this issue matters a great deal to me and I can't not respond to it)


People who are severely mentally or physically disabled are a burden. A huge burden. As are the elderly and most children for that matter (I'll leave that there for reasons that should be obvious) A massive part of my old job was acting in a medical-legal capacity with children who were severely disabled. I have first hand experience of the family difficulties and the support difficulties surrounding this. I have allocated funding, medical treatment, respite care and long term residential care. I've communicated with those who can communicate. I've appointed legal advocates for them. I have went to court for them.

It's taxing and ludicrously expensive. You can love someone to the point you'd do anything for them, but they are still a burden. Saying someone is a 'burden' or a 'strain' says nothing and implies nothing with respect to how you actually view that person. Pretending otherwise, or feigning obliviousness is in fact, a backhanded insult. If you couch a 'burden' in neutral 'loving' terms, that leads to people not taking your requirements and your needs for help and assistance seriously. Because 'didn't you say they weren't a burden?' We're already seeing this (in the UK at least) when it comes to residential provision. I'm sorry Nathan, but saying that caring for someone who can't care for themselves is a 'privilege and honor' is nothing but wank. It's not. It's a duty. It's a burden. And if you're doing it or thinking about it as some form of self reflection of penance then you'd last 5 minutes either caring for a loved one or for others in a voluntary or professional capacity.

That's point one. Point two, and on a different line of thought entirely, is that those who have an debilitating or inhibitive disability that is hereditary and that they would not wish upon their childrenas much they are able to deal with it in themselves, tend to be the most supportive of ways and means to mitigate this. Which pro-life fetishists tend not to have much time for because that involves both the act of termination and the use of embryology (founded as it is on the destructive study of embryos in the first instance, and the selective manner of implantation) as factors. The alternative is not having biological children; surrogacy or adoption. And while all of these are wonderful and noble things to do, it is a slap in the face to someone who can use these means in order to have their own biological children.

Post something that deserves to be here. Not your disgusting opinions, which you posted on that thread, which were backed up in this not bad but still morally awful post.

That was literally from a month ago.

Oh, still doesn't make it any less morally awful.

You're annoyed at me for some unrelated reason, aren't you?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Merry Christmas everyone!

Here is a 'holiday special' post (because this issue matters a great deal to me and I can't not respond to it)


People who are severely mentally or physically disabled are a burden. A huge burden. As are the elderly and most children for that matter (I'll leave that there for reasons that should be obvious) A massive part of my old job was acting in a medical-legal capacity with children who were severely disabled. I have first hand experience of the family difficulties and the support difficulties surrounding this. I have allocated funding, medical treatment, respite care and long term residential care. I've communicated with those who can communicate. I've appointed legal advocates for them. I have went to court for them.

It's taxing and ludicrously expensive. You can love someone to the point you'd do anything for them, but they are still a burden. Saying someone is a 'burden' or a 'strain' says nothing and implies nothing with respect to how you actually view that person. Pretending otherwise, or feigning obliviousness is in fact, a backhanded insult. If you couch a 'burden' in neutral 'loving' terms, that leads to people not taking your requirements and your needs for help and assistance seriously. Because 'didn't you say they weren't a burden?' We're already seeing this (in the UK at least) when it comes to residential provision. I'm sorry Nathan, but saying that caring for someone who can't care for themselves is a 'privilege and honor' is nothing but wank. It's not. It's a duty. It's a burden. And if you're doing it or thinking about it as some form of self reflection of penance then you'd last 5 minutes either caring for a loved one or for others in a voluntary or professional capacity.

That's point one. Point two, and on a different line of thought entirely, is that those who have an debilitating or inhibitive disability that is hereditary and that they would not wish upon their childrenas much they are able to deal with it in themselves, tend to be the most supportive of ways and means to mitigate this. Which pro-life fetishists tend not to have much time for because that involves both the act of termination and the use of embryology (founded as it is on the destructive study of embryos in the first instance, and the selective manner of implantation) as factors. The alternative is not having biological children; surrogacy or adoption. And while all of these are wonderful and noble things to do, it is a slap in the face to someone who can use these means in order to have their own biological children.

Post something that deserves to be here. Not your disgusting opinions, which you posted on that thread, which were backed up in this not bad but still morally awful post.

That was literally from a month ago.

Oh, still doesn't make it any less morally awful.

You're annoyed at me for some unrelated reason, aren't you?

No, that post, and what was written on the thread to which the post came from, and what the fact that it was posted on a good post severely frustrated me, to a point of how I thought the post in itself, and the fact that it was posted here was and is horrendous.

This was from a month ago. I'm not going to bother getting into another ethical debate with you(yes, you specifically. Your method of debating morality is probably the most obtuse and obnoxious I have ever encountered) over something from a month ago, so lets just drop it.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

This is stupid, and you're engaging in Russiaphobia. The stupidity is astonoshing, do you also seriously have a flag of Ukraine, with it's fascist authoritarian government.

Grow a fycking brain, you dense person.

Ukrainian government is not fascist. And, most definitely, not authoritarian. It is a weak, mildly nationalist, somewhat liberal, not very ideologically-defined democratically elected government, that is unlikely to survive the next election. Few Ukrainians care much about their current (or past) leaders and they are pretty free to replace them. Poroshenko is no autocrat: he is barely capable of enforcing his will within 30 meters of where he happens to be standing. Neither he is a fascist, under any description. His PM is Jewish, his interior minister is Armenian, his Foreign Minister is Russian (the last two weren't even born in Ukraine: Avakov is from Azerbaijan, Klimkin is from Russia itself). Georgians and Lithuanians have played a strong role in the government in recent past. Naturally, many cabinet members speak Russian among themselves. If anything, it is an ex-Soviet internationalist regime The government itself is a weak coalition in parliament, and Poroshenko has not chosen it, nor will he be able to determine what will replace it.  

You can say a lot of nasty things about that government (some of them are corrupt, some are incompetent, many are both). But it is neither fascist, nor a dictatorship in any imaginable meaning of the word. All of you who continue mouthing this nonsense are just a clear illustration of how effective Russian propaganda may be. A real fascist authoritarian regime in Russia (and it is both fascist and authoritarian by any standard) managing to convince a big chunk of the world that a weak democratic neighbour is a nasty authoritarian fascist monster. It is incredible demonstration of the power of calumny.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I'm sure there are some worse people at the state legislator level, since it's a big country, and a broad spectrum of awfulness exists.  But among reasonably prominent American politicians who I'm aware of, I can't think of anyone who I think would be a worse choice for president.  There are certainly people who are worse along certain dimensions.  E.g., Trump has at least run a large organization before (if not very well) so I'd guess that Ben Carson would be even more incompetent than Trump in terms of management abilities.  But Trump is pretty much uniquely terrible along a combination of dimensions:

1) He is horribly insecure, way more narcissistic than even your average politician, and has the maturity and emotional intelligence of a grade schooler.

2) He has billions of dollars of assets around the world, with no real transparency behind any of it, and so his administration is corrupt on a scale that would be impossible for most politicians.

3) He has a mercantilist view of international economics that, among other things, pushes him towards burning up the US’s relationship with many of our traditional allies because “they’re ripping us off on trade” or whatever.

4) Relatedly, he doesn’t attempt to justify the US government’s actions, either at home or abroad, in moral terms at all.  As Jonathan Chait notes here, Trump has praised authoritarian leaders for their ruthlessness countless times over the years, including praising the Chinese government for their reaction to Tiananmen Square:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Peter Beinart is also worth a read on this topic:

”For Trump, “We Have a Lot of Killers" Isn’t a Criticism”

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I mean, who else says “Let’s steal other countries’ oil.” or “Let’s kill terrorists’ family members on purpose.”  It’s pretty horrific.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Dude, I'm sure it's a joke in your mind or whatever, but comparing someone who lost family members in the Holocaust to the Nazis in any context is about as low as it gets (almost every other branch of the paternal side of my family except for my grandfather's ended up dying in Nazi death camps, if by great-grandfather hadn't come to the U.S., he'd have been gassed too).  I'm not going to use the sorts of words that are appropriate for describing someone like you b/c frankly, you're not worth the energy it'd take to hate you.  I'll just say that your post was disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself, not that I expect you to possess the level of empathy that'd require.  Now kindly stop pissing on the memory of my dead relatives.

It's terrible that your relatives died in the holocaust but it's also terrible that you're using those relatives as a prop to find an easy way out of the argument by playing that "card". He's not making that connection in any way and I think that's transparently obvious. One image was Stalin and another image was the Iraqi propaganda minister guy. I understand the appeal of jumping at the opportunity to play the victim in an opportunity like this but I think everyone can agree our discussion is not nearly so serious as to warrant your complaints! In the context he's obviously calling you out for being a hackish mouthpiece for Kalwejt and other moderators, which it's transparently clear you are doing so. You're making senseless appeals-to-authority arguments and it's frankly disgusting that you're tarnishing the memories of Holocaust victims by using their memories to shield yourself in a barely even tangentially related internet argument.

Kal did something wrong and your defenses of him have no merit, that's all there is to it. There is no reason to bring victims of genocide into this argument at all. I think it would be a good idea if we all took a step back and relaxed for a moment.

Comparing a relative of many holocaust victims to Nazis over opinions on moderation is completely unnacceptable, regardless of context.