Michigan mayor allegedly advocates killing the disabled

[anvi]

I did volunteer work with high and mid-level functioning mentally disabled people in my late teens and early twenties.  To a person, they were wonderful.  Much more pleasant to be around than my current colleagues, the latter of whom would adamantly, but unconvincingly, insist that they are healthy.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I did volunteer work with high and mid-level functioning mentally disabled people in my late teens and early twenties.  To a person, they were wonderful.  Much more pleasant to be around than my current colleagues, the latter of whom would adamantly, but unconvincingly, insist that they are healthy.

Yeah, that's the other thing. Famous Mortimer's apparent belief that the life of a mentally disabled person is so miserable and devoid of "quality" as to not be worth living clearly doesn't come from experience with these people and more than likely just stems from false equivalency to Alzheimer's or something of that sort (a sort which still doesn't justify writing people's lives off as horrible and fundamentally unimportant). The so-called "retarded", assuming they have loved ones and/or good-hearted professionals caring for them, generally don't suffer in particular beyond the indignities that the Famous Mortimers of the world impose upon them, and oftentimes they're downright happy as clams. It may interest some of the forum to know that the word "cretin" comes from the word "Christian". Shades of Prince Myshkin?

[afleitch]

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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

It matters a great deal to me as well, I suspect not for entirely dissimilar reasons.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hardly think acknowledging and being sincere about the burdensome aspects of being a caregiver and processing the experience as salutary are mutually exclusive, but what do I know, it's not like I've been on both ends of this dynamic at different times in my life or anything.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Excuse me?

I simply don't think it's morally acceptable to cut a swath through one's own children in order to selectively decide what aspects of one's life they inherit. You can sneer at this (and yes, you are sneering, and have been for months if not years) and imply that it means my attitudes towards people's inner eugenic thought processes are wicked and unfair all you like but all doing so accomplishes is frustrating me and making me hope you never speak to me again.

I don't wish to discuss this or any related subject with you further.

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

Excuse me?

I simply don't think it's morally acceptable to cut a swath through one's own children in order to selectively decide what aspects of one's life they inherit. You can sneer at this (and yes, you are sneering) and imply that it means my attitudes towards people's inner eugenic thought processes are wicked and unfair all you like but all doing so accomplishes is frustrating me and making me hope you never speak to me again.

I don't wish to discuss this or any related subject with you further.

EDIT:This was f**ked up and horrible. I'm sorry.


Sorry, but unless you consider creatures such as fish, pigs, cows, etc. sentient and equal to humans, implying that killing something less inteligent then the aformentioned animals is equivilent to killing a living, thinking human is not logically sound.

ETA: and "it'll become a human"  doesn't work so well when you consider that such actions as using contraceptives makes it so that a sentient being that would've existed doesn't.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Great to see afleitch is still an irredeemably abusive human being.

[SATW]

So many disgusting comments in this thread. So little time (or patience) to respond to them.

Nathan is on point, as usual.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Did someone hack Andrew's account?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Why is Afleitch so hateful lately? Marriage on the rocks or something?

So many disgusting comments in this thread. So little time (or patience) to respond to them.

Nathan is on point, as usual.

Nathan is this forum's conscience.

[afleitch]

Excuse me?

I simply don't think it's morally acceptable to cut a swath through one's own children in order to selectively decide what aspects of one's life they inherit. You can sneer at this (and yes, you are sneering, and have been for months if not years) and imply that it means my attitudes towards people's inner eugenic thought processes are wicked and unfair all you like but all doing so accomplishes is frustrating me and making me hope you never speak to me again.

I don't wish to discuss this or any related subject with you further.

I'm not sneering. If anything I'm talking about things mitochondrial donation (which is currently in the news here for various legal reasons) I don't think that's 'cutting a swathe' through children (my sister is an embryologist; so it's something I've been focused on) I'm sorry if it's challenging your position, but the fact it's gotten you so wind up probably means you have some conflict on the matter.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Councilman says its Fouts, wants lie detector test:

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2016/12/19/warren-city-councilman-calls-for-mayor-jim-fouts-to-take-lie-detector-test/

[quote]
Scott Stevens, will submit a resolution at Tuesday night’s council meeting to have Mayor Jim Fouts submit to a lie detector test or resign.

Stevens says he knows for a fact it’s Fouts on the tapes saying unflattering comments about handicapped people, and is appalled.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Excuse me?

I simply don't think it's morally acceptable to cut a swath through one's own children in order to selectively decide what aspects of one's life they inherit. You can sneer at this (and yes, you are sneering, and have been for months if not years) and imply that it means my attitudes towards people's inner eugenic thought processes are wicked and unfair all you like but all doing so accomplishes is frustrating me and making me hope you never speak to me again.

I don't wish to discuss this or any related subject with you further.

I'm not sneering. If anything I'm talking about things mitochondrial donation (which is currently in the news here for various legal reasons) I don't think that's 'cutting a swathe' through children (my sister is an embryologist; so it's something I've been focused on) I'm sorry if it's challenging your position, but the fact it's gotten you so wind up probably means you have some conflict on the matter.

Not really. Please don't armchair-psychoanalyze.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you were referring to.

I'll concede, at this point, that words like "privilege" and "honor" do a terrible job of getting across what I was trying to indicate and may constitute an outright romanticization of caregiving that's potentially dangerous to those cared for. Words like "duty" are, yes, better in this context. I reacted badly against the way you framed saying that because I thought it constituted an unacceptable defense of Famous Mortimer's utterly awful position. (I'm conceding this after a discussion on the subject with a friend who's in a situation similar to mine as both disabled and an occasional caregiver to other disabled people, btw.)

There might be more I'd be willing to concede but I'm still pissed at you for the way in which you went about bringing up these concepts.

Why is Afleitch so hateful lately? Marriage on the rocks or something?

This is uncalled-for.

Sorry, but unless you consider creatures such as fish, pigs, cows, etc. sentient and equal to humans, implying that killing something less inteligent then the aformentioned animals is equivilent to killing a living, thinking human is not logically sound.

ETA: and "it'll become a human"  doesn't work so well when you consider that such actions as using contraceptives makes it so that a sentient being that would've existed doesn't.

1. We've been over this before. I don't think intelligence is the important thing here. I think your contention that it is is morally incorrect but I'd be willing to put it to rest if you were.
2. Drawing a moral equivalency between prophylactic contraception and abortion is absurd. A biologically separate entity doesn't exist in the former case. It does in the latter. I'd say the same to a super-hardcore Traditionalist Catholic who was trying to argue that using a condom is murder or whatever.
3. Supercilious incomprehension of the other side's position on abortion used to be mostly a pro-life thing. I'm honestly not sure whether I'm glad that that's not the case any more or not.

[afleitch]

I'll concede, at this point, that words like "privilege" and "honor" do a terrible job of getting across what I was trying to indicate and may constitute an outright romanticization of caregiving that's potentially dangerous to those cared for. Words like "duty" are, yes, better in this context. I reacted badly against the way you framed saying that because I thought it constituted an unacceptable defense of Famous Mortimer's utterly awful position. (I'm conceding this after a discussion on the subject with a friend who's in a situation similar to mine as both disabled and an occasional caregiver to other disabled people, btw.)

It's okay. I had hoped my opening salvo noting that 'the elderly and most children for that matter' are technically a 'burden' by extension of the argument would have let you know exactly what I thought of FM's position. Sometimes you have to call a 'spade a spade' simply to get anywhere in a system that will assume that because you 'do' you 'can' (like 70 year old women left to lift their adult sons into bed despite not having the strength to do so being essentially ignored by authorities because they happen to say it doesn't bother them)

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

Sorry, but unless you consider creatures such as fish, pigs, cows, etc. sentient and equal to humans, implying that killing something less inteligent then the aformentioned animals is equivilent to killing a living, thinking human is not logically sound.

ETA: and "it'll become a human"  doesn't work so well when you consider that such actions as using contraceptives makes it so that a sentient being that would've existed doesn't.

1. We've been over this before. I don't think intelligence is the important thing here. I think your contention that it is is morally incorrect but I'd be willing to put it to rest if you were.
2. Drawing a moral equivalency between prophylactic contraception and abortion is absurd. A biologically separate entity doesn't exist in the former case. It does in the latter. I'd say the same to a super-hardcore Traditionalist Catholic who was trying to argue that using a condom is murder or whatever.
3. Supercilious incomprehension of the other side's position on abortion used to be mostly a pro-life thing. I'm honestly not sure whether I'm glad that that's not the case any more or not.

1. I fail to see why it isn't. If we want to argue based on "disturbing implications", defining having rights as being based on "being a distinct entity composed of human cells" has the quite discomforting effect of making any sentient being that isn't of the species homo sapien devoid of all rights. What would your definition be?
2.But a consciousness doesn't exist in either. One common argument against abortion I see is "how would you feel if you were aborted. But I didn't exist as a person until around the time my body left the womb. So aborting the fetus that became me would have been preventing me from coming into existence in the first place, not killing me. Having contraceptives at the moment of said fetus's conception or not having done it in the first place would have had a basically identical effect on my consciousness.

[DC Al Fine]

2.But a consciousness doesn't exist in either. One common argument against abortion I see is "how would you feel if you were aborted. But I didn't exist as a person until around the time my body left the womb. So aborting the fetus that became me would have been preventing me from coming into existence in the first place, not killing me. Having contraceptives at the moment of said fetus's conception or not having done it in the first place would have had a basically identical effect on my consciousness.

That does not follow. Consciousness doesn't magically show up during birth, regardless of gestation. By your logic at minimum, killing preemies must be morally acceptable, and killing older babies is likely ok as well.

[Horus]

I rather liked Famous Mortimer before this thread. A shame.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'll concede, at this point, that words like "privilege" and "honor" do a terrible job of getting across what I was trying to indicate and may constitute an outright romanticization of caregiving that's potentially dangerous to those cared for. Words like "duty" are, yes, better in this context. I reacted badly against the way you framed saying that because I thought it constituted an unacceptable defense of Famous Mortimer's utterly awful position. (I'm conceding this after a discussion on the subject with a friend who's in a situation similar to mine as both disabled and an occasional caregiver to other disabled people, btw.)

It's okay. I had hoped my opening salvo noting that 'the elderly and most children for that matter' are technically a 'burden' by extension of the argument would have let you know exactly what I thought of FM's position. Sometimes you have to call a 'spade a spade' simply to get anywhere in a system that will assume that because you 'do' you 'can' (like 70 year old women left to lift their adult sons into bed despite not having the strength to do so being essentially ignored by authorities because they happen to say it doesn't bother them)

I read your original post in some haste and didn't really register what you meant by that; sorry!

1. I fail to see why it isn't. If we want to argue based on "disturbing implications", defining having rights as being based on "being a distinct entity composed of human cells" has the quite discomforting effect of making any sentient being that isn't of the species homo sapien devoid of all rights. What would your definition be?

Starting a definition of rights there and then expanding it if needed or desired on an ad hoc basis, maybe? Not everything has to be completely, rigidly rigorous. Yes, I'm aware that this is a double-edged sword and could be used to curtail rights on an ad hoc basis as well, but, Christ, at least then we could have honest debates about that when it arises.

One could also construct an argument that non-human animals don't have "rights" in the same sense that humans do but that humans have a duty to treat them humanely. I'd prefer that myself, but I admit that it might require application of specifically religious logic to work.

One could also go full ahimsa, an idea I quite like too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[citation needed]

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

Again, I'm sorry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"I know it when I see it" is a pretty awful way to measure something as complex as consciousness. Being right is the first step to making things better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about not taking that risk by creating a proper, scientifically backed standard?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, that they have a right to be treated humanely? I see little difference between the two. And needing religious appeals to work kind of kills it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where do you draw the line? Because good luck not killing a bunch of microorganisms just by breathing. How would you even define life in such a case?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From this: http://www.lemauricien.com/article/abortion-fact-fiction-and-humanity

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Using actual science (ie fact) makes it pretty clear.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

But we're not discussing consciousness or development of the cerebral cortex. We're discussing personhood. You and I disagree on the boundaries of personhood, and you're pushing this bare assertion fallacy at me over and over and over again rather than just moving the hell on like I hoped you had weeks and weeks ago. The only reason I'm doing the same is that you refuse to accept that we disagree on this (and will presumably both be trying to sway third parties towards our points of view as a legitimate topic of political and moral debate) and move the hell on.

I don't actually think understanding animal welfare as a duty incumbent on humans requires religious logic to work at all. I said it might to throw you a bone. You, of course, took the whole skeleton, and I regret saying it.

You're not interested in agreeing to disagree. You're not interested in expanding definitions, or living with uncertainty, or allowing for compromises that nobody's really happy with. What on earth are you actually trying to accomplish by slamming your definition of personhood into me over and over again and acting like it's objective fact? Do you actually think you'll convince me?

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

But we're not discussing consciousness or development of the cerebral cortex. We're discussing personhood. You and I disagree on the boundaries of personhood, and you're pushing this bare assertion fallacy at me over and over and over again rather than just moving the hell on like I hoped you had weeks and weeks ago. The only reason I'm doing the same is that you refuse to accept that we disagree on this (and will presumably both be trying to sway third parties towards our points of view as a legitimate topic of political and moral debate) and move the hell on.

You're not interested in agreeing to disagree. You're not interested in expanding definitions, or living with uncertainty, or allowing for compromises that nobody's really happy with. What on earth are you actually trying to accomplish by slamming your definition of personhood into me over and over again and acting like it's objective fact? Do you actually think you'll convince me?

I guess I just feel a need to debate those that I feel are wrong. It's probably a waste of time, but I honestly don't care.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps religious isn't the right word, but declaring something a duty "just because" leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

PS: I don't act so certain when I'm not sure about something(eg I genuinely don't know whether age of consent laws are neccesary and feel it needs research or something, I'm ambivilent and undecided on gun control, I'm not sure about most things foriegn policy).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

But we're not discussing consciousness or development of the cerebral cortex. We're discussing personhood. You and I disagree on the boundaries of personhood, and you're pushing this bare assertion fallacy at me over and over and over again rather than just moving the hell on like I hoped you had weeks and weeks ago. The only reason I'm doing the same is that you refuse to accept that we disagree on this (and will presumably both be trying to sway third parties towards our points of view as a legitimate topic of political and moral debate) and move the hell on.

You're not interested in agreeing to disagree. You're not interested in expanding definitions, or living with uncertainty, or allowing for compromises that nobody's really happy with. What on earth are you actually trying to accomplish by slamming your definition of personhood into me over and over again and acting like it's objective fact? Do you actually think you'll convince me?

I guess I just feel a need to debate those that I feel are wrong. It's probably a waste of time, but I honestly don't care.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps religious isn't the right word, but declaring something a duty "just because" leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

PS: I don't act so certain when I'm not sure about something(eg I genuinely don't know whether age of consent laws are neccesary and feel it needs research or something, I'm ambivilent and undecided on gun control, I'm not sure about most things foriegn policy).

That's fair. Sorry for blowing up at you.

[Anti-Bothsidesism]

I think the best options for mentally disabled people are:

1.  To live independent lives with support people (family, friends, social workers) nearby to facilitate any day-to-day things they might need help with.

If that isn't feasible,

2.  To live at home with mom and dad with help from the government.  Employment and social functions are important.

If that isn't feasible,

3.  To live in a group home with no more than about a dozen people, staffed full time by 1 or 2 aides who help prepare meals and make sure the place is safe.

If that isn't feasible,

4.  To live in a psychiatric home with a full time professional staff with an emphasis on making things as comfortable, entertaining, and fulfilling as possible.

In all cases, if they can work, even in coordinated jobs specifically designed for them,  that is a good goal.  

The question of romance and reproduction is decided on a case-by-case basis with input from them, their families, and their doctors.

Good man.