|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
Ethics 101? | from conan - Thursday, January 04, 2007
accessed 2608 times Here's an interesting article I came across which I though would spark some fantastic debate in relation to our long-standing morals conflicts on this site of ours. Then again, maybe it will just be a unique case that people don't care about one way or the other. Treatment keeps girl child-sized
Parents of a severely disabled girl in the US have revealed that they are keeping her child-sized in order to give her a better life.
The nine-year-old, named Ashley, has the mental ability of a three-month-old baby and cannot walk or talk.
Along with hormone doses to limit her growth, Ashley's parents also opted for surgery to block breast growth and had her uterus and appendix removed.
They say the treatment will help to improve her quality of life.
Ashley's parents, Seattle residents who have not given their names, went public over their daughter's treatment in a blog launched on 1 January.
Their decision came after information about Ashley's case was published in a US medical journal last year, triggering considerable debate and criticism.
Ashley's parents say that because she will remain the weight of a child, it will be easier for them to move her around, bathe her and involve her in family activities - movement that will benefit her physical and mental well-being.
Dr Douglas Diekema from the University of Washington in Seattle, who was on the ethics committee that gave the go-ahead for Ashley's treatment, told the BBC that the panel agreed "because the parents convinced us it was in fact in this little girl's best interests".
"If she were smaller it would be much easier for them to continue to provide a much more personal level of care," he said.
"Dad is frequently the one that lifts her from one place to the other, so if she gets bigger that becomes much more difficult, as they get older it becomes more difficult. At that point in time they would be forced to consider using a mechanical lift, which is much more impersonal."
'Improve her life'
Ashley's parents wrote on the site: "A fundamental and universal misconception about the treatment is that it is intended to convenience the caregiver.
"Rather, the central purpose of the treatment is to improve Ashley's quality of life." Ashley has static encephalopathy, a rare brain condition which will not improve. Her parents call her "Pillow Angel", because she does not move from wherever they put her, usually on a pillow.
The couple decided three years ago to take steps to minimize their daughter's adult height and weight.
In July 2004 Ashley began hormone treatment, through patches on the skin, that is expected to reduce her untreated height by 20% and weight by 40%.
Abuse fears
Ashley's parents said the decision to remove their daughter's uterus and breast buds was for the girl's comfort and safety.
"Ashley has no need for her uterus since she will not be bearing children," they said, adding that the decision means she will not experience the menstrual cycle and the bleeding and discomfort commonly associated with it.
The operation also removed the possibility of pregnancy if Ashley were ever the victim of sexual abuse, they said.
The removal of the girl's breast buds was also done in part to avoid sexual abuse, but was carried out primarily so she would not experience discomfort when lying down, the parents said.
The couple emphasized their love for their daughter and said the amount of criticism their choice of treatment attracted had surprised them.
"If the concern has something to do with the girl's dignity being violated, then I have to protest by arguing that the girl lacks the cognitive capacity to experience any sense of indignity," they said.
"The estrogen treatment is not what is grotesque here. Rather, it is the prospect of having a full-grown and fertile woman endowed with the mind of a baby."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6229799.stm |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from whatever...zzzz
Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 07:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ahh.... such hatred!! Makes me wanna blow a hole in my skull and drink the sour fluids that drain from my eyeballs......
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from steam
Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 09:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
(reply to this comment)
| | | |  From jolifam77
Thursday, January 11, 2007, 17:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree. As I told Oddman, sure there are exceptions, geniuses who do well with or without an education. However, I, and I'm sure many others, also have to make decisions as to who we associate with, who we ascribe credibility, and we come up with rules of thumb to make our lives easier. I'm sure you see my point by now. Sure I can spend all my time looking for diamonds in the rough, but I don't have eternity. So I have to be picky as to who I believe and don't believe and who I take seriously. Fortunately there are systems out there in the "big system" that serve this very purpose. Consider it sort of like an fraternity initiation if you will, where only the hardiest and ablest succeed. This makes it easier for hiring managers and Human Resource personnel to narrow down their candidates. You could accuse them of bigotry and so forth, "why, why did you hire that MBA? don't you know that my brother the carpet cleaner has it in him to be the next Richard Branson?" well chances are slim that's the case, so I think I've been clear enough about my point by now.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Friday, January 12, 2007, 02:04
 (Agree/Disagree?)
I wouldn't dismiss the larger population on account of academic records alone. A diploma or degree does not prove one is intelligent or smart. It proves one had the monetary resources, did attend, and passed exams. Anyone with money and a good memory can get a degree. Many smart people have degrees. And many smart people don't. Many stupid people have degrees too. I choose to believe whoever can convince me. I was responsible for human resources in the branch office I set up in Zambia. My best workers were common people who had the aptitude to work, and knew how to innovate. MBAs, BAs, they needed you to pin down the problem, and tell them to solve it. Former farmers, mechanics, they dealt with problems every day. They knew how to find a problem and ask someone how to solve it. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | from Fish
Sunday, January 07, 2007 - 21:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ethics in this case are irelivent. In a saner age that child would have been abandoned at birth. What possible good can come of raising her to adulthood? To me this is yet another facet of the cruelty that came with the 'enlightenment'. Wouldn't it be more sensible for the parents to simply have another child?
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from Oddman
Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 01:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Ethically" I'd say the parents are doing the right thing. And well, the kid disproves the "all have sinned" theory. Kid will live her whole life innocent. All I can say is THANK LUCIFER the child was not born in TF.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From Oddie
Saturday, January 06, 2007, 17:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
I was refering to her mental state being that of a child. She'll never be capable of "sin". She'll never intentionally hurt someone. She'll never learn to doubt the world and hate people, become an alcoholic. She'll always be a child. Of course not in the same way, but I know many parents who wish their child would just stay a beautiful innocent little baby forever.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Saturday, January 06, 2007, 18:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
Rain, since I know you're on the site, I just want to thank you, Lisa, Oddman, and Madly for everything. Yes, the article was a little harsh, but it was the truth. I feel a lot better today, people at work actually noticed I'm happier now that all those questions have been answered and I don't have to worry about all that anymore. I can go back to being my usual happy self.
My time on this site in the future is going to be limited, as school starts again on Monday.
Again, thanks you guys for all the advice, and for caring enough to be honest.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Sunday, January 07, 2007, 11:18
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Hey asshole, what's up?
And what's up with you thinking that you own this thread, and can make the rules for it? I'll put up a rude gesture, or two, or three on this thread any time I choose. That's called free speech. And you know what? Free speech rules! If you disagree with that, then you can take computer classes like Jules did, and start up your own website where YOU get to make the rules! Compris?
If Moronic wants to dish out insults on the site, he should be able to take insults like a man, instead of whining that I should be "thanking him" for something. (reply to this comment) |
| | From AnnaH
Sunday, January 07, 2007, 13:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Tsk tsk, Samuel. Has Rain's article taught you nothing? There's a difference between being nice, and letting people walk all over you. Don't overcompensate by being a jerk. Be what you want to be, believe what you want to believe and defend it. If you disagree with someone, don't be afraid to tell them. Being open-minded doesn't mean accepting everything you hear and being nice doesn't mean comprising your own values. Don't try to get people to like you, people are jerks and you can't please them. The sooner you realize that, the happier you'll be. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From conan
Sunday, January 07, 2007, 12:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sammy my boy, if you didn't get the underlying sarcasm in my comment, maybe you should indeed 'take a break from this site' for your own psyche's sake. While I'm happy and kind of proud of the fact that you seem to have looked down your skirt and found a pair, it's obvious that this site has broken, at least temporarily, your nice guy resolve which you seemed to have wanted to hold onto despite everyone's best efforts to break your spirit. Either that or you're a practical joke and have perpetuated this image for as long as you can amuse yourself and you're now bored of this charicature you've created so are trying to destroy it's preconcieved notions.
Personally, I don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other but would like to welcome to you the cynical side of life either way!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, January 11, 2007, 01:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
I admit I had not considered that the message someone is attempting to communicate is that they possess insufficient linguistic or communicational skills to effectively do so - in which case, perhaps rude language &/or terminology may indeed be ideal.
As for your attempts to communicate whilst cycling, I wonder if the benefit derived from your rude gestures has more to do with venting your frustration or annoyance than the efficacy by which your message is communicated?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From sar
Friday, January 12, 2007, 03:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
It seems a bit pointless to argue about what drivers think. I don't think most drivers realise how loud their honking is to a cyclist cycling immediately in front of them. As most drivers in London aren't also cyclists, I expect that they have no idea how annoying their honking is. I think they normally honk as a way of telling me to move to the side of the road or to warn me that they are about to pass me up. I think my gesture normally gets the point across to them that I have no intention of moving over. I will only gesture rudely when I know that I am in the right.
I'm not claiming that a rude gesture changes the status quo, merely that sometimes it can be the most effective form of communication.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Saturday, January 13, 2007, 05:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
You mean an assessment of the efficacy of that type of communication the times that you have employed it?
The point is that you are making the claim that doing so is the 'most effective way to communicate' with someone. In order to evaluate a method of communication, one must be able to assess its impact on the audience. Without that, such a claim is baseless, and the value described is that of soliloquy rather than communication.(reply to this comment) |
| | From sar
Saturday, January 13, 2007, 07:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
I mean that I don't consider it worth my time to conduct a survey on, or research properly, what a driver's reaction is when a cyclist shows them their middle finger. I can only speak from my experience which is that when I gesture to the driver honking behind me, s/he usually stops honking and sometimes goes around. I make assumptions. I'm sure my gesture is not always the cause of their actions, but I am also sure that sometimes it is. In any case, I've expressed myself and they've understood something. I'm not saying any mode of communication is faultless, flawless or necessarily the most effective way of communicating. I think that sometimes it is the most effect mode of communication.
You seem to be consistently trying to polarise my arguments. When I use words such as "sometimes" I do it intentionally.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From sar
Sunday, January 14, 2007, 04:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
"...every time someone gives you the finger your automatic reaction is", "...its attempting the difficult that pointless", oh, and here's another. I said "you seem to be" you said "I am". If I meant "you are", I would have said "you are". I wasn't purporting to know what your intentions were, but what they appeared to be. That's just a couple from this thread. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, January 14, 2007, 06:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
The first two examples while admittedly were intended to play to the audience, were responses to your own claims, namely "The rude gesture lets the driver know that I don't appreciate their bad driving." and "I think its pointless to argue about it as it would be difficult for either of us to convince the other of our viewpoint."
In the third instance, however, forgive me for not respecting your attempt to hide behind a caveat while attacking my conduct during the debate. There was a reason I quoted the word 'consistently', and not the whole sentence.
Anyhow, in deference to rainy's wishes, I shall now bow out of this thread.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Oddie
Thursday, January 11, 2007, 13:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
Heh, my automatic reaction when someone makes a rude face, gesture, or honks at me when I'm driving is "WTF you got a problem with bro? Move over before I drive over your flat ass Porsche." I certainly don't think "Oh my, did I do something wrong?". Even if I hear sirens wailing I think "WTF! Don't you traffic cops get eyesight tests? Are you fucking blind?". But maybe that's just me. I took a written "Your driving style" test when I renewed my license three weeks ago. Apparantly I'm a "extremely self confident driver with a low tolerance for what you consider bad driving" and this government sponsored test thingie suggests I play relaxing music, and make a effort to be lenient to other drivers. Screw that! Get out of my way slow pokes, you can hear the Slipknot blaring!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Phoenixkidd
Friday, January 05, 2007 - 10:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Rather than injecting her with hormones and operations, why not just do a simple one to get her tubes tied? I can understand their concern, trust me mentally disabled get it on a lot, so trying to keep her infertile I would think is a great concern. As far as the whole trying to keep her small thing I don't agree with it because it means getting surgeries and hormones, both of which can have extremely painful and difficult side effects.
(reply to this comment)
| From Nick
Friday, January 05, 2007, 10:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is so typical of someone who makes a judgment on a subject with ought even reading the whole post and getting all the information.
For a start, you still menstruate when you get your tubes tied. See http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006051513888
Then you say that keeping her small means painful hormones and surgeries. Please tell me where on earth you get that BS from?
There are NO surgeries to keep her small. All they do is give her high levels of estrogen. There are NO side effects to this as it was common practice back in the 50's and even after 50 years there are no long term affects. And as for painful? Where are you getting that from? The whole point of the treatment is to stop any chance of pain in the future.
I have followed this case for a while now even since before it because famous a week ago. I have seen so many different posts and comments on both sides of the fence and I notice a trend. The people that are against her usually don't bother to read the facts and don't have their info straight.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From jolifam77
Saturday, January 06, 2007, 17:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
one of my favorite movies of all time. I work in an office building. things are looking more and more like Gattica all the time. it's getting to the point where the only people that get the thinking/creative/decision-making jobs are those who have the very highest IQ's (or you belong to a minority race--automically entitled to a high-paying job if you happen to have a degree). There's a strange natural selection process going on...which even operates under the radar of the PC nazis. This is a totally natural process, whereby humans maximise their earning potential/work ratio, an endeavor which requires the ability to creatively bullshit/impress higher-ups into hiring/promoting him/her--my opinion is that this ability is directly related to intelligence, especially of the verbal kind. So instead of taking a blood sample and measuring IQ and other things from your DNA, you have an interview--this is the critical stage in the selection process; my opinion is that it doesn't really make much too much difference if you measure the individual's qualities in a test-tubed blood sample, or examine the feedback of the individual via an interview, the results will be the same. Humans judging humans has been the catalyst for evolution, so all things being equal, resume/experience etc., you take two white men, the dude with the higher IQ will be chosen because he was smart enough to know when to say the right thing at the right time. Bingo. Evolution at work.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From jolifam77
Sunday, January 07, 2007, 15:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
If you fail to see the big picture you really *are* a moron. I'll indulge you though, because it seems your miniature mind can't grasp the implications of small but repeated events. Subtract welfare, affirmative action, and the US civil rights movement out of the picture for moment, all of which fight against the idea that the fittest survive; that smart guy who got the good job will make more money, will marry a prettier (more fertile) wife, will be able to give a better upbringing to his children, who will grow up healthier, smart, and having a better chance of survival and the ability to procreate more effectively than the children of the poor sap who lost the job in the first place. Multiply this event by a billion every century or so for several millenia and I can guarantee you that the human race will look a little different, be a little smarter, healthier, and better able to survive the environment. Boy the stupidity sure "reeks" among some exmembers, namely yourself.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From deeply
Monday, January 08, 2007, 18:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, since madly is mad at you for your hurtful comments towards her, I will respond in her place, she was not using Hitler as a way to discredit your opinion or comment, but rather just pointing out that your view’s did sound similar in nature. You said, and I quote: “that smart guy who got the good job will make more money, will marry a prettier (more fertile) wife, will be able to give a better upbringing to his children, who will grow up healthier, smart, and having a better chance of survival and the ability to procreate more effectively than the children of the poor sap who lost the job in the first place. Multiply this event by a billion every century or so for several millennia and I can guarantee you that the human race will look a little different, be a little smarter, healthier, and better able to survive the environment”. Wasn’t this the whole idea behind Hitler’s rule; to create the ‘perfect’ creature; the intelligent, blue eyed, blonde haired, wonder human? I think this has everything to do with the heart of your comment; thus the issue; therefore nothing to do with attacking you. If you have a ‘Hitler’ complex; I can’t help you there, but I wish you all the best with that.
Moving on; let’s go through a couple examples, just for fun, of true ‘ad Hominem’ behavior:
“Boy the stupidity sure "reeks" among some exmembers, namely yourself”
“If you fail to see the big picture you really *are* a moron. I'll indulge you though, because it seems your miniature mind can't grasp the implications of small but repeated events.”
Those are just a couple examples for you and it is comical that you accuse others of acting in a way that you seem to do so readily. Anyways, I hope you take that education that you have received and use it for some good (which is not what madly wanted me to say, but being a lady, I could not bring myself to give you her thoughts). (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Oddie
Saturday, January 06, 2007, 18:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Excuse me for a second while I replant the hair I just pulled out.
As I mentioned before, high IQ does not neccessarily mean "smart". IQ is totally overrated. Knowing when to say the right thing is more a matter of street smarts, and has little to do with IQ.
I'd also add that more often than not, the people that get decision making jobs are the biggest idiots you'd find in a company. It's the low paid workers and their team leaders that make the stupid business plans work. (reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam77
Sunday, January 07, 2007, 16:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
I find fault with your comment at at least a couple of levels. (and I don't know why I'm even talking to you...maybe to help you out. Get your bachelors, get good grades, then come back...you'll be a little more credible)
"As I mentioned before, high IQ does not neccessarily mean "smart". IQ is totally overrated."
this is your opinion, and it goes against logic. Take an extreme for an example how flawed your argument is: retarded people have IQs less then 70...if you think IQ is "totally overrated" then I assume you wouldn't be against putting retards in customer service, on the phone with customers, making company design plans, ha ha like in that movie Crazy People.
Knowing when to say the right thing is more a matter of street smarts, and has little to do with IQ.
Ummm how do you know this, have you done a study? again, do you think retarded people (who have low IQs) have what you call "street smarts." But I'll grant you that something called "street smarts" a very loose term, and even a dangerous one if swung around, is a valid description of people who are quick (pay attention to the word, quick) to get down with the jargon in their field of choice and use jargon to their advantage in gaining approval of hiring managers, etc., and get promotions etc. Now, I have come into contact with these guys, who you write off as having so called street smarts. They are smooth talkers, very good at persuasion, and I hate them because I even fall behind sometimes because I don't take advantage of jargon to an almost unethical level the way that they do to get ahead, by manipulating higher ups. BUT, I also have to concede that they, these folks with so-called "street smarts," are often my superior in terms of real intelligence. They often could beat me in an argument about things that I actually have the upper-hand in terms of knowledge of the subject matter. But they would beat me, because that have very quick minds, and are adept at finding logic flaws in my arguments and/or pulling the argument into areas where they know they will win. If you think this ability, the ability to manipulate other humans and circumstances has nothing to do with intelligence, than I would have to seriously disagree with you. Only a quick mind (think Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting), can dominate so quickly in a diversity of areas and fields on the whim.
"I'd also add that more often than not, the people that get decision making jobs are the biggest idiots you'd find in a company. It's the low paid workers and their team leaders that make the stupid business plans work."
This also is a bunch of hogwash. Before making judgments about how stupid someone's business plan is, get an MBA. I would also add, that the "low-paid workers and their team leaders" who you think are so smart, are really about the bottom of the barrel in terms of intelligence. Their day-to-day actions reveal this in the sense that their primary purpose in life is execute a plan put before them. Any simple failure to execute that plan is deemed their fault. Any major failure to execute the plan is recorded, and passed up through committees to the planners and decision makers to remake the plan. In other words, their just drones following orders. Get that through your thick skull.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Sunday, January 07, 2007, 18:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
Feeling vitriloic today are we? Fair enough. My halfhearted comment deserved a quarterthought response.
Why you consider a paper thin diploma or degree any indication of intelligence or credibility, is a mystery to me. I say having a degree does nothing to prove ones intelligence, ability, or proficiency in any field. While I do hope to one day find the time and monetary resources to attend college, I don't feel my lack of a college education makes me any less wiser. A degree is neccessary only for narrowminded people, who like you, rely on someone elses assessment of an individual rather than rely on their own instincts and judgement. I'd further mention that those who wish to do so can always study without attending college. That one hasn't been taught does not imply that one is not learned. Thomas A. Edison didn't have a BA, Nikola Tesla didn't have an BA, and neither did the Wright Brothers . Noam Chomsky's Ph.D. is not what makes him genius. Newton's education at Trinity college did not make him genius. Too often, genius is the ability to see past what one is commonly taught in college. Education does not make one wise. An education teaches wise men how to put their wisdom in a form the unwise can understand.
My previous colleague Mr. Hulley has an MBA. Hulley who? Of course you wouldn't know him. He's done nothing memorable, and shows no signs of genius whatsoever. My previous employer Mr. S. Berg built and sold a company and became a millionaire. After high school, he served in the French Foreign Legion. He has no MBA. He does however, have the ability to see the person rather than the resume. After the M&A, our new parent company brought in an impressive team of MBA holders. Stocks are down 80% in 12 months.
There are many reasons why IQ is unreliable as a method of "measuring intelligence". For one, what is intelligence? Like "goodness" or "badness" intelligence is relative. Current IQ tests were developed by first world thinkers, for first world people. The tests are therefore based on the assumption that the subject has certain knowledge and experience. For instance, an IQ test would require that one has some education in mathematics. Not having an education in mathematics does not neccessarily make one unintelligent. The test therefore can only be reliably used to measure people who have come from the one same cookie cutter. Current IQ tests cannot correctly measure my IQ, because I've come from a totally different cookie cutter. Hell, perhaps I'm not even a cookie. Current IQ tests are in essence, a test to measure the ability to think along a thought pattern that (the inventers of the IQ measuring method) considered superior to others. It is no surprise then that the average IQ of East Asians and Jews are higher than that of whites, whites higher than blacks. The average East Asian is exposed to strict cookie cutter curriculums, whites to a lesser degree, and the average black receives the least. And before you mention that blacks get equal education, remember that's a recent change. They have not had enough time for changes to take effect.
Do I think people with low IQs can have smarts? Absolutely. Richard Branson is a prime example. His low IQ did nothing to stop him from becoming an enormously successful entrepreneur. Why was his IQ low? Was he stupid? Simply, he was dyslexic, and had passions elsewhere. He was not too stupid for the tests. The tests were too stupid for him. I don't suppose I need to mention that (low IQ = Retardation) is an absurd assumption. We must also remember that many prolific criminals and tyrants have had high IQs.
I agree that intelligence prevails over cookie cutter knowledge (Your parable of educated you debating intelligent he clearly supports this theory.). I also agree that people with street smarts are intelligent people. I never disputed that, and I'm not sure why you understood me that way. I'm merely saying people with street smarts don't neccessarily have a high IQ. Many famous people with high IQs suffered their whole lives because they lacked the street smarts. They were intelligent, just in a different way.
I find your opinion of the common worker rather disturbing. It is the bottom of the barrel that keeps the barrel together. Without the bottom, there is no barrel. I've met plenty of very intelligent people work the bottom line, sweating their backs to keep the company going. Many of them had tremendous inspiration and innovative solutions to the companies problems. Those suggestions ended up gathering dust on the desks of MBA holding executives who were too busy playing golf or screwing on their desks to realize there ever was a problem. When the occasional solution was implemented, it came with a million bastardizations that killed the whole concept of the solution. If it worked, the executives got the credit. If it failed, it was your idea wasn't it? Different people make decisions under different circumstances. Some people have obligations and responsibilities, which make their choice to follow orders a prudent one. I wouldn't look down on someone for that. You get good drones and bad drones, and good ones are rare as hen's teeth. Oh, and while bullshit might take you high places, it won't keep you there. CEOs, managers, coaches, these people have very little job security these days.
Keep up the vitriolic pounding. My thick skull helps protect my flexible mind.(reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam77
Sunday, January 07, 2007, 21:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
sure if you are genius, education doesn't make much difference. however if you are not a genius, well, better get an education quick.
and pardon, but your remarks on IQ are unfounded. Here's a quote I found on the internet which comments on your theory about IQ bias:
"This is a possibility [cultural bias in IQ tests], and in certain cases undoubtedly plays a factor. Yet tests carefully designed to exclude cultural bias (for example, spatial relationship tests based entirely on pictures, memorisation of digit sequences, and pure eye-hand reaction time) produce results comparable to those of traditional IQ tests. "
see http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/IQ/1950-2050/
Almost everything else you said is what we empiricists (yes yes go look up with word) would call "anectodal evidence," and as such wholly discounted as mere gibberish.
I'm getting tired of this. you say:
"I don't suppose I need to mention that (low IQ = Retardation) is an absurd assumption. We must also remember that many prolific criminals and tyrants have had high IQs. "
This train of logic is so flawed it's laughable: unsupported statements, non-sequitors, ad-hominem...it's hilarious. I'm going to bed.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Oddie
Sunday, January 07, 2007, 21:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
About the getting tired part, that makes two of us.
I'm not discounting the value of education. I'm just not overvaluing it either. If you are smart, a good education probably helps. If one is a hopeless idiot, an education in some cases can't cure that.
The internet is a convenient thing. For every one comment you find supporting IQ testing, you'd find one or two refuting it. IQ tests based on spatial relationships are just another test measuring according to a different cookie cutter. There are many different kinds of intelligence, and it's naive to measure just a few, and label one smart or otherwise based on that alone.
Oh, and maybe I'm wrong as I haven't looked up the word, but my memory tells me empiricists follow John Locke's theory that humans have no innate ability or thought pattern, and all knowledge and intelligence is obtained a posteriori through experience. If so, your opinion that human ability is defined at birth through genetics, clearly contradicts the empiricist train of logic.
"I don't suppose I need to mention that (low IQ = Retardation) is an absurd assumption."
" We must also remember that many prolific criminals and tyrants have had high IQs."
These are two separate statements, though perhaps my editing didn't make that clear. The likes of Richard Branson prove that a low IQ does not point to retardation. No doubt people with mental impairment are likely to score lower on IQ tests. It would be a logical fallacy however, to assume that in reverse, all those with low IQ scores are mentally impaired. The second statement refers to persons who have high IQs yet display psychotic tendencies, and would be considered insane by some. I admit it was a rather random observation, which was not neccessary to support my argument, therefore I retract that sentence.
As for unsupported statements, I apologize for not backing my opinions with some random web quote. I could perhaps suggest you read The Mismeasure of Man, by S. J. Gould. As for non-sequiters, I could say the same of your attempt to use psychometrics as basis for scientific racism. And as for argumentum ad hominem! Ad hominem refers to (again, if my memory serves me correctly) replying to an argument or theory by attaching the person, rather than the argument. Your reference to my lack of a BA is a prime example of an ad-hominem response. The worst I've done is quote you.(reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam77
Monday, January 08, 2007, 17:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
we obviously have very different beliefs about IQ, probably based more on cultural values than anything else. At that point it is in fact a matter of opinion. I would find fault with cookie cutter theory regarding intelligence. It is apparent that you are choosing to disregard facts that I have presented, namely that most "psychometrics" that are around actually do correlate with one another. Now maybe you need to go look up the word "correlation." Or do you need to get a B.S. before you understand that word. It means IQ is by pretty much all accounts a scientific measurement that is quite accurate. There are a few naysayers, but otherwise it is a generally accepted measurement of intelligence. Now you can go and stick your head in the sand and ignore the research of mainstream science, or you can accept for what its worth the evidence that exists, rather than going on and on about Mr. Branson, who incidentally I think is very intelligent. It's just one of those things...maybe he took the wrong IQ test. remember he's just one person. I don't base my conclusions on one person, but whole populations and statistical averages.
And my reference to empiricism was to defend my method of arriving at knowledge through evidence, the track record of experimentation, not some spur of the moment conclusion on isolate incidents such as you tend to do.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Monday, January 08, 2007, 19:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, we do have very different views. So far you have provided nothing to sway my views, and it seems apparant that I have failed to sway yours.
I agree that certain psychometrics can measure certain types of intelligence. I disregard the view that the result of said measurement (An IQ score) defines one as smarter or racially superior to another.
I agree, IQ is a scientific measurement that is quite accurate. It is accurate in measuring a certain type of intelligence, knowledge and thought pattern. Who is to say then, that the measurable thought pattern is superior to the unmeasurable?
As you say, there is a large population that supports the use of IQ as an intelligence standard. IQ has been used in the past to determine whether one was intelligent enough to stand before justice. On the other hand, in many places it is considered illegal to rely on IQ scores when hiring.
As for me, I am one that relies on mine own judgement rather than popular belief. That an opinion is mainstream, or garners the support of the majority does little to make it more credible to me. The majority opinion is very easily swayed. For the sake of this debate, I'll ignore the fact that nobody has taken an accurate IQ average of a whole population. While IQ statistics may support an argument on the need to raise education standards and accessibility in less developed countries, it does not support the argument that due to IQ differences, one race is inferior. If we are to accept that IQ scores and experience correlate, we cannot also assume that racial superiority defines IQ scores.
I make an attempt (sometimes failed) to use less "big words" when speaking to an impaired audience. As the basics of debate dictate, one must cater to the least intelligent, that all may understand. To the educated among us who consider my argument flimsy due to the lack of big words, I borrow from Hemingway. Poor Jolifam, do you truly think big wisdom comes from big words?(reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam77
Monday, January 08, 2007, 21:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Who is to say then, that the measurable thought pattern is superior to the unmeasurable"
wow. sounds very voodoo.
"While IQ statistics may support an argument on the need to raise education standards and accessibility in less developed countries..."
I'm not sure if you think you can raise IQ levels. Studies show (as I already mentioned) that IQ is not something that can be changed, just as you can't change your height, or eye color. it's a genetic trait. On the other hand if you mean that by raising educational standards in a poor country, you will make that country more prosperous, then that might be the case, but only if the culture is changed dramatically to the point where children go through an extremely rigorous educational system (up to 1/3 or more schooling than the average Western countries) so that the country becomes "modernized," similar to what goes on Korea, China, and dare I say it, Japan....
Regarding you're straw argument: ".... it does not support the argument that due to IQ differences, one race is inferior"
the argument at hand has nothing to do with "inferiority." I'm still trying to establish facts. Now you are putting words in my mouth. It may well be that I think some races are superior or inferior, but that is not what I'm arguing. these terms "inferior" "superior" etc. are subjective terms, totally a matter of opinion, and I'd be stupid, to claim this outright. It would be my word against yours, which is exactly what you are pushing towards. I am deliberately shying away from such subjective notions, but instead trying to stick to the facts, keeping the belief statements wholly separate.
"If we are to accept that IQ scores and experience correlate, we cannot also assume that racial superiority defines IQ scores. "
uh, whatever that means...sounds like BS and or train of though gone amuck? what the hell do you mean by "IQ scores and experience correlate." give it up dude, you don't know what you're talking about.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, January 11, 2007, 10:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
What an incredibly discriminatory statement!
I find it interesting the perceptions people have about IQ - it is not, nor does it claim to be, the be-all and end-all of ability. It is a measure of one's ability to process information and draw logical conclusions or courses of action. While there is weighting for the very young, that is only up to 12 or so, after which one's intelligence does not typically deviate significantly.
That said, there are a number of recognised IQ tests, each of which will give different 'scores'. Organisations such as Mensa instead use percentile rankings as a pre-condition for membership. Doing so you find that, as any of you familiar with the Bell Curve will recognise, results are mostly collected in the middle, with comparatively long 'tails' on either end.
While the majority of tests assume a basic level of comprehension and mathematics, there are also tests developed specifically to be 'culture free', and which are entirely down to recognising increasingly complex visual patterns using basic shapes.
As has already been said, there are numerous other skills required to be successful (not to mention the significant amount of luck that is typically involved) that are not measured by an IQ test, and to be fair, even I tend to be rather cynical about the significance of an IQ test - but I'm cynical about most things - but it is far more useful than any alternative I know of to in any way quantify intelligence.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Monday, January 08, 2007, 21:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
It is a fact that IQ levels do change. Even within the course of ones life, IQ scores will vary. Your IQ as a pre-schooler will not be as high as your IQ in your prime, and when you age it comes down. National IQ averages also change. As the average IQ changes, the IQ 100 line is reset in order to maintain a standard of sorts. This is why it is difficult to compare old readings to those of today.
If you are not arguing that differences in genetics contribute to differences in IQ scores, or to intelligence capabilities, then indeed my comment would be unneccessary, and could be disregarded as such.
Inferior/Superior are indeed subjective. As such comparisons are subjective, what then is the point of measuring a single (or multiple for that matter) thought cpability, and labeling one intelligent or otherwise?
A) You are a self proclaimed empiricist.
B) Empiricists believe that experience nurtures intelligence. As an empiricist, you do not believe that humans have innate ability.
C) You believe that IQ scores are a measure of ones intelligence.
(A+B+C) = D
D) As an empiricist, you believe that experience correlates with IQ scores.
Statement X: IQ is a genetic trait
Statement D: IQ is determined through experience.
= contradiction.
Am I missing something, or does experience (education) change ones genetic make up?(reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam77
Tuesday, January 09, 2007, 18:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
you are wrong. empiricists believe that experience nurtures knowledge NOT intelligence.
and IQ *measurements" or measures rather may change but not IQ itself, which is an abstract notion, which we attempt to measure and do a good job of it for the most part.
And forgive me but I have to take issue with your continual putting of of straw man arguments such as the ones you just put up (examine your words you will see the straw in your attention to "facts" such as IQs change. whoa do they really wow, that totally debunks my theories don't it...uh no, it's a straw argument and totally beside the point). I really hate fighting straw men. such a waste of time...(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Tuesday, January 09, 2007, 20:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
Call it argumentum ad hominem, but I am beginning to question the credibility of this American University education you so ardently espouse.
Empiricists emphasize the effects of experience in the formation of ones knowledge, ideas, and human cognition. Human cognition refers to matters of the brain such as memory, perception, problem solving, attention, i.e. the aspects of the brain measured through IQ testing, thus your barometer for intelligence. Empiricists also believe that any sentence that is not logically complete or cannot be verified are vacant of value in a debate. For instance, my first sentence to this response does not stand to logic. It is a personal perception. As strict adherence to this empiricist rule would change the nature of this discussion (from two exchanging views to one voicing his views) I propose to flout this rule to some extent.
Let us for a brief moment ignore the work of the likes of Locke, Russel, Hume, and Chomsky. We shall accept your unfounded belief and premise that empiricists believe only in the effects of sensory experience on knowledge, with no effect on intelligence. Why then do you believe that a lack of education at an American University would make one any less wiser? Taking your loose mention of empiricism out of the equation, your expressed opinions (racial superiority vs. educational superiority) still pose an unsolvable quandary. Perhaps we could take this wonderful exchange of views one step forward if you could confirm which it is you support. Nature vs. nurture. The ye old philosophic query.
But we were discussing IQ.
Perhaps this boils down to cultural differences on the validity of IQ as a measurement of intelligence. In Japan, we consider IQ as a measurement of certain manifestations of intelligence. Persons with mental impairments average lower than 70 on an IQ test, yet only one in six or seven with IQ scores below 70 are recognized as having mental impairment. The majority of those with IQs below 70 live normal lives.
As an avid supporter of IQ as a reliable measurement of human intelligence (or knowledge pending your response to my earlier question) you are no doubt well aquantied with the Flynn Effect, and there is no need for me to expound on this. For clarification purposes alone, I would appreciate it if you would confirm that you do not dispute the rise of average IQ scores among certain populations. If you have no dispute on this issue, we can leave that out of this debate.
Now the issue of IQ variance during the course of ones life.
You have stated "IQ *measurements" or measures rather may change but not IQ itself".
I have difficulty dissecting this statement, as I do not understand what is meant. What is Intelligence Quotient, but a quotient? A quotient is any number obtained by dividing one number by another. I.e. (15.0 ÷ 3.0 = 5.0 Quotient is 5.0). Intelligence Quotient is achieved by (MA ÷ CA) therefore, by all methods and for all purposes, a quotient. Do you agree that both MA and CA are measurements? By what logic then, are we to conclude that the quotient of one measurement divided by another measurement is and not a measurement?
I will give you credit for the fact that you have almost succeeded in convincing me on one account. My argument may indeed be considered a straw argument. I do feel I have been combatting a straw man. Yet the term could only apply if I had set up the straw man, which I have not. If you would, please advise me of the academic institution from whence you come. I should like to write them a letter commending them on the quality of their produce, as well as remove said institution from my future prospects.(reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam77
Wednesday, January 10, 2007, 19:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
This will be fun, you want tit for tat? you trying put up smoke screens, and red herrings with all your long-winded nonsense?
"Empiricists emphasize the effects of experience in the formation of ones knowledge, ideas, and human cognition"
Oh so now empiricists believe experience forms human cognition. I'm starting to wonder if your first language is english or not. Another stupid, innacurate statement. Have you no shame Japanese man? Cognition is a human ability and has nothing to do knowledge or ideas, and shouldn't be listed as a synonym. When half of what you say is innacurate, how do you expect me to take the rest seriously?
"Why then do you believe that a lack of education at an American University would make one any less wiser? "
And where did I state this belief? putting words in my mouth again.
"your expressed opinions (racial superiority vs. educational superiority) still pose an unsolvable quandary"
Ok are you going to finish this train of thought? or are you going to save that for another lecture. Firstly, I never sic racial superiority against educational superiority, at any rate, its your responsibility to backup up your generalizations, if you don't you just look like a fool, which you do.
You "have difficulty" understanding what I meant by saying that "IQ" doesn't change. I'm surprised by your difficulty, since I already referred to IQ as a trait not a quotient. This is a fairly common usage, and I'll bet it'll end up in the dictionary some day, especially since we don't really have a word for intelligence, the trait.
"Yet the term could only apply if I had set up the straw man, which I have not."
Hello, this whole "what's the definition of IQ" tangent has been the result of a big straw man you set up. We'll name your straw man "IQ." (Nice to meet you Mr. IQ Straw Man. ) As I hinted at before, I'm not interested in the literal definition of IQ. Got that? Good. So you can fight against IQ, the quotient all you want by saying it changes all the time, it's different between populations, everyone's a different cookie from a different cutter, and my cookie is bigger than your cookie and blah blah blah, black cookies are just as good as white cookies they just look black because their environment made them that way, but that doesn't meet they're dumber.....ok I almost lost my train of thought with all the cookie talk. You see, by attacking the strict scientific meaning of IQ and finding fault with or dwelling on the results of IQ studies, you are fighting your own straw man. I think you know full well that the purpose of my argument was never to prove the accuracy or constancy of IQ test results, although I may have mentioned them in passing it was never my primary focus.
And as for empiricism, you have no idea what I've seen and where I've been. It's my empirical knowledge that leads me to the conclusions I make. I can share that knowledge and examples of what I've seen and where I've been, and that's about all I can do.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Thursday, January 11, 2007, 02:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
A little tit for tat? Takes two to play that game. Fortunately for all who grace our presence, diplomaism, racism, character assassination, these are cards I don't like to play. So, that's a game you'll have to play alone. I could have alluded to your previous confessions of inferiority complex, inability to pick up the women you could only drool over, or perhaps your whore-mongering apetites. I could attack you for who you are, but no, I prefer to stick to boxing the straw effigy we'll call your opinion. No, English is not my first language. I wasn't aware that one wasn't allowed to debate in their second language.
Intelligence is the capacity or capability to learn. One who is impaired lacks the cognitive capability to understand what he is taught. One who lacks an education or experience, has nothing for his cognition to analyze and utilize. Thus education does not make men intelligent. Spatial ability is measured as an intelligence quotient, yet is subject to both acquired capability, and intrinsic capability. Spatial IQ is an intelligence quotient that can be raised by undergoing the adequate training and education.
If you do not consider one any less wiser for lack of an American education, then you can disregard my statement. You did imply that view, through your allusion to my academic rearing in your attempt to question my intelligence capabilities. Words can say more than you intend. What was meant means little in a conversation, compared to what was understood. Perhaps by keeping bigotry and bias out of your speech, you could avoid being interpreted against your intentions.
Perhaps the concept of sarcasm is lost on you, and I won't go and explain my not so subtle retort regarding straw men. Those who got it, got it the first time, and those who didn't, well they didn't.
Perhaps owing to my lack of comprehension, or perhaps to your communicative capabilities, I'm not exactly sure what the purpose of your argument was or is. You made a comment that hinted of your belief in racial superiority, and you made a comment that hinted your belief in intelligence quotient as a measurement of intelligence, as well as your belief that the smartest people get the best jobs. I made a remark, which aired my disregard for intelligence quotient as a reliable measurement of intelligence, and my appreciation for the wisdom among the common worker tier. You came back with a page long rebuttal, that started off with diplomaist bigotry, to which I responded.
Yes, I have no more knowledge of what you've seen, than you have of what I've seen. I know no more about where you've been, than you know of where I've been. We can go on and show off our war wounds and experiences, and claim our experiences and education make I wiser than thou. What is to be achieved from that? I've been to a number of countries in Africa, I've been shot at, and how does that compare to your experiences? How do you compare my knowledge and experience to yours? You have an education, you have some experiences, good. There are skinny 12 year old boys running around congo with 40 year old assault rifles, no education, and experience like you will never have. What makes you superior? What makes me superior? What may matter more in a bottom tier office means less under the raining lead, and vice versa.(reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam77
Thursday, January 11, 2007, 17:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
yeah yeah it's all relative. I'll tell you what matters to me: safety and comfort and the company of people I can trust. And if that means people of my own race then so be it. I would rather die then spend another year in a third world country. I was in such misery in the third world that you would never believe. It may have been mostly psychological, you know always being accosted by lepers, walking around very aware that ground and the air that you breath is saturated with filth and bacteria, not being able to drink water from the tap for first 21 years of my life. I may have a weak psyche, but this eventually wore me out psychologically and I began to ask questions, like what the hell is wrong with all these brown people? why can't they get their act together. And I concluded after much thought that there is something about them that predisposes them to a wasteful existence, in that no matter how hard they work, or what a few of them accomplish, they're overall population will always be dirty, neglectful, uneducated, and perhaps violent. Now if this general condition, which I see as the rule in populations of people of color, is due to a low IQ, whatever IQ means, then so be it. If it's due to something else then that's fine too. But it has to be due to something, as yet not 100% defined. And I'm leaning toward something biological, innate, not external like racism, exploitation, or whatever. Those possibly could be determinants in some cases, and of course it's easy to find evidence where extreme subjugation of populations creates poverty and misery, however, it's pretty much the universal condition of colored people to live in poverty and misery, how can this be ascribed to external forces? Those are my thoughts. Until I find one first rate, first world, country composed of a majority of colored people, then I will continue to hold this position.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Friday, January 12, 2007, 01:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Now this conversation is actually interesting. I vaguely understand why you came to that viewpoint. I've seen it among many expatriates who live and work in less developed countries. Often among persons with a high level education too. Corporate lawyers, MBAs, CAs, entrepreneurs. They thought everyone was a nigger, a sand nigger, an island nigger, a skinny, a kaffir, a monkey, a sorry creature who slipped off the ladder of evolution. A creature destined to poverty. A creature destined to forever be the lowest among humankind in terms of intelligence and success.
Yes, it can get to you. I hated Kenya. I felt like one lone zebra walking through a herd of Hyenas. The filth, the poverty, the violence, the archaic traditions and superstitions, the corruption. Any moment you turned your back, every hair on your body stood up. People were being hung for reportedly being into witchcraft, and transforming into cats at night. People were arrested for murdering children and skinning them for use in black medicine. Cops would pull me over and demand a "fine" for no reason other than being a foreigner. I witnessed my cab driver get lynched by police. I've almost went down in a unmaintained Cesna inbetween Zanzibar and Dar Es Salaam. Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Tanzania, Malawi, Uganda, everywhere I went, there was something to drive you up the wall.
There's no point in disputing that they are far behind. It's true that many of them were just plain stupid. They lacked the aptitude to work. They had no hunger for success. It took a special kind of managing to get them to work. To be productive. In almost every country, the local businesses were eaten inside out by the South Africans, Indians, Koreans, Chinese. But why?
As far as the evolution of human intelligence goes, I do think Africans can be considered a few steps behind. I support the theory of genetic memory, and therefore support the theory that the ancestors of current Africans having had different experiences, passed on different qualities in their genes. That is the extent of racial difference I support. I do not believe that there is some unchanging genetic component, which destines them forever to tag along behind men of lighter color. In other words, I believe if white men or yellow men had the history black men or brown men had and vice versa, the intelligence capabilities would have been the other way around.
One thing I noticed in Zimbabwe, was the number of intellectual people, who had studied in the UK. That gave me lots of hope. Perhaps the first generation that goes outside the confines of African tradition will not catch up with the western or eastern way of thought. But as that continues, over many generations, I believe we will find the gap -in terms of intelligence types- changing, narrowing.
We so called advanced peoples, so called first world nations. We are still hampering the growth of the less developed nations. Our foreign policies. Our aid programs. There are so many areas where we are simply doing things wrong. Only when we let black men and brown men stand on the same platform with us, can we consider any difference due to race. As long as we keep them steps behind us in terms of environment and circumstance, we have no right or basis to consider any difference a genetic predisposition.
That's my opinion.(reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam77
Friday, January 12, 2007, 19:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's a very good opinion for the most part. However, you also have to assess the cost born on light skinned people will allowing "black men and brown [to] stand on the same platform with us." Yes, there is a cost. I don't have to go into it. I'll just say that the cost can be personally painful. My uncle had a hard time finding a job once as a pilot because of the affirmative action programs in the 90s. White people in the States are turned away every day in the U.S. from Government jobs, because the government has quotas, whether official or unofficial but threatened (if they don't hire enough blacks, Black organizations like the NAACP will sue them), for hiring colored people. Is this just?
Somehow I wish all the colored people could just be transported to another planet, where they can evolve in peace. I don't think it'll take a few generations like you suggest, it could take a long long time, as evolution works very slowly. If you want to know how the white man gained his intelligence you can postulate on the facts about the environments, generally more difficult northern colder terrains, in which they evolved. Maybe the long winters forced early man who migrated out of Africa to develop the process of "planning" for harder days ahead. And those who had the greater mental abilities to plan and remember, plan and remember, plan and remember, survived the best, and over not a few but many many many generations, their brains evolved into more acute organs. It's the same process that it takes to breed an average dog into special kind of dog, with attractive features or special abilities.
So sure, I agree, colored people have the ability to evolve the same, but they haven't yet. That's the difference.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, January 14, 2007, 06:25
 (Agree/Disagree?)
"Affirmative action" does no such thing! It simply replicates existing problems by ensuring that decisions are made on the basis of a person's ethnicity, gender, or whatever, rather than on their individual merits. By doing so it further denigrates the abilities of the one being given preferential treatment and discourages both the one discriminated in favor of, and against, from making the effort to fully contribute to society since the first will be rewarded regardless, and the second will equally remain disadvantaged.
Life is not fair, and it never has been, but to pull up arguments from decades - or even centuries - ago in order to justify current actions is not going to make anything right, and in all probability will just serve to perpetuate the historic injustices simply with a new 'victim'. That said, if you wish to voluntarily disadvantage yourself, then don't let me stop you - just don't try to force that disadvantage onto others who have not made such a choice.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Oddman
Sunday, January 14, 2007, 13:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Fair, unfair. When will people realize there is no such thing as fairness? Fairness means you get what you want at the someone elses expense. Unfairness means someone gets what they want at your expense.
You can't balance out the past by responding to "unfairness" with more "unfairness". We can't undo the past. All we can do is change the future. Attempting to compensate for the past now, will only result in the next generation being born into a world of discrimination and "unfairness". Just like the generation before. And this next generation of oppressed people will fight for more rights, just like the generation before. An endless game of seesaw.
We've all seen it before. The spoiled naive brat that never grows up because daddy still treats her like a baby. Affirmative action is just that. As long as you keep feeding the birdie, she ain't gonna fly away. All affirmative action has done is remove the wire cage, and replace it with an even more dangerous cage for the mind. Affirmative action is worse in that neither side can benefit.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Sunday, January 14, 2007, 15:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
I totally agree. I disagree with affirmative action, both on principle, and based on my lack of faith in it's effectiveness. That doesn't mean I have any love or sympathy for the white losers who blame their situation on affirmative action. I don't have any sympathy for black, brown, yellow, pink, or any color person who blames their situation on anything for that matter.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From idiots anonymous
Sunday, January 14, 2007, 16:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
While traditionally, America is viewed as a predominantly 'white' country, the constitution as always maintained, even if the government hasn't always upheld it, that all men (referring to humans, before gender equality) were created equal. I believe that the founding fathers actually believed this. I personally don't believe in God, or the creation of the human species. I do however believe that mankind evolved and 'mother nature' endowed equal opportunity to every individual strong enough to conquer his or her elements and survive. It is mankind that has changed this balance by enslaving groups of people and pretty much imposing their will because they had evolved faster, or had access to the right elements to provide them with weapons, etc. The argument that other races are evolutionary inferior may be true, I really don't know. But, I believe that if that is the case, it is our species that has prevented other races, genders, etc., to be held back, whether technologically, socially, or any other way, by depriving the victims of access to their information, be it literature, instruction, or even the ability to meet together and develop ideas to further their development. I think these traits are evident throughout our recorded history. These 'inferior subspecies' were able to gain their 'freedom' by persevering against incredible odds, or finding some way to hold their captors hostage. Many hundreds and thousands of slaves of various races were tortured, abused, killed, and other various punishments inflicted to try and prevent the 'equality' of the quality of life available. This is not just referring to the dark skinned races that jollifam would like to see a continued domination of, but I'm also referring to our women of all races. Think of those involved in the suffrage rights battle. They were imprisoned, force fed via tube when they went on hunger strike, abused, deprived of sanitary conditions and amenities, cut off from contact with their family and loved ones, scorned by their own kind, and ultimately, bittersweet triumph with 'equality' declared. Should we say that women didn’t do enough to ensure their ability to be as accomplished as men because they're genetically inferior and haven't evolved to the same level that the male gender has? Or do we say that it's a shame that men saw it necessary to deprive the other gender of our own species any of the rights that we granted ourselves?
I don’t know if any of this is relevant to science or the facts of evolution, but I know that it is the close-minded approach of bigamists, chauvinists, etc., that led to the deplorable situations our kind has continually perpetuated on the ‘inferior’ since the origin of our species.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam77
Monday, January 15, 2007, 14:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
I in fact do know that pretty much everything you said irrelevant to sicence or the facts of evolution, namely because you are talking about only recent history, the last 4 or 5 hundred years. It many many tens of thousands of years long longer than that for the races to evolve to the point that they are today. Is it close minded to take these unbridgable gaps in racial evolution into account? I think not.(reply to this comment) |
| | From idiots anonymous
Monday, January 15, 2007, 15:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh, do forgive me! I failed to realize that your education at the hands of an American university made you the ‘be all, end all’ of all things pertaining to racial evolution. I'm aware of the many gaps, but no one knows what exactly happened during those stretches of history as there is no record of what happened. If evolution has shown us anything, it's that the evolutionary process holds constant and repeats. Therefore, by deductive reasoning methods, I came to the conclusion that what has happened in recent memory is more than likely to have occurred on a vastly different scale, millennia ago. Besides, we clearly don’t agree and from your point of view, I’d hardly expect you to listen to any side of an argument that you didn’t already support!(reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam77
Monday, January 15, 2007, 15:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
I guess I would have guessed that you actually were referring to evolutionary history, i.e. stretching back to prehistoric times. I don't know what to make of that argument, nor what is your point. Are you saying that modern man is more enlightened and hence has more responsibility to his fellow humanoids, than prehistoric man who would readily slaughter any bi-ped not belonging to his immediate tribe? Or were those damn cave men just so immoral for wiping out the Neanderthals. We should have a Neanderthal day just for that. See I'm just trying to figure out your point, and everyone else's. Almost everyone on this board seems think they're on the moral high ground. But to me not much of what you or almost anyone else here contradicting me makes much sense.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, January 14, 2007, 15:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm not changing the subject - the relationship between colleagues is at least as important as that between friends. Not only do you spend the majority of your day with them, but the effectiveness of your working relationship directly impacts what you are able to achieve. While it may sound perfect from the sterility of a theoretical proposition, in reality everyone is happiest when working with people whose skills complement their own, and perhaps more importantly whom they get along with - often that means people with whom you share some sort of bond, be it ethnic, cultural, or whatever.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, January 14, 2007, 16:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
At the end of the day affirmative action through legislation will never change that. If people don't get along, forcing them to work together only takes second place to giving one group preference over the other on the scale of hair-brained ideas! Who said that everyone has the same goals in life? Who said that ambitions - and skills to match - are exactly evenly spread across politically correct patterns to match the ethnic make-up of a community or country? And what about the rest of the world? To what level does your ethnic profiling reach? Are people to be deprived the freedom to choose with whom they live and work in the name of your social engineering experiment?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From AnnaH
Sunday, January 14, 2007, 12:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, that's a bit of a stretch. I guess what I take most offense to is the notion of white people complaining about discrimination after black people have suffered it for hundreds of years, up until 40-50 years ago, and are arguably still suffering it today.
What a bunch of freaking whiners. I mean, it's not like we're making you sit in the back of the bus, forbidding you from sidewalks, or forcing you into occupations traditionally performed by minorities.
You cry out it's not fair that we should bear the consequences of the sins of our ancestors, but it's not fair that they should bear them either. Do you think everyone just woke up the day segration was banned and said "Oh, now blacks are our equals," and resolved to treat them fairly?
I don't know if affirmative action is the best solution to reversing the effects of years of discrimination and racism, but I'd like to see a better solution if you have one. (reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam67
Monday, January 15, 2007, 15:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think good immigration laws, limiting immigration to Europe only, like they had in the early 20th century, would work fine. As for the blacks in America, they already live on welfare, so the Liberian program might be resurrected and they could migrate to Liberia and live with fellow Africans. They could stay on the dole until they get on their feet, which is doubtful, but anyways.....(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From sar
Sunday, January 14, 2007, 04:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
I haven't been following the whole of this thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating something. It would be hard to believe that many governments (especially the US government) base their decisions on moral notions. I think racism laws were put in place to prevent civil uprising and perhaps the possibility of a civil war. The moral arguments are given to the people, but probably not the rationale behind the decision (take the war on Iraq, enfranchisement, democracy, and immigration laws as other examples). Moral arguments play a part in that they legitimise the issue, but at the end of the day it is the amount and type of support the argument gets rather than its viability that makes the difference. There are enough people of ethnic and racial minorities in the US to pose a threat, even without support from white people. If the government continued to allow discrimination, they would be running the risk of the minority groups banding together to get what they wanted. (reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam67
Monday, January 15, 2007, 15:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
I totally agree. But how much longer this can last is the big question. I'm seeing race wars erupting sometime this century, as soon as things start to get really bad, and whites start to wake up. Already the American cities are in ruins, and extremely dangerous places to try to live in. The handouts to the minorities-soon-to-be-majorities can only last as long as resources are there. Every day more and more people from the third world migrate to the U.S. whether legally or illegally and almost immediately sign up for welfare and/or start using social services. At some point there won't be enough resources to pay into this party gone wrong. Many are coming to realize this (take Lou Dobbs of CNN for instance). After the money runs out, it's every man to himself.(reply to this comment) |
| | From sar
Monday, January 15, 2007, 16:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
It will last until it becomes politically expedient to change the situation. I don't have a settled opinion on "positive discrimination", but when that starts to foster too much resentment it will presumably be changed.
The laws on immigration are also made in accordance with perceived economic advantages, when it becomes disadvantageous they simply stop letting people in or change the criteria for letting people in. I understand that it may be different in the states as they have a bigger problem with illegal immigrant, but am surprised that illegal immigrants are able to claim welfare. If so, the position is very different that the UK's. Illegal immigrants do not get welfare. Refugees are allowed to work. Unemployed people get welfare. Asylum seekers get welfare as they are not allowed to work or put their children in school until they get refugee status. I would be surprised if the situation you describe is actually as it is in the US.
Hasn't the US been a dangerous place to live for a very long time, at least since the "settlers" immigrated? (reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Monday, January 15, 2007, 16:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree, ethnic strife is a very possible scenario. Especially in the advanced nations of the world. UK, France, Australia, USA, all these countries have seen their share of ethnic clashes in recent years. Riots and the like. It is very possible that such clashes will become more frequent and violent. But why are these immigrants flocking to the "first world" in the first place? War in their home country. Extreme poverty. All too often, we look attempt to cure the symptoms, and miss the disease. We combat the effects, without dealing with the cause. You could change a radiator and your car will keep going for a few months. But radiators don't just break down for no reason. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Sunday, January 14, 2007, 02:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree with this somewhat. That one race or people were subject to oppression and discrimination doesn't justify the reverse. Blacks oppressing whites in Zimbabwe, is not justified by the history of whites oppressing blacks in Rhodesia. There's a difference between giving a man crutches so he can walk himself, and carting him around in a wheelchair. There's a difference between protecting a man, and fighting his wars.
In my opinion, the second paragraph is slippery slope argumentum with a triple serving of BP lubricant. This kind of paranoic fear is just as detrimental to reaching a fair balance, as overboard compensation.(reply to this comment) |
| | From rainy
Saturday, January 13, 2007, 01:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
(Excuse me while I vomit)
I'd so much rather hang around people of understanding of all races than ever meet a selfish, small-minded, arrogant prick such as yourself.
The planet belongs to us all. Your disgusting self-aggrandising views just make you so much less fit to share it.
Who are you take make a judgement call on what is more important? For aboriginal tribes, their connection with nature and earth is something we can never experience. No white person could survive in the Australian deserts without civilisation. That takes a type of intelligence we don't possess.
Knowledge of computers would be meaningless to them. It's not real in their world. South Sea Islanders can dive for pearls without diving equipment and open them with their bare hands...and they also know how to survive without money, something I doubt you'd ever be able to do.
For fuck's sake, stop being so arrogant and see life from a different angle. Not everyone shares your views. Not everyone's life is based on artificial things like economies and business.
And your little world is not any more more valid than an african's. It's just different.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Oddman
Friday, January 12, 2007, 21:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
Simplistic generalizations such as "colored people have lower levels of intelligence" resulted in situations where qualified men and women of color were denied opportunities, while less qualified persons were given opportunities for no reason other than the color of their pale skin. By denying professional opportunities, academic opportunities, white society kept a leash on men of color. Slavery didn't end with the civil war.
I'm against affirmative action. I believe in each according to his ability. If a white man is more qualified, then I don't see why a black person should get the opportunity. But the "cost" to white people is (excuse my language), a piss poor excuse. What of the "cost" to blacks? What of the "cost" to latinos? What of the "cost" to Asians? I hear white people in the pubs cursing affirmative action all the time. Well, some of these white "victims" of affirmative action, just aren't worth 8 bucks and hour.
Welcoming those disadvantaged races into the frontline of society can only work in your favor. Welcoming blacks into golf gave you Tiger Woods. Welcoming blacks into Tennis gave you Serena Williams. Welcoming blacks into Hollywood gave you Denzel Washington and Jamie Foxx. Just because you don't yet have a black Bill Gates doesn't mean it won't happen. Who knows but the next Einstein could be Mexican, the next Tesla Angolan, and the next Picasso Indian. Why limit your possibilities?
I have my thoughts on the contributing factors to the general difference in southern and northern culture. Heat and sun as mentioned below certainly are contributing factors. I'll reserve further comment on that, as I haven't the time to get into it just now.
One thing I do agree with. It would be just splendid if we could come up with a way to deport undesirables to some space colony. First ticket should go to religious fanatics, political extremists, child molesters, britney lovers, and oh, ignorant racists.(reply to this comment) |
| | From cringe
Friday, January 12, 2007, 21:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
The things you say in your comment are so offensive on so may levels. I find it hard to reconcile some of the obviously educated things you say with such backward racism.
This is the "colored people's" planet just as much as yours. In fact, maybe for longer in some cases.
Let me ask you, wouldn't it be inefficient to go to the corner store in a Hummer? Maybe certain behaviors "evolve" or are learned because it is what makes most sense in a given environment. Dark skin evolved because of so much exposure to the sun. In tropical climates people take things more slowly to endure the heat.
For example, how the hell was the raw potential of us Family kids going to evolve in an environment of stultification?
Maybe racists, whites or "colored people", should be sent to another planet to evolve in humanity.(reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam77
Saturday, January 13, 2007, 21:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
You bring up an interesting point, I think the gist of which is: So a dark skinned person owes his dark skin, aggressiveness, and instinctual hunting prowess to the fact that for millenia, his ancestors needed these traits to surive in the Sahara desert, where it's always hot, and there's ample game, you just need to go out and kill it, 365 days a year. You don't need to build much in the way of shelter, not much incentive to farm, so you just take it easy in the sun, and try to stay cool as much as possible. Things and process aren't very complicated, so you don't have to write them down or think too hard.
I agree, this set-up makes perfect sense for his tribe/ethnic group/race. This is the argument you put forward, and the point you are trying to make is that just because they evolved that way, doesn't make them any less a person. If that's what you are trying to say...
The fact of the matter is, yes, while we can appreciate the abilities of those subspecies (races) within the larger homo-sapiens species, while we can sit and appreciate the wonderful quality of having dark skin, which protects the skin from being burned by the sun so easily, there is a time when we have to decide who is most qualfied to perform any of the numerous tasks required by a modern information-based society. It has nothing to do with valuing the person as an individual, it's just a pragmatic, even selfish, thing we have to do as we make up our minds about what we value, and how we can get the things that benefit us personally. And by extension, figuring out what make a successful nation or community, even determining what's the optimal racial composition of that nation or community. At that point it's up to you decide who you want to live with and associate with. The problem is the government is deciding these things for us now. And at the point you start to think more politically as I have... (reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Sunday, January 14, 2007, 02:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
And there is a time we have to admit that a member of the brown or black races may be better "qualified to perform any of the numerous tasks required by a modern information-based society". To write off the successes and achievements of dark skinned men and women as a product of affirmative action is the popular response from men and women who simply weren't more qualified for the position. I agree that the government should have no right to determine who you associate with. The government has no right to tell you not to associate yourself with klansmen, skinheads, or nazis. But the government does have a responsibility to protect minorities against discrimination. As long as there are employers who consider race a determining factor in the selection of employees, affirmative action is a neccessary evil. If employers truly hired based on qualifications, then there would be no need for affirmative action. The first step to reducing reverse discrimination and reverse racism, is to reduce discrimination and racism. Reduce what you dish out, and less will come flying back at you. (reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam77
Monday, January 15, 2007, 14:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
that's all good and well but the end of this allowing brown people to take advantage of whites like it's been going on ever since MLK got into bed with all the blonde sluts from the bar, the end of all this is a country mixed race, diluted country like Brazil. I lived in Brazil for 9 years. It's a stinking third world crap country, owing entirely, in my opinion to it's bad racial composition. period.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From jolifam77
Sunday, January 07, 2007, 20:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
never said BA is equal to intelligence. I did imply however, that I will pretty much only take someone seriously who has made the effort to gain a broad base of knowledge you get over the course of four years of study, as well as the training to argue logically. I would recommend the undergraduate degree from an American university (or equivalent) to anyone. It gives one a good perspective (and saves you from looking like an idiot in the company of other graduates). (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From EC
Sunday, January 07, 2007, 22:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
Meh, My point is your BA hasn't helped you any. You just think their nice and long and fancy. Yor perspective makes less sense than a fourth grader raised by anteaters, you look like a total idiot, and have no understanding of even the slightest concept of logic.
Is that simple enough for a BA to understand?
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From sar
Thursday, January 11, 2007, 13:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
I wasn't calling anyone an idiot. I was actually wondering whether the mistakes were made intentionally. Anyway, I just have a thing about they're and you're being spelt their and your. It makes me cringe.
As far as the benefits of higher education, I only think it beneficial if it will help one acheive what they want. Richard Branson did fine without a degree, as have many other people.(reply to this comment) |
| | From apostate
Friday, January 12, 2007, 05:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm not quite sure what the obsession with Richard Branson is with some of the people on this site. He is neither the most influential person to have never had a college degree, he is also hardly the most succesful. Here are a few names that, if I remember correctly, never got a degree:
Harry Truman
George Washington
Bill Gates
Thomas Edison
Lance Armstrong
Steve Martin
Al Sharpton
Michael Moore
Those are a few off the top of my head. All I'm saying is, congratulations to Mr. Branson and all, but seiously, let's get off his jock strap already(reply to this comment) |
| | From sar
Friday, January 12, 2007, 07:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Richard Branson was the first name that came to mind. Some of the people on your list are dead and so would not have made good examples of success without a degree in this day and age. I certainly wouldn't put Steve Martin or Michael Moore above Richard Branson in terms of success. Anyway, have you got something against successful non-Americans?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Oddman
Monday, January 08, 2007, 19:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
While I consider it the responsibility of the parent to give the child an adequate education, I would dispute the notion that schools and college are the only acceptable way. I have no issues with home schooling so long as the curriculum is adequate to compensate for a school education. As for college, plenty people pay their own way through college, and I wouldn't blame the family for not doing so. Further, judging from my conversations with people here, many of us do have a life. Many of us have a life minus bias and bigotry and academic snobbism or diplomaism. Above all, many here have a enormous wealth of character. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From conan
Friday, January 05, 2007, 11:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
That's why they removed her uterus, not tie or remove her ovaries. Tube tying does not remove the biological elements that would prevent menstration or the (often) painful cramps assosciated with the cycle. They did the right thing for their daughter as far as her comfort, and the continued care of her by taking the steps they did to 'stunt' her growth and remove her breasts and ovaries. The complications of having a grown woman menstrating and in pain as well as with breasts that could be both cumbersome and intrusive to her care regimen would far out weigh any ethical implications raised by the removal of those options.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from shikaka
Thursday, January 04, 2007 - 17:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
It seems to me that the kindest thing would have been to have done some prenatal testing, and aborted this unfortunate child. Assuming of course, such disorders can be detected.
It seems like such a waste of time, tears, grief, and medical resources to keep this poor girl alive. Can one with the sentience of a 3 year old even be classified as self-aware? I dont have the answers, but it all just seems like such a pointless waste to me.
(reply to this comment)
| From an apostate
Thursday, January 04, 2007, 18:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
The kid is completly healthy except for a mental defect. It's not a 'retardation' or something like Downs Sydrome that could be picked up on a pre-natal test. It's a very unique case which is why there is a lot of publicity, probably too much, surrounding the treatment.
If it could have been detected, I'm convinced after reading the parents' blog that they would not have wanted to put their child through anything less than what they consider to be the best possible scenario. It's unfortunate that their child is so incapable of improvement or any sort of 'quality of life' but it's impressive and very commendable that they didn't commit Ashley to some sort of care home and be done with her in their lives.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from Nick
Thursday, January 04, 2007 - 11:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
That is so funny that you posted this as I was just coming to the site to post about this very same story!
When I read the initial headlines I was a little shocked, but after reading the full story along with going to the Blog that the family wrote, I am totally on board with the parents.
Here is the BLOG that her parents have written about their reasoning along with some pictures and very detailed explanations. http://ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com/ After reading this you can't doubt that the parents did the right thing. Not to mention that the hospital ethics board of 40 members also agreed with them.
(reply to this comment)
| from steam
Thursday, January 04, 2007 - 10:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
I totaly trust the parents on this one. They have amazing consideration for the child. They did go through a medical ethics commitee which would have really weighed everything out.
(reply to this comment)
| from AnnaH
Thursday, January 04, 2007 - 09:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
The first time I read this I missed the part about her being already disabled and was completely outraged, but after re-reading I don't think it's such a bad thing. It's hard to say how you'll act and the choices you'll make when faced with a disabled child, I can't judge them for that.
(reply to this comment)
| From conan
Thursday, January 04, 2007, 11:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, the thing that probably irks me the most about situations like this, and the one we had with Terry Schiavo, is that it's nobody's business except for the parents, and/or immediate family. I know that I posted this in the hopes of sparking more debate on our continuous ethics and morality issues, but my take is to just leave it the hell alone. Unless of course we were to have the necessary stem cell research that could save this girl's life with genetic reproduction of whichever of her cells have broken down.
I think that if DNA medicine progressed to where we could do something, and then the parents chose this form of treatment over the more expensive route of stem-cell transplantation, then there would be a more legitimate reason to have people object to their choice in treatment. As is, however, with our incompetent government being afraid to continue the medicinal advances of our time, this couple seems very modern in their way of thinking if you ask me. I mean, if you think about it, this girl will remain small for the remainder of her life. Why would the parents want to have to bring in help to care for their daughter for the sole reason that she’s too big for them to handle or be able to assist properly when they get older. If she stays small for longer, then they can care for her longer, and who can honestly find fault with that. Plus, if they brought in one of these agencies to help care for the kid, and the face of the help changes all the time, the kid might react negatively. At least this way, the child is in a state of constancy and doesn’t have any trauma it’s diminutive mind can’t handle.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nick
Thursday, January 04, 2007, 11:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
While I agree that PART of the reason that they want her small it so that they can handle her, that’s not the sole reason. Read the family blog that I posted the link to above. They explain it all very well.
Also, while see your point about the Terry Schiavo case being a family matter, I am sure your aware that the reason it had to become a legal matter was because the family was split over the decision. Her parents wanting to keep her a veggie and her husband wanting to let her die in peace.
One point that I also want to bring up is that I do respect the rights of peoples choice to an EXTENT, there are many cases where I am glad that there are laws that force these issues to be brought in front of a ethics committee. Such as the recent case where the over religious father didn't want his daughter to maintain her cancer treatment and instead opted for a formula of prayer and herbs. Think about all the times in the cult where a parents right to chose was actually endangering the child. It's really a very fine line between to much "big brother" and a necessary evil.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From conan
Friday, January 05, 2007, 11:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
Not to bring up completely dead subjects (excuse the pun), but keeping Shiavo alive was none of her parents' business. She was no longer under their care or guardianship. She was married and hadn't lived under her parents' roof for years prior to her medical situtation. They had no legal right to choose life or death for her when her husband was the only one with a legal say in keeping her on endless life support with no chance of a cure (without stem cell research and some amazing medical breakthroughs) or letting her be taken off life support and go the 'natural' way.
The claim of 'leaving things to nature' is so phony when medicine wouldn't exist today if things were left to natural causes and 'God's way'.
Terry Shiavo's husband did all he could for her from both a medical and ethical perspective, in my opinion. Taking her off life support was not only the right thing to do, but I think it was the only logical option left. Her parents taking him to court and dragging the whole family through a public relations war was the most insensitive and harmful thing they could have done for their daughter. But whatever, she's dead so it's all good!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]