I've worked with plenty of people with severe learning disabilities, and never questioned their humanity - often they seemed more free to express their humanity, without all the levels of ego, defensiveness and self-importance that so many have.
Colin Smith, in all my observations of you in the forums, you have generally struck me as not very intelligent. Rightly or wrongly, I've understood you more in those terms than in terms of you being a nasty person. But I have never once seen you as less human than those who strike me as being considerably more intelligent than you.
But calling people less than human is historical typical of genocidal theory and praxis.
But I'm not doing that. Those with severe mental conditions are no longer or never were people. They have lost or never gained those faculties by which we (as in I) define a person.
It's not like I'm trying to suggest that anyone can be less than human because of their ethnicity or religion or culture.
Are you seriously implying that people like Ted Bundy or Jim Jones are more fully human than people with Downs Syndrome or brain injury, because they're more "intelligent"? Jesus H. Christ. You don't have to be religious, or believe people have souls, to see the problems with that.
Unfortunately, yes.
People with moderate and severe learning disability (intellectual disability/mental retardation) are not dead, are not less than human, are not incapable of having meaningful existence, are not incapable of achieving a good and enjoyable life. Every argument about voluntary or involuntary euthanasia that starts from the premise that you can have no life worth living if you can’t:
manage your own personal care without help
use language
engage in complex abstract thought
live independently
Fundamentally devalues the existence and worth of these people.
(Perhaps I should just start a dedicated hell thread - I hadn’t realised how angry and upset I still was about this.)
Heh, I don't equate repugnant views in general with thickness. I always thought Colin Smith didn't seem intelligent, long before he posted such views. I also don't see low intelligence as something to be ashamed of, though it seems people would often rather be seen as nasty than thick, which I find a disturbing element of our society. But yes, normally I wouldn't mention my impression that someone isn't very intelligent to them, as that is considered rude, like pointing out to someone that they have a big nose, but in this case it seemed relevant, as Colin is defining humanity by levels of intelligence.
If human is as human does, then babies aren't human and should be put down.
If you say "but they are as human does, at that stage in their lives" then the answer is "and people YOU view as subhuman or nonhuman are as human does, given their stage of life or condition." You can hardly say that dementia isn't human. What other animal gets it?
a disease prevalent in dogs that exhibit symptoms of dementia or Alzheimer's disease shown in humans
I don't, er, have a dog in this fight, but it's about time somebody pulled you up on your tendency to throw out snide remarks bald assertions that don't stand up to ten seconds' googling.
Colin Smith reminds me of a sci-fi geek. Someone who has taken seriously the thought experiment of meeting non-human intelligent life. And reached the conclusion that an ET with the capacity to express personality is a person and should be treated as a person.
With the corollary that a human who has permanently lost that capacity is effectively dead - that the person who inhabited the body has died even if the body lives on.
a disease prevalent in dogs that exhibit symptoms of dementia or Alzheimer's disease shown in humans
I don't, er, have a dog in this fight, but it's about time somebody pulled you up on your tendency to throw out snide remarks bald assertions that don't stand up to ten seconds' googling.
Don't know how to thank you. We're already in Hell. I assume that you, too, want to kill the demented, because they share dementia with dogs? No? Then what's your point? Just want to hump my leg? Yeah, I thought so. Go away, little boy.
Colin Smith reminds me of a sci-fi geek. Someone who has taken seriously the thought experiment of meeting non-human intelligent life. And reached the conclusion that an ET with the capacity to express personality is a person and should be treated as a person.
With the corollary that a human who has permanently lost that capacity is effectively dead - that the person who inhabited the body has died even if the body lives on.
Logic problem with that corollary—if you add ET to the category “persons” due to humanoid thinking, logic, morals, behavior, that says absolutely nothing about whether other existing members of the category lose their personhood when they lose those abilities. You have not proven that those qualities and only those qualities make one a member of the set. “Being born into the category human” is another qualifying attribute which severely disabled people have not lost. In short, you have committed a logical fallacy.
The logical fallacy is dwarfed by the consideration introduced by the supposition of beings capable of interstellar travel potentially having mental capabilities which would qualify all humans as "non-persons" in comparison by this paradigm.
Then what's your point? Just want to hump my leg? Yeah, I thought so. Go away, little boy.
In addition to what @RooK said, my point is that your aggressive hit-and-run posting is tiresome, all the more so when you double down instead of acknowledging when you're plainly wrong.
And you've just done exactly the same thing on this thread. Throwing out playground insults instead of admitting your mistakes doesn't exactly make you look good.
Eutychus you have been a foul-tempered bully since you became an Admin. I don't know why. You were pretty reasonable before then, but the change has been noticeable. I've seen you take it out on other posters, now you take it out on me. I wondered when it was going to be my turn. You pick a mistake I made, but it was just an excuse to pounce. Look to your own house.
Your crew position has to do with timing (go back and read what I wrote). That is roughly the time you started posting very differently on the Ship. I've always been an asshole. With you it's much more recent and roughly datable. Also this has nothing to do with moral high ground, it's an observation of a posting pattern.
It very much looks like you pounced because pouncing has become your new MO.
It very much looks like you pounced because pouncing has become your new MO.
I've told you why I pounced. You were demonstrably wrong in Purgatory and failed to acknowledge it, doubling down instead. That's rude and contrary to the spirit of Purgatory. I had it in mind to call you to Hell, came down here and discovered you'd just done exactly the same thing (thrown out an aggressive assertion that was entirely devoid of substance), so I decided to tackle it here rather than indulge you with an entire thread of your own or derail the Purg thread further.
You are all annoying me now - throwing personal insults around.
(Yes, I know this is hell 🙄)
But the subject, imo, is far too important to let it disintegrate into a slanging match. It’s at the heart of nearly all the ills on Earth - people treating others as sub human.
We should start a new hell thread and mousethief and Eutychus should go fight on Eutychus’ existing one. But I am too depressed by the whole clusterfuck to do any thing about it.
You pick a mistake I made, but it was just an excuse to pounce.
I pounced because you were unnecessarily rude on the Purg thread I linked to and doubled down instead of acknowledging you were mistaken then.
What purg thread are you referring to? The pounce above (with links to dog dementia etc) has to do with things said on this thread, which is a Hell thread.
But calling people less than human is historical typical of genocidal theory and praxis.
But I'm not doing that. Those with severe mental conditions are no longer or never were people. They have lost or never gained those faculties by which we (as in I) define a person.
It's not like I'm trying to suggest that anyone can be less than human because of their ethnicity or religion or culture.
Are you seriously implying that people like Ted Bundy or Jim Jones are more fully human than people with Downs Syndrome or brain injury, because they're more "intelligent"? Jesus H. Christ. You don't have to be religious, or believe people have souls, to see the problems with that.
Unfortunately, yes.
People with moderate and severe learning disability (intellectual disability/mental retardation) are not dead, are not less than human, are not incapable of having meaningful existence, are not incapable of achieving a good and enjoyable life. Every argument about voluntary or involuntary euthanasia that starts from the premise that you can have no life worth living if you can’t:
manage your own personal care without help
use language
engage in complex abstract thought
live independently
Fundamentally devalues the existence and worth of these people.
(Perhaps I should just start a dedicated hell thread - I hadn’t realised how angry and upset I still was about this.)
We are not even on the same page when it comes to defining severe mental conditions.
Feel free to start a hell page. I shall not participate as I can't be arsed.
Colin Smith reminds me of a sci-fi geek. Someone who has taken seriously the thought experiment of meeting non-human intelligent life. And reached the conclusion that an ET with the capacity to express personality is a person and should be treated as a person.
With the corollary that a human who has permanently lost that capacity is effectively dead - that the person who inhabited the body has died even if the body lives on.
Interesting. No I am not a sci fi geek and have never conducted that thought experiment. However, I do believe that members of other primate species do qualify as persons for that reason.
Colin, it sounds like you are not familiar with the criteria for severe learning disability, so if you are not on the same page as Doublethink (who will know the criteria), it is due to your ignorance of terminology and of learning disability. Have you met many people who have a diagnosis of severe learning disability? Or any, in fact? I have - I worked several years with both adults and children with this diagnosis. I came across a few of them in town the other day, whom I worked with when they were ten. They are 18 now. They were having a nice day out with their support staff. They recognised me, they smiled, they said hello to me. Some could answer simple questions I asked them, others couldn't.
The next step in severity after 'severe' is 'profound.' I also worked with many people with profound learning disability. They don't speak, and are often in wheelchairs, as they have multiple disabilities. They still smile, can connect with you, can enjoy life.
I've worked with plenty of people with severe learning disabilities, and never questioned their humanity - often they seemed more free to express their humanity, without all the levels of ego, defensiveness and self-importance that so many have.
Colin Smith, in all my observations of you in the forums, you have generally struck me as not very intelligent. Rightly or wrongly, I've understood you more in those terms than in terms of you being a nasty person. But I have never once seen you as less human than those who strike me as being considerably more intelligent than you.
Experience suggests I am of above average general intelligence but not by a massive amount. I do lean more towards the analytical rather than the emotional side and I am self-centred to the point where my principal interest is self-expression. I am quite good at emotional compartmentalising and prefer to have nothing to do with those with severe learning disabilities. I would probably rate my emotional intelligence as low.
Colin, most people think they are of above average intelligence, so I guess that is an average thing to think. I agree your emotional intelligence seems low, though if your overall intelligence is high, you can use it to work on your emotional intelligence, which is something that can be learned and developed. I would rate your curiosity and openness levels as low, and I find that stunts people's intelligence.
Colin, it sounds like you are not familiar with the criteria for severe learning disability, so if you are not on the same page as Doublethink (who will know the criteria), it is due to your ignorance of terminology and of learning disability. Have you met many people who have a diagnosis of severe learning disability? Or any, in fact? I have - I worked several years with both adults and children with this diagnosis. I came across a few of them in town the other day, whom I worked with when they were ten. They are 18 now. They were having a nice day out with their support staff. They recognised me, they smiled, they said hello to me. Some could answer simple questions I asked them, others couldn't.
The next step in severity after 'severe' is 'profound.' I also worked with many people with profound learning disability. They don't speak, and are often in wheelchairs, as they have multiple disabilities. They still smile, can connect with you, can enjoy life.
I've met very few people with severe learning difficulty and probably don't have my terms correct. My main concern is dementia because that is my, albeit limited, experience.
I am also interested in how people define what is is to be human and the possible affect religious/spiritual belief might have on those definitions. As a non-spiritual person I define "human" solely through intellectual and empathetic ability (along with a few other attributes) rather than through any innate quality.
In practical terms, I would like to see better diagnosis of medical conditions in vitro with a preference given to abortion once diagnosis is confirmed. I would also like to see greater use of living wills where people can determine what kind of care/assisted dying, should they be unable to take their own life. I would also like to see euthanasia for patients with severe and incurable medical conditions, including dementia, legalised though accept this could only happen with medical advice and the consent of those involved.
I am emphatically not in favour of indiscriminately killing patients just because they don't measure up to my, or any other person's standards.
I've worked with plenty of people with severe learning disabilities, and never questioned their humanity - often they seemed more free to express their humanity, without all the levels of ego, defensiveness and self-importance that so many have.
Colin Smith, in all my observations of you in the forums, you have generally struck me as not very intelligent. Rightly or wrongly, I've understood you more in those terms than in terms of you being a nasty person. But I have never once seen you as less human than those who strike me as being considerably more intelligent than you.
Experience suggests I am of above average general intelligence but not by a massive amount.
People are often very poor at self-evaluation, so what experience?
I do lean more towards the analytical rather than the emotional side and I am self-centred to the point where my principal interest is self-expression. I am quite good at emotional compartmentalising and prefer to have nothing to do with those with severe learning disabilities. I would probably rate my emotional intelligence as low.
From Psychology Today:
Emotional intelligence is generally said to include at least three skills: emotional awareness, or the ability to identify and name one’s own emotions; the ability to harness those emotions and apply them to tasks like thinking and problem solving; and the ability to manage emotions, which includes both regulating one’s own emotions when necessary and helping others to do the same.
There is no validated psychometric test or scale for emotional intelligence as there is for "g," the general intelligence factor—and many argue that emotional intelligence is therefore not an actual construct, but a way of describing interpersonal skills that go by other names.
What is depicted in your posting is lack of empathy. Which is not exclusive to lacking emotional intelligence.
Colin, most people think they are of above average intelligence, so I guess that is an average thing to think. I agree your emotional intelligence seems low, though if your overall intelligence is high, you can use it to work on your emotional intelligence, which is something that can be learned and developed. I would rate your curiosity and openness levels as low, and I find that stunts people's intelligence.
I am curious about that which interests me and incurious about that which doesn't. I'm not that interested in working on my emotional intelligence.
As regards my 'openness' it's worth noting that I am an atheist talking with a bunch of people who believe in something I find faintly silly and yet am managing to converse without insulting anyone.
The lack of openness is coming from those who seem to regard me as some kind of sociopathic monster.
As regards my 'openness' it's worth noting that I am an atheist talking with a bunch of people who believe in something I find faintly silly and yet am managing to converse without insulting anyone.
"without insulting anyone" = "you should be killed if you lack capacity"
It doesn't matter that you're not using 'cockwomble' or 'wanker' or 'tosspot': you are definitely being enormously insulting, and by that I mean fantastically, offensively insulting. You're absolutely right in one regard, we do consider you a sociopathic monster, but that doesn't stem from our lack of openness. Rather, it's a defence mechanism of a group when presented with a sociopathic monster.
Colin, most people think they are of above average intelligence, so I guess that is an average thing to think. I agree your emotional intelligence seems low, though if your overall intelligence is high, you can use it to work on your emotional intelligence, which is something that can be learned and developed. I would rate your curiosity and openness levels as low, and I find that stunts people's intelligence.
I am curious about that which interests me and incurious about that which doesn't. I'm not that interested in working on my emotional intelligence.
Yes, that is the impression I get of you, and one of the reasons why you strike me as being of very limited intelligence. When people are incredibly self-absorbed and self-centred, their view of the world is very limited, and their intelligence and understanding doesn't really have chance to grow. Developing emotional intelligence is of course a challenge and involves looking beyond your self-centredness.
You are an atheist who has made it clear that you want to discuss religion with people whose views you find silly, simply so you can write about it in your book. But when you rephrased what you understood of people's views, and posted an extract from your book, you seemed not to have grasped people's perspectives at all. Another reason you strike me as not so bright.
Whether or not you have insulted people is not something you are likely to know, as you lack emotional intelligence, as you say. An open person might look for ways of gauging how others are reacting to them - but of course, that involves emotional intelligence, which you are not interested in developing. People here are generally courteous - outside of Hell, at least - and often will simply stop interacting with someone they find odious, or not very bright, or not worth their time. Very few will tell you outright that you've insulted them. They might hint it, more subtly, and I've observed that happening with you sometimes, but I guess you haven't.
Incidentally, if you were open enough to spend some time with people with severe learning disabilities, you may learn a bit about emotional intelligence, because plenty of people with learning disabilities have very high emotional intelligence.
I agree that a discussion on what makes someone human would be interesting. You could start one in Purgatory if you like.
As regards my 'openness' it's worth noting that I am an atheist talking with a bunch of people who believe in something I find faintly silly and yet am managing to converse without insulting anyone.
"without insulting anyone" = "you should be killed if you lack capacity"
It doesn't matter that you're not using 'cockwomble' or 'wanker' or 'tosspot': you are definitely being enormously insulting, and by that I mean fantastically, offensively insulting. You're absolutely right in one regard, we do consider you a sociopathic monster, but that doesn't stem from our lack of openness. Rather, it's a defence mechanism of a group when presented with a sociopathic monster.
Holding views that some find offensive is not the same as insulting someone. Insulting someone is a direct personal attack, such as calling someone a sociopathic monster.
Colin, most people think they are of above average intelligence, so I guess that is an average thing to think. I agree your emotional intelligence seems low, though if your overall intelligence is high, you can use it to work on your emotional intelligence, which is something that can be learned and developed. I would rate your curiosity and openness levels as low, and I find that stunts people's intelligence.
I am curious about that which interests me and incurious about that which doesn't. I'm not that interested in working on my emotional intelligence.
Yes, that is the impression I get of you, and one of the reasons why you strike me as being of very limited intelligence. When people are incredibly self-absorbed and self-centred, their view of the world is very limited, and their intelligence and understanding doesn't really have chance to grow. Developing emotional intelligence is of course a challenge and involves looking beyond your self-centredness.
You are an atheist who has made it clear that you want to discuss religion with people whose views you find silly, simply so you can write about it in your book. But when you rephrased what you understood of people's views, and posted an extract from your book, you seemed not to have grasped people's perspectives at all. Another reason you strike me as not so bright.
Whether or not you have insulted people is not something you are likely to know, as you lack emotional intelligence, as you say. An open person might look for ways of gauging how others are reacting to them - but of course, that involves emotional intelligence, which you are not interested in developing. People here are generally courteous - outside of Hell, at least - and often will simply stop interacting with someone they find odious, or not very bright, or not worth their time. Very few will tell you outright that you've insulted them. They might hint it, more subtly, and I've observed that happening with you sometimes, but I guess you haven't.
Incidentally, if you were open enough to spend some time with people with severe learning disabilities, you may learn a bit about emotional intelligence, because plenty of people with learning disabilities have very high emotional intelligence.
I agree that a discussion on what makes someone human would be interesting. You could start one in Purgatory if you like.
Your definition of intelligence seems odd to me.
You are an atheist who has made it clear that you want to discuss religion with people whose views you find silly, simply so you can write about it in your book is actually false. That was my initial reason for joining this group, however I have been discussing religion with religious people for far longer than I have been writing this particular book. Belief, spirituality, mythology, and folklore have been an interest for all of my adult life, but never having written anything from the viewpoint of a churchgoer I thought it might be worthwhile talking to the churchgoers on this group.
It is worthwhile but not for the reasons I supposed.
Colin, most people think they are of above average intelligence, so I guess that is an average thing to think. I agree your emotional intelligence seems low, though if your overall intelligence is high, you can use it to work on your emotional intelligence, which is something that can be learned and developed. I would rate your curiosity and openness levels as low, and I find that stunts people's intelligence.
I am curious about that which interests me and incurious about that which doesn't. I'm not that interested in working on my emotional intelligence.
Yes, that is the impression I get of you, and one of the reasons why you strike me as being of very limited intelligence. When people are incredibly self-absorbed and self-centred, their view of the world is very limited, and their intelligence and understanding doesn't really have chance to grow. Developing emotional intelligence is of course a challenge and involves looking beyond your self-centredness.
You are an atheist who has made it clear that you want to discuss religion with people whose views you find silly, simply so you can write about it in your book. But when you rephrased what you understood of people's views, and posted an extract from your book, you seemed not to have grasped people's perspectives at all. Another reason you strike me as not so bright.
Whether or not you have insulted people is not something you are likely to know, as you lack emotional intelligence, as you say. An open person might look for ways of gauging how others are reacting to them - but of course, that involves emotional intelligence, which you are not interested in developing. People here are generally courteous - outside of Hell, at least - and often will simply stop interacting with someone they find odious, or not very bright, or not worth their time. Very few will tell you outright that you've insulted them. They might hint it, more subtly, and I've observed that happening with you sometimes, but I guess you haven't.
Incidentally, if you were open enough to spend some time with people with severe learning disabilities, you may learn a bit about emotional intelligence, because plenty of people with learning disabilities have very high emotional intelligence.
I agree that a discussion on what makes someone human would be interesting. You could start one in Purgatory if you like.
Your definition of intelligence seems odd to me.
Yes, I suspected it would, as you don't seem to have much of a grasp on what intelligence is, and how it has been explored and described and defined by psychologists and neuroscientists and such. Perhaps you might find it also interesting to open a Purg thread about intelligence, as well as about humanity, if you can muster up sufficient curiosity.
Anyway, my view of you stands, after this brief interaction with you. Your general lack of curiosity means it's unlikely this discussion will get beyond your general attitude of: 'These are my views and I'm not going to change them, and people who challenge me are just using terminology oddly, because I have my personal views on how each term should be defined, regardless of dictionaries and linguistics and research and such, and I have no interest in anything outside of myself and my limited perspective.'
Having been reading along without joining in (and having some experience from the past with folks who have severe disabilities, including "learning" ones (anyone questioning my air quotes can ask, but let's not go into that now), I can't help chiming in.
First, the 4 listed criteria will almost certainly apply to everyone at some point:
* manage your own personal care without help
Since this category includes someone in traction after an auto accident, any child under the age of about 5, or an individual who has lost some capacities in extreme age, etc. are you suggesting that those of us not so afflicted should step back and allow these individuals to expire? Or should we just exterminate them at the earliest opportunity?
While a reduction in sheer numbers of the planet's human population may arguably be desirable from an ecological standpoint, is this the most effective way to achieve such a reduction?
Of course, of the three examples above, you may argue that two (childhood and accident recovery) are temporary situations. But how do we know this? Accident victims sometimes die instead of recovering; not every child survives to adulthood. What criteria should we use in determining which victims/children are worth our care? I once had on my case load a woman in her 70s with a son almost 40 who wore diapers (which she changed) and who required assistance in bathing, dressing, and eating (which she provided). Plainly, the son should have been done away with at birth, but the expertise to predict his future situation was not available then. Should he have been done away with at age 6? When he reached adolescence? Or when?
* use language
Please define for us exactly what a "language" is, and what precisely constitutes "use" of same. How about if you can "receive" the language but not express yourself in it? How about if you can express yourself but not "receive" it? How about if technological or human intervention readily completes the expressive/receptive cycle? Or should we just execute everyone who hasn't mastered Received Pronunciation / Standard American English by age 12?
* engage in complex abstract thought
Maybe you'd like to try a little experiment I ply my composition students with on Day 1 of class: I ask them, "What is a sentence?" I routinely get the answer, "A sentence is a complete thought." "Great," I tell them. "Now please tell me what a 'complete thought' is." This usually produces dead silence. Eventually we work our way around to something like this: "If I ask whether you passed your math test, is the 'yes' or 'no' you utter a complete thought?" This generally produces some disagreement centering around nouns and verbs. I then ask those arguing that it is a complete thought whether the one-word answer is a sentence.
Please tell us what a "thought" is, and please provide some criteria for determining a thought's relative complexity / abstraction.
* live independently
Please find me someone who actually lives independently; then we'll talk.
A young friend of my wife's was on a community service assignment of some kind, and was shown into one of those old style wards where the dementia patients sat in chairs along the walls, appearing to look into space and doing nothing. He told his guide, "I'd rather be dead than be like this". "No you wouldn't, young man", said an old lady who never normally spoke. I have no scientific knowledge of this subject, but I have difficulty in believing there is such a thing as a completely inactive mind in a conscious person. I don't think anyone knows for sure what is going on in those minds.
I agree, Stercus Tauri, having worked in care homes for dementia patients. There was one woman that everyone in particular felt sorry for, because there was such a change in her behaviour from how she'd been before her dementia. Her first language was French, and although she had been fluent in English, she no longer spoke or seemed to understand English. Because I know a bit of French, I tried speaking to her in French, and she didn't show any sign of understanding, but I kept trying, and then one time she looked me in the eye and said, in English, in a clear, intelligent, sensitive tone of voice, very different from her usual, 'You are a very kind lady.' And she squeezed my hand.
Also, when I worked in a care home for people with learning disabilities, there was a woman with Down Syndrome who had early onset dementia, and everyone assumed she just wanted to sit and do nothing, as that is what she generally did, but I would observe her and I observed the things that caught her eye, and gave her a momentary sparkle - balloons was one such thing - so I brought those things to her, and she was like a different person. Her eyes would light up and she would speak and laugh.
And just generally from working with patients who'd had severe head injuries, in a neuro-rehab ward, you soon realise that it's impossible to grasp what is going on in someone's head, or predict their cognitive abilities and development, because neuro-plasticity means all sorts of changes can take place.
I’ve known the same sort of unexpected response from Alzheimer’s patients, even at the very end. I’ve concluded that the person isn’t erased, but rather unable to get through.
I’ve known the same sort of unexpected response from Alzheimer’s patients, even at the very end. I’ve concluded that the person isn’t erased, but rather unable to get through.
Yes, this. Which is scarier still, and which requires sensitivity and kindness, giving us an opportunity to show compassion.
Indeed. It's why I'm careful what I say around anybody still breathing (even on a ventilator) because there's a non-zero chance that they're still listening. (Not referring to nasty remarks, more to talking as if they're not in the room or making dire predictions, that sort of thing.)
Comments
Colin Smith, in all my observations of you in the forums, you have generally struck me as not very intelligent. Rightly or wrongly, I've understood you more in those terms than in terms of you being a nasty person. But I have never once seen you as less human than those who strike me as being considerably more intelligent than you.
It’s not just about the dying though, here are some people, and some other people that it seems Colin thinks should be put down.
I base that assertion on this:
People with moderate and severe learning disability (intellectual disability/mental retardation) are not dead, are not less than human, are not incapable of having meaningful existence, are not incapable of achieving a good and enjoyable life. Every argument about voluntary or involuntary euthanasia that starts from the premise that you can have no life worth living if you can’t:
Fundamentally devalues the existence and worth of these people.
(Perhaps I should just start a dedicated hell thread - I hadn’t realised how angry and upset I still was about this.)
Hate to get all Godwin on you, but what you describe IS eugenics. And the way you describe it is doing your case no good.
If you say "but they are as human does, at that stage in their lives" then the answer is "and people YOU view as subhuman or nonhuman are as human does, given their stage of life or condition." You can hardly say that dementia isn't human. What other animal gets it?
Canine Cognitive Dysfunction I don't, er, have a dog in this fight, but it's about time somebody pulled you up on your tendency to throw out snide remarks bald assertions that don't stand up to ten seconds' googling.
With the corollary that a human who has permanently lost that capacity is effectively dead - that the person who inhabited the body has died even if the body lives on.
Don't know how to thank you. We're already in Hell. I assume that you, too, want to kill the demented, because they share dementia with dogs? No? Then what's your point? Just want to hump my leg? Yeah, I thought so. Go away, little boy.
Logic problem with that corollary—if you add ET to the category “persons” due to humanoid thinking, logic, morals, behavior, that says absolutely nothing about whether other existing members of the category lose their personhood when they lose those abilities. You have not proven that those qualities and only those qualities make one a member of the set. “Being born into the category human” is another qualifying attribute which severely disabled people have not lost. In short, you have committed a logical fallacy.
Are you pretending to be to be too stupidly defensive to acknowledge that?
The logical fallacy is dwarfed by the consideration introduced by the supposition of beings capable of interstellar travel potentially having mental capabilities which would qualify all humans as "non-persons" in comparison by this paradigm.
You remind me of a Nazi fluffer.
And you've just done exactly the same thing on this thread. Throwing out playground insults instead of admitting your mistakes doesn't exactly make you look good.
And the moral high ground you've suddenly chosen to occupy doesn't sit very well with your previous invitation to me to hump your leg.
Neither of these things has anything to do with my Crew position and you know better than to insinuate as much.
It very much looks like you pounced because pouncing has become your new MO.
(Yes, I know this is hell 🙄)
But the subject, imo, is far too important to let it disintegrate into a slanging match. It’s at the heart of nearly all the ills on Earth - people treating others as sub human.
It deserves better.
What purg thread are you referring to? The pounce above (with links to dog dementia etc) has to do with things said on this thread, which is a Hell thread.
We are not even on the same page when it comes to defining severe mental conditions.
Feel free to start a hell page. I shall not participate as I can't be arsed.
Interesting. No I am not a sci fi geek and have never conducted that thought experiment. However, I do believe that members of other primate species do qualify as persons for that reason.
Your second paragraph is spot on.
The next step in severity after 'severe' is 'profound.' I also worked with many people with profound learning disability. They don't speak, and are often in wheelchairs, as they have multiple disabilities. They still smile, can connect with you, can enjoy life.
Experience suggests I am of above average general intelligence but not by a massive amount. I do lean more towards the analytical rather than the emotional side and I am self-centred to the point where my principal interest is self-expression. I am quite good at emotional compartmentalising and prefer to have nothing to do with those with severe learning disabilities. I would probably rate my emotional intelligence as low.
I've met very few people with severe learning difficulty and probably don't have my terms correct. My main concern is dementia because that is my, albeit limited, experience.
I am also interested in how people define what is is to be human and the possible affect religious/spiritual belief might have on those definitions. As a non-spiritual person I define "human" solely through intellectual and empathetic ability (along with a few other attributes) rather than through any innate quality.
In practical terms, I would like to see better diagnosis of medical conditions in vitro with a preference given to abortion once diagnosis is confirmed. I would also like to see greater use of living wills where people can determine what kind of care/assisted dying, should they be unable to take their own life. I would also like to see euthanasia for patients with severe and incurable medical conditions, including dementia, legalised though accept this could only happen with medical advice and the consent of those involved.
I am emphatically not in favour of indiscriminately killing patients just because they don't measure up to my, or any other person's standards.
From Psychology Today:
What is depicted in your posting is lack of empathy. Which is not exclusive to lacking emotional intelligence.
I am curious about that which interests me and incurious about that which doesn't. I'm not that interested in working on my emotional intelligence.
As regards my 'openness' it's worth noting that I am an atheist talking with a bunch of people who believe in something I find faintly silly and yet am managing to converse without insulting anyone.
The lack of openness is coming from those who seem to regard me as some kind of sociopathic monster.
My experience of how people relate to me.
I agree that I am low on empathy and tend to reserve it for those I like or admire. I dislike being waylaid by inconvenient emotion.
Does it have to be distinguishable?
"without insulting anyone" = "you should be killed if you lack capacity"
It doesn't matter that you're not using 'cockwomble' or 'wanker' or 'tosspot': you are definitely being enormously insulting, and by that I mean fantastically, offensively insulting. You're absolutely right in one regard, we do consider you a sociopathic monster, but that doesn't stem from our lack of openness. Rather, it's a defence mechanism of a group when presented with a sociopathic monster.
Yes, that is the impression I get of you, and one of the reasons why you strike me as being of very limited intelligence. When people are incredibly self-absorbed and self-centred, their view of the world is very limited, and their intelligence and understanding doesn't really have chance to grow. Developing emotional intelligence is of course a challenge and involves looking beyond your self-centredness.
You are an atheist who has made it clear that you want to discuss religion with people whose views you find silly, simply so you can write about it in your book. But when you rephrased what you understood of people's views, and posted an extract from your book, you seemed not to have grasped people's perspectives at all. Another reason you strike me as not so bright.
Whether or not you have insulted people is not something you are likely to know, as you lack emotional intelligence, as you say. An open person might look for ways of gauging how others are reacting to them - but of course, that involves emotional intelligence, which you are not interested in developing. People here are generally courteous - outside of Hell, at least - and often will simply stop interacting with someone they find odious, or not very bright, or not worth their time. Very few will tell you outright that you've insulted them. They might hint it, more subtly, and I've observed that happening with you sometimes, but I guess you haven't.
Incidentally, if you were open enough to spend some time with people with severe learning disabilities, you may learn a bit about emotional intelligence, because plenty of people with learning disabilities have very high emotional intelligence.
I agree that a discussion on what makes someone human would be interesting. You could start one in Purgatory if you like.
Holding views that some find offensive is not the same as insulting someone. Insulting someone is a direct personal attack, such as calling someone a sociopathic monster.
The irony is amusing.
Your definition of intelligence seems odd to me.
You are an atheist who has made it clear that you want to discuss religion with people whose views you find silly, simply so you can write about it in your book is actually false. That was my initial reason for joining this group, however I have been discussing religion with religious people for far longer than I have been writing this particular book. Belief, spirituality, mythology, and folklore have been an interest for all of my adult life, but never having written anything from the viewpoint of a churchgoer I thought it might be worthwhile talking to the churchgoers on this group.
It is worthwhile but not for the reasons I supposed.
I don't care.
Or I lied.
I think I'll just delete all these...
Yes, I suspected it would, as you don't seem to have much of a grasp on what intelligence is, and how it has been explored and described and defined by psychologists and neuroscientists and such. Perhaps you might find it also interesting to open a Purg thread about intelligence, as well as about humanity, if you can muster up sufficient curiosity.
Anyway, my view of you stands, after this brief interaction with you. Your general lack of curiosity means it's unlikely this discussion will get beyond your general attitude of: 'These are my views and I'm not going to change them, and people who challenge me are just using terminology oddly, because I have my personal views on how each term should be defined, regardless of dictionaries and linguistics and research and such, and I have no interest in anything outside of myself and my limited perspective.'
First, the 4 listed criteria will almost certainly apply to everyone at some point:
* manage your own personal care without help
Since this category includes someone in traction after an auto accident, any child under the age of about 5, or an individual who has lost some capacities in extreme age, etc. are you suggesting that those of us not so afflicted should step back and allow these individuals to expire? Or should we just exterminate them at the earliest opportunity?
While a reduction in sheer numbers of the planet's human population may arguably be desirable from an ecological standpoint, is this the most effective way to achieve such a reduction?
Of course, of the three examples above, you may argue that two (childhood and accident recovery) are temporary situations. But how do we know this? Accident victims sometimes die instead of recovering; not every child survives to adulthood. What criteria should we use in determining which victims/children are worth our care? I once had on my case load a woman in her 70s with a son almost 40 who wore diapers (which she changed) and who required assistance in bathing, dressing, and eating (which she provided). Plainly, the son should have been done away with at birth, but the expertise to predict his future situation was not available then. Should he have been done away with at age 6? When he reached adolescence? Or when?
* use language
Please define for us exactly what a "language" is, and what precisely constitutes "use" of same. How about if you can "receive" the language but not express yourself in it? How about if you can express yourself but not "receive" it? How about if technological or human intervention readily completes the expressive/receptive cycle? Or should we just execute everyone who hasn't mastered Received Pronunciation / Standard American English by age 12?
* engage in complex abstract thought
Maybe you'd like to try a little experiment I ply my composition students with on Day 1 of class: I ask them, "What is a sentence?" I routinely get the answer, "A sentence is a complete thought." "Great," I tell them. "Now please tell me what a 'complete thought' is." This usually produces dead silence. Eventually we work our way around to something like this: "If I ask whether you passed your math test, is the 'yes' or 'no' you utter a complete thought?" This generally produces some disagreement centering around nouns and verbs. I then ask those arguing that it is a complete thought whether the one-word answer is a sentence.
Please tell us what a "thought" is, and please provide some criteria for determining a thought's relative complexity / abstraction.
* live independently
Please find me someone who actually lives independently; then we'll talk.
Also, when I worked in a care home for people with learning disabilities, there was a woman with Down Syndrome who had early onset dementia, and everyone assumed she just wanted to sit and do nothing, as that is what she generally did, but I would observe her and I observed the things that caught her eye, and gave her a momentary sparkle - balloons was one such thing - so I brought those things to her, and she was like a different person. Her eyes would light up and she would speak and laugh.
And just generally from working with patients who'd had severe head injuries, in a neuro-rehab ward, you soon realise that it's impossible to grasp what is going on in someone's head, or predict their cognitive abilities and development, because neuro-plasticity means all sorts of changes can take place.
DT
HH
Yes, this. Which is scarier still, and which requires sensitivity and kindness, giving us an opportunity to show compassion.