Colin Smith
Doublethink
Shipmate
in Hell
Doublethink wrote: »(Crossposted with fineline.)
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:Colin Smith wrote: »Doublethink wrote: »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.Colin Smith wrote: »Antisocial Alto wrote: »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.)
la vie en rouge wrote: »Wow. Someone managed to post views so repugnant that even @fineline called him thick.
Well, I've just had to check my misanthropy. @Colin Smith is surprisingly horrible, even for a person.
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.
@Colin Smith
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.
Yes, it is eugenics, and depending how far it gets taken, Colin would get killed too.
mousethief wrote: »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?
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.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Great idea. PM Sent.
A Hell thread generally isn't people talking about you. It's people talking to you.
Talking about you: 'That Colin Smith chap is rather thick, isn't he.'
Talking to you: 'Colin Smith, you strike me as not very intelligent.'
I now read that you're opposed to exterminating the "subhuman." Given that people you regard as "subhuman" will likely continue to exist among us, please explain what you think is an appropriate response to this situation?
https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/24/girl-4-in-wheelchair-told-shes-a-drain-on-society-and-shouldnt-be-alive-10975552/?ito=cbshare
Some days make me feel like punching my ticket more than others. I'm going to log off now and go carve my pumpkins with the faces of demons.
AFF
Loveless life: joyless and grim? Feeling so rotten about himself that he displays it outward as hatred for others. Controlling, self righteous, pedantic. Which WHO (World Health Organization) calls anankastic personality disorder, Freud called anal-retentive, and is conventionally called asshole.
Maybe they're afraid of feeling/being trapped, and want to know that someone would release them from that trap. And/or, on some level, they don't want to see what scares them.
Just thinking out loud. No idea if this applies to Colin.
FWIW: I don't see any sign that he's lacking in the intelligence department--just that he knows what he thinks/feels, and doesn't want to change.
Be that as it may, Doublethink deserves a few minutes off their time in the real Purgatory for the supererogatory task of dragging all that text here so as not to further derail the Susan Doris thread.
The fear thing is actually how I read Colin’s posts, though also with lack of emotional awareness to be able to acknowledge he is feeling this. From what I observe, he defines himself by what he sees as his own rationality, sees emotions as unimportant as he’s not in touch with his own, and being self-centred, he defines humanity by how he perceives himself. And so the idea of losing rational thought seems horrifying to him.
I also read a lack of subtlety in thought and self expression, plus a stubborn refusal to re-evaluate his black and white views. So when people take his views to simplistic extremes and say ‘Do you believe this?’ he says yes (or no, if they’ve added something he hasn’t said) and just keeps repeating himself. Whereas someone with more advanced and nuanced ability to explore ideas and logic might reword, might define their terminology, acknowledge that the wording they’ve used isn’t the best, and develop and hone their thoughts in response to people’s questions and replies. In all my observations of Colin, he’s never seemed able/willing to do this, for any topic. Hence my view of his limited intelligence, and I don’t see a lot of point discussing at length with him or getting upset with him.
That seems very charitable. (Not saying it's wrong.) A variant on the old moral principle, "Never put down to malice what can be explained by incompetence."
But is that writing him off, just as he easily tends to write people off? (In a much more extreme way)
I suppose you could see it that way, though that seems a bit of a simplistic comparison, especially if you observe the many ways I have interacted, and continue to interact, with Colin. I'd see it more as a shortcut, in a limited world, where we all have limited time. When we attempt multiple times to have an intelligent conversation with someone, and they display the same behaviour each time, simply repeating a simplistic view, rather than acknowledging and exploring other perspectives, or looking to hone their own ideas, there comes a point where it makes sense to stop trying to discuss at a level they don't discuss at, and have such discussions instead with people who do. That seems simply common sense. It doesn't mean that if the person then starts to behave in a different way that you don't reconsider your approach. But for the time being, given that Colin is continuing to discuss in this very black and white way, continually repeating himself, it seems sensible to acknowledge this and not waste my time having the same conversation again and again. That is my personal choice, of course - others are free to act differently.
Colin's made clear that he is not religious. So that whatever it is that moves us to hold human life as sacred, he doesn't have it.
Leaving him - as far as I can tell - with a default position that humans with any particular condition have to warrant being valued, by the same ethical criteria that are applied to pets, ETs, genetically-enhanced animals AIs, or any other type of being.
But again, I could be reading him wrong.
I’m also minded to quote a Dragonage NPC: “You have chosen a path whose steps you do not dislike because it leads to a destination you enjoy.”
An atheist effectively freely chooses what moral code they wish to adhere to, what ethical system they wish to reason with.
Yes, it had already been discussed at length, which was why I was surprised that it all got dragged out again here. It is amusing that after I made a childish throwaway comment about wanting to be annoying everyone found a reason to be annoyed with me and even started a hell thread in my name.
I suppose I should be flattered but it is rather silly.
Not at all. If you find talking to someone just turns into the same dead end all the time then stop talking to them. I'm fine with that.
You're reading me pretty well. Your second para in particular cuts to the heart of why the subject interests me. What is it 'you' have that I don't share and what is the basis for that difference?
I am as astonished as you that I have "my own thread".
I had no intention of derailing the Susan Doris thread (not that I see any value in a thread attacking one of the least offensive people on the entire ship) and am surprised at the reaction to what was always intended as a silly throwaway line about wanting to be annoying.
And don't flatter yourself. If I wanted to be aroused I'd look at porn.
I was thinking of IngoB actually ...
I quite liked IngoB. I had the sense with him, though, that if his logic took him to conclusions that most people would instinctively find repellant, he would take that as proof that our instincts are wrong, rather than that his logic is wrong.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. Relying on our moral instincts means, in practice, remaining imprisoned by the moral assumptions of our own time and place, meaning that morality can never evolve. But you do have to be very, very sure of the quality of your own powers of reasoning to do that sort of thing.
Really. So I post this silly throwaway remark:
Rook then says:
And you come in with
So what were you reacting to? Seems to me you just dragged up a long-dead thread for no good reason. This is the internet. No one remembers anything for more than a week.
I work closely with five people of varying physical and intellectual capacities. One of the most profoundly intellectually and physically disabled people I know is in constant pain. His pain is greater when he gets personal assistance which happens at least 4 times a day. Yet he loves new staff and is always trying to interact with people, staff and strangers. He is interested and engaged in life. He communicates by very limited movements of his arms and legs, by eye and head movements, and by making a range of sounds. I often play communication games with him, mostly guessing games. It's always me who has to stop the games. He would go for hours if he could.
I'd love to tell you about other people I know and love and all the things they get up to. But I'll leave it at the one guy.
I'm supposed to be giving support, but I often find that I am the one who benefits from my work. My clients are a joy to be with, not only because they inspire me with their resilience but because they are simply nice people to spend time with. They build me up, they are funny and they are kind. They live authentic lives in the face of adversity.
Be kind to Colin. We are all products of our life experience. I hope one day he might change his mind. It concerns me that he seems not to place much store in emotions. They are part of our humanity.
Clearly this is wrong, as evidenced by people still discussing IngoB, years after he left. What else could you be wrong about?
Perhaps I should have used a
I would say this place is unlike anything else I've found on the internet and not in a good way.