Colin Smith

(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:
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.)
Wow. Someone managed to post views so repugnant that even @fineline called him thick.
RooK wrote: »
Well, I've just had to check my misanthropy. @Colin Smith is surprisingly horrible, even for a person.
fineline wrote: »
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.
lilbuddha wrote: »
@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.
fineline wrote: »
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?
Russ wrote: »
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.

«1345

Comments

  • Russ wrote: »
    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.
    RooK wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Then what's your point?
    He very explicitly pointed out the exact claim that you made which is clearly false - that only humans get dementia.

    Are you pretending to be to be too stupidly defensive to acknowledge that?
    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.
    Russ wrote: »
    Colin Smith reminds me of a sci-fi geek.
    You remind me of a Nazi fluffer.
    (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:
    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.
    Russ wrote: »
    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.

    Your second paragraph is spot on.
    fineline wrote: »
    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.
    fineline wrote: »
    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.
    This is distinguishable from amorality in what way ?
    fineline wrote: »
    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.

  • fineline wrote: »
    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.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    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.
    fineline wrote: »
    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.
    @lilbuddha

    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.
    This is distinguishable from amorality in what way ?

    Does it have to be distinguishable?
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    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.
  • fineline wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    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.
  • @Doublethink - if you'd PMd me, I could have split the thread...
  • (I thought of it, then I thought I shouldn’t burden you with extra work.)
  • There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    No, I'm pretty sure those considered "less-than-human" by those in power find being discussed rather worse than being left alone. You horrific stupidity-oozing pustule.
  • "Oh I can't be bothered to respond to your Hell call." Even some of Boris Johnson's lies lasted longer that that.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    @Doublethink - if you'd PMd me, I could have split the thread...

    Great idea. PM Sent.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.

    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.'

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Sorry, I failed to see this thread before posting the following on the Susan Doris thread, so I'm reposting it here.
    Ohher wrote: »
    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.

    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?
  • Wow. I read through the other thread and this one, then repaired to another bulletin board community and found them discussing this news item.

    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
  • Do your carving accurately enough and the police can use it for a “wanted” poster of that man.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    FWIW, I'm bored of Colin Smith now (there, Colin, I talked about you), but would find it interesting to discuss humanity and intelligence in Purg, or maybe Epiphanies would be more appropriate, as we are discussing people's lives and worth, and I imagine many of us have real life experiences to share. I'm not sure how to word the topic as a whole though, which is why I haven't started a thread myself, but I was enjoying the discussion in about dementia, and not knowing how much is really going on inside a person's mind, and felt it would be a good discussion to continue. I would join in if someone creates a thread.
  • There is literally a thread on this in Epiphanies, if you would like. It's in Epiphanies rather than Purgatory, because most of us who are here have a vested interest in what it is to be human...
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Oh, I apologise, Doc Tor - I hadn't read that thread, but I do remember the title now I see it. And yes, I was trying to indicate that I thought Epiphanies would be more appropriate - I mentioned Purg first because I'd mentioned it earlier, forgetting that Epiphanies was also an option. I guess this has already been discussed at length and I'm late to the party! Ah well. Colin Smith was also saying it would be an interesting topic to discuss, but it looks like he already discussed it in that thread anyway.
  • edited October 2019
    It's always difficult to diagnose by internet, though there's a tradition to diagnose people by the fruits of their writings.

    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.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    As a wheelchair-bound drain on society who is dependent upon others and believes in things that Colin Smith finds faintly silly, I am left wondering what he would have me do with myself.
  • Drain on society Ross? You're a blessing to this Ship!
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    To be fair, having read through Colin Smith's contributions to the thread Doc Tor linked, there is absolutely nothing in his views about people being a 'drain on society' - and from how open he is about being totally self-centred, I really don't get the impression he thinks people have an obligation to contribute to society. His view (see here) on how humanity is defined seems to be purely about mental capacity. I don't agree with him that reduced mental capacity makes a person less human, and I'd even suggest that, ironically, his own ability to engage in abstract thought seems kind of limited, but he has nowhere talked about people being a drain on society.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Thanks, @Robert Armin, but I can no longer do a lot of basic things myself anymore, and depend upon the assistance of others. And as @Colin Smith says,
    I would also like to see euthanasia for patients with severe and incurable medical conditions... legalised though accept this could only happen with medical advice and the consent of those involved.
    I have a "severe and incurable medical condition." I would actually like euthanasia to be a choice, but given Mr. Smith's apparent sociopathy, I worry that he'd make it mandatory. Perhaps it's a relief that he says he "accepts" that others would have to be involved.

  • Accepts reluctantly?
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Accepts in the absence of other meaningful, attractive alternatives?
  • That's a handful of modifiers. Not killing people is a meaningful, attractive alternative to me to killing people.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Accepts when there may be legal questions about the ability to give meaningful consent?
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    It is my impression that the gentleman is not overly concerned with such concepts as "meaningful consent."
  • I think that some people who think that way are simply scared that disability, etc. could happen to *them*.

    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.
  • Fuck me, are we giving this stupid fucking troll his own thread now? He's made it really abundantly clear that he is an attention seeker who is no doubt touching himself with his non-phone hand as he reads otherwise insightful people give his "thoughts" attention that could easily be spent on better things - like staring into space.

    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.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Golden Key wrote: »
    I think that some people who think that way are simply scared that disability, etc. could happen to *them*.

    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.

    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.
  • @fineline
    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."
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Not intentionally charitable - just my analysis, piecing together all I’ve observed of Colin Smith so far, since he first arrived. I simply haven’t observed anything I would interpret as malice. A lot of self-centredness, which he himself acknowledges, and lack of awareness of how he is coming across and how people are reading him and why. Which he also acknowledges when he says he has low emotional intelligence.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    @fineline said -
    ....and I don’t see a lot of point discussing at length with him or getting upset with him.

    But is that writing him off, just as he easily tends to write people off? (In a much more extreme way)
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Boogie wrote: »
    @fineline said -
    ....and I don’t see a lot of point discussing at length with him or getting upset with him.

    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.

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    You are right @fineline, as usual. 🙂
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    To be fair, repeating what one has said is a fairly natural response to those who read into a post all sorts of sinister things that were neither said nor directly implied.

    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.

  • There are many non-religious people who also find his views repugnant. Iain Macleod once said of Enoch Powell he was “driven mad by the remorselssness of his own logic”, can’t think why that comes unbidden to mind ...

    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.
  • fineline wrote: »
    Oh, I apologise, Doc Tor - I hadn't read that thread, but I do remember the title now I see it. And yes, I was trying to indicate that I thought Epiphanies would be more appropriate - I mentioned Purg first because I'd mentioned it earlier, forgetting that Epiphanies was also an option. I guess this has already been discussed at length and I'm late to the party! Ah well. Colin Smith was also saying it would be an interesting topic to discuss, but it looks like he already discussed it in that thread anyway.

    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.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    @fineline said -
    ....and I don’t see a lot of point discussing at length with him or getting upset with him.

    But is that writing him off, just as he easily tends to write people off? (In a much more extreme way)

    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.
  • Russ wrote: »
    To be fair, repeating what one has said is a fairly natural response to those who read into a post all sorts of sinister things that were neither said nor directly implied.

    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.

    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?
  • NB. apologies for my somewhat erratic posting routine. I don't have internet at home so rely on cafes and libraries and there's a lot of internet to catch up on.
  • Fuck me, are we giving this stupid fucking troll his own thread now? He's made it really abundantly clear that he is an attention seeker who is no doubt touching himself with his non-phone hand as he reads otherwise insightful people give his "thoughts" attention that could easily be spent on better things - like staring into space.

    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.

    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.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited October 2019
    That wasn’t what I was reacting to Colin.
  • There are many non-religious people who also find his views repugnant. Iain Macleod once said of Enoch Powell he was “driven mad by the remorselssness of his own logic”, can’t think why that comes unbidden to mind ...

    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.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited October 2019
    Orwell said “There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them.”. Though he speaks in terms of intelligence, I think he was identifying the same phenomenon.
  • That wasn’t what I was reacting to Colin.

    Really. So I post this silly throwaway remark:
    It's annoying that Susan Doris gets all the credit for being an annoying atheist when I'm doing my level best and hardly anyone even notices.

    Rook then says:
    RooK wrote: »
    That's because she's doing it wrong (which people hate), and you don't matter (who are you again?).

    And you come in with
    He’s the man who thinks some people are less than human. (I find that hard to forget or see past - looks like it’s just me though.)

    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 missed all this, and am sad that Colin seems to think that people with disabilities have less value than others. It's a bizarre opinion, but one that is very common.

    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.
  • 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.

    Clearly this is wrong, as evidenced by people still discussing IngoB, years after he left. What else could you be wrong about?
  • mousethief wrote: »
    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.

    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 :wink: for those who can't spot a facetious comment.

    I would say this place is unlike anything else I've found on the internet and not in a good way.
  • When one is being an asshole, one's facetiousness is likely to be overlooked. Like one (you) is being with this last post.
This discussion has been closed.