Abortion, MMCs and political incorrectness

[JoeBobSmith]

The model I most trust is one in which humans acknowledge and respond to their own emotions.  

agree 100%

consciousness is just a series of emotions

[JoeBobSmith]

All realities are false realities.  We live only by models of the world us, and we have to trust those models as best we can.  The model I most trust is one in which humans acknowledge and respond to their own emotions.  For centuries our predecessors were taught to deny their own emotions and submit instead to the ruthless dominance of the prevailing religion.  In the last two or three decades we have become more acquainted with our feelings and more trusting of our individual emotions - then these logical empiricists come along under the banner of atheism telling us all to put our feelings back in a box again and not take any notice of them.  Just one of many ways in which the new atheism simply replicates the religion of the past.  

All realities are false realities, we just have to decide for ourselves which false reality we prefer.

even though I can't make sense of a lot of your posts, I like your out-of-the-box thinking.  ty

[The Magic Pudding]

All realities are false realities.  We live only by models of the world us, and we have to trust those models as best we can.  The model I most trust is one in which humans acknowledge and respond to their own emotions.  For centuries our predecessors were taught to deny their own emotions and submit instead to the ruthless dominance of the prevailing religion.  In the last two or three decades we have become more acquainted with our feelings and more trusting of our individual emotions - then these logical empiricists come along under the banner of atheism telling us all to put our feelings back in a box again and not take any notice of them.  Just one of many ways in which the new atheism simply replicates the religion of the past.  

All realities are false realities, we just have to decide for ourselves which false reality we prefer.

even though I can't make sense of a lot of your posts, I like your out-of-the-box thinking.  ty

I don't like this particular out of the box thinking, and I wish it would go back in.  I declare all realities false, but create a reality I don't agree with and you're a psychopath.

[JoeBobSmith]

All realities are false realities.  We live only by models of the world us, and we have to trust those models as best we can.  The model I most trust is one in which humans acknowledge and respond to their own emotions.  For centuries our predecessors were taught to deny their own emotions and submit instead to the ruthless dominance of the prevailing religion.  In the last two or three decades we have become more acquainted with our feelings and more trusting of our individual emotions - then these logical empiricists come along under the banner of atheism telling us all to put our feelings back in a box again and not take any notice of them.  Just one of many ways in which the new atheism simply replicates the religion of the past.  

All realities are false realities, we just have to decide for ourselves which false reality we prefer.

even though I can't make sense of a lot of your posts, I like your out-of-the-box thinking.  ty

I don't like this particular out of the box thinking, and I wish it would go back in.  I declare all realities false, but create a reality I don't agree with and you're a psychopath.

you're a hostile fellow aren't you  

[Existentialist]

I don't like this particular out of the box thinking, and I wish it would go back in.  I declare all realities false, but create a reality I don't agree with and you're a psychopath.

Psychopathy isn't a model someone acquires just by me not agreeing with them.  It's a model that excludes human feelings by preferring ruthless logic.  Asmodean has demonstrated adherence to this model throughout this thread.  I'm not saying that Asmodean is a psychopath, nor even a sociopath as he would wryly prefer to be called, just that psychopathy is the model he's based his contribution to this whole thread on.  It's fairly standard, macho ("I never said I was compassionate"), right-wing religious-inspired thinking that subordinates humanity to a higher power, in this case it's cold logic, held up to be the inevitable consequence of atheism, whereas really it's the inevitable consequence of all forms of authoritarianism.  It sounds like the woman whose child it was had him summed up in a nutshell in no time at all.  I still don't believe his account though, I think a lot has been altered in translation.

[Asmodean]

I don't like this particular out of the box thinking, and I wish it would go back in.  I declare all realities false, but create a reality I don't agree with and you're a psychopath.

The red-eyed food with anorexic limbs has a point.  

[Asmodean]

Psychopathy isn't a model someone acquires just by me not agreeing with them.  It's a model that excludes human feelings by preferring ruthless logic.

Yes, but that model reaches far wider than what I have presented here, and even there, the psychopaty is questionable.

Asmodean has demonstrated adherence to this model throughout this thread.

To parts of it. Just a quick correction in an attempt to avoid future misunderstandings. You still have not demonstrated how my way of thinking is wrong. Fact from the perspective of society: the kid is a money drain. Always was, always will be. Fact from the same perspective: The kid gives nothing back to the society, nor is there an even remotely plausible chance he ever will.

My conclusion from the point of view of a member of said society: the kid is useless in all tenses and I do not want to pay for his care because of it. Being forced to pay by a too liberal law, I do. I don't have to like it in the slightest though.

Oh, the mother probably loves him and whatnot, but it isn't HER perspective I am interested in here - I'm more for the big picture. And in that big picture, her decision to keep the kid is wrong because not only does it create a money drain (kid), it also more or less incapacitates an otherwise productive member of the society (mother).

I'm not saying that Asmodean is a psychopath, nor even a sociopath as he would wryly prefer to be called, just that psychopathy is the model he's based his contribution to this whole thread on.

Partly.

Oh, and I do not prefer the term sociopath - it's just more accurate for generally describing me. As long as the shoe fits, you can call me what you like. As long as it fits. And in case of medical diagnoses, unless they are obvious, like for example one-armed or obese would be, I suggest leaving labeling to the professionals and, in my case, they have yet to label me a psycho or even sociopath. I'm just not. Oh, closer to it than many, but not there.

It's fairly standard, macho ("I never said I was compassionate"), right-wing religious-inspired thinking that subordinates humanity to a higher power, in this case it's cold logic, held up to be the inevitable consequence of atheism, whereas really it's the inevitable consequence of all forms of authoritarianism.

Actually, wrong. Find me the exact place from which you quoted, please..? If you are refering to where I said the following: "I have never pretended it to be", then you are putting meanings into my words that are not there. For instance, where does "never said I was compassionate" come from? If speaking in general terms, question withdrawn.

Where exactly does atheism come in? Is this the point where you say that they who do not derive their morals from old books have none?

It sounds like the woman whose child it was had him summed up in a nutshell in no time at all.  I still don't believe his account though, I think a lot has been altered in translation.

I did most of the suming-up with a few very direct questions, the answers to which were transliterated into text as recieved. (Not exact quotation, shortened for the purpose and taken out of content of the conversation)

**less relevant start as a convo on abortion in general not included.**

"If you knew your kid would end up like this *point* would you have aborted him?"
"No. *a speech resulting in her claiming to know the condition prior to birth, but hoping for a mirracle*"
"    Why the hell not?!"
"Because he is still my cbeautiful boy and I love him. How could you not? *yadayada and the whole sentimental speech which ended in me being called names*"
"And you are not ashamed of taking the tax payers' money to support this kid as nothing more than your personal... Hobby? *I used that word. Found none better att. That line is a direct quote.*?"
"No. *speech filled with personal reasons*"
"...And if that same situation arose with your next kid, would you keep that one too?"
"Yes, of course"
"So what will he do when he grows up?"
"*a rather long speech which ended with her admitting to "nothing useful" on social scale as the answer*"

That is about how it went. I pointed out that her personal reasons are of no real interest to me when speaking of using my tax money and that the kid should never have been born and... Well, that's about it, really. SHE did not think me a psychopath though - just having "a heart of granit" and, in case of born-to-be-deadbeats, it is. I disagree with being "evil" though. Not in this case.

You see, this here is mostly a social money issue as I see it. It's not even about her making a crappy choice for the society - it's about society having to pay for that choice.

[Whitney]

All realities are false realities.  We live only by models of the world us, and we have to trust those models as best we can.  The model I most trust is one in which humans acknowledge and respond to their own emotions.

Then quit attacking someone's views simply because they don't subscribe to your view of reality.  It's not like it's impossible to use "cold" logic to disagree with him and if it is impossible to logically disagree with him then perhaps he is justified in his view.  I already posted a slight disagreement without having to attack asmod personally..and no one got upset about my view because I worded it differently and offered a humanistic solution to the problem....when in fact my perspective is probably not that far removed from asmod's.

No more ad-homs.

[Asmodean]

I already posted a slight disagreement without having to attack asmod personally..

I had to go look. I actually managed to miss that one.

Thank you for a good, constructive response, Whitney. You make an excellent point about home sitting and getting paid. I think I'd have been a bit more accepting of her situation if she opted for organized care and got a job that does give something back to us all, not just to her kid.

However, to be fair, I don't know where the closest care center with sufficient capabilities is, so it may simply not have been an acceptable option and the state, lacking alternatives, decided to give her the full time caretaker job. Doesn't get it any closer to "right", but a possibility, it is.

[Whitney]

However, to be fair, I don't know where the closest care center with sufficient capabilities is, so it may simply not have been an acceptable option and the state, lacking alternatives, decided to give her the full time caretaker job. Doesn't get it any closer to "right", but a possibility, it is.

Having group facilities available would require the state to reorganize how they provide care....I think it's currently organized on an ad-hoc basis as opposed to taking into account the big picture and planning for the future.  The facilities wouldn't necessarily need to be nearby; if 'normal' children can't be cared for by their parents they get put into foster care...so I would advocate a similar solution for special needs children who's parent's can't care for them (perhaps there would be special cases where a doctor could step in and say it is better for the child to be with their parents due to their specific condition...which would not apply in the case of kids who were basically born vegetables).  

I think this approach would free up resources that could be put into developing programs that can help those who are high functioning lead a somewhat normal life....like programs that will help place them in jobs, get them to and from work etc.  These work programs currently exist but are not nearly large enough to cover the demand...there are a lot of people with disabilities who would love to be placed in a job through such a program but have to be on waiting lists.

Basically, I would advocate a plan that would do the most good.  Yes, this would upset some mothers who want to take care of their vegetable baby that they chose not to abort knowing it would be that way; more power to them if they can do that without gov assistance (beyond normal welfare) otherwise they'd have to put that baby in a care facility.

Note, I'm not even sure how things are done around here as far as who pays for what...but the above is what I think would work.

[Existentialist]

All realities are false realities.  We live only by models of the world us, and we have to trust those models as best we can.  The model I most trust is one in which humans acknowledge and respond to their own emotions.

Then quit attacking someone's views simply because they don't subscribe to your view of reality.  It's not like it's impossible to use "cold" logic to disagree with him and if it is impossible to logically disagree with him then perhaps he is justified in his view.  I already posted a slight disagreement without having to attack asmod personally..and no one got upset about my view because I worded it differently and offered a humanistic solution to the problem....when in fact my perspective is probably not that far removed from asmod's.

No more ad-homs.

I use human arguments to respond to human problems.  Humans have emotions and legitimate ways of describing those who do not show emotion.  If this is not allowed here, then this 'happy' forum is a contradiction in terms.

Please note I have not been abusive or used any insulting language.  I have used language in an accurate way to describe the phenomena being discussed, Asmodean has only slightly disagreed with me on the use of one word.

I can see you might make a case that I have used 'ad-homs' but it would be one I disagree with and I would request that you be more specific and give me an opportunity to respond.  I am sure your way of arguing with Asmodean is different from mine.  Nevertheless, I support your freedom to argue in your way, all I ask is your support for me to have the freedom to argue in mine.

I would urge you to consider that people are allowed, in a free and happy society, to say the things that I have said throughout this thread about the highly emotional and deeply distressing situation that has been described.  If people are no longer permitted to show a human, emotional response to this situation, and to the things that Asmodean said, then I will happily leave this forum to you to enjoy your cold logic and ruthless reason, because happy atheism does not appear to be on offer here for emotional human beings.  If I am not allowed to say the things I have said, which are the sort of things anyone would be permitted to say in any debating society, bar, pub, or around any dinner table in polite circles, then it is a complete waste of my time for me to be here, and I would suggest for a lot of other sincere, thoughtful atheists to be here as well.

I await your response, as one adult to another.

[Whitney]

If you can't participate in a thread without becoming highly emotional then don't post in it....we have the civility rule for a reason and repeatedly calling someone's argument false on the grounds that you claim they are a sociopath is not civil nor does it prove they are wrong (and is an ad hom).  Requiring this of people who post here is not in any way contrary to the 'mission' of HAF.

So what if Asmodean is lacking some level of empathy; he wasn't calling for death to those who can't be productive in society, he wasn't calling for forced abortion; He simply stated that he doesn't like paying for kids who should have never been born in the first place but were because the mom made what many would view as a dumb choice; and wondered if the solution could be the government not paying for the child.  Other than how he phrased it I don't see a problem with him exploring this idea and it certainly didn't call for his character to be attacked over and over again.  If he were truly the monster you were trying to paint him as he'd be wondering why we can't force these women to abort then kill all children and adults who can't be productive members of society...

[Existentialist]

Psychopathy isn't a model someone acquires just by me not agreeing with them.  It's a model that excludes human feelings by preferring ruthless logic.

Yes, but that model reaches far wider than what I have presented here, and even there, the psychopathy is questionable.

But what you have presented here seems to cover a substantial portion of the model.  To be honest you seem to acknowledge this yourself.  You say the 'psychopathy is questionable'.  Even you don't rule it out.  As I suggested earlier, you seem to have some insight into the condition that you have demonstrated in this thread.  And if what I am saying is true and you do have that insight, then obviously the psychopathic or sociopathic behaviour is not authentic.

Asmodean has demonstrated adherence to this model throughout this thread.

To parts of it. Just a quick correction in an attempt to avoid future misunderstandings. You still have not demonstrated how my way of thinking is wrong.

Right and wrong are value judgements.  I prefer not to use these.  They come from religious thinking - God being the only truly objective being, historically, who can tell us what's right and wrong.  And since God doesn't exist, all we are left with is our own view, our own feelings, our own emotions - that is a model I trust, not a model of right and wrong that I think is born of religion.

Fact from the perspective of society: the kid is a money drain. Always was, always will be. Fact from the same perspective: The kid gives nothing back to the society, nor is there an even remotely plausible chance he ever will.

My conclusion from the point of view of a member of said society: the kid is useless in all tenses

I offer only my emotions in response to this and the rest of your post.  Your coldness to this child and its mother makes me want to weep.  I feel nothing but compassion for this child and its mother.  If you do not want to pay your taxes, I am happy to pay your share to support this child.  You may say I am welcome to do so.  But we both know that taxes are compulsory, and in a democratic society, what we tax is determined by democracy, flawed as it is.  We may live in different countries, but the principle is still the same.   Democracy only works if people are allowed to express their views, their feelings and their ideas.  If you don't like that, you might want to try and limit my ability to express my views, you and your allies in cold logic may even want to silence me or discipline me with warnings of authoritarian action.  Clampdowns on free speech can happen on a large scale just as easily as they can happen on a small scale.

I'm not saying that Asmodean is a psychopath, nor even a sociopath as he would wryly prefer to be called, just that psychopathy is the model he's based his contribution to this whole thread on.

Partly.

Oh, and I do not prefer the term sociopath - it's just more accurate for generally describing me. As long as the shoe fits, you can call me what you like. As long as it fits. And in case of medical diagnoses, unless they are obvious, like for example one-armed or obese would be, I suggest leaving labeling to the professionals and, in my case, they have yet to label me a psycho or even sociopath. I'm just not. Oh, closer to it than many, but not there.

I'm not diagnosing you, I am only borrowing from the medical model to describe what you have presented in this thread.

It's fairly standard, macho ("I never said I was compassionate"), right-wing religious-inspired thinking that subordinates humanity to a higher power, in this case it's cold logic, held up to be the inevitable consequence of atheism, whereas really it's the inevitable consequence of all forms of authoritarianism.

Actually, wrong. Find me the exact place from which you quoted, please..? If you are refering to where I said the following: "I have never pretended it to be", then you are putting meanings into my words that are not there. For instance, where does "never said I was compassionate" come from? If speaking in general terms, question withdrawn.

You're right, you said "I have never pretended it wasn't compassionless" rather than "I never said I was compassionate".  I was recalling from memory.  Replace that quote if you like.  My argument stands.

Where exactly does atheism come in? Is this the point where you say that they who do not derive their morals from old books have none?

Atheism seems to be increasingly argued to be defined by cold logic, in my view.  A position I disagree with.  We don't need a book to have morals, so no, I'm not going to say that.  

It sounds like the woman whose child it was had him summed up in a nutshell in no time at all.  I still don't believe his account though, I think a lot has been altered in translation.

I did most of the suming-up with a few very direct questions, the answers to which were transliterated into text as recieved. (Not exact quotation, shortened for the purpose and taken out of content of the conversation)

**less relevant start as a convo on abortion in general not included.**

"If you knew your kid would end up like this *point* would you have aborted him?"
"No. *a speech resulting in her claiming to know the condition prior to birth, but hoping for a mirracle*"
"    Why the hell not?!"
"Because he is still my cbeautiful boy and I love him. How could you not? *yadayada and the whole sentimental speech which ended in me being called names*"
"And you are not ashamed of taking the tax payers' money to support this kid as nothing more than your personal... Hobby? *I used that word. Found none better att. That line is a direct quote.*?"
"No. *speech filled with personal reasons*"
"...And if that same situation arose with your next kid, would you keep that one too?"
"Yes, of course"
"So what will he do when he grows up?"
"*a rather long speech which ended with her admitting to "nothing useful" on social scale as the answer*"

That is about how it went. I pointed out that her personal reasons are of no real interest to me when speaking of using my tax money and that the kid should never have been born and... Well, that's about it, really. SHE did not think me a psychopath though - just having "a heart of granit" and, in case of born-to-be-deadbeats, it is. I disagree with being "evil" though. Not in this case.

You see, this here is mostly a social money issue as I see it. It's not even about her making a crappy choice for the society - it's about society having to pay for that choice.

I can't really take seriously quotes like "* a speech about", especially from someone who previously reported the conversation as:-

She was fishing for pity for over half the conversation too. When she realized she'd get none, I was labeled a nazi and a few other things... Why the FUCK would I pity her...

Next time, take a voice recorder, or an independent reporter.  Alternatively, why don't you give this lady the address of this forum so she can put her side of the story?  I would welcome her with open arms.  From what you have said, I support her position, not yours, and I would like to be able to apologise to her for the cruelty that a fellow human being has shown towards her.

[Existentialist]

If you can't participate in a thread without becoming highly emotional then don't post in it....we have the civility rule for a reason and repeatedly calling someone's argument false on the grounds that you claim they are a sociopath is not civil nor does it prove they are wrong (and is an ad hom).  Requiring this of people who post here is not in any way contrary to the 'mission' of HAF.

Highly emotional?  I referred to human emotions that I feel.  In no sense does referring to one's emotions or describing one's emotions count as being 'highly emotional'.

Secondly, I do not think I have said at any point that anyone here is a sociopath.  If I have done so then please quote the exact place and I will withdraw what I have said and apologise openly.  If anything Asmodean has repeatedly referred to himself as a sociopath.  I was referring to his arguments in this thread.  Please do not extrapolate from what I have said to say that I have said things that I have not.  

So what if Asmodean is lacking some level of empathy; he wasn't calling for death to those who can't be productive in society, he wasn't calling for forced abortion; He simply stated that he doesn't like paying for kids who should have never been born in the first place but were because the mom made what many would view as a dumb choice; and wondered if the solution could be the government not paying for the child.  Other than how he phrased it I don't see a problem with him exploring this idea and it certainly didn't call for his character to be attacked over and over again.  If he were truly the monster you were trying to paint him as he'd be wondering why we can't force these women to abort then kill all children and adults who can't be productive members of society...

My criticism of Asmodean's position stems from statements like this:-

She was fishing for pity for over half the conversation too. When she realized she'd get none, I was labeled a nazi and a few other things... Why the FUCK would I pity her...

My criticism of Asmodean is not that he has demonstrated a lack of "some level of empathy".  Please read the thread in full, and don't minimise the problem.  He has shown a complete lack of empathy in his approach to this poor woman. "A lack of some level of empathy" completely under-represents it.  

I know perfectly well he wasn't calling for a death or a forced abortion.  Please do not set up straw man arguments.  He did not 'simply say' he "doesn't like paying for kids who should have never been born in the first place but were because the mom made what many would view as a dumb choice; and wondered if the solution could be the government not paying for the child."  He said a whole lot else as a careful re-reading of the thread will demonstrate and I hardly think than him saying "why the FUCK should I pity her" counts as a minor problem of 'wording'.  

I did not attack his character "over and over again".  Please do not make false allegations against your members.  I did not seek to paint "him" as a monster.  Please do not use straw man arguments.  

Finally, I am aware of the rules of this Forum.  I am sincere in my wish to participate in a civil manner and I have not at any point strayed from this requirement.

[Whitney]

scrap

Scrap.  

There is a word for an emotionless individual who treats human life like an inanimate object.  Psychopath.

There is a lot of truly psychopathic reasoning coming from Asmodean today.  At the moment I am in two minds about whether he is doing it just for attention, or if he really believes it.  It's pretty extreme, pretty sickening, and we seem to be completely powerless to respond to it in this forum on the level we really want to. Some Laid Back Lounge this is turning out to be.

Oh no...I said you called him a sociopath when instead you said psychopath...ya..I'm a big liar   If repeating such an accusation is not a character attack then I don't know what is.

to say the things that I have said throughout this thread about the highly emotional and deeply distressing situation that has been described.  If people are no longer permitted to show a human, emotional response to this situation

Yes....highly emotional.

I don't really even see why telling some lady a truthful opinion is so horrible (we'd probably be better off as a society if we were all just a bit more honest with each other)...ya, it was rude to tell her that her baby is pretty much worthless but in his mind she is being equally if not more rude by making society pay for her poor decision.