Happy Atheist Forum

Disclaimer: This post has turned into a rant, and when I rant, people tend to get offended. If you are easily offended, consider skipping this one.

So a coupla' days ago, I have managed to get into an abortion debate with this woman who had a kid with a couple of nasty last-name-disorders. To make a long story shorter, at one point I asked her if she knew the kid would be a train wreck for his entire life prior to birth. Apparently, she did. The offer of terminating the pregnancy, she denied because, and I quote: "I decided I would love him no matter what". So, naturally, I asked if she would do the same the second time, should lightning choose to strike in the same uterus twice. She would, on basis of "Look at him! How can you not love such a beautiful baby!?" Yeah, right... :rant:

Am I wrong to look at such cases from a larger perspective than what a parent-to-be wants..? Am I somehow more evil for saying "I don't want my taxes to pay for THAT" than for saying "The cops should get the beggars and junkies out of the cool tourist streets"..?

Hag.

I find your avatar appropriate. He looks pissed off.

Quote from: "Cecilie"I find your avatar appropriate. He looks pissed off.

Oh, I edited out about a page of sociopathic ravings which originally followed the main rant. Had I not, the avatar would look too bloody cheery for the bulk of the text.  

congratulations, you are now  a nazi :hissyfit:  :shake:  :shake:

quoted for record

Quote from: "Asmodean"Disclaimer: This post has turned into a rant, and when I rant, people tend to get offended. If you are easily offended, consider skipping this one.

So a coupla' days ago, I have managed to get into an abortion debate with this woman who had a kid with a couple of nasty last-name-disorders. To make a long story shorter, at one point I asked her if she knew the kid would be a train wreck for his entire life prior to birth. Apparently, she did. The offer of terminating the pregnancy, she denied because, and I quote: "I decided I would love him no matter what". So, naturally, I asked if she would do the same the second time, should lightning choose to strike in the same uterus twice. She would, on basis of "Look at him! How can you not love such a beautiful baby!?" Yeah, right... :rant:

Am I wrong to look at such cases from a larger perspective than what a parent-to-be wants..? Am I somehow more evil for saying "I don't want my taxes to pay for THAT" than for saying "The cops should get the beggars and junkies out of the cool tourist streets"..?

Hag.

if you still have the sociopathic part of the rant can u pm it to me plz...i am a student of psychology

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"if you still have the sociopathic part of the rant can u pm it to me plz...i am a student of psychology

Sorry, no. I wrote the entire thing in notepad so I would not accidentally lose it in a network error. It was also edited in notepad and the txt was not saved.

I will keep you in mind next time I'm doing sociopathy though.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"if you still have the sociopathic part of the rant can u pm it to me plz...i am a student of psychology

Sorry, no. I wrote the entire thing in notepad so I would not accidentally lose it in a network error. It was also edited in notepad and the txt was not saved.

I will keep you in mind next time I'm doing sociopathy though.

sounds good my friend

It's her body, it's her choice.  Just like it was Octomom's choice (she's costing the taxpayers much more).  We've also been footing the bill for lazy people for a very long time just to make sure those who make an effort don't fall through the cracks.  What if the baby was born healthy, and developed a serious condition two months later that would cost the taxpayers the same?  Should we kill the 2 month old?  It's one thing to restrict a woman's right to choose in those situations, it's a totally different story to force an abortion on her.  To me, that would be just as bad as forcing a woman to have a baby that she didn't want.

I may disagree with you but I have a hard time calling you a Nazi.  Of course, it was more personal in her case.  However, I think the terms Nazi and Hitler get thrown around a bit too much to describe people.  Hitler and the Nazis caused the deaths of something like 20 million people.  Regardless of what someone's opinion is or what political agenda they have, I think calling anybody a Hitler or a Nazi is a stretch (unless you answer yes to the killing of the 2 month old, and anybody else costing the taxpayers money.  That would be quite an extermination).

One thing the Tea Partiers don't often realize when they complain about taxes... half of America hasn't paid taxes at all the last couple years.  A large chunk have even had negative tax liabilities, so Uncle Sam was paying them for breathing.  I can't really complain about my hard-earned tax dollars going to support this or that, because I haven't had a tax liability in a couple years, either.  I'm in the military, married, and don't make enough with the current tax situation.  I believe that says more about  why we're a country running such high defecits than helping foot the bill because some woman used her Roe v. Wade choice to not get an abortion.

Quote from: "fester30"It's her body, it's her choice.  Just like it was Octomom's choice (she's costing the taxpayers much more).

To have the kid, yes. Still, what right has she to expect the society to be there for him since it has been known from before birth that this particular individual shall never be even one of the least productive people..?

QuoteWe've also been footing the bill for lazy people for a very long time just to make sure those who make an effort don't fall through the cracks.

Good thing. Some of them are worth it in the long run.

QuoteWhat if the baby was born healthy, and developed a serious condition two months later that would cost the taxpayers the same?  Should we kill the 2 month old?

Totally different. If prior to birth, little or nothing indicates that the kid will be a train wreck before reaching the productive age, then I don't mind paying my tax kroners for its health care.

QuoteIt's one thing to restrict a woman's right to choose in those situations, it's a totally different story to force an abortion on her.  To me, that would be just as bad as forcing a woman to have a baby that she didn't want.

Oh, I am not arguing forced abortion, just that when it is known early enough in the pregnancy that the kid will be an economic nightmare for the society, the named society should not take responsibility for it. Parents want a pet who drools and can not make eye contact..? Fine. Let THEM pay for it.

QuoteI may disagree with you but I have a hard time calling you a Nazi.  Of course, it was more personal in her case.  However, I think the terms Nazi and Hitler get thrown around a bit too much to describe people.

Thanks. Just because I say what I mean and damned be political correctness, does not mean I hold nazism as my political view.

I don't think the Nazis would have you Asmo, too much deviant behaviour.

The money spent on health is limited, I don't think desperate attempts to keep terribly disabled babies alive is the best use of funds.  I'd rather see the money spent on research into prevention of such things.

You dehumanised the kid.  "Train wreck", "Pet".

If you want to argue your point more effectively you need to talk about the child like it's a human being.  The point being, I don't think you'd be able even to convince yourself of your argument if you talked about this child as a human being.  That's why you have to resort to dehumanising the child.  That's what the far right do.  That's the problem with your stance, and the reason the woman called you what she did.  

I'm with her.

Quote from: "Existentialist"You dehumanised the kid.  "Train wreck", "Pet".

If you want to argue your point more effectively you need to talk about the child like it's a human being.  The point being, I don't think you'd be able even to convince yourself of your argument if you talked about this child as a human being.  That's why you have to resort to dehumanising the child.  That's what the far right do.  That's the problem with you stance, and the reason the woman called you what she did.  

I'm with her.

this is empathy...

QuoteOh, I am not arguing forced abortion, just that when it is known early enough in the pregnancy that the kid will be an economic nightmare for the society, the named society should not take responsibility for it. Parents want a pet who drools and can not make eye contact..? Fine. Let THEM pay for it.

you are arguing forced abortion...if ur mom was ugly and dumb should i have aborted you

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"

Quote from: "Existentialist"You dehumanised the kid.  "Train wreck", "Pet".

If you want to argue your point more effectively you need to talk about the child like it's a human being.  The point being, I don't think you'd be able even to convince yourself of your argument if you talked about this child as a human being.  That's why you have to resort to dehumanising the child.  That's what the far right do.  That's the problem with you stance, and the reason the woman called you what she did.  

I'm with her.

this is empathy...

QuoteOh, I am not arguing forced abortion, just that when it is known early enough in the pregnancy that the kid will be an economic nightmare for the society, the named society should not take responsibility for it. Parents want a pet who drools and can not make eye contact..? Fine. Let THEM pay for it.

you are arguing forced abortion...if ur mom was ugly and dumb should i have aborted you

JoeBobSmith, you are being issued a board warning for this post. It is totally unacceptable from the standpoint of civil discourse, and clearly outside of the forum rules for the same. This is your first warning.

I agree with Existentialist here. I don't think you're a Nazi, Asmodean, but you do seem to have a distinct lack of empathy.

I don't support the mother's decision to have the child despite her foreknowledge of all his defects that will likely make living very hard for him, but the past is the past -- he's born now, and like it or not, he's a person. We can't just say, "Well, you should have got an abortion, so we can't pay to help you care for your child".

I understand where you're coming from here Asmodean. But choosing who we want to be born and who we don't can be a slippery slope. Ever see that movie Gattaca?

I'm not saying I'm against abortion - quite on the contrary. Like I said over on another thread, I believe you and your partner should be required to pass an IQ test before you can procreate - sort of like a "procreation license" if you will. Otherwise you will be forced to have an abortion.

But I have 2 friends with relatively minor birth defects, both of which have parents who's doctors told their mothers that they would not be able to function properly and be a productive member in today's society. Both my friends have jobs, 1 is a college graduate, and the other just got married and is due to graduate in the next year. So...you never really know just how productive that unborn fetus is really going to be until a long time after he/she is born, do you?

Quote from: "terranus"I understand where you're coming from here Asmodean. But choosing who we want to be born and who we don't can be a slippery slope. Ever see that movie Gattaca?

I'm not saying I'm against abortion - quite on the contrary. Like I said over on another thread, I believe you and your partner should be required to pass an IQ test before you can procreate - sort of like a "procreation license" if you will. Otherwise you will be forced to have an abortion.

Do you honestly believe that?

QuoteBut I have 2 friends with relatively minor birth defects, both of which have parents who's doctors told their mothers that they would not be able to function properly and be a productive member in today's society. Both my friends have jobs, 1 is a college graduate, and the other just got married and is due to graduate in the next year. So...you never really know just how productive that unborn fetus is really going to be until a long time after he/she is born, do you?

I agree. What is it they say...you can't judge a book by its cover? I think that's the right idiom.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I agree. What is it they say...you can't judge a book by its cover? I think that's the right idiom.

I would have thought "don't count your chickens before they hatch" would be more apt, but I'm no expert, I'd have to check with KDbeads.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I agree. What is it they say...you can't judge a book by its cover? I think that's the right idiom.

I would have thought "don't count your chickens before they hatch" would be more apt, but I'm no expert, I'd have to check with KDbeads.

Well you could use that but that would mean candling them nearly every day during that pesky incubation period and you still might not get a full hatch of viables due to lack of strength to hatch and you may still have to cull some if they have defects no conducive with life for a chicken.....  All in all...... if it can't make it as a chicken without special help it's dead cause chickens are cannibalistic.  So not thinking it applies much here

Quote from: "KDbeads"Well you could use that but that would mean candling them nearly every day during that pesky incubation period and you still might not get a full hatch of viables due to lack of strength to hatch and you may still have to cull some if they have defects no conducive with life for a chicken.....  All in all...... if it can't make it as a chicken without special help it's dead cause chickens are cannibalistic.  So not thinking it applies much here

That all sounds very.... Borg.

Quote from: "terranus"I'm not saying I'm against abortion - quite on the contrary. Like I said over on another thread, I believe you and your partner should be required to pass an IQ test before you can procreate - sort of like a "procreation license" if you will. Otherwise you will be forced to have an abortion.

I shudder to think what my parents' IQs must be.  

Then again, I'm full of birth defects and not what most would consider a "productive member of society"; but in my defense, that's mostly society's fault for never allowing me to be a full-fledged member.

A point of relevance, as it's referred to in the thread title:

Political correctness is just another word for empathy. It's not surprising that its antagonists lack empathy.

QuoteDo you honestly believe that?

Yes, I do. There are far too many people in this world. Seriously. The human race has managed to go beyond it's population carrying capacity, which is a dangerous thing to do, because eventually nature will balance things out - even if it means a mass extinction. And before you get started, yes I know that even with incredibly smart parents a kid can come out dumber than a box of rocks - and vice versa. But statistically speaking, it's much more common for kids to inherit the same traits their parents have.

Of course, the more humanistic approach to this problem would be to enact a simple one- or two-child only law like China has done (ironic that China would be the more humanistic one here  :devil:

Quote from: "Existentialist"You dehumanised the kid.  "Train wreck", "Pet".

No. I sub-humanized him, as I have throughout the post tried to refer to him as "he" or "kid", rather than "it" or "thing", even though there may have been an unedited slip here and there.

I stand by my classification of that human as subhuman in relation to functionality, both physical and mental, therein social. It is so far below average that it's nearly non-existent.

QuoteIf you want to argue your point more effectively you need to talk about the child like it's a human being.  The point being, I don't think you'd be able even to convince yourself of your argument if you talked about this child as a human being.

You haven't read many of my posts, have you..? I am not, nor do I aspire to be, a nice and good and gentle and kind kind of person. I am unemotional when discussing the issues of human life and, as such, to me there is no difference in only regarding the creature as human or comparing it to a fridge or doog food or a train wreck - whatever comparison may be appropriate for a given situation.

QuoteThat's why you have to resort to dehumanising the child.  That's what the far right do.  That's the problem with your stance, and the reason the woman called you what she did.  

No. I did NOT diminish him in any way. What I did do, however, was NOT projecting attributes on him which he, subjectively or otherwise, does not have. If I say, in content, that she knew the kid would be a train wreck with practically no motor skills, no communication and an IQ of unmeasurable slimness, I am not diminishing the person I am speaking about as long as what I say is verifiably correct. If you had one arm and one leg, how would it diminish you if someone pointed the fact out? Or are we all supposed to pretend you are no different from the flock?

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"you are arguing forced abortion...if ur mom was ugly and dumb should i have aborted you

Coherence fail.

To answer the only coherent sentence, no, I am NOT saying the government should decree such a kid aborted. What I am saying is that I, as a tax payer, should not have to pay for a poor human being (happy now, Existentiallist? :rant: Out of MY pocket   (Well, and a few million others, but you get the idea)

If she SO wanted that kid, at least the state should have told her that she was on her own financially after birth. If that forced her into abortion, well, GOOD, but leaving people a choice, it's not the same as forced abortion.

Quote from: "Asmodean"I am unemotional when discussing the issues of human life

That's sick.

Quote from: "terranus"I understand where you're coming from here Asmodean. But choosing who we want to be born and who we don't can be a slippery slope. Ever see that movie Gattaca?

Movie: No, but now I'm interested...  

Rest: Yes, it can be a slippery slope. Which is why I think the preservation of choice is not a bad thing. However, this particular case is something for itself. As stated, it was known the kid would be nothing but a money drain for the society. There was NO plausible chance of him EVER becoming something useful, except maybe through science which is still far more than his expected lifetime away. Of course, if the mother insisted on having the kid regardless, well, good for her... Still, I don't want my taxes to pay for him. It's not just that he doesn't deserve it now - it's also that there is no chance at all that he ever will.

I think it's ok for people with Down's or with no limbs or deafblind or homeless or just plain old deadbeats to dip into my taxes a little - some of them, at least, give something back. After all, I am NOT paying over a third of my salary to the state out of the goodness of my heart. So basically, if a person was previously or is/was expected to be or has/had a chance of being at least a semiproductive member of the society, my rule of no support would not apply.

QuoteI'm not saying I'm against abortion - quite on the contrary. Like I said over on another thread, I believe you and your partner should be required to pass an IQ test before you can procreate - sort of like a "procreation license" if you will. Otherwise you will be forced to have an abortion.

And me, I agree.

QuoteBut I have 2 friends with relatively minor birth defects, both of which have parents who's doctors told their mothers that they would not be able to function properly and be a productive member in today's society. Both my friends have jobs, 1 is a college graduate, and the other just got married and is due to graduate in the next year. So...you never really know just how productive that unborn fetus is really going to be until a long time after he/she is born, do you?

Point seen, of course, yet there is a gaping casm between "not function properly" and "not function [period]". I'd give a kid who would just "not function properly" a chance. One who simply would. not. function. on the other hand, I would scrap before birth.

EDIT: added a tense. Slight speed typing oversight

Quote from: "Existentialist"That's sick.

Maybe. My perspective does allow me to apply logic where many people do not though, so I see it as a positive thing.

EDIT: Would you address my question beneath the point you did answer, please..? It WAS an actual question, not just a remark with a question sign behind.  

Quote from: "Asmodean"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.

Quote from: "Asmodean"My perspective does allow me to apply logic where many people do not though

Your logic is compassionless.  That's what makes your approach psychopathic, that's why you didn't mind hurting the woman whose child it was (if the story was even true).  That's why you're playing this game with the rest of us.  

Quote from: "Asmodean"EDIT: Would you address my question beneath the point you did answer, please..? It WAS an actual question, not just a remark with a question sign behind.  

I answered the whole of your post.  I selected just one quote that summed it all up.  There's no need for me to add anything.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Your logic is compassionless.

Never pretended it wasn't.

QuoteThat's what makes your approach psychopathic, that's why you didn't mind hurting the woman whose child it was (if the story was even true).  That's why you're playing this game with the rest of us.

No games. Just a rant with a disclaimer at the top, which was there from the start and was an indication to the nature of my post

I don't intend to hurt the woman whos child it is, however, I will not paint the sky pink (or, in less metaphorical terms, alter or ignore the standing truth) just so she can feel good about herself.

QuoteI answered the whole of your post.  I selected just one quote that summed it all up.  There's no need for me to add anything.

Quote from: "Asmodean"If you had one arm and one leg, how would it diminish you if someone pointed the fact out? Or are we all supposed to pretend you are no different from the flock?(This is really a "why"-question if the answer in general is "yes")

I was actually looking for an answer to that. Marked one key word out and expanded a bit.

I can't really find a problem with your logic, Asmodean. Me, I'd want to know just exactly how disadvantaged this kid is before trying to make any decision. Do you know what problems he has?

Quote from: "Existentialist"Scrap.

A verb in this content. One that works for the purpose. Another one is, for instance, "terminate". Or "kill", should you prefer that one.

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

I'm more of a sociopath, really, and only a near-do-well sociopath at that. And I do not treat living organisms as inanimate objects. However, when I feel it is adequate to compare one to another, I do.

QuoteThere 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.

Yeah... I think I actually put it in the wrong forum, which is part of the reason why I disclaimed and heavily edited it. It is a true story. My standing in this case is as described. I can see some mild extremism in my views, but more than mild, I think it's not. In fact, I've found that some people with whom I spoke of this incident agree with me on the points, if not the methods of achieving and ways my points are served. They just don't voice their agreement where political correctness prohibits it.

Me, I tend to say what I mean when voicing of my opinion of someone. And if I thik this woman is a money-sucking deadbeat fool and her kid is little more than a very expensive pet, that is what I call them, with an explanation of why, of course. I don't insult without a reason and explanation and they are always welcome to dispute my claims and in some cases even turn my opinion of them near-completely around. Has been known to happen.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I can't really find a problem with your logic, Asmodean. Me, I'd want to know just exactly how disadvantaged this kid is before trying to make any decision. Do you know what problems he has?

Multiple conditions, as far as I understand. Which cause what is out of my medical league. Basically, the kid has no use of arms and legs, poor control of respiration and waste disposal (probably among other things), what I believe is called "severe mental retardation" to the point where it affects even the most basic functions and a tube coming out of his stomach region.

Does not make eye contact. Is just largely being a weird-looking lump in a wheelchair.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I can't really find a problem with your logic, Asmodean. Me, I'd want to know just exactly how disadvantaged this kid is before trying to make any decision. Do you know what problems he has?

Quote from: "Asmodean"Multiple conditions, as far as I understand. Which cause what is out of my medical league. Basically, the kid has no use of arms and legs, poor control of respiration and waste disposal (probably among other things), what I believe is called "severe mental retardation" to the point where it affects even the most basic functions and a tube coming out of his stomach region.

Does not make eye contact. Is just largely being a weird-looking lump in a wheelchair.

Well, your attitude sickens me.  Both of you.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Well, your attitude sickens me.  Both of you.

That's fine.

What I really care about is his brain. What is his capacity for human emotion, such as pain and love? What is his intelligence? Et al.

If somebody's brain is damaged beyond the point of basic human functioning, then I see no reason why it should be kept alive; at the least, it should be placed in a special home where it can peacefully live and be taken care of.

Isn't he already at home?  

You said you were looking to make a decision.  What about?

note: thread moved into the social issues area of the forum

Even though there is no apparent humane way around it, I don't like the idea of my tax dollars going to pay for children and people who have no higher brain function...like in the case of terry shivo (sp) where the poor husband wanted to let his wife's body go because his wife was no longer in it yet the rest of the family wanted to cling onto something that just wasn't there.  When I think of what makes a person a person and it's higher brain function that is the main factor (and may even mean some other animals could qualify for personhood).  So if a baby is going to be born without even the ability to have thoughts I don't really have an emotional connection to the child, past not wanting to cause unnecessary harm to living things.  I'm not a sociopath or a psychopath, I just think there is a line at which I would not provide life support to a human whether it is an adult or a baby because you'd just be keeping an unused body alive after high brain function is inactive.

The above said, I don't think we could claim to live in a civilized society if we didn't provide care to children simply because their mothers chose not to abort (imo too dumb to realize it is for the best and the most humane choice in some cases).  However, in home baby sitting if children who will never even know they are alive seems overboard to me too....group care facilities would be a humane yet cost effective option for those mothers who couldn't afford to raise a child with extremely special needs (like to the point that they aren't even sentient). This would free up resources for those families who do have special needs children but don't get enough help (or in some cases no help) because their kids aren't extreme enough.

No forced abortions.
No refusing to care for severely retarded and deformed babies.
No lack of empathy.
Simply making sure help is offered in a manner that does the most good both ethically and pragmatically.

Quote from: "Whitney"note: thread moved into the social issues area of the forum

Even though there is no apparent humane way around it, I don't like the idea of my tax dollars going to pay for children and people who have no higher brain function...like in the case of terry shivo (sp) where the poor husband wanted to let his wife's body go because his wife was no longer in it yet the rest of the family wanted to cling onto something that just wasn't there.  When I think of what makes a person a person and it's higher brain function that is the main factor (and may even mean some other animals could qualify for personhood).  So if a baby is going to be born without even the ability to have thoughts I don't really have an emotional connection to the child, past not wanting to cause unnecessary harm to living things.  I'm not a sociopath or a psychopath, I just think there is a line at which I would not provide life support to a human whether it is an adult or a baby because you'd just be keeping an unused body alive after high brain function is inactive.

The above said, I don't think we could claim to live in a civilized society if we didn't provide care to children simply because their mothers chose not to abort (imo too dumb to realize it is for the best and the most humane choice in some cases).  However, in home baby sitting if children who will never even know they are alive seems overboard to me too....group care facilities would be a humane yet cost effective option for those mothers who couldn't afford to raise a child with extremely special needs (like to the point that they aren't even sentient). This would free up resources for those families who do have special needs children but don't get enough help (or in some cases no help) because their kids aren't extreme enough.

No forced abortions.
No refusing to care for severely retarded and deformed babies.
No lack of empathy.
Simply making sure help is offered in a manner that does the most good both ethically and pragmatically.

all good points

Quote from: "Existentialist"Isn't he already at home?

Yes. And mommy has a full time job, paid for by our glorious government, taking care of him 24/7. And that state paying part is, in my opinion, just wrong. Have I ever mentioned that before..?

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Existentialist"Isn't he already at home?

Yes. And mommy has a full time job, paid for by our glorious government, taking care of him 24/7. And that state paying part is, in my opinion, just wrong. Have I ever mentioned that before..?

I'm glad she gets that support from the state, and I'm glad people like you who would withdraw the funding are as rare as you are.  Being an atheist doesn't mean having a compassion by-pass.  I think you're mixing up atheism with psychopathy.   But you obviously have some conscience, since you want to soften the blow by calling it sociopathy, which has a more socially-aware ring to it.  That morsel of humanity makes me think you're just making a point to get attention.  Have fun for the rest of the conversation.

Quote from: "Whitney"note: thread moved into the social issues area of the forum

Even though there is no apparent humane way around it, I don't like the idea of my tax dollars going to pay for children and people who have no higher brain function...like in the case of terry shivo (sp) where the poor husband wanted to let his wife's body go because his wife was no longer in it yet the rest of the family wanted to cling onto something that just wasn't there.  When I think of what makes a person a person and it's higher brain function that is the main factor (and may even mean some other animals could qualify for personhood).  So if a baby is going to be born without even the ability to have thoughts I don't really have an emotional connection to the child, past not wanting to cause unnecessary harm to living things.  I'm not a sociopath or a psychopath, I just think there is a line at which I would not provide life support to a human whether it is an adult or a baby because you'd just be keeping an unused body alive after high brain function is inactive.

The above said, I don't think we could claim to live in a civilized society if we didn't provide care to children simply because their mothers chose not to abort (imo too dumb to realize it is for the best and the most humane choice in some cases).  However, in home baby sitting if children who will never even know they are alive seems overboard to me too....group care facilities would be a humane yet cost effective option for those mothers who couldn't afford to raise a child with extremely special needs (like to the point that they aren't even sentient). This would free up resources for those families who do have special needs children but don't get enough help (or in some cases no help) because their kids aren't extreme enough.

No forced abortions.
No refusing to care for severely retarded and deformed babies.
No lack of empathy.
Simply making sure help is offered in a manner that does the most good both ethically and pragmatically.

I agree with this.

Quote from: "Existentialist"I'm glad she gets that support from the state, and I'm glad people like you who would withdraw the funding are as rare as you are.

It is possible that after the next elections, some of that wrong will be righted.

QuoteBeing an atheist doesn't mean having a compassion by-pass.

True. Your point..?

QuoteI think you're mixing up atheism with psychopathy.

What utter rubbish...  :| Nor are you a psychologist, I suspect. Your diagnosis, as far as professionals are concerned, is incorrect. I am a near-do-well sociopath because I do not even qualify to that title enough to get it. Now I'd LOVE to see you dispute my medical history and fall on your face again... But something tells me you won't.

QuoteThat morsel of humanity makes me think you're just making a point to get attention.  Have fun for the rest of the conversation.

That morsel may be there because I am actually a human. Oh, and I have already answered that. I am making the point because I have a point to make. Because the wasting of my taxes on some near-vegetable who was born and will die that way pisses me off.

QuoteI'm glad she gets that support from the state, and I'm glad people like you who would withdraw the funding are as rare as you are. Being an atheist doesn't mean having a compassion by-pass. I think you're mixing up atheism with psychopathy. But you obviously have some conscience, since you want to soften the blow by calling it sociopathy, which has a more socially-aware ring to it. That morsel of humanity makes me think you're just making a point to get attention. Have fun for the rest of the conversation

Compassion, having a "conscience" - these things are false realities created by the human imagination. You have to look at the world for what it is - not for what you feel it to be. Looking at the world and explaining from an emotional perspective doesn't work - you have to look at it using logic. The human race is not seperate from nature - we are just as much a part of the world as the dirt beneath our feet. Therefore, you must look at humanity's problems from a logical perspective as well. Being "humane" has nothing to do with it. If it can be proven before a fetus is born that, logically, it will be a drain on the rest of society, an unproductive member or the human race and unable to function at all, then I see no reason not to "scrap" it.

But there is one problem with this argument. How do you logically prove something that hasn't happened yet? Though some "improperly functioning" humans claim to be able to, we cannot predict the future. We can make educated guesses at them - but thats it. Perhaps we could use probability rules to come up with some type of percentage that the fetus in question will be a drain on society and a non-productive member of the human race. But is it really a good idea to base an abortion of a fetus on a percentage? For example, my mother has B+ blood, and my father has O+ blood. If you know anything about blood types and alleles, you would know that the percentage of me inheriting anything other than one of those 2 types of blood was very small. Yet I did - I ended up with O- blood - the universal donor. So, probability rules don't always work. But what then can we use? If there is nothing else out there that can give us a scientific, conclusive answer as to whether or not the fetus in question should be aborted, then the only logical thing left to do is not abort it due to lack of evidence.  

Quote from: "terranus"Compassion, having a "conscience" - these things are false realities created by the human imagination. You have to look at the world for what it is - not for what you feel it to be. Looking at the world and explaining from an emotional perspective doesn't work - you have to look at it using logic. The human race is not seperate from nature - we are just as much a part of the world as the dirt beneath our feet. Therefore, you must look at humanity's problems from a logical perspective as well. Being "humane" has nothing to do with it. If it can be proven before a fetus is born that, logically, it will be a drain on the rest of society, an unproductive member or the human race and unable to function at all, then I see no reason not to "scrap" it.

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.

Quote from: "Existentialist"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

Quote from: "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.  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

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"

Quote from: "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.  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.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"

Quote from: "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.  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  

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"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.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"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.  

Quote from: "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 psychopaty is questionable.

QuoteAsmodean 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).

QuoteI'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.

QuoteIt'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?

QuoteIt 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.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Whitney"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.

Quote from: "Asmodean"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.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "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.

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...

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Existentialist"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.

QuoteFact 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.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Existentialist"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.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Existentialist"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.

Quote from: "Asmodean"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.  

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Existentialist"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:-

Quote from: "Asmodean"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.

Quote from: "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.

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.  

Quote from: "Whitney"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:-

Quote from: "Asmodean"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.

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "Asmodean"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.

Quote from: "Existentialist"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.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "Asmodean"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.

You are not using your logic very well.  I did not call Asmodean a psychopath.  Besides which, psychopath is not a term of abuse, it is a legitimate word to describe someone who has a lack of empathy, feeling or concern for others.  I introduced the concept in the conversation, but please could you actually read my words as you have quoted them, as I did not call Asmodean a psychopath.  Infact you only need to read the paragraph you quoted to realise that I was being ambiguous about whether it was accurate to describe his actions.  It is quite legitimate, in a thread discussing the rights and wrongs of telling a woman with a disabled child that she should have had him aborted before he was born and that he is a train wreck, to introduce the concept of psychopathy or sociopathy.  I don't see what's wrong with that.  The hypothesis that psychopathy is in play is a legitimate one to be testing.

The issue was not about whose choice of words was psychopath or sociopath.  You may accuse me of splitting hairs, but if I am being accused of something, and the rules of the forum are being invoked, I would thank you at least to be accurate in your accusations.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Existentialist"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.

Again, please use the logic you have credited yourself with having and read what I said.  I said the situation is highly emotional and deeply distressing.  I did not say that I was "highly emotional".  If I am being accused of something, I would thank you once again to be accurate in your accusations.

If you don't think that telling some lady a truthful opinion is horrible, then you won't mind me telling you that I think out of anger and not logic you are wilfully distorting the truth about what I have said about a man telling a woman she should have had her train wreck of disabled child aborted before it was born.  Why you are so angry only you can say.  I don't think what you've said so far explains it.

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

Thanks.  Boxes are claustrophobic things, aren't they?

Quote from: "Whitney"born vegetable...

...vegetable baby

Like Asmodean, I missed an earlier contribution from you, Whitney.  I'm sorry, I think your language is disgusting.  I cannot believe that even where you live, you would go unchallenged for using descriptions like that about a human being.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Thanks.

I think you're spot on so far.  Not only does Asmodean have this idea that kids or people are nothing and not worthy of societal help because they can't contribute to society (Asmodean disregards the contribution the child gives to his/her family despite their challenges), Asmodean specifically went after the mother in broad daylight and expressed to the mother that her child was a "train wreck" and not worthy of special care, that abortion is the only RIGHT choice, that by having this child, she (the mother) has placed her child above the needs of society.  And what does Asmodean expect from a mother?

Worthy of special care is not Asmodean's call.  "Train wreck" is an attack on the child and the mother.  It is this type of action that should be confronted as cruel and unusual punishment...that's putting in mildly.

It is quite cruel, heartless and incomprehensible.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"It is quite cruel, heartless and incomprehensible.

I completely agree.

It's not uncommon for people to refer to those who have lacked higher brain function as vegetables...people say "If i ever become a vegetable pull life support" all the time.  It's not disgusting to say that and the body it is directed at has less brain function than a cat.

It's not "disgusting" use of words...I don't even think there is another layman term to use to describe such people (as brain dead wouldn't be it either).  You just like to be offended by everything people say when it doesn't fit into your little box.

You were looking to pick a fight when you started responding to this thread...it's evident in your words from your fist post here; and you have had a history of being harsh in your responses on this forum.

Just because you don't think implying someone is a psychopath (and repeating it and other derogatory terms over and over again) is not uncivil doesn't mean I'm being illogical...it means you are being purposefully difficult or lack an understanding of what civil behavior entails.

I never made the claim that what asmodean said to that mother was nice.  But I seriously doubt he went out and found this mother for the sole purpose of beating her up emotionally, he was just honest in the conversation...if that was the case then your responses would be more understandable.

AD, would you have rather Asmodean lied to the mother during this conversation; once a topic like that comes up (one that a person strongly disagrees with) you either have to lie, be brutally honest, or bite your tongue and leave suddenly (which people know means you think they are stupid/odd...which is only a hair better than brutal honesty).

And before anyone says it....Asmodean was not uncivil towards that woman while on this forum and that's why he's not getting a talking to about being civil.  

But seriously, if you don't like someone's opinion on something use the rational part of your brain to tell them why their opinion is wrong, why they should think that mother made the best decision ever, why that mother deserves pitty for having a baby that if it were an adult on life support could be legally cut off due to brain inactivity....don't use name calling or pretend like you suddenly got a PhD that allows you to make a diagnosis of someone's mental health; it makes you look bad too.

And if it wasn't clear already...if anyone continues to use derogatory, harsh, diagnosis, or otherwise uncivil wording in this thread you're going on a 7 day ban because this is way out of hand.  If you can't discuss what is obviously a very emotional topic for some people without flooding the topic with emotion just don't post.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Like Asmodean, I missed an earlier contribution from you, Whitney.  I'm sorry, I think your language is disgusting.  I cannot believe that even where you live, you would go unchallenged for using descriptions like that about a human being.

What would you call someone who's brain was non-functioning and would only continue to live as long as he was still connected to a machine? Calling that individual a "vegetable" is disgusting, is it?

What defines a human being for you? If it's not primarily the brain, what is it? I presume you don't believe in a soul, so that can't be it.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Existentialist"Thanks.

I think you're spot on so far.  Not only does Asmodean have this idea that kids or people are nothing and not worthy of societal help because they can't contribute to society (Asmodean disregards the contribution the child gives to his/her family despite their challenges), Asmodean specifically went after the mother in broad daylight and expressed to the mother that her child was a "train wreck" and not worthy of special care, that abortion is the only RIGHT choice, that by having this child, she (the mother) has placed her child above the needs of society.  And what does Asmodean expect from a mother?

Worthy of special care is not Asmodean's call.  "Train wreck" is an attack on the child and the mother.  It is this type of action that should be confronted as cruel and unusual punishment...that's putting in mildly.

It is quite cruel, heartless and incomprehensible.

QFT. For once, I'm in full agreement with AD on something. For the record, I also agree with everything said by Existentialist so far in this thread. I can scarcely express my disappointment at the direction this conversation is going, let alone the sentiments in the OP that sparked it off. I will continue to watch this topic, but most likely will not post in it again.

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Existentialist"Thanks.

I think you're spot on so far.  Not only does Asmodean have this idea that kids or people are nothing and not worthy of societal help because they can't contribute to society (Asmodean disregards the contribution the child gives to his/her family despite their challenges), Asmodean specifically went after the mother in broad daylight and expressed to the mother that her child was a "train wreck" and not worthy of special care, that abortion is the only RIGHT choice, that by having this child, she (the mother) has placed her child above the needs of society.  And what does Asmodean expect from a mother?

Worthy of special care is not Asmodean's call.  "Train wreck" is an attack on the child and the mother.  It is this type of action that should be confronted as cruel and unusual punishment...that's putting in mildly.

It is quite cruel, heartless and incomprehensible.

QFT. For once, I'm in full agreement with AD on something. For the record, I also agree with everything said by Existentialist so far in this thread. I can scarcely express my disappointment at the direction this conversation is going, let alone the sentiments in the OP that sparked it off. I will continue to watch this topic, but most likely will not post in it again.

OP said (from my perspective):  how does the life/death of this child affect me.  Like he's the only one in the world paying taxes (or even alive for that matter).  It's a completely sociopathic viewpoint or maybe just simple minded...maybe OP wrote the post just to get reactions who knows.  Anyways his thinking is very childlike "me" thinking IMO...

so i'm dissapointed as well

locking thread so I don't have to try to moderate this mess without pissing off everyone.