Get OUT of the Gene Pool!
Pam Rudd
I've mentioned that I foster Aussies for Australian Shepherd Rescue.
I also do home checks for potential adopters, and evaluate dogs that
owners would like to get in the rescue program, transport dogs, etc.
Last weekend I had a call from a woman who had taken an Aussie from
her brother-in-law and wanted to us to take her. I agreed to come out
and evaluate the dog, but warned her that we didn't have any openings
in foster care right now, and probably wouldn't be able to take the
dog at this time. She gave me directions to her house, and off I went.
To say they lived in the middle of nowhere is an understatement. I
followed one country road after another; one would dead end into yet
another smaller, less well paved road. I passed rusty trailer after
rusty trailer, each with it's requisite satellite dish and car up on
cinder blocks, until I finally arrived at a cluster of old farm-type
houses stretched along a narrow tar and gravel road.
I was greeted by a pleasant women, who introduced me to her husband.
He was a dwarf. They took me out to meet the dog. As I sat on the
ground with the dog, we discussed what they knew of her history. It
seems the brother of the dwarf was, in their words, "a bit simple" and
wasn't taking care of the dog, so they took the dog. Plus, his
children were afraid of her. Yes, his children; Mr. Simple
was married and had a family.
I asked if she had been aggressive with the children, and they said,
no, she was really good with children, Mr. Simple's were just afraid
of dogs. The husband went to get their children so I could see how
good she was.
He reappeared with two children in wheelchairs. One was a dwarf, like
his father, and the other had cerebral palsy. The dog was, indeed,
good with the children. I asked about the third brother, to see if he
could keep the dog until I could arrange to have her fostered. No, it
was explained to me, he was a dwarf as well, and was having surgery
on his hip. As we were talking, a Down's Syndrome child wandered up,
apparently the child of dwarf #2.
By this point, I was cutting my eyes around, looking for hidden
cameras! I couldn't believe this was real, I was waiting for someone
to jump out and yell "Smile, you're on Candid Camera!" or else start
playing "Dueling Banjos". It was readily apparent to me that
the poor woman who had called me had all she could handle, so I
agreed to go ahead and take the dog with me. I got back in car, and
all I could think was that somebody ought to tell these people to stop
breeding! I would guess this was one of those old Southern families
whose family tree doesn't branch much.
The good news in all of this? The dog is very bright!
The bad news...the dog is the only one that will be neutered.
Pam
~~~
South Carolina is too small to be a Republic
and too large to be an Insane Asylum.
Bryant Siegfried
Darwin's_Lil_Helper
pdr...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
Sorry. That isn't my territory, but I will bring this up with the head
office.
--
.sig available on request.
Send SASE to: Darwins_l...@my-dejanews.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lorre
kmd wrote:
>
> On 24 Jul 2000 23:27:35 -0400, pdr...@mindspring.com (Pam Rudd) wrote:
>
> >
> >The bad news...the dog is the only one that will be neutered.
>
> I understand your frustration. But does the name Carrie Buck mean
> anything to you?
Carried Buck doesn't mean anything to me (however, the term eugenics
does), but I've spent plenty of time around a lot of folks who are
considered "different" in just such ways as Pam describes. Being
around as in working and playing with them in lots of situations and
time being measured in decades.
Pam, I gotta tell you that you came off as an ignorant, socially inept
and politically retarded jerk in that post. This is probably the first
time in soc.singles.moderated that I have called anyone anything like
that in total seriousness. To write an entire post that certain people
you think are inferior should be extinguished is the height of boorish
behavior. And I use boorish because frankly, I can't think of words
to describe how horrible I think this is without lapsing into
obscenties.
I wish you'd give some deep thought about the terms "life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness", which every citizen of the U.S. is
guaranteed. And get yourself to some sensitivity workshops as soon as
you possibly can.
Lorre (I think I have to go and walk for a little while to calm
myself.)
--
http://www.albany.edu/~ls973/home.html
s.s.m. boink schedule: http://www.trygve.com/boinks.html
Jim Roberts-Miller
>
>Pam, I gotta tell you that you came off as an ignorant, socially inept
>and politically retarded jerk in that post. This is probably the first
>time in soc.singles.moderated that I have called anyone anything like
>that in total seriousness.
I think she sounded more,like someone who walked into a totally bizarre
situation and walked out totally squicked.
>To write an entire post that certain people
>you think are inferior should be extinguished is the height of boorish
>behavior.
Except, of course, she did not write that.
She did write she felt these people shouldn't be having kids, which may not
be a very PC (I know people hate that term, but right now I can't think of a
better) thing to say, but its totally understandable. One need not be ready to
ride in with the castration tools and sterilization needles to occasionally
think "Folks, maybe you should adopt."
Of course, we know little about their real circumstances. Who some of these
folks really were, if was all just a bit statistical absurdity or what. But
damn! I'd be dishonest if I said I wouldn't have been more than a little
freaked myself. I'm freaked now, and I wasn't even there.
Jammer Jim Roberts-Miller -- off to be fitted for his hob-nailed boots now.
--
Texas A&M '89, '91 "Is there in Truth no Beauty?"
"Of course, you do not have to go to the moon to find cold, dark, and
inhospitable...conditions. Much of Canada will do." -- the Economist
http://www.mindspring.com/~jammerjim/jimpg01.html
Trish Roberts-Miller
jamm...@mindspring.com (Jim Roberts-Miller) wrote:
> ls...@csc.albany.edu (Lorre) wrote in <397DA870...@csc.albany.edu>:
> >Pam, I gotta tell you that you came off as an ignorant, socially inept
> >and politically retarded jerk in that post. This is probably the first
> >time in soc.singles.moderated that I have called anyone anything like
> >that in total seriousness.
> I think she sounded more,like someone who walked into a totally bizarre
> situation and walked out totally squicked.
But there is no indication, as I remember the post, that it was an
issue of genetics. Those people had no more likelihood of having a
Down's syndrome child than most people (and probably a whole lot
less than, for instance, I did). As I understand it, that's the
issue with lots of forms of mental retardation--people with mental
retardation are not more likely to have kids with mental retardation.
Whether they have the mental capacity to raise children is an
interesting issue, but, again, there are other categories of people
who are much more problematic.
> >To write an entire post that certain people
> >you think are inferior should be extinguished is the height of boorish
> >behavior.
> Except, of course, she did not write that.
> She did write she felt these people shouldn't be having kids, which may not
> be a very PC (I know people hate that term, but right now I can't think of a
> better)
That's the whole point of my tirade against the term. In fact, you
can't think of a synonym for it (people almost never can) because
there isn't one. And that is a pretty strong indication that the term
doesn't really have any denotation. It's all connotation.
There are examples of terms that are difficult to substitute with
real precision, but one can usually get around them with a long phrase,
analogy, or something. In this case, what would that long phrase
be?
The notion that people who have disabilities should not be permitted
to have children is promoting something that is unconstitutional,
prejudiced, and ignorant. You choose which of those to substitute
for "not very PC."
>thing to say, but its totally understandable. One need not be ready to
> ride in with the castration tools and sterilization needles to occasionally
> think "Folks, maybe you should adopt."
To people who might (and I do mean *might*, as she didn't describe
anything which I know to be heritable other than being a dwarf--
hardly a disaster) have a higher than normal risk of having a child
with some kind of defect? Such as, for instance, Down's? Such as,
for instance, a thirty eight year old woman who is primagravida?
The term for this is eugenics, and if Pam had her way, I would have
been among the first lined up against the wall and sterilized. But,
of course, that isn't what people think of when they think of
eugenics. They think of the poor and uneducated. Again, hardly
heritable traits.
--
Trish Roberts-Miller http://www.missouri.edu/~engpat
"As a matter of fact, we blunder along, barking our shins at
every tree, not because we need quinine, but because that is
the happy-go-lucky human way." (Mencken) red...@mindspring.com
Annette M. Stroud
kmd <du...@megahits.com> wrote:
>On 24 Jul 2000 23:27:35 -0400, pdr...@mindspring.com (Pam Rudd) wrote:
>
>>
>>The bad news...the dog is the only one that will be neutered.
>
>I understand your frustration. But does the name Carrie Buck mean
>anything to you?
I just happened to have stuff re: Carrie Buck in my hip pocket, so I threw
it up on the web:
http://www.du.edu/~astroud/buck.htm
(It's a little rough; the newspaper articles had been copied so many times
they were illegible in places.)
Annette
Lorre
Jim Roberts-Miller wrote:
>
> ls...@csc.albany.edu (Lorre) wrote :
> >Pam, I gotta tell you that you came off as an ignorant, socially inept
> >and politically retarded jerk in that post. This is probably the first
> >time in soc.singles.moderated that I have called anyone anything like
> >that in total seriousness.
>
> I think she sounded more,like someone who walked into a totally bizarre
> situation and walked out totally squicked.
>
> >To write an entire post that certain people
> >you think are inferior should be extinguished is the height of boorish
> >behavior.
>
> Except, of course, she did not write that.
How about this as a similar example: Well, Jammer, due to your
completely idiotic response, I think you should adopt rather than
reproduce any further pathetic offspring, and maybe you should think
of passing the little one onto more capable hands, so that he has a
chance at a decent life. And get your wife under control so that she
doesn't reproduce either. Keep yourself and your disgusting family the
fuck out of our lives, and your little dog too.
Um, I think a judgment of such ilk is more than insulting.
> She did write she felt these people shouldn't be having kids, which may not
> be a very PC (I know people hate that term, but right now I can't think of a
> better) thing to say, but its totally understandable.
I hope it will not be politically correct for a very long time. It's
way too easy for people with effective political power to wipe out
lots of innocent and perfectly decent human beings in the most cruel
and inhumane ways.
I won't apologize for not understanding how a grown person in the
beginning of the 21st century can harbor such thoughtless antagonism
against people she doesn't even know, because she doesn't like the way
they look. Maybe she doesn't think the word "tolerance" applies to
her.
>One need not be ready to
> ride in with the castration tools and sterilization needles to occasionally
> think "Folks, maybe you should adopt."
I didn't say anything about castration or sterilization, and I know
that Pam didn't either.
> Of course, we know little about their real circumstances.
Exactly.
>Who some of these
> folks really were, if was all just a bit statistical absurdity or what. But
> damn! I'd be dishonest if I said I wouldn't have been more than a little
> freaked myself. I'm freaked now, and I wasn't even there.
Being freaked and wishing (verging on demanding, based on the
expressiveness of that subject heading) that people and their ilk
would disappear are two different things. I believe Pam has declared
herself to be in the latter camp in a most deliberate and obnoxious
way.
Lorre
Lynnette
Jim Roberts-Miller wrote:
>
> ls...@csc.albany.edu (Lorre) wrote in <397DA870...@csc.albany.edu>:
> >
> >Pam, I gotta tell you that you came off as an ignorant, socially inept
> >and politically retarded jerk in that post. This is probably the first
> >time in soc.singles.moderated that I have called anyone anything like
> >that in total seriousness.
>
> I think she sounded more,like someone who walked into a totally bizarre
> situation and walked out totally squicked.
That's pretty much what I picked up on at the end. While she was
relating the story, I kept thinking about how wonderful those folks are
and how much they're going through just to live a quote-unquote "normal"
life. Here they are, way the hell in the middle of nowhere South
Carolina. They're dealing with adapting cars so the Dad can drive,
dealing with *2* kids in wheelchairs each with their own special needs,
making all sorts of adaptations to the house and to their lifestyle to
care for everyone in their family--not to mention being (what sounds
like) hours away from modern conveniences and services. I would imagine
life would be overwhelming for them, and yet they have enough love and
time and patience and energy to save a dog from an unsafe situation and
find help for it.
I can't say I agree wholeheartedly that these folks shouldn't be
reproducing. I felt more disgusted about the affluent parents of one
son (ONE kid) who had some significant disability and they couldn't
handle caring for him or the cost of putting him in an institution so
they dropped him off at a hospital and abandoned him. The family Pam
describes sounds like they're wonderful and warm and willing to take on
whatever challenges life tosses at them. They might be a bit
unsophisticated, but what are is an order of magnitude better.
> >To write an entire post that certain people
> >you think are inferior should be extinguished is the height of boorish
> >behavior.
>
> Except, of course, she did not write that.
>
> She did write she felt these people shouldn't be having kids, which may not
> be a very PC (I know people hate that term, but right now I can't think of a
> better) thing to say, but its totally understandable. One need not be ready to
> ride in with the castration tools and sterilization needles to occasionally
> think "Folks, maybe you should adopt."
Yeah...but lots of folks aren't eligible to adopt. I mean, look at Mr.
Simple. He'd not make the cut. Heck, a close friend of mine with a
Masters in Special Education Technology and a good job who has been
married for 14 years couldn't adopt a child just because she's visually
impaired! And intelligence is NOT related to the parents--Mr. Simple
could have Mr. Einstein for a child (mentally retarded adults have
children who are not mentally retarded themselves). Why should this
person not have kids if they want them?? Then again, this is something
I've thought about a lot--especially because of said friend. I've come
to the conclusion that it's not my business to make decisions about
anyone's reproduction but my own. If I hadn't already thought this
topic through to my conclusion, I can see where I might have had the
same reaction as Pam. Just because I don't automatically agree with it
doesn't mean I condemn her.
> Of course, we know little about their real circumstances. Who some of these
> folks really were, if was all just a bit statistical absurdity or what. But
> damn! I'd be dishonest if I said I wouldn't have been more than a little
> freaked myself. I'm freaked now, and I wasn't even there.
I was intrigued, and would have been even moreso if I'd been there.
Just hearing the story has also me feel lucky to have only been through
minor issues and inconveniences when it comes to my family and my life.
I only had to deal with one wheelchair for a fairly short period of time
and that was for an old man who had lived a full life. I can't imagine
hauling out 2 of 'em for kids who haven't even lived yet...
Lynnette
(Who can see both Pam and Lorre's side to this and decided to toss in a
slightly different viewpoint altogether...)
Jim Roberts-Miller
25070011...@pool-209-138-162-190.dlls.grid.net>:
>In article <8F7C71E6Fjamme...@129.250.35.5>,
>jamm...@mindspring.com (Jim Roberts-Miller) wrote:
>
>> ls...@csc.albany.edu (Lorre) wrote in <397DA870...@csc.albany.edu>:
>
>> I think she sounded more,like someone who walked into a totally bizarre
>> situation and walked out totally squicked.
>
>But there is no indication, as I remember the post, that it was an
>issue of genetics.
Well, we define "squick" as being somewhat irrational, no? The fact that
genetics was really not involved in anything she saw doesn't change what she
might have felt.
Of course, *I'm* calling it a squick, Pam never said that, but it sure read
like one to me.
>>thing to say, but its totally understandable. One need not be ready to
>> ride in with the castration tools and sterilization needles to occasionally
>> think "Folks, maybe you should adopt."
>
>To people who might (and I do mean *might*, as she didn't describe
>anything which I know to be heritable other than being a dwarf--
>hardly a disaster) have a higher than normal risk of having a child
>with some kind of defect? Such as, for instance, Down's? Such as,
>for instance, a thirty eight year old woman who is primagravida?
There are any number of behaviors which are not illegal and which I certainly
would not suggest should be illegal which are not smart; advising someone of
the inherent risks and suggesting they consider alternatives is quite a long
way from advocating eugenics.
And I might ask just where the line is, anyway? At what point do we cross
over (speaking generally) from risk aviodance to Master Races? I am not trying
to be facetious here, either.
>The term for this is eugenics, and if Pam had her way, I would have
>been among the first lined up against the wall and sterilized.
People are, in their revulsion,ascribing a lot of thoughts and ideas to Pam
which Pam (IMO) has not expressed. I do not think her comment about the dog
was meant to be taken as a statement of policy. I'm pretty sure that in a
calmer moment she would realize (probably already has) it was wrong. It
wouldn't be the first time someone has let themselves hang a little looser on
the keyboard than they might otherwise be.
Jammer Jim Roberts-Miller
Lynnette
slight trepidation... <G>]
Trish Roberts-Miller wrote:
>
> In article <8F7C71E6Fjamme...@129.250.35.5>,
> jamm...@mindspring.com (Jim Roberts-Miller) wrote:
>
> > Except, of course, she did not write that.
>
> > She did write she felt these people shouldn't be having kids, which may not
> > be a very PC (I know people hate that term, but right now I can't think of a
> > better)
>
> That's the whole point of my tirade against the term. In fact, you
> can't think of a synonym for it (people almost never can) because
> there isn't one.
I can think of several in that sentence. In many ways, I see PC to mean
respectful or considerate. In many other ways, I see it as a way to
avoid confrontation or to find a more socially acceptable way of saying
something inappropriate. Someone might use "african american" as a way
of hiding the fact that zie would rather use the N-word to describe
individuals of african descent.
Just because the phrase has turned into a bad joke doesn't mean that it
has to be something intrinsically bad or evil. Using words that don't
belittle a person or a group of people is a good idea, imo. Which would
be more respectful? Referring to someone as "using a wheelchair" or
calling them a "cripple"??
> There are examples of terms that are difficult to substitute with
> real precision, but one can usually get around them with a long phrase,
> analogy, or something. In this case, what would that long phrase
> be?
"Socially Acceptable" Seems to work for me in all the instances I can
come up with it (but that doesn't mean my sample is all inclusive!) But
it's still pretty vague... I still think "respectful" is a better
definition.
> The notion that people who have disabilities should not be permitted
> to have children is promoting something that is unconstitutional,
> prejudiced, and ignorant. You choose which of those to substitute
> for "not very PC."
I dunno. I didn't get "should not be permitted to have children" out of
her post, rather that they "should voluntarily not have them" is what I
got, and I see that a bit differently. Saying it's socially more
responsible for a person with mental retardation to not have children
isn't the same as saying they should be sterilized. I tell ya, there
are lots of folks I think should never be allowed to reproduce, however,
people with disabilities aren't on that list. (Bill Gates or Saddam
Hussein otoh...)
Lynnette
Jim Roberts-Miller
>
>
>Jim Roberts-Miller wrote:
>>
>> ls...@csc.albany.edu (Lorre) wrote :
>
>> >Pam, I gotta tell you that you came off as an ignorant, socially inept
>> >and politically retarded jerk in that post. This is probably the first
>> >time in soc.singles.moderated that I have called anyone anything like
>> >that in total seriousness.
>>
>> I think she sounded more,like someone who walked into a totally bizarre
>> situation and walked out totally squicked.
>>
>> >To write an entire post that certain people
>> >you think are inferior should be extinguished is the height of boorish
>> >behavior.
>>
>> Except, of course, she did not write that.
>
>How about this as a similar example: Well, Jammer, due to your
>completely idiotic response, I think you should adopt rather than
>reproduce any further pathetic offspring, and maybe you should think
>of passing the little one onto more capable hands, so that he has a
>chance at a decent life. And get your wife under control so that she
>doesn't reproduce either. Keep yourself and your disgusting family the
>fuck out of our lives, and your little dog too.
>
>Um, I think a judgment of such ilk is more than insulting.
It might be; but notice that we have gone from extinguishing to insulting.
Big difference there.
She did say that they shouldn't be having more kids; she didn't say that they
need to be institutionalized, she didn't say they need to have their kids taken
away.
>> She did write she felt these people shouldn't be having kids, which may
not
>> be a very PC (I know people hate that term, but right now I can't think of a
>> better) thing to say, but its totally understandable.
>
>I hope it will not be politically correct for a very long time. It's
>way too easy for people with effective political power to wipe out
>lots of innocent and perfectly decent human beings in the most cruel
>and inhumane ways.
Hmm, okay, now we're on the genocidal thing again.
>I won't apologize for not understanding how a grown person in the
>beginning of the 21st century can harbor such thoughtless antagonism
>against people she doesn't even know, because she doesn't like the way
>they look. Maybe she doesn't think the word "tolerance" applies to
>her.
Its called being freaked out. Maybe you've heard of the term? Since you
have by your own admission, decades of experience with this sort of thing, can
you recall what it might feel like for someone who *doesn't*?
Had I wandered into soc.singles even two years before I actually did, I would
have run screaming into the hallways. I would have thought you all morally
bankrupt, frightening, and deviant (I know, I know, no personals).
But I had a year or two on the net before I got here. My horizons had
broadened, and I came to understand more about things I did not. Did I change
fundamentally as a person in that time? Not really. But I did understand
better certain things.
Maybe that is why I am reluctant to bring on the boiling oil here.
>>One need not be ready to
>> ride in with the castration tools and sterilization needles to occasionally
>> think "Folks, maybe you should adopt."
>
>I didn't say anything about castration or sterilization, and I know
>that Pam didn't either.
My bad, actually *she* did. But if Pam wasn't saying they need to be
restricted by law, or killed outright, why did you say "extinguished"? you're
accusing her of advocating eugnenics at least, genocide at worst. If that is
not what you are worried about, then what are you worried about?
>>Who some of these
>> folks really were, if was all just a bit statistical absurdity or what. But
>> damn! I'd be dishonest if I said I wouldn't have been more than a little
>> freaked myself. I'm freaked now, and I wasn't even there.
>
>Being freaked and wishing (verging on demanding, based on the
>expressiveness of that subject heading) that people and their ilk
>would disappear are two different things. I believe Pam has declared
>herself to be in the latter camp in a most deliberate and obnoxious
>way.
And of course, we honest, sensitive, high-minded folk here have never ever
felt similar sentiments towards anyone. Even about right-wing fundamentalists
who think all gays should be killed.
Pam Rudd
>
>
>kmd wrote:
>>
>> On 24 Jul 2000 23:27:35 -0400, pdr...@mindspring.com (Pam Rudd) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >The bad news...the dog is the only one that will be neutered.
>
>
>Pam, I gotta tell you that you came off as an ignorant, socially inept
>and politically retarded jerk in that post. This is probably the first
>time in soc.singles.moderated that I have called anyone anything like
>that in total seriousness. To write an entire post that certain people
>you think are inferior should be extinguished is the height of boorish
>behavior. And I use boorish because frankly, I can't think of words
>to describe how horrible I think this is without lapsing into
>obscenties.
What a lovely display of melodramatics, exaggeration, and downright
distortion. Feel better now?
>I wish you'd give some deep thought about the terms "life, liberty and
>the pursuit of happiness", which every citizen of the U.S. is
>guaranteed.
Exactly, and if you'd like to show me where I suggested forming a
Eugenics posse for a midnight vigilante sterilization , I'll
apologize. Just as they are free to keep producing handicapped
children, I am free to believe that it is the height of
irresponsibility to continue producing children when you know
the genes you are passing on will cause a significant negative
impact on those children's quality of life.
I was nothing but nice to that family, and did them a great favor by
taking this dog. They are getting public assistance, since only the
woman works part time, and the dog requires expensive heartworm
treatments and extensive training before she can be adopted.
They tried the usual blackmail of "She'll go to the pound if you don't
take her" and that almost made me mad enough to refuse to take her,
but the children started crying, and the woman was obviously at the
end of her rope, so I relented and brought the dog home.
> And get yourself to some sensitivity workshops as soon as
>you possibly can.
Ok, now *that's* funny!
Rose
[snip]
> He reappeared with two children in wheelchairs. One was a dwarf, like
>his father, and the other had cerebral palsy. The dog was, indeed,
>good with the children. I asked about the third brother, to see if he
>could keep the dog until I could arrange to have her fostered. No, it
>was explained to me, he was a dwarf as well, and was having surgery
>on his hip. As we were talking, a Down's Syndrome child wandered up,
>apparently the child of dwarf #2.
Are you sure you weren't watching an X-Files episode?
It was titled "Home" and Fox has banned it from rebroadcast.
Guess their depiction of inbreeding down south (set to a
Johnny Mathis soundtrack) was a little too shocking for
prime time television viewers.
Rose
G. Wilkey Richardson
Lorre wrote:
>
> Jim Roberts-Miller wrote:
> >
> > ls...@csc.albany.edu (Lorre) wrote :
>
> > >Pam, I gotta tell you that you came off as an ignorant, socially inept
> > >and politically retarded jerk in that post. This is probably the first
> > >time in soc.singles.moderated that I have called anyone anything like
> > >that in total seriousness.
> >
> > I think she sounded more,like someone who walked into a totally bizarre
> > situation and walked out totally squicked.
> >
> > >To write an entire post that certain people
> > >you think are inferior should be extinguished is the height of boorish
> > >behavior.
> >
> > Except, of course, she did not write that.
>
> How about this as a similar example: Well, Jammer, due to your
> completely idiotic response, I think you should adopt rather than
> reproduce any further pathetic offspring, and maybe you should think
> of passing the little one onto more capable hands, so that he has a
> chance at a decent life. And get your wife under control so that she
> doesn't reproduce either. Keep yourself and your disgusting family the
> fuck out of our lives, and your little dog too.
>
> Um, I think a judgment of such ilk is more than insulting.
>
> > She did write she felt these people shouldn't be having kids, which may not
> > be a very PC (I know people hate that term, but right now I can't think of a
> > better) thing to say, but its totally understandable.
I've often thought "Puritan" was a pretty good term. I've seen
a lot of very intolerant statements made in the name of tolerance.
>
> I hope it will not be politically correct for a very long time. It's
> way too easy for people with effective political power to wipe out
> lots of innocent and perfectly decent human beings in the most cruel
> and inhumane ways.
Too true. There are times when I think that eugenics might not
be such a bad thing; then I mix human nature into the equation
and get real scared.
>
> I won't apologize for not understanding how a grown person in the
> beginning of the 21st century can harbor such thoughtless antagonism
> against people she doesn't even know, because she doesn't like the way
> they look. Maybe she doesn't think the word "tolerance" applies to
> her.
>
It doesn't sound like it applies to you, either, since the
"sensitivity" you referred to in your first post was conspicuous
by its absence. I think you could have made your point a lot
more effectively by simply stating that you did not agree, and why.
By using a personal attack, you make it seem like you have a
thoughtless antagonism against people who don't think as you think.
As to the lack of understanding, the explanation is (a bit cliche,
admittedly, but true, IMO): Human nature. This has been going on
for millenia, and IMO will not be eradicated quickly or easily.
[castration & sterilization]
>
> >Who some of these
> > folks really were, if was all just a bit statistical absurdity or what. But
> > damn! I'd be dishonest if I said I wouldn't have been more than a little
> > freaked myself. I'm freaked now, and I wasn't even there.
>
Me, too. Although I got the impression Pam *might* have been
freaked as much or more about the dog's living conditions as
about the people.
Wilkey
--
"Being disintegrated makes me *very* angry"
-- M.T. Martian.
theurgy
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 CURRENT #118
Lorre <ls...@csc.albany.edu> writes:
...referring to a post which describes the prototypical "four generations
of morons is enough" family...
>> >Pam, I gotta tell you that you came off as an ignorant, socially inept
>> >and politically retarded jerk in that post. This is probably the first
>> >time in soc.singles.moderated that I have called anyone anything like
>> >that in total seriousness.
>>
>> I think she sounded more,like someone who walked into a totally bizarre
>> situation and walked out totally squicked.
>>
>> >To write an entire post that certain people
>> >you think are inferior should be extinguished is the height of boorish
>> >behavior.
>> She did write she felt these people shouldn't be having kids, which
>> may not
>> be a very PC (I know people hate that term, but right now I can't think of a
>> better) thing to say, but its totally understandable.
>I hope it will not be politically correct for a very long time. It's
>way too easy for people with effective political power to wipe out
>lots of innocent and perfectly decent human beings in the most cruel
>and inhumane ways.
Of course it is. Not likely to change, either. Pam wrote nothing about
wiping people out in cruel ways. Aren't you stretching a bit for a
slippery slope here, going from her "My god, it's the Kallikaks!" reaction
to the Zyklon B showers?
>I won't apologize for not understanding how a grown person in the
>beginning of the 21st century can harbor such thoughtless antagonism
>against people she doesn't even know, because she doesn't like the way
>they look. Maybe she doesn't think the word "tolerance" applies to
>her.
Oh, let us sing the praises for "tolerance" now. In my experience there's
very litle of it anywhere, though a great hypocritical show is made of it.
The best I've seen is a grudging acceptance of those different from us, a
submittal to the law and its terrible consequences. Oh, and of course a
kind of preening "I'm tolerant, you're a racist" differentiation between
ourselves and whoever disagrees with our own enlightened attitudes.
>Being freaked and wishing (verging on demanding, based on the
>expressiveness of that subject heading) that people and their ilk
>would disappear are two different things. I believe Pam has declared
>herself to be in the latter camp in a most deliberate and obnoxious
>way.
The cogency of your exposition suffers greatly when you post during an
apoplectic fit, Lorre. Your distaste comes through loud and clear,
but little else does.
Are you, for example, advocating that every person, regardless of physical
or mental condition, should reproduce as often and freely as suits zir?
Your posts suggest so.
Eugenics has become a word that elicits knee-jerk responses, largely due
to the ignorant and futile attempts during the last century to improve the
gene pool by keeping some people from reproducing. Whatever salutary
effect that might have had has gotten completely swamped by several large
wars and the indiscriminate slaughter of millions.
Fortunately - or rather very unfortunately for you - the entire discussion
is moot. There is no doubt in my mind that during the current century the
technology of genetic engineering will be used for practical eugenics, the
elimination of certain undisputably deleterious genes. Phenylketunuria,
for example, and a number of other genetically determined diseases.
Of course, they will also create monsters, cross Tiger Wood with Albert
Einstein and a nematode. None of this is avoidable in any case. Eggs and
omelettes...
Felicitations,
M.
Lorre
Pam Rudd wrote:
>Lorre <ls...@csc.albany.edu> wrote:
> >>(Pam Rudd) wrote:
> >> >The bad news...the dog is the only one that will be neutered.
[...]
> >Pam, I gotta tell you that you came off as an ignorant, socially inept
> >and politically retarded jerk in that post. This is probably the first
> >time in soc.singles.moderated that I have called anyone anything like
> >that in total seriousness. To write an entire post that certain people
> >you think are inferior should be extinguished is the height of boorish
> >behavior. And I use boorish because frankly, I can't think of words
> >to describe how horrible I think this is without lapsing into
> >obscenties.
>
> What a lovely display of melodramatics, exaggeration, and downright
> distortion. Feel better now?
Yes, I do.
> >I wish you'd give some deep thought about the terms "life, liberty and
> >the pursuit of happiness", which every citizen of the U.S. is
> >guaranteed.
>
> Exactly, and if you'd like to show me where I suggested forming a
> Eugenics posse for a midnight vigilante sterilization , I'll
> apologize.
I said you came off as a certain type of jerk in that post. Wanna talk
about your own "lovely display of melodramatics, exaggeration, and
downright distortion" now?
> Just as they are free to keep producing handicapped
> children, I am free to believe that it is the height of
> irresponsibility to continue producing children when you know
> the genes you are passing on will cause a significant negative
> impact on those children's quality of life.
I have never said you are to be stripped of your beliefs, nor have I
ever said you are to be silenced in any way. You are perfectly free to
have your own opinions about whatever you like.
Just as I'm perfectly free to react to them.
> I was nothing but nice to that family, and did them a great favor by
> taking this dog. They are getting public assistance, since only the
> woman works part time, and the dog requires expensive heartworm
> treatments and extensive training before she can be adopted.
> They tried the usual blackmail of "She'll go to the pound if you don't
> take her" and that almost made me mad enough to refuse to take her,
> but the children started crying, and the woman was obviously at the
> end of her rope, so I relented and brought the dog home.
>
> > And get yourself to some sensitivity workshops as soon as
> >you possibly can.
>
> Ok, now *that's* funny!
Based on how antagonistically you described that family and their
circumstances, I'm sad you think so.
Rose
[snip]
>that in total seriousness. To write an entire post that certain people
>you think are inferior should be extinguished is the height of boorish
>behavior.
I didn't see the bit where Pam said the kids and/or parents should
be killed because they were genetically defective.
The tone appeared to be a mind-boggle. Today, we have genetic
testing that will determine the likelihood of a disabled/deformed
child. She seemed to be asking why these parents would knowingly
bring a disabled/deformed child into the world. Life is hard enough
when you belong here (to quote Morrissey.) Imagine a life where
you don't "belong." Now ask why a parent would knowingly bring a
child into such a harsh life? That's the way I interpreted
Pam's post. It didn't upset me the way that it upset you.
>I wish you'd give some deep thought about the terms "life, liberty and
>the pursuit of happiness", which every citizen of the U.S. is
>guaranteed.
Um... what part of "life, liberty, pursuit ..." says go forth
and multiply?
Having children is not a *right* it's a *choice.*
There are people who make the wrong choice.
I have the *right* to mind-boggle, when they do.
Doesn't Pam?
Rose
Lorre
theurgy wrote:
>
> <2g6rnss54oi3dg098...@4ax.com> <397DA870...@csc.albany.edu> <8F7C71E6Fjamme...@129.250.35.5> <397DC53C...@csc.albany.edu>
> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 CURRENT #118
>
> Lorre <ls...@csc.albany.edu> writes:
>
> ...referring to a post which describes the prototypical "four generations
> of morons is enough" family...
>
[...]
> Are you, for example, advocating that every person, regardless of physical
> or mental condition, should reproduce as often and freely as suits zir?
> Your posts suggest so.
I'm suggesting that all sorts of people have rights that are protected
by the constitution, and there are good reasons for that.
[...]
So... it takes what you perceive as a hissy fit about eugenics to
bring you out of the woodwork?
Say it ain't so!!
Lorre
Jim Roberts-Miller wrote:
>
> ls...@csc.albany.edu (Lorre) wrote:
> >Jim Roberts-Miller wrote:
> >>
> >> ls...@csc.albany.edu (Lorre) wrote :
[...]
> Had I wandered into soc.singles even two years before I actually did, I would
> have run screaming into the hallways. I would have thought you all morally
> bankrupt, frightening, and deviant (I know, I know, no personals).
>
> But I had a year or two on the net before I got here. My horizons had
> broadened, and I came to understand more about things I did not. Did I change
> fundamentally as a person in that time? Not really. But I did understand
> better certain things.
>
> Maybe that is why I am reluctant to bring on the boiling oil here.
Good. I don't think anyone deserves boiling oil either. But I think
most group members deserve an honest response, even if it isn't nice.
> >>One need not be ready to
> >> ride in with the castration tools and sterilization needles to occasionally
> >> think "Folks, maybe you should adopt."
> >
> >I didn't say anything about castration or sterilization, and I know
> >that Pam didn't either.
>
> My bad, actually *she* did. But if Pam wasn't saying they need to be
> restricted by law, or killed outright, why did you say "extinguished"?
Because usually when creatures of a sort no longer reproduce, their
kind are extinguished, disappear, kaput. I think "Get OUT of the Gene
Pool!" (Pam's command to this particular undesirable family) implies
that removing one's genetic attributes from the gene pool ensures that
said genetic attributes are no longer available. Maybe I'm completely
wrong.
[...]
> >Being freaked and wishing (verging on demanding, based on the
> >expressiveness of that subject heading) that people and their ilk
> >would disappear are two different things. I believe Pam has declared
> >herself to be in the latter camp in a most deliberate and obnoxious
> >way.
>
> And of course, we honest, sensitive, high-minded folk here have never ever
> felt similar sentiments towards anyone. Even about right-wing fundamentalists
> who think all gays should be killed.
Well I wouldn't know about that. Perhaps you've seen a post I haven't
seen recently. It seems to me that ignorance, intolerance and
prejudice appear in the oddest of places. Discussing it openly seems
to have very interesting effects, too.
No User
>On 24 Jul 2000 23:27:35 -0400, pdr...@mindspring.com (Pam Rudd) wrote:
>
>>
>>The bad news...the dog is the only one that will be neutered.
>
>anything to you?
nice mantra you got going there but there's something missing from the
agitprop i've been reading. the answer to a leetle question: was carrie
buck retarded or not?
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
soc.singles.moderated faq 1.0:
to post your personal include the word nematode in the subject line
on my signal - unleash hell
- maximus
it's evolution baby
- pearl jam
there are only two ways of telling the complete truth - anonymously and
posthumously.
- thomas sowell
asking nerds for romantic advice is like going to the amish for an auto
mechanic.
- me
.
Mark D. Garfinkel
theurgy <trx...@xmission.com> wrote:
>Eugenics has become a word that elicits knee-jerk responses, largely due
>to the ignorant and futile attempts during the last century to improve the
>gene pool by keeping some people from reproducing.
book, "In the Name of Eugenics, Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity."
He begins with Francis Galton's mid-19th Century conception of "eminence"
as a hereditary trait and the justification for the British class system,
and ends with the idea that the post-World War II "genetic counseling
movement" represents an effort to rehabilitate eugenics with a human
face to it. IIRC, Kevles argues that the success of the genetic counseling
movement is in large part due to its abandonment of the term "eugenics."
(The first edition, circa 1985, which I read, has been made partly obsolete
by the advent of the human genome project; the current edition published in
1995 may or may not include substantive additions.)
Most pre-genome-project conceptions of how to implement eugenics
fail on scientific grounds, never mind political ones. For example, it is
a straightforward exercise to demonstrate that selection against recessive
traits cannot easily (if ever) succeed in driving the allele frequency of the
recessive to zero: Heterozygotes will survive. In the cases of achondroplasia
(the medical term for "dwarfism") and Huntington's Disease - to name but
two examples - the deleterious mutation acts as a dominant trait. The
old-school eugenicist and sie's totalitarian partners might _like_ to
"eradicate" these dominant disease traits by preventing the people displaying
the disease from breeding (and in the case of HD, by banning the breeding
of carriers of the defective gene who are too young to display symptoms).
Such draconian practices would fail because the rate of new mutations
is not insignificant (IIRC, most "dwarfs" are born to two parents of
normal stature). The eugenicist surely cannot ban _all_ breeding on the
grounds that _some_ "defective" offspring, yet what else could one do?
Living things mutate, it's that simple.
In this soon-to-be post-genome-project era, we will have a growing
appreciation for the subtleties of genetic contributions to various medical
maladies. Many of the chronic debilitating diseases have multiple genetic
and environmental causes, and many of these affect the _probability_ of
suffering from a disorder rather than effecting a certainty. Asking
the eugenicist-wannabe to deal with an intrinsic lack of certitude in
sie's pronouncements is like asking pigs to fly.
>Whatever salutary
>effect that might have had has gotten completely swamped by several large
>wars and the indiscriminate slaughter of millions.
I take exception to the use of "indiscriminate," as I doubt you
are referring to the carnage of combatants and civilians alike inflicted
by firebombing campaigns during World War II. On the contrary, the various
20th-Century genocides were _highly_ discriminating in the definitions of
whom to kill.
Mark
--
Mark D. Garfinkel (e-mail: mg...@midway.uchicago.edu. Ask for PGP public key)
(c) 2000; all rights reserved. Permission granted for Usenet quotation.
Fed up with unsolicited commercial e-mail? Join CAUCE at http://www.cauce.org
Jim Roberts-Miller
>
>
>Jim Roberts-Miller wrote:
>>
>> ls...@csc.albany.edu (Lorre) wrote:
>> >Jim Roberts-Miller wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ls...@csc.albany.edu (Lorre) wrote :
>[...]
>>
>> Maybe that is why I am reluctant to bring on the boiling oil here.
>
>Good. I don't think anyone deserves boiling oil either. But I think
>most group members deserve an honest response, even if it isn't nice.
Well, I do feel your reply was pretty close to boiling oil, albeit in ASCII
format. YMMV. There's a difference between "You do realize how disgusting
that sounds, don't you?" and "You are scum."
>> >>One need not be ready to
>> >> ride in with the castration tools and sterilization needles to
occasionally
>> >> think "Folks, maybe you should adopt."
>> >
>> >I didn't say anything about castration or sterilization, and I know
>> >that Pam didn't either.
>>
>> My bad, actually *she* did. But if Pam wasn't saying they need to be
>> restricted by law, or killed outright, why did you say "extinguished"?
>
>Because usually when creatures of a sort no longer reproduce, their
>kind are extinguished, disappear, kaput. I think "Get OUT of the Gene
>Pool!" (Pam's command to this particular undesirable family) implies
>that removing one's genetic attributes from the gene pool ensures that
>said genetic attributes are no longer available. Maybe I'm completely
>wrong.
It's a valid question. If we can remove or "fix" the genes which lead to
certain defects, then the population of people who have them will eventually
come to zero; does that make it wrong to do so? IOW, we don't keep people from
having kids. We just try to prevent these sorts of defects.
Note to Trish: Yes, I accept that in this case, the problems are
probably mostly not the results of genetics.
>> And of course, we honest, sensitive, high-minded folk here have never ever
>> felt similar sentiments towards anyone. Even about right-wing
>> fundamentalists who think all gays should be killed.
>
>Well I wouldn't know about that. Perhaps you've seen a post I haven't
>seen recently.
It's a not uncommon sentiment; we just tend to apply it to people who think a
certain way as opposed to are a certain way.
Dr. Brat
Jim Roberts-Miller wrote:
> ls...@csc.albany.edu (Lorre) wrote in <397DF4B3...@csc.albany.edu>:
>
> >
> >
> >Jim Roberts-Miller wrote:
> >>
> >> ls...@csc.albany.edu (Lorre) wrote:
> >> >Jim Roberts-Miller wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> ls...@csc.albany.edu (Lorre) wrote :
> >[...]
> >>
> >> Maybe that is why I am reluctant to bring on the boiling oil here.
> >
> >Good. I don't think anyone deserves boiling oil either. But I think
> >most group members deserve an honest response, even if it isn't nice.
>
> Well, I do feel your reply was pretty close to boiling oil, albeit in ASCII
> format. YMMV. There's a difference between "You do realize how disgusting
> that sounds, don't you?" and "You are scum."
>
There's also a difference between "you are scum" and "you are behaving
badly." I read Lorre's "you come off as" as being the latter. I wasn't sure
what to make of Pam's post, either, especially given the header, but I
thought sitting on my hands was perhaps the better choice for me at the
moment.
>
> >> >>One need not be ready to
> >> >> ride in with the castration tools and sterilization needles to
> occasionally
> >> >> think "Folks, maybe you should adopt."
> >> >
> >> >I didn't say anything about castration or sterilization, and I know
> >> >that Pam didn't either.
> >>
> >> My bad, actually *she* did. But if Pam wasn't saying they need to be
> >> restricted by law, or killed outright, why did you say "extinguished"?
> >
> >Because usually when creatures of a sort no longer reproduce, their
> >kind are extinguished, disappear, kaput. I think "Get OUT of the Gene
> >Pool!" (Pam's command to this particular undesirable family) implies
> >that removing one's genetic attributes from the gene pool ensures that
> >said genetic attributes are no longer available. Maybe I'm completely
> >wrong.
>
> It's a valid question. If we can remove or "fix" the genes which lead to
> certain defects, then the population of people who have them will eventually
> come to zero; does that make it wrong to do so? IOW, we don't keep people from
> having kids. We just try to prevent these sorts of defects.
But at the moment, the only way to remove those genes is to keep people
from having kids (or selectively terminate pregnancies). And exactly who
gets to decide that? I mean, I absolutely claim the right to decide to
terminate my own pregnancy, but I'll be damned if I want someone
else deciding that for me.
For me, it was the reference to the fact that the dog will be neutered
that pushed my buttons. I feel very strongly about engaging in ethical
breeding practices and eliminating certain defects from the breeding
pool when it comes to dogs. The idea that such practices should be
applied to human beings squicks me comletely, even if it does make
"rational" sense.
Elizabeth
Trish Roberts-Miller
(theurgy) wrote:
> Oh, let us sing the praises for "tolerance" now. In my experience there's
> very litle of it anywhere, though a great hypocritical show is made of it.
> The best I've seen is a grudging acceptance of those different from us, a
> submittal to the law and its terrible consequences.
I'm not sure about the terrible consequences bit. (In fact, I think
a cursory glance at the history of ideas indicates some pretty good
things come from tolerance.) But, otherwise, that's exactly what
"tolerance" is--a grudging acceptance of those different from us.
Nothing hypocritical about it. You don't have to like them, but you
don't get to pass legislation against them.
> Oh, and of course a
> kind of preening "I'm tolerant, you're a racist" differentiation between
> ourselves and whoever disagrees with our own enlightened attitudes.
If you say I have to choose between that kind of preening and the
"I'm honest, you're hypocritical" I'd have a hard time. They both
look mighty self-admiring to me.
> Are you, for example, advocating that every person, regardless of physical
> or mental condition, should reproduce as often and freely as suits zir?
That would be how the Supreme Court has ruled.
And it hasn't exactly led to carnage in the streets.
I had a prof who was the child of two deaf parents (they used to be
sterilized) and another who was the child of trailor trash. One of
my strongest students at Mizzou was the child of trailor trash. And,
when you separate it all out, that's what was wrong with those people--
they were trailor trash. There weren't four generations of heritable
defects; there wasn't even any indication they were bad parents. They
were just poor and weird.
I have often said that I hoped certain people didn't have kids, but
I'd like to think it didn't have to do with class. It should have to
do with behavior. And, as far as I can tell, the people were actually
behaving responsibly--they took a dog because they didn't think it
was getting good care and they had contacted an organization they
thought would ensure it did get that care. That seems to indicate a
whole lot more judgement than lots of people I know.
pig of death and destruction
>.... I can't post in
>this thread without admitting that some part of me was saying:
>"Dammit it *would* be a better world if only smart people were allowed
>to have kids."
Er, why? It sounds like a complete and utter disaster to me.
Sometimes, I think only nice people should be allowed to have kids.
--
Piglet "Sober assessment of the contemporary scene makes it
pig...@piglet.org crystal-clear that a carnival atmosphere is in order.
-Bruce Sterling
Piglet Needs (NYC) Programmers!! http://www.evolution.com/jobs
pig of death and destruction
>Are you, for example, advocating that every person, regardless of physical
>or mental condition, should reproduce as often and freely as suits zir?
Are you suggesting there's something wrong with that position?
Trish Roberts-Miller
du...@megahits.com wrote:
>I can't post in
> this thread without admitting that some part of me was saying:
> "Dammit it *would* be a better world if only smart people were allowed
> to have kids."
And that's *exactly* what's wrong with eugenics. People want people
like them to be able to have lots of kids, and they want people who
are different to have fewer.
It's really difficult to distinguish between "smart" and "educated."
So, "dumb" people often have kids who end up "smart."
(Besides, "smart" people are at much greater risk for autism. So,
shouldn't they be restricted from having kids?)
Steve Daniels
Brat" <epc...@mindspring.com> to say:
>But at the moment, the only way to remove those genes is to keep people
>from having kids (or selectively terminate pregnancies). And exactly who
>gets to decide that? I mean, I absolutely claim the right to decide to
>terminate my own pregnancy, but I'll be damned if I want someone
>else deciding that for me.
>
>For me, it was the reference to the fact that the dog will be neutered
>that pushed my buttons. I feel very strongly about engaging in ethical
>breeding practices and eliminating certain defects from the breeding
>pool when it comes to dogs. The idea that such practices should be
>applied to human beings squicks me comletely, even if it does make
>"rational" sense.
Ya' know, I've known Pam for awhile now, and I think everyone is
reading *way* too much into this.
I think what Pam was getting at was that these people should have
_on_their_own_ decided not to have children, and especially after
the first damaged one was born. To have more after that is
simply irresponsible. I didn't see where she thought that the
existing ones should be killed, nor did I read where she thought
forcible serializations should be used.
Rescue groups spay and neuter the animals that they take
responsibility for so that they won't have to rescue the puppies
later. Castration is the most cost effective way of doing this
for the dog.* People have a greater range of birth control
devices available to them, and Pam is saying that they should
have picked a good one and used it. Doesn't mean she thinks
someone ought to whack his nuts off.
Steve "Of course, if you read that another way . . . " Daniels
*The male canine is a dog. The female canine is a bitch. I make
the distinction at times. Like, this time.
Trish Roberts-Miller
> [Jumping into a spousal disagreement on political correctness with
> slight trepidation... <G>]
[no trepidation necessary--our spousal disagreements have yet to
escalate into anything dramatic or especially interesting.]
> Trish Roberts-Miller wrote:
> > In article <8F7C71E6Fjamme...@129.250.35.5>,
> > jamm...@mindspring.com (Jim Roberts-Miller) wrote:
> > > She did write she felt these people shouldn't be having kids,
which may not
> > > be a very PC (I know people hate that term, but right now I can't
think of a
> > > better)
> > That's the whole point of my tirade against the term. In fact, you
> > can't think of a synonym for it (people almost never can) because
> > there isn't one.
> I can think of several in that sentence. In many ways, I see PC to mean
> respectful or considerate.
That's why people want to use the term PC rather than other words.
The connotation of it is critical, but it wouldn't work to say,
"which may not be very respectful..." "PC" often means something
like "concerned with constitutional issues," "concerned with
environmental consequences," "concerned with rights." Those terms
don't have the negative connotations, though, so people don't want
to use them.
> In many other ways, I see it as a way to
> avoid confrontation or to find a more socially acceptable way of saying
> something inappropriate. Someone might use "african american" as a way
> of hiding the fact that zie would rather use the N-word to describe
> individuals of african descent.
Which long predates the term PC or the movements (feminism,
environmentalism, multiculturalism) at which the term gets thrown.
> Just because the phrase has turned into a bad joke doesn't mean that it
> has to be something intrinsically bad or evil.
I'm not sure if you mean the term "PC" or terms like "Negro." The term
"PC" almost always had negative connotations (the only people who used
it in positive terms were the Stalinist American Communists). As for
things like "negro" or "black" there are usually good reasons for not
liking those terms; often it has to do with connotation. I'm not
sure that one should entirely ignore connotation.
Steve Daniels
red...@mindspring.com (Trish Roberts-Miller) to say:
>"PC" often means something
>like "concerned with constitutional issues," "concerned with
>environmental consequences," "concerned with rights." Those terms
>don't have the negative connotations, though, so people don't want
>to use them.
To me it just sounds like someone is trying to be Hip! And! Now!
No disrespect intended.
--
Love me . . .
love my dog.
dan...@mind.net
http://id.mind.net/~daniels
Trish Roberts-Miller
skubis...@eisner.decus.org wrote:
> In article <397DA870...@csc.albany.edu>, Lorre
<ls...@csc.albany.edu> writes:
> [snip]
> The tone appeared to be a mind-boggle. Today, we have genetic
> testing that will determine the likelihood of a disabled/deformed
> child. She seemed to be asking why these parents would knowingly
> bring a disabled/deformed child into the world. Life is hard enough
> when you belong here (to quote Morrissey.) Imagine a life where
> you don't "belong." Now ask why a parent would knowingly bring a
> child into such a harsh life? That's the way I interpreted
> Pam's post. It didn't upset me the way that it upset you.
They might have chosen not to have the tests done. They might have
decided to have the child even with the damage. I have to say I
find your argument very, very offensive. All I can say is that you
must never have known anyone with serious disabilities. I have
known (and known of) a few, and they were wonderful people who thoroughly
enriched the world.
Oh, wait, you weren't talking about Steven Hawking, were you?
Is it just trailer trash that shouldn't have kids with disabilities?
> >I wish you'd give some deep thought about the terms "life, liberty and
> >the pursuit of happiness", which every citizen of the U.S. is
> >guaranteed.
> Um... what part of "life, liberty, pursuit ..." says go forth
> and multiply?
The life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness part.
> Having children is not a *right* it's a *choice.*
It's a right.
> There are people who make the wrong choice.
Yep, and they aren't all trailer trash. Were I to make a list of
people whom I think shouldn't have kids, it wouldn't have much to
do with what genetic defects I thought they might or might not pass
on. There is nothing that I've seen that suggests that smart people
are necessarily better parents, or that dwarves are necessarily bad
ones.
> I have the *right* to mind-boggle, when they do.
> Doesn't Pam?
I'll say it again. There are two things that are tremendously important
for democracy to work. The first is that people have to get passionate
about things that don't immediately concern them. That means that you
have to care about the rights and situations of people who seem very
different from you.The second is that people need to argue about
reasons--not motives, not stereotypes.
I went nuts over the child molester issue and I'm going nuts over this
because I see the discourse failing on both counts. I infer that people
are willing to put up with really offensive statements (and to consider
really abhorrent policies) because 1) these people seem really different
from "us", so people think we're talking about Other people; 2) people
aren't using their thinking caps, but reacting to squicks.
One indication of that is that these are not heritable traits. So, the
idea that such people shouldn't have kids because they might be passing
something along is incoherent. Let me put that stronger. It's a dumb
arugment--way dumber than the people making the argument (and that
is *always* a sign that people are squicking.)
Another indication that the trailer trash factor is pushing hard is
that the argument that "such people" shouldn't have kids does not
apply to case in point but it *does* apply to people whom I suspect
you would not actually want stopped (through laws or pressure)--
women over thirty five, people with an IQ over a certain level, and
so on. Does that make sense? In other words, there is not a consistent
*principle* underlying the arguments that people are making, just a
squick.
For instance, look at your argument about people not belonging. I
don't believe you really mean that. Are you opposed to interracial
marriages? To Jews who live in small towns having kids? To minorities
having kids? To smart people having kids? I did NOT "belong" where I
grew up because I was too interested in politics and philosophy and
books.
That's what I mean by saying that people don't have their thinking
caps on. I doubt you mean Stephen Hawking, I doubt you mean me, I
doubt you mean Mark Garfinkel (who is short), or Debbi McGath (who is
part Amerindian), or the PFB (who was adopted), and so on and so on.
I think you mean trailer trash.
Well, a squick isn't good enough. Squick depends upon people seeing
those folks as Other, as assuming that they (and people like them)
would never be in that situation. Well, you've been given no
guarantees that your child or the children of people you love will
be free of defect. Bad things happen outside of trailer parks, too.
Trish Roberts-Miller
> Just as they are free to keep producing handicapped
> children, I am free to believe that it is the height of
> irresponsibility to continue producing children when you know
> the genes you are passing on will cause a significant negative
> impact on those children's quality of life.
How would they know that? How do *you* know that?
> I was nothing but nice to that family, and did them a great favor by
> taking this dog.
And they did a great favor to the dog by calling you.
Trish Roberts-Miller
> Ya' know, I've known Pam for awhile now, and I think everyone is
> reading *way* too much into this.
I'm not sure that's true. A story like that functions largely by
the people involved seeming so different. So, it's useful to re-imagine
the story, but think about the people not being Other. Imagine them
as your sister, yourself, or shift the details so that it does apply
to people like you.
Had Pam written about women over thirty-five, people with high IQs,
people with conditions like diabetes, alcoholism, bipolar, or depression,
I think more people would have come down as hard as Lorre. Had she
written about going to visit people in a wealthy part of town, the
whole story wouldn't have made sense.
In other words, the story *depends* upon the people being poor.
> I think what Pam was getting at was that these people should have
> _on_their_own_ decided not to have children, and especially after
> the first damaged one was born.
Um, why? Do you really believe that people who have a child with
Down's should have no more children? Even though there is NO greater
likelihood of a second child having Down's than there is for anyone
else of the same age?
Maybe I'm misremembering, but she didn't describe conditions that
are heritable or that are predictable one from another.
> Rescue groups spay and neuter the animals that they take
> responsibility for so that they won't have to rescue the puppies
> later. Castration is the most cost effective way of doing this
> for the dog.* People have a greater range of birth control
> devices available to them, and Pam is saying that they should
> have picked a good one and used it. Doesn't mean she thinks
> someone ought to whack his nuts off.
Neuter means neuter. Out of the gene pool means out of the gene
pool.
I think the PFB is probably right that she got major league squicked,
and that she wrote a much uglier post than she might have in a cooler
moment. (Of course, I'm hoping that she'll post something along
those lines.) In a way, I'm more troubled by how others are reacting--
the blind spots in people's posts are bothering me as much as her
post did.
Trish Roberts-Miller
<gwrich...@west.raytheon.com> wrote:
[about PC]
> I've often thought "Puritan" was a pretty good term. I've seen
> a lot of very intolerant statements made in the name of tolerance.
Sometimes. People often think it is "tolerant" to put up with ideas
that don't really bother them and actions that they like. It isn't.
Being tolerant means gritting your teeth when people say things you
hate (and then standing up and saying why you hate them) and make
choices you think are awful (and you might tell them why). Being
tolerant doesn't mean you have to like things, but it does mean you
don't outlaw them.
> Me, too. Although I got the impression Pam *might* have been
> freaked as much or more about the dog's living conditions as
> about the people.
I've gone nuts on that subject, too. (My last vet said that he has
taken to telling people, "You should not have pets." In his mind,
he thinks, "And I hope to God you don't have kids.") There were
two families in my neighborhood in NC who were completely
irresponsible with their dogs--didn't want to restrain them, didn't
want to neuter them, and in one case didn't want to train them.
In the latter case, I more than once said I hoped they didn't have
kids. (They did--they used the same method with him.)
On the other hand, I recently discovered that two very admirable
friends were each raised in families that basically killed dogs.
That isn't the way that they thought of it at the time, but that
was the consequence. In one case, they would get a dog, do no
training, it would become unmanageable, they would chain it up
for a while, it would become more unmanageable, they would take it
to the pound and get another dog. In another case, they would let
the dog run around--my friend said they went through something like
six dogs in ten years (or was it eight dogs in ten years?) The
dogs were hit by cars, killed in dog fights, poisoned, and just
plain lost. (Btw, each of these friends described their families
as killing dogs.)
In the latter case, these were people who were wonderful parents.
So, I guess there isn't necessarily a correlation that people
will treat their dogs and kids the same way. (I think it's a kind
of farmer mentality.)
Anyway, I understand outrage over dog care, and I've had my share
of it. It was one of the main reasons that I decided I couldn't
do dog training--you are often training the wrong being. But, as
far as the shabby treatment of dogs that I've seen, I didn't see
it as necessarily connected to class, intelligence, or height of
the people involved.
Steve Daniels
red...@mindspring.com (Trish Roberts-Miller) to say:
>In the latter case, these were people who were wonderful parents.
>So, I guess there isn't necessarily a correlation that people
>will treat their dogs and kids the same way. (I think it's a kind
>of farmer mentality.)
All the farmers I know treat their dogs real well. I think the
people you are talking about get dogs because a dog completes the
picture, or the plan they have for their lives. They don't
actually want to spend any *time* with the dog, they just want
one in the yard to complete the picture.
Actual working dogs get treated quite well in comparison. They
get something to do every day, lots of exercise, and are trained
to the hilt whether the handler meant to or not. Go to a
stockdog trial sometime, and see the difference.
Pam Rudd
Roberts-Miller) wrote:
>In article <553sns87tscngo8mo...@4ax.com>, dan...@mind.net wrote:
>
>In other words, the story *depends* upon the people being poor.
No it doesn't, it just adds backround. I would have just as
shocked if they had been wealthy.
Trish Roberts-Miller
> On 25 Jul 2000 21:34:29 -0400, crack smoking weasels forced
> red...@mindspring.com (Trish Roberts-Miller) to say:
> >In the latter case, these were people who were wonderful parents.
> >So, I guess there isn't necessarily a correlation that people
> >will treat their dogs and kids the same way. (I think it's a kind
> >of farmer mentality.)
> All the farmers I know treat their dogs real well. I think the
> people you are talking about get dogs because a dog completes the
> picture, or the plan they have for their lives. They don't
> actually want to spend any *time* with the dog, they just want
> one in the yard to complete the picture.
These were second-generation farmers, for the most part (although
some farmers). So, my impression is that they raised their suburban
dogs with the same cavalier attitudes their parents had had about
dogs on the farm. Not all farm dogs are working dogs.
(Sort of like barn cats.)
> Actual working dogs get treated quite well in comparison. They
> get something to do every day, lots of exercise, and are trained
> to the hilt whether the handler meant to or not. Go to a
> stockdog trial sometime, and see the difference.
Um, Steve? I used to do dog training. So, I do know about working
dogs. I also know that not all farm dogs are working dogs.
Charlotte L. Blackmer
Pam Rudd <pdr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 25 Jul 2000 10:42:18 -0400, Lorre <ls...@csc.albany.edu> wrote:
>> And get yourself to some sensitivity workshops as soon as
>>you possibly can.
>
>Ok, now *that's* funny!
Heh. When I saw that clattering across my screen, I was instantly put in
mind of the recent discussion in thisyere forum of what people
thought was *really* behind "I'll pray for you" (as a parting shot).
C(James seems to have gotten rid of the token fast)LB
------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte L. Blackmer <http://www.rahul.net/clb>
Berkeley Farm and Pleasure Palace (under construction)
Junk (esp. commercial) email review rates: $250 US ea
Grizzly
I may be wrong on that, been awhile since I read it.
Grizzly
kmd wrote:
> On 24 Jul 2000 23:27:35 -0400, pdr...@mindspring.com (Pam Rudd) wrote:
>
> >
> >The bad news...the dog is the only one that will be neutered.
>
> I understand your frustration. But does the name Carrie Buck mean
> anything to you?
>
> --
> Kristen
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Grizzly bears are omnivorous. 80% of their diet is roots, bugs and
plants. The other 20% is meat. So when you see a Grizzly looking
at you he is not seeing a person. He sees his 20%.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steve Daniels
red...@mindspring.com (Trish Roberts-Miller) to say:
>Um, Steve? I used to do dog training. So, I do know about working
>dogs. I also know that not all farm dogs are working dogs.
All right, you know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna print "Trish is
always right" over my monitor.
Dr. Brat
Steve Daniels wrote:
> All right, you know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna print "Trish is
> always right" over my monitor.
That's actually not a bad idea, Steve.
Elizabeth
Warren Cheney
wrote:
>On 25 Jul 2000 22:29:52 -0400, crack smoking weasels forced
>red...@mindspring.com (Trish Roberts-Miller) to say:
>
>>Um, Steve? I used to do dog training. So, I do know about working
>>dogs. I also know that not all farm dogs are working dogs.
>
>All right, you know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna print "Trish is
>always right" over my monitor.
<it's_duck_season!>
All humor is Darwinian.
</it's_duck_season!>
-----Warren (or was that Gilliganian, I could be wrong)
[moving a tadpole into smaller quarters]
"I just minimized the tadpole's room."
--Corinne, proving that Windows isn't just for software anymore
Warren Cheney Can't stand spam? http://www.cauce.org
Pam Rudd
Roberts-Miller) wrote:
>In article <553sns87tscngo8mo...@4ax.com>, dan...@mind.net wrote:
>
>> Ya' know, I've known Pam for awhile now, and I think everyone is
>> reading *way* too much into this.
>
>I'm not sure that's true.
It's true
> A story like that functions largely by
>the people involved seeming so different.
The story functions because the situation was so bizarre.
>So, it's useful to re-imagine
>the story, but think about the people not being Other. Imagine them
>as your sister, yourself, or shift the details so that it does apply
>to people like you.
Unlike you, I don't see that family as "other", I see them as a part
of the world I function in,and that is why I object to the
irresponsibility of knowingly continuing to bring handicapped children
into that world. I'm not suggesting that a hair on the children who
are already here be harmed, I'm suggesting the parents do the
responsible thing and recognize that there are some serious problems
in their progeny and stop producing more. Whether the problem is
genetic, environmental, or the result of someone working root on that
family; there are undeniably problems.
>Had Pam written about women over thirty-five, people with high IQs,
>people with conditions like diabetes, alcoholism, bipolar, or depression,
>I think more people would have come down as hard as Lorre. Had she
>written about going to visit people in a wealthy part of town, the
>whole story wouldn't have made sense.
>
>In other words, the story *depends* upon the people being poor.
No it doesn't. The story *depends* on the bizarre nature of the
situation. There are plenty of fine old, wealthy Southern families
that have line bred a little too closely, and my reaction would have
been exactly the same if there had been a Jaguar parked in the yard
rather then a Chevy.
>> I think what Pam was getting at was that these people should have
>> _on_their_own_ decided not to have children, and especially after
>> the first damaged one was born.
>
>Um, why? Do you really believe that people who have a child with
>Down's should have no more children? Even though there is NO greater
>likelihood of a second child having Down's than there is for anyone
>else of the same age?
Let's see...
I met 5 members of the family, 2 were dwarfs, 1 had cerebral palsy,
and 1 had Down's Syndrome, the other had married into the family. Of
the two that were discussed but not present, one was "a bit simple"
and the other was also a dwarf.I'd say that was plenty of evidence to
suggest perhaps they might want to re-examine their genetic heritage.
>Maybe I'm misremembering, but she didn't describe conditions that
>are heritable or that are predictable one from another.
>
>> Rescue groups spay and neuter the animals that they take
>> responsibility for so that they won't have to rescue the puppies
>> later. Castration is the most cost effective way of doing this
>> for the dog.* People have a greater range of birth control
>> devices available to them, and Pam is saying that they should
>> have picked a good one and used it. Doesn't mean she thinks
>> someone ought to whack his nuts off.
>
>Neuter means neuter. Out of the gene pool means out of the gene
>pool.
And overreacting means overreacting.
>I think the PFB is probably right that she got major league squicked,
>and that she wrote a much uglier post than she might have in a cooler
>moment.
No, I didn't. I wrote this almost a week ago, and had already sent it
to many of my friends. They, of course, didn't overreact or read
things into it that aren't there. They took it the way it was
intended, as a narrative of a bizarre event that happened to me.
They happen to me with some regularity, and I generally present them
in as humorous a fashion as possible, even if the humor is dark.
> (Of course, I'm hoping that she'll post something along
>those lines.)
She won't.
Pam Rudd
<gwrich...@west.raytheon.com> wrote:
[much snippage]
> Me, too. Although I got the impression Pam *might* have been
> freaked as much or more about the dog's living conditions as
> about the people.
There wasn't anything especially bad about the dog's living
conditions. I've seen much, much worse. They were trying to
get me to take responsibility for the dog, that way they could
pat themselves on the back and tell everyone that they had
done the right thing. That attitude is epidemic among people
trying to place dogs in rescue, so it's something I barely notice
anymore.
As to the this dog, she was loaded with hookworms, had two bad
bites from their dogs, one abscess from an old bite wound, and she
has heartworms. The family lied about the heartworms and tried to
cover up the fact that she had diarrhea. None of this is unusual, not
even the lying.
I don't know what the dog's living conditions were before they
got her, only that she spent most of her life in a pen. She's well
socialized for a dog that was kept in a pen, and should be easy
to place once we get the heartworms treated and she learns
a few manners. She's very bright and learns quickly.
I did offer to try and get her trained as a service dog for their
boys. She was very good with them, and they were very fond of
her, especially the child with cerebral palsy. They weren't
interested, however, and just wanted me to take responsibility
for her. As I said, that's not unusual in rescue cases.
piranha
kmd <du...@megahits.com> wrote:
>
>And I wasn't being patronizing to Pam when I said I understand her
>frustration. As I was reading the Carrie Buck book, I kept finding my
>visceral response battling my analytical response. I can't post in
>this thread without admitting that some part of me was saying:
>"Dammit it *would* be a better world if only smart people were allowed
>to have kids."
yet another book i haven't read, but i for one do not think
this would be a better world if only smart people were al-
lowed to have kids. i know too damn many smart and abusive
people. i see not much evidence that higher intelligence
makes for better parents. now, limiting it to people who
have it together, if we could measure that, i'd like that.
but i don't think we can measure it.
smart isn't good enough. i am not at all sure it's neces-
sary. but yes, i would actually prefer if humans as a spe-
cies were to get smarter, if emotional development went right
along with that. i see, however, no controlled breeding pro-
gram in our immediate future, and there too, i would wonder
greatly about the consequences.
do i want mentally retarded people to have children, though?
not really. but there is a lot of room between "mental re-
tardation" and "intelligence". oh, heck, there is a lot of
room in "mental retardation". yes, i think somebody who has
no actual capacity to even give consent to sex, should be
sterilized. i see nothing to be gained by somebody like that
having a child. maybe somebody can explain to me how a per-
son like that could be a parent; i don't see it. therefore
i would consider it safer for zir, and better for the child,
if there never were one.
and i am about tired of the "right to procreate". it's a
surefire way to ruin this planet, and we, as a species, are
doing it. i would like to limit people to at most one child
-- voucher system is fine by me; and i'd hand mine off to
somebody else who wants two. or maybe i'd rather destroy it.
i am not sure how far i'd be willing to go to enforce such
"one child" regulation. i wouldn't limit any assignment of
procreation rights to the intelligentsia, however.
>I put this response in roughly the same category as my
>visceral response to oh, say, O.J. Simpson. Part of me would really,
>really like to tie him up and just slap him and punch him and scream
>at him until my hand and vocal chords got tired.
why, if i may ask? you think he is a guilty man who got away?
if i were informed enough to think that, i'd want him dead.
>Most of me is really
>glad that we have laws and police and courts and that vigilantes are
>criminals.
yes. though i can imagine situations under which i might
turn vigilante (if the system let my rapist get away with
it, or if somebody murdered a beloved and got away with it,
i would possibly break the law to kill this person.)
>I'm glad that eugenics is repulsive to most people in the U.S., and is
>not law any more. But I'm not going to pretend that I'm better than
>the people who once thought it was a good idea.
i am probably in favour of certain kinds of eugenics. not
for dwarves, however (is that the word these days? isn't
it still "little people"?). nor for downs syndrome folks,
being as i have worked with them when i was much younger,
and found that rather an interesting and positive experience.
-piranha
Steve Daniels
pdr...@mindspring.com (Pam Rudd) to say:
>No it doesn't. The story *depends* on the bizarre nature of the
>situation. There are plenty of fine old, wealthy Southern families
>that have line bred a little too closely, and my reaction would have
>been exactly the same if there had been a Jaguar parked in the yard
>rather then a Chevy.
A Jag up on blocks in front of a single wide. Now *that's*
bizarre.
Steve "T top Jaguar, with an eight track" Daniels
Keith Rickert
>
> I met 5 members of the family, 2 were dwarfs, 1 had cerebral palsy,
> and 1 had Down's Syndrome, the other had married into the family. Of
> the two that were discussed but not present, one was "a bit simple"
> and the other was also a dwarf.I'd say that was plenty of evidence to
> suggest perhaps they might want to re-examine their genetic heritage.
Pam?
Cerebral palsy is not usually inherited. If the parent doesn't have Down's,
then a priori there's no particularly strong reason to assume any
differences between them and any other set of usually normal parents who
have a child with Down's. "Simple" could be anything, no reason to think
genetic above developmental environment. Dwarfism, well, that's the only
thing there that I think is likely to be genetic, but it's also the least
serious or disabling of the conditions described here.
(Which is pretty much what Trish said, but at a bit more length).
Keith
--
Keith Rickert | "You want the truth? You can't handle the
rick...@netaxs.com | truth! No truth-handler, you! Bah! I
keith_...@merck.com | deride your truth-handling abilities!"
(note change) | Sideshow Bob, The Simpsons
No User
>In article <397DE2E0...@mitre.org>, lynn...@mitre.org wrote:
>
>> [Jumping into a spousal disagreement on political correctness with
>> slight trepidation... <G>]
>
>[no trepidation necessary--our spousal disagreements have yet to
>escalate into anything dramatic or especially interesting.]
>
>> Trish Roberts-Miller wrote:
>
>> > In article <8F7C71E6Fjamme...@129.250.35.5>,
>> > jamm...@mindspring.com (Jim Roberts-Miller) wrote:
>
>> > > She did write she felt these people shouldn't be having kids,
>which may not
>> > > be a very PC (I know people hate that term, but right now I can't
>think of a
>> > > better)
>
>> > That's the whole point of my tirade against the term. In fact, you
>> > can't think of a synonym for it (people almost never can) because
>> > there isn't one.
>
>> I can think of several in that sentence. In many ways, I see PC to mean
>> respectful or considerate.
>
>That's why people want to use the term PC rather than other words.
>The connotation of it is critical, but it wouldn't work to say,
>like "concerned with constitutional issues," "concerned with
>environmental consequences," "concerned with rights." Those terms
>don't have the negative connotations, though, so people don't want
>to use them.
your political opponents are under no obligation to put the best face on
your leftist boilerplate.
hth
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
diversity + proximity = war
so keep ignoring me
it's the only way to be sure
soc.singles.moderated faq 1.0:
to post your personal include the word nematode in the subject line
on my signal - unleash hell
- maximus
it's evolution baby
- pearl jam
there are only two ways of telling the complete truth - anonymously and
posthumously.
- thomas sowell
asking nerds for romantic advice is like going to the amish for an auto
mechanic.
- me
.
No User
>In article <8F7C71E6Fjamme...@129.250.35.5>,
>jamm...@mindspring.com (Jim Roberts-Miller) wrote:
>> She did write she felt these people shouldn't be having kids, which
may not
>> be a very PC (I know people hate that term, but right now I can't think
of a
>> better)
>
>That's the whole point of my tirade against the term. In fact, you
>can't think of a synonym for it (people almost never can) because
>doesn't really have any denotation. It's all connotation.
>
>There are examples of terms that are difficult to substitute with
>real precision, but one can usually get around them with a long phrase,
>analogy, or something. In this case, what would that long phrase
>be?
doubleplusgood duckquacker
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
Dr. Brat
Pam Rudd wrote:
> On 25 Jul 2000 21:19:40 -0400, red...@mindspring.com (Trish
> Roberts-Miller) wrote:
>
>
> >Neuter means neuter. Out of the gene pool means out of the gene
> >pool.
>
> And overreacting means overreacting.
Yes, but when a large section of your audience "overreacts" you may
want to reexamine your own responsibility for the reaction. Even some
of the posters who don't disagree with you think that you meant what
some of the ones who are overreacting think you meant.
>
> >I think the PFB is probably right that she got major league squicked,
> >and that she wrote a much uglier post than she might have in a cooler
> >moment.
>
> No, I didn't. I wrote this almost a week ago, and had already sent it
> to many of my friends. They, of course, didn't overreact or read
> things into it that aren't there. They took it the way it was
> intended, as a narrative of a bizarre event that happened to me.
> They happen to me with some regularity, and I generally present them
> in as humorous a fashion as possible, even if the humor is dark.
>
So, either they know you better or have a different sense of humor.
Sometimes humor falls flat. I have a pretty good sense of humor,
even a fairly warped one (ask me about my mother and the
George Washington Bridge someday) but I found nothing funny about
your post. I didn't think it was dark humor, I thought it was
appalling.
You posts, you takes your chances.
>
> > (Of course, I'm hoping that she'll post something along
> >those lines.)
>
> She won't.
>
Ok, but you have by now at least seen the several posts, including
Dr. Mark's, regarding the fallacy in your premise, so perhaps you
have a better feel for why so many of us "overreacted."
Elizabeth
Lorre
Jim Roberts-Miller wrote:
>
> ls...@csc.albany.edu (Lorre) wrote in <397DF4B3...@csc.albany.edu>:
>
> >
> >
> >Jim Roberts-Miller wrote:
> >>
> >> ls...@csc.albany.edu (Lorre) wrote:
> >> >Jim Roberts-Miller wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> ls...@csc.albany.edu (Lorre) wrote :
> >[...]
> >>
> >> Maybe that is why I am reluctant to bring on the boiling oil here.
> >
> >Good. I don't think anyone deserves boiling oil either. But I think
> >most group members deserve an honest response, even if it isn't nice.
>
> Well, I do feel your reply was pretty close to boiling oil, albeit in ASCII
> format. YMMV. There's a difference between "You do realize how disgusting
> that sounds, don't you?" and "You are scum."
>
Yeah, that's why I criticized her post and her posting behavior and
didn't call her scum.
> >> >>One need not be ready to
> >> >> ride in with the castration tools and sterilization needles to
> occasionally
> >> >> think "Folks, maybe you should adopt."
> >> >
> >> >I didn't say anything about castration or sterilization, and I know
> >> >that Pam didn't either.
> >>
> >> My bad, actually *she* did. But if Pam wasn't saying they need to be
> >> restricted by law, or killed outright, why did you say "extinguished"?
> >
> >Because usually when creatures of a sort no longer reproduce, their
> >kind are extinguished, disappear, kaput. I think "Get OUT of the Gene
> >Pool!" (Pam's command to this particular undesirable family) implies
> >that removing one's genetic attributes from the gene pool ensures that
> >said genetic attributes are no longer available. Maybe I'm completely
> >wrong.
>
> It's a valid question. If we can remove or "fix" the genes which lead to
> certain defects, then the population of people who have them will eventually
> come to zero; does that make it wrong to do so? IOW, we don't keep people from
> having kids. We just try to prevent these sorts of defects.
Let's just call a spade and spade and say that it looked an awful lot
like she'd just as soon snuff out any category of people that she
considers to be ugly or undesirable. Anyone using the term "neutered"
for a person is certainly throwing around a pretty heavy connotation
that she considers them animals, and dispensible (or certainly
creatures to be controlled by those of higher status). That isn't a
text suggesting better living through biotechnology.
Lorre
--
http://www.albany.edu/~ls973/home.html
s.s.m. boink schedule: http://www.trygve.com/boinks.html
Lorre
kmd wrote:
> (pig of death and destruction) wrote:
>
> >du...@megahits.com dixit:
>
> >>.... I can't post in
> >>this thread without admitting that some part of me was saying:
> >>"Dammit it *would* be a better world if only smart people were allowed
> >>to have kids."
>
> >Er, why? It sounds like a complete and utter disaster to me.
>[...]
> >Sometimes, I think only nice people should be allowed to have kids.
>
> Talk about my personal nightmare.
>
> --
> Kristen, Stepford Eugenics
Eeeewww. Until you said that I was almost ready to say "Yeah!! Nice
rather than smart!!" But the whole idea that there are monolithic
categories of humans that are better than other categories is becoming
less and less defensible, IMO. It's like trying to say: "we've got an
awful lot of x ("bad") creature around here and it's messing up our
nice agrarian economy. Let's import preditors of x and that will
clean up this "problem"".
We may _like_ to think that populating the planet strictly with
beautiful, intelligent and strong people will make it better. I think
that's about as powerful and insidious an ideal as the "American
Dream" of everyone having a big (snout) house, a lawn of bluegrass, a
few children, two cars and a host of hip material posessions. Getting
there means killing off everything else that naturally belongs there
(most of which matters in sustaining the actual ecosystems of the
world). IMO, trying to "clean up" and "fix" a world that is
_essentially_ messy is a very bad idea. I am more and more convinced
that true fertility and strength is in the messiness.
Lorre (and you can tell by the condition of my apartment)
Lynnette
>
> Lorre <ls...@csc.albany.edu> writes:
>
> >I won't apologize for not understanding how a grown person in the
> >beginning of the 21st century can harbor such thoughtless antagonism
> >against people she doesn't even know, because she doesn't like the way
> >they look. Maybe she doesn't think the word "tolerance" applies to
> >her.
>
> Oh, let us sing the praises for "tolerance" now. In my experience there's
> very litle of it anywhere, though a great hypocritical show is made of it.
> The best I've seen is a grudging acceptance of those different from us, a
According to my dictionary that's pretty much the definition it gives.
What do you think SHOULD be the definition?? Although I do agree with
you. I've come across a lot of unashamedly intolerant behavior and
views. And I've seen more people justifing prejudice than tolerating
differences.
> submittal to the law and its terrible consequences.
I guess I'm rather unaware of "terrible consequences". Laws are flawed,
simply because they're written by human beings and we're all very aware
that humans aren't perfect. It's the best we can do for now, but it's
constantly being worked on.
> >Being freaked and wishing (verging on demanding, based on the
> >expressiveness of that subject heading) that people and their ilk
> >would disappear are two different things. I believe Pam has declared
> >herself to be in the latter camp in a most deliberate and obnoxious
> >way.
>
> The cogency of your exposition suffers greatly when you post during an
> apoplectic fit, Lorre. Your distaste comes through loud and clear,
> but little else does.
What more was she trying to communicate?? Disgust at Pam because she
felt these folks shouldn't reproduce and was willing to make a statement
about it? I caught that part.
> Are you, for example, advocating that every person, regardless of physical
> or mental condition, should reproduce as often and freely as suits zir?
> Your posts suggest so.
Um...isn't that the way things are?? (Discounting for unplanned
reproduction.)
Lynnette
(Overjoyed with seeing a lot of these folks again, even if they're just
popping in...)
Trish Roberts-Miller
> On 25 Jul 2000 21:19:40 -0400, red...@mindspring.com (Trish
> Roberts-Miller) wrote:
> >In article <553sns87tscngo8mo...@4ax.com>,
dan...@mind.net wrote:
> >> Ya' know, I've known Pam for awhile now, and I think everyone is
> >> reading *way* too much into this.
> >I'm not sure that's true.
> It's true
Were that true, I would expect there to be a post from you in which
you explained that you didn't mean to be offensive to them, and
some sort of explanation or retraction of your statement that they
should not reproduce. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I guess
I haven't seen that. I have seen a post in which you say that their
being poor doesn't matter and a follow-up in which you reiterate
that they were poor (and I see those two posts as contradictory).
I think your post was offensive, and I think you would be offended
if I wrote something similar about you, your progeny, your family,
or your friends.
> > A story like that functions largely by
> >the people involved seeming so different.
> The story functions because the situation was so bizarre.
> >So, it's useful to re-imagine
> >the story, but think about the people not being Other. Imagine them
> >as your sister, yourself, or shift the details so that it does apply
> >to people like you.
> Unlike you, I don't see that family as "other",
Oh. You just see their situation as bizarre. That would be Other.
>I see them as a part
> of the world I function in,and that is why I object to the
> irresponsibility of knowingly continuing to bring handicapped children
> into that world.
Could you please explain how they *knew* that they were bringing
handicapped children into the world?
>I'm not suggesting that a hair on the children who
> are already here be harmed, I'm suggesting the parents do the
> responsible thing and recognize that there are some serious problems
> in their progeny and stop producing more. Whether the problem is
> genetic, environmental, or the result of someone working root on that
> family; there are undeniably problems.
Statistics not your strong point, eh? And don't know much about Down's?
> >Had Pam written about women over thirty-five, people with high IQs,
> >people with conditions like diabetes, alcoholism, bipolar, or depression,
> >I think more people would have come down as hard as Lorre. Had she
> >written about going to visit people in a wealthy part of town, the
> >whole story wouldn't have made sense.
> >In other words, the story *depends* upon the people being poor.
> No it doesn't. The story *depends* on the bizarre nature of the
> situation. There are plenty of fine old, wealthy Southern families
> that have line bred a little too closely, and my reaction would have
> been exactly the same if there had been a Jaguar parked in the yard
> rather then a Chevy.
Perhaps your reaction would have been the same, but the story wouldn't.
(And, as I say above, the fact that you reiterated their poverty makes
me wonder anyway.) There are major incoherencies in what you're saying,
and I assume that those incoherencies are the result of your being
so squicked that your thinking cap fell off. What squicked you? I
infer, given your emphasis of it, that it was the trailer trash factor.
When you post something in which you are so offensive of rich people,
or people more like you, then I'll believe you.
> >> I think what Pam was getting at was that these people should have
> >> _on_their_own_ decided not to have children, and especially after
> >> the first damaged one was born.
> >Um, why? Do you really believe that people who have a child with
> >Down's should have no more children? Even though there is NO greater
> >likelihood of a second child having Down's than there is for anyone
> >else of the same age?
> Let's see...
> I met 5 members of the family, 2 were dwarfs, 1 had cerebral palsy,
> and 1 had Down's Syndrome, the other had married into the family. Of
> the two that were discussed but not present, one was "a bit simple"
> and the other was also a dwarf.I'd say that was plenty of evidence to
> suggest perhaps they might want to re-examine their genetic heritage.
This isn't rocket science. The *only* thing that you've got in that
list which is heritable is dwarfism. (Who knows what caused the
"being simple"--for all you know, it was a head injury.) Are you
really saying that dwarves should not reproduce?
I'm puzzled as to why you're having so much trouble with this point.
Down's and cerebral palsy are not heritable. The fact that both show
up in the same family is *no* indication that there is something wrong
with the genetic stock--it's a sign of very bad luck. (Some people
think that people who have Down's in the family have a higher likelihood
of one child having Down's; as far as I know, one child having Down's
is no predictor of another child, and it certainly is no predictor
of cerebral palsy.)
> And overreacting means overreacting.
Could you explain how people are overreacting?
> >I think the PFB is probably right that she got major league squicked,
> >and that she wrote a much uglier post than she might have in a cooler
> >moment.
> No, I didn't. I wrote this almost a week ago, and had already sent it
> to many of my friends. They, of course, didn't overreact or read
> things into it that aren't there. They took it the way it was
> intended, as a narrative of a bizarre event that happened to me.
> They happen to me with some regularity, and I generally present them
> in as humorous a fashion as possible, even if the humor is dark.
Well, it isn't just dark. It's offensive. That you had friends who
didn't object means nothing to me--that you continue to insist on a
point which is simply false (that people who have children with
non-heritable and non-predicting traits are irresponsible to have had
children) is very troubling.
As far as I can tell, you've just dug yourself in deeper. Do you
really think your post is not offensive to dwarves? To people who
have children with disabilities? (Those aren't rhetorical questions.)
Or is it that you don't care what those sorts of people think?
> > (Of course, I'm hoping that she'll post something along
> >those lines.)
> She won't.
How would you feel if I posted something that said that you should
not have children as there is *no* guarantee (or even way to know)
that you would not have a child with cerebral palsy? Because you
obviously have so little sympathy for such children (and because
you have an apparent inability to follow a relatively simple argument
about heritable versus non-heritable traits) I wish you were
neutered.
Offended yet?
--
Trish Roberts-Miller http://www.missouri.edu/~engpat
"Slowly we are learning,/We at least know this much,
That we have to unlearn/Much that we were taught,
And are growing chary/Of emphatic dogmas" (Auden) red...@mindspring.com
Trish Roberts-Miller
> On 25 Jul 2000 20:42:00 -0400, crack smoking weasels forced
> red...@mindspring.com (Trish Roberts-Miller) to say:
> >"PC" often means something
> >like "concerned with constitutional issues," "concerned with
> >environmental consequences," "concerned with rights." Those terms
> >don't have the negative connotations, though, so people don't want
> >to use them.
> To me it just sounds like someone is trying to be Hip! And! Now!
> No disrespect intended.
Um, so you're saying that you use it to mean that the person doesn't
really believe what they're saying, but is just saying it to be
hip?
And that isn't disrespect?
Whoof. Let me know when you get your insult boots on. (I guess
calling someone a hypocrite counts as disrespect in my book. We
seem to be reading different books.)
Trish Roberts-Miller
> On 25 Jul 2000 22:29:52 -0400, crack smoking weasels forced
> red...@mindspring.com (Trish Roberts-Miller) to say:
> >Um, Steve? I used to do dog training. So, I do know about working
> >dogs. I also know that not all farm dogs are working dogs.
> All right, you know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna print "Trish is
> always right" over my monitor.
Oh. You haven't gotten that screen saver yet?
(Actually, what you might do is draw a little set of Venn diagrams.
That might help with the "some" versus "all" problem.)
G. Wilkey Richardson
Trish Roberts-Miller wrote:
>
> In article <397DE883...@west.raytheon.com>, "G. Wilkey Richardson"
> <gwrich...@west.raytheon.com> wrote:
>
> [about PC]
>
> > I've often thought "Puritan" was a pretty good term. I've seen
> > a lot of very intolerant statements made in the name of tolerance.
>
> Sometimes. People often think it is "tolerant" to put up with ideas
> that don't really bother them and actions that they like. It isn't.
> Being tolerant means gritting your teeth when people say things you
> hate (and then standing up and saying why you hate them) and make
> choices you think are awful (and you might tell them why). Being
> tolerant doesn't mean you have to like things, but it does mean you
> don't outlaw them.
That's about the best definition I've seen.
Wilkey
--
"Being disintegrated makes me *very* angry"
-- M.T. Martian.
Mark D. Garfinkel
Trish Roberts-Miller <red...@mindspring.com> wrote:
[ripped from context so as to slip in a fine point]
>Down's and cerebral palsy are not heritable.
not exactly...
Down's Syndrome is generally caused by what we geneticists call
"Trisomy 21" - the state of having three copies of chromosome 21 rather than
the normal two. What causes trisomy 21? There are two ways. A normal
individual (often but not always the female) has a particular single cell
that fails to separate its chromosomes properly during gamete formation.
Following fertilization the zygote now has three chromosome copies. This
defect in chromosomal separation in a normal individual is called primary
non-disjunction.
The second way in which trisomy 21 can arise is during gamete
formation in a Down's Syndrome individual. Having _three_ copies of chromo-
some 21 is itself a highly aberrant state WRT chromosome movements during
cell division. The mechanics of attempting to separate chromosomes
required for gamete formation perforce generate 50% abnormal gametes,
which, after fertilization can cause Down's in the progeny. This is called
secondary non-disjunction, by the way.
So... one Down's individual has a 50% chance of passing Down's
syndrome to hir offspring. Given the dependency of most Down's individuals
on their parents (or other caretakers), I imagine it is rare indeed for
Down's Syndrome individuals to be born this way, rather than through the
primary non-disjunction route. Down's _can_ be inherited, in principle
if not in practice.
Mark
--
Mark D. Garfinkel (e-mail: mg...@midway.uchicago.edu. Ask for PGP public key)
(c) 2000; all rights reserved. Permission granted for Usenet quotation.
Fed up with unsolicited commercial e-mail? Join CAUCE at http://www.cauce.org
Allison Turner
<ofisnss495uatl5mn...@4ax.com>, kmd wrote with great eloquence:
>
>On 25 Jul 2000 17:47:08 -0400, pig...@panix.com (pig of death and
>destruction) wrote:
>
>>du...@megahits.com, in article <7kqrns4e1h0pa9us7...@4ax.com>,
>>dixit:
>
>>>.... I can't post in
>>>this thread without admitting that some part of me was saying:
>>>"Dammit it *would* be a better world if only smart people were allowed
>>>to have kids."
>
>>Er, why? It sounds like a complete and utter disaster to me.
>
>
>I'm a little frustrated. What you quoted from my post (and Trish
>quoted in another followup) was in the middle of a paragraph in which
>I compared my "Dammit" sentiment to wanting to personally beat up O.J.
>I was being as clear as possible that I had that feeling, I'm not
>going to deny it's there, but I think it is wrong and I am glad I live
>in a world in which it will never come true.
I can certainly see why you'd feel frustrated; I don't know about
Piglet and Trish, but I was going to post something similar to what
they did. Not because I thought you were clueless and felt that
only smart people should reproduce, but because I recognize that
underlying thought in many of us, and felt it was a good jumping-
off point for a conversation.
>>Sometimes, I think only nice people should be allowed to have kids.
>
>Talk about my personal nightmare.
>
>Kristen, Stepford Eugenics
I rarely see movies, so I don't know the connection. (Or is it even
a movie reference?)
But the point I was going to make is that it's interesting that so
many of us (and I mean 'us' in a general hand-waving bunches of
humans sense) put intelligence on a higher level than friendliness.
Or street savy. Or the ability to be basically happy with what life
sends you (I get the sense this is true of folks who have Down's?
Haven't ever known anyone in that category). Or the physiological
strength to survive messy illnesses and injuries. Or, for that
matter, the phyical/psychological strength to experience and survive
depression. Or many other things I'm not thinking of.
Why is it that intelligence is the unconscious first choice? Is it
because the people one might be having the discussion with (especially
here, where at least the ability to write coherently is a prerequisite)
are more likely to have a moderate-to-high level of intelligence as a
common trait than, say, a moderate-to-high level of street savy?
-Allison.
Jim Roberts-Miller
>On 25 Jul 2000 22:50:35 -0400, Steve Daniels <dan...@mind.net> wrote:
>
>>On 25 Jul 2000 22:29:52 -0400, crack smoking weasels forced
>>red...@mindspring.com (Trish Roberts-Miller) to say:
>>
>>>Um, Steve? I used to do dog training. So, I do know about working
>>>dogs. I also know that not all farm dogs are working dogs.
>>
>>All right, you know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna print "Trish is
>>always right" over my monitor.
>
>Actually, I have "Trish always needs to be right because she must've
>been told she was wrong a lot as a child or something" on my monitor.
In Ye Olden Dayes, this is the part where I would dash in on my white
charger, banners unfurled and lance held high. Hey to Jeem.
Now I stay the hell away because this is a place more commonly known as
"Ground Zero".
Jammer Jim Roberts-Miller
--
Texas A&M '89, '91 "Is there in Truth no Beauty?"
"Of course, you do not have to go to the moon to find cold, dark, and
inhospitable...conditions. Much of Canada will do." -- the Economist
http://www.mindspring.com/~jammerjim/jimpg01.html
Lynnette
Trish Roberts-Miller wrote:
>
> In article <397DE2E0...@mitre.org>, lynn...@mitre.org wrote:
>
> > [Jumping into a spousal disagreement on political correctness with
> > slight trepidation... <G>]
>
> [no trepidation necessary--our spousal disagreements have yet to
> escalate into anything dramatic or especially interesting.]
[Yeah, but I felt I had to say something since I was jumping into a
spouses response to a spouse--hence the <G>, too.]
> > Trish Roberts-Miller wrote:
>
> > > In article <8F7C71E6Fjamme...@129.250.35.5>,
> > > jamm...@mindspring.com (Jim Roberts-Miller) wrote:
>
> > > > She did write she felt these people shouldn't be having kids,
> which may not
> > > > be a very PC (I know people hate that term, but right now I can't
> think of a
> > > > better)
>
> > > That's the whole point of my tirade against the term. In fact, you
> > > can't think of a synonym for it (people almost never can) because
> > > there isn't one.
>
> > I can think of several in that sentence. In many ways, I see PC to mean
> > respectful or considerate.
>
> That's why people want to use the term PC rather than other words.
> The connotation of it is critical, but it wouldn't work to say,
> "which may not be very respectful..." "PC" often means something
> like "concerned with constitutional issues," "concerned with
> environmental consequences," "concerned with rights." Those terms
> don't have the negative connotations, though, so people don't want
> to use them.
I dunno. I guess the negative connotation I associate with it is the
political one--that politicians use the PC terms to woo constituents,
even though they're wamboozling 'em. (How can you tell if a politician
is lying? Zir mouth is moving...) (OK, so I'm cynical wrt
politicians--how could you tell??) We don't need a "kinder and gentler"
society, but more a more respectful one. "K&G" is the gravy, respect is
the meat. IMO, of course...YMMV.
I still think respectful fits in your examples. Respectful
of...constitutional issues, environmental issues, rights. OK, so I'm
stretching it, but, overall, I think the concept works. It involves
being cognizant of the issue and treating it with respect, which, like I
said before, can be kinda stretched to fit being "respectful of".
> > In many other ways, I see it as a way to
> > avoid confrontation or to find a more socially acceptable way of saying
> > something inappropriate. Someone might use "african american" as a way
> > of hiding the fact that zie would rather use the N-word to describe
> > individuals of african descent.
>
> Which long predates the term PC or the movements (feminism,
> environmentalism, multiculturalism) at which the term gets thrown.
What does?? Finding more socially acceptable ways of saying things??
I'm missing what you are meaning here.
> > Just because the phrase has turned into a bad joke doesn't mean that it
> > has to be something intrinsically bad or evil.
>
> I'm not sure if you mean the term "PC" or terms like "Negro." The term
> "PC" almost always had negative connotations (the only people who used
> it in positive terms were the Stalinist American Communists).
Well, "negro" is hardly a phrase (and I was referring to the uglier term
"nigger" when I typed the "n-word".) Yes, I was referring to
Politically Correct when I made that statement. And I don't see it as
being bad or evil by default. To me, people who are very "PC" are the
hippies of today--concerned with the environment, with fairness, with
respect or tolerance for others... I worked on a Special Education
grant when "people first" language came into popularity. And after
manually going through and changing 4 100+ page grants to say "people
with disabilities" (and all the forms thereof to fit into convoluted
sentences) instead of "disabled people" or "the disabled", I could have
cared less WHO they were. But I could understand the idea--their
disability doesn't define who they are. Who they _are_ are individuals,
people, who are dealing with specific issues. I'd say it's a PC
concept, but I think it's worthwhile. It's PC to be concerned about the
environment--but, again, I think that's a GOOD thing.
Then again, it can get pretty silly. I mean, using less offensive words
to describe someone or something is one thing, but...what difference
does it make if we call them "rogue states" or "states of concern"??
What do they care what we call them??
All that said, I get the feeling that what I think of as PC is not
exactly what you define as PC. I know I'm very capable of taking a
concept and accepting only what I see as good about it and tossing the
rest.
Lynnette
piranha
>
>Trish Roberts-Miller wrote:
>>
>> In article <397DE2E0...@mitre.org>, lynn...@mitre.org wrote:
>>
>> > [Jumping into a spousal disagreement on political correctness with
>> > slight trepidation... <G>]
>>
>> [no trepidation necessary--our spousal disagreements have yet to
>> escalate into anything dramatic or especially interesting.]
>
>[Yeah, but I felt I had to say something since I was jumping into a
>spouses response to a spouse--hence the <G>, too.]
forgive me, but this is a hot button for me, being as i come
from news.groups, where somebody was just put through the
wringer for not disclosing that he was married to a propo-
nent for a proposal, and was told that it was natural he'd
want to support her, and that he would agree with her on im-
portant matters.
i am still fuming. the disrespect was thick enough to be
cut with a chainsaw.
leaving news.groups, i considered myself glad to go to ssm,
where such drek doesn't happen. and this is what i see.
now, it's not as bad, but it's still undesirable IMO. and
since it's not the first such faux-pas i've seen lately,
i decided now is the time to say something about it.
*ack*. why give a flying fuck whether the two people in an
argument are spouses? if they wanted to have this in pri-
vate, they'd be sending each other email, for heaven's sakes.
:-)
i've always liked how partnership associations didn't matter
here, and i sometimes wondered whether it was really neces-
sary to do the acronym thing instead of outing who is whose
partner right off the bat.
i no longer wonder.
i am gonna stick with the acronym thing, and this is an open
invitation to shed all trepidation for people who happen to
already know who my partner is. if we had a serious, rela-
tionship threatening disagreement, we'd not be having it on a
newsgroup. and the mere fact that we disagree about a number
of things doesn't mean there is either trouble in paradise, or
somebody better not get in between.
we're individuals. i like to be treated as one.
-piranha
Trish Roberts-Miller
du...@megahits.com wrote:
> On 25 Jul 2000 22:50:35 -0400, Steve Daniels <dan...@mind.net> wrote:
> >On 25 Jul 2000 22:29:52 -0400, crack smoking weasels forced
> >red...@mindspring.com (Trish Roberts-Miller) to say:
> >>Um, Steve? I used to do dog training. So, I do know about working
> >>dogs. I also know that not all farm dogs are working dogs.
> >All right, you know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna print "Trish is
> >always right" over my monitor.
> Actually, I have "Trish always needs to be right because she must've
> been told she was wrong a lot as a child or something" on my monitor.
Given that I read this right after posting that I had given bad
advice, I was going to leave it alone, but I've decided to go ahead
and swallow the bait. (Perhaps because I've just thrown out three
different versions of my introduction.)
You mention in your sig that it isn't motivism. Well, um, it is.
Motivism isn't like bad spelling or something that just sort of gets
in the way of someone's argument. It's 100% bad political discourse.
Let's say I reply, "Well, you just say that because you're threatened
by women whom you worry might be smarter than you." Where does the
discourse go from there? You can plonk me, you can try to argue
about your motives and prove you aren't threatened by smart women,
but, meanwhile, if there is an issue anywhere, it's gotten lost.
So, at best, motivism is a red herring. It's generally somewhat
worse than that, as there is typically an insult involved, or an
inflammatory accusation, so it's really difficult to avoid the bait.
(And, if you want motivism, I'll give you some--some people say that
people engage in motivism because they can't come up with a good
argument, and they *want* the discourse to get sidetracked.)
The distinction between a red herring and a tangent is sort of
vague sometimes, and there are times when people's motives are
relevant. If I notice that you are always ugly about women who've
disagreed with you, or that you're plugging a product without
mentioning that you profit by it, or that the argument you're
making is hopelessly entangled by internal contradictions, then
it might be relevant to talk about motives. In those cases,
motives *are* the issue.
But, in most cases, they're not really relevant and (and this is
what really matters) they're beyond the realm of argument. If you
get ugly with women whom you think have bested you in an argument,
my asserting that it is because you were contradicted a lot as a
child doesn't really help--we can't prove or disprove it. It's
something I might think to myself when I'm in a sulky mood, or
post when I'm in a snit, but it doesn't help. If I think it's
relevant, then I need to raise it as an issue to *argue*, so that you
can cite times when you weren't ugly with women whom you couldn't
persuade.
Some people, like Kathleen Hall Jamieson, say that motivism is
even worse than that. She says that it pushes more important issues
off the public agenda. We talk about issues of motives (she calls
them strategy frames) rather than governance in regard to elections,
spending way too much time with the media analyzing why someone said
what they did rather than whether or not what they said is good
policy. Did that make sense? Bush says, "We should put a giant
Mickey Mouse face on the moon," and the media responds with all
sorts of speculation and analysis as to *why* he would have said
it, rather than focussing on whether or not it is a good idea.
I think the quality of public discourse in which people engage is
tremendously important, and I think Usenet is public discourse. So,
I think motivism is important.
As to my need to be right, well, yeah, that's it. I am never wrong.
Ever. Shall we now talk about my flooding both the utility room
*and* the upstairs bathroom within the space of one week? I meant
to do it. Rilly.
(Or would you rather talk about the three versions of the review
intro--we could try to decide which was worse.)
Trish Roberts-Miller
Garfinkel) wrote:
> In article <redball-2607...@pool-209-138-202-56-dlls.grid.net>,
> Trish Roberts-Miller <red...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> [ripped from context so as to slip in a fine point]
> >Down's and cerebral palsy are not heritable.
> In the case of Down's, *waggles hand in typical NJBFNYC fashion*,
> not exactly...
[explanation deleted]
> So... one Down's individual has a 50% chance of passing Down's
> syndrome to hir offspring. Given the dependency of most Down's individuals
> on their parents (or other caretakers), I imagine it is rare indeed for
> Down's Syndrome individuals to be born this way, rather than through the
> primary non-disjunction route. Down's _can_ be inherited, in principle
> if not in practice.
Ah, true. So, I should have said cerebral palsy is not inherited,
Down's is rarely inherited, and it almost certainly wasn't in this
case. (As neither of the people who everyone is presuming were
the parents had Down's.)
Why does Down's have the secondary characteristics that it does? (One
interesting "test" that they do for it is to look for things like the
distance between toes in an ultrasound. They didn't say how accurate
that sort of thing was, but they did look.)
Steve Daniels
red...@mindspring.com (Trish Roberts-Miller) to say:
>In article <heksns0c1qoe499lr...@4ax.com>, dan...@mind.net wrote:
>
>> On 25 Jul 2000 22:29:52 -0400, crack smoking weasels forced
>> red...@mindspring.com (Trish Roberts-Miller) to say:
>
>> >Um, Steve? I used to do dog training. So, I do know about working
>> >dogs. I also know that not all farm dogs are working dogs.
>
>> All right, you know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna print "Trish is
>> always right" over my monitor.
>
>Oh. You haven't gotten that screen saver yet?
>
>(Actually, what you might do is draw a little set of Venn diagrams.
>That might help with the "some" versus "all" problem.)
Do you get paid to be this condescending, or is it just out of
love?
Steve Daniels
red...@mindspring.com (Trish Roberts-Miller) to say:
>In article <tfdsnskiq8s5hml2t...@4ax.com>, dan...@mind.net wrote:
>
>> On 25 Jul 2000 20:42:00 -0400, crack smoking weasels forced
>> red...@mindspring.com (Trish Roberts-Miller) to say:
>
>> >"PC" often means something
>> >like "concerned with constitutional issues," "concerned with
>> >environmental consequences," "concerned with rights." Those terms
>> >don't have the negative connotations, though, so people don't want
>> >to use them.
>
>> To me it just sounds like someone is trying to be Hip! And! Now!
>
>> No disrespect intended.
>
>Um, so you're saying that you use it to mean that the person doesn't
>really believe what they're saying, but is just saying it to be
>hip?
When someone says "That person is visually challenged" rather
then "That person is blind", I see them as trying to be Hip &
With It. It doesn't necessarily mean that the person referred to
can actually see, nor does it mean that the blindness isn't a
concern.
>And that isn't disrespect?
My way of saying please don't take this personally. Of course,
if you really want to I guess there's nothing I can do to stop
you. Trish is always right.
>Whoof. Let me know when you get your insult boots on. (I guess
>calling someone a hypocrite counts as disrespect in my book. We
>seem to be reading different books.)
My grandfather was a logger. If he were alive, I'd ask him for
advice on the best way to remove your chips.
Kris Jones
>
> On 26 Jul 2000 09:38:33 -0400, crack smoking weasels forced
> red...@mindspring.com (Trish Roberts-Miller) to say:
>
> >In article <tfdsnskiq8s5hml2t...@4ax.com>, dan...@mind.net wrote:
> >
> >> On 25 Jul 2000 20:42:00 -0400, crack smoking weasels forced
> >> red...@mindspring.com (Trish Roberts-Miller) to say:
> >
> >> >"PC" often means something
> >> >like "concerned with constitutional issues," "concerned with
> >> >environmental consequences," "concerned with rights." Those terms
> >> >don't have the negative connotations, though, so people don't want
> >> >to use them.
> >
> >> To me it just sounds like someone is trying to be Hip! And! Now!
> >
> >
> >Um, so you're saying that you use it to mean that the person doesn't
> >really believe what they're saying, but is just saying it to be
> >hip?
>
> When someone says "That person is visually challenged" rather
> then "That person is blind", I see them as trying to be Hip &
> With It. It doesn't necessarily mean that the person referred to
> can actually see, nor does it mean that the blindness isn't a
> concern.
If I were to say "That person is visually challenged" it would be
because I thought calling someone "blind" might hurt their feelings.
Okay, that sounds dumb, because that person is probably aware of the
fact that they are blind and their feelings are their own
responsibility. Nevertheless, it seems more polite to use
circumlocutions like "visually challenged" and "differently-abled,"
especially since I've seen news stories about people in those
categories expressing the desire to be called something other than
"disabled" (which to them implies they are not normal).
To me it feels related to using "passed away" rather than "died."
It has nothing to do with "political correctness" which to me is a
phrase with two contradictory meanings: I thought it originally
meant "doing things in a non-discriminatory way, including language"
but it is also used as a sarcastic label to ridicule actions and
words that some people believe take the original meaning to absurd
extremes.
--
Kris Hasson Jones
Not representing my employer, email if any to sni...@pacifier.com
JLC
Lorre <ls...@csc.albany.edu> wrote:
>
>
> kmd wrote:
> > (pig of death and destruction) wrote:
> >
> >
> > >>.... I can't post in
> > >>this thread without admitting that some part of me was saying:
> > >>"Dammit it *would* be a better world if only smart people were
allowed
> > >>to have kids."
> >
> > >Er, why? It sounds like a complete and utter disaster to me.
> > >Sometimes, I think only nice people should be allowed to have kids.
> >
> > Talk about my personal nightmare.
> >
> > Kristen, Stepford Eugenics
>
> Eeeewww. Until you said that I was almost ready to say "Yeah!! Nice
> rather than smart!!" But the whole idea that there are monolithic
> categories of humans that are better than other categories is becoming
> less and less defensible, IMO. It's like trying to say: "we've got an
> awful lot of x ("bad") creature around here and it's messing up our
> nice agrarian economy. Let's import preditors of x and that will
> clean up this "problem"".
>
> We may _like_ to think that populating the planet strictly with
> beautiful, intelligent and strong people will make it better. I think
> that's about as powerful and insidious an ideal as the "American
> Dream" of everyone having a big (snout) house, a lawn of bluegrass, a
> few children, two cars and a host of hip material posessions. Getting
> there means killing off everything else that naturally belongs there
> (most of which matters in sustaining the actual ecosystems of the
> world). IMO, trying to "clean up" and "fix" a world that is
> _essentially_ messy is a very bad idea. I am more and more convinced
> that true fertility and strength is in the messiness.
That's because it is, if you consider genetic diversity messiness.
While it may be possible to find traits which certainly seem to hold
only problems, most traits are adaptive in certain situations and
maladaptive in other situations. With all due respect to the human
genome project, I think it will be a long time before we completely
UNDERSTAND the role of genetics in lots of complex traits, especially
those whose expression may vary.
The more experiences I have, the more I believe that while we do have
free will and the responsibility to use it, many things ought to stay
outside of the control of humans in groups. One person's wise decision
may be abhorrent to another. Reproduction would definitely fit in that
category.
> Lorre (and you can tell by the condition of my apartment)
Well, my kitchen's in pretty good shape, but as for the rest. . .while
you-all are boinking, I'm divesting and cleaning, but it won't be up to
everyone's standards when I'm done, since I seem to like a bit of
clutter. (But the surest proof I know for chaos theory is my couch--ow!
oh, THAT'S where the needle and thread went!)
Janet
--
JLClaus crazy...@my-deja.com or jlc...@ilstu.edu
"A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely
foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Douglas Adams
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Debbi
>
> She did write she felt these people shouldn't be having kids, which may not
> be a very PC (I know people hate that term, but right now I can't think of a
> ride in with the castration tools and sterilization needles to occasionally
> think "Folks, maybe you should adopt."
In all the interpretations of Pam's post, let me point out that we don't
know that they didn't adopt. Maybe they did. I can think of two
families where the children are all disabled--and all adopted.
Since a few of you have felt the need to explain what bothers you about
the postings, I'll not say a lot of what I was thinking since it has
been said in various forms (and no, that is not saying I agree with
everything that was said. I'm saving the big brush for painting the
bedroom wall, thank you.)
The suggestion that "maybe you should adopt" hits me a little off
center. Must be that soapbox thing again. First of all, it has been
pointed out already that under current adoption rules, they may not be
qualified. Even if they would be and are willing, is there an
implication that "they could adopt a beautiful, healthy, intelligent,
perfect infant" instead of having a disabled one of their own? I don't
think you are saying that in this post, but the general tone I feel
after reading many posters mentioning adoption makes me wonder what is
their view of adoption as an alternative. Not all children up for
adoption are without disability. Adoption is so often portrayed as
bringing a perfect, but homeless child, into a loving, caring,
opportunity laden home. Sometimes that is true. But what about the
other children? Who's taking care of them?
I counter that your genetically-desired couple should also considering
adopting instead of reproducing if one is to hold that standard to the disabled.
I keep expecting Janet or Lorre to come out with this little tidbit of
coincidence (or not). Today marks the 10th anniversary of the signing
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, officially making this the
Americans with Disabilities Day.
-debbi"oh wait, that's another US observed day isn't it"
Lorre
Debbi wrote:
[thoughtful stuff snipped]
> I keep expecting Janet or Lorre to come out with this little tidbit of
> coincidence (or not). Today marks the 10th anniversary of the signing
> of the Americans with Disabilities Act, officially making this the
> Americans with Disabilities Day.
Who me? I'm too busy writing this book chapter and generally being
cantankerous.
> -debbi"oh wait, that's another US observed day isn't it"
Yeah. Wanna hear me rant about inappropriate adaptations by
well-meaning idiots?
Lorre (I don't either, so I'll just get back to that chapter now.)
Troll Baby
scrawled in lipstick:
<snipparoony>
> The good news in all of this? The dog is very bright!
>
>
>The bad news...the dog is the only one that will be neutered.
I'm following up on this a day later as - heh!- RL required my
attention for a while.
I've also read most of the posts to date.
I'd like to say I found this pretty funny. Sad, but dark funny. When
you see the rotten stuff life can deal to some folks, you can either
get really depressed over it, or see the ultimate ridiculousness of
the situation. God can inflict the trials of Job, or show up as
Coyote the Trickster or Anansi at any old time s/he choses.
(I dined out on my Really Rotten Week story for quite a few years.
That was a personal case of laugh or cry. I chose to laugh)
As to whether or not those folks would want to consider having more
children -- well, I know that I wouldn't in those circumstances.
Taking care of a disabled child (or adult!) is a lot of work. Pam
knows that. That's why, even though it was not a good time for her,
she took the dog away.
I wouldn't _dream_ of telling those people what they should or
shouldn't do - but I know what I would do in similar circumstances.
You can only do so much and complete it successfully. Raising
a disabled child to become a responsible and productive member of
society is going to take waaaaaayyyy more work than one who is fully
functional in the physical sense. He or she is going to require more
physical aid from you, and additional tools and adaptations to
function in a world primarily designed for mobile bipeds.
My two cents worth.
TB
"Never wear short-legged tights over satin panties"
------------------------------------------------------
http://www3.sympatico.ca/for.arts.sake/Homepage.html
------------------------------------------------------
Jim Roberts-Miller
gi...@axs.net (Debbi) wrote in <397F2D49...@axs.net>:
>Jim Roberts-Miller wrote:
>>
>>"Folks, maybe you should adopt."
>
>The suggestion that "maybe you should adopt" hits me a little off
>center. Must be that soapbox thing again. First of all, it has been
>pointed out already that under current adoption rules, they may not be
>qualified.
Almost certainly they would be disqualified on their apparent financial
status alone. I was expressing a general sentiment, not a practical
suggestion.
>I counter that your genetically-desired couple should also considering
>adopting instead of reproducing if one is to hold that standard to the
>disabled.
What standard is that? The only "standard" I have implied is that if a
person or persons know within a reasonable doubt that their offspring will
likely be disabled then maybe they should consider an alternative. You
appear to be suggesting some other standard I'm pretty sure I never even came
close to.
And note that caveat: If they know. I'm not sure one *can* know, which makes
my feelings worth considerably less than what you paid for them.
Bathsheba Grossman
>Pam Rudd wrote:
>
>> On 25 Jul 2000 21:19:40 -0400, red...@mindspring.com (Trish
>> Roberts-Miller) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >pool.
>>
>> And overreacting means overreacting.
>
>Yes, but when a large section of your audience "overreacts" you may
>want to reexamine your own responsibility for the reaction. Even some
>of the posters who don't disagree with you think that you meant what
>some of the ones who are overreacting think you meant.
I put my oar in: to me it just looks like whatever bug James had is
going around. I didn't see anything beyond common sense and quite a
story in Pam's post, and I think this flap is bizarrely censorious.
Not to say that it isn't thought-provoking, but I surely hope that Pam
doesn't feel nearly as badly about it as some here seem to want her
to.
-Sheba
Bathsheba Grossman (831) 429-8224
Digital sculpture www.bathsheba.com
Creative prototyping www.protoshape.com
Trish Roberts-Miller
Grossman) wrote:
> I put my oar in: to me it just looks like whatever bug James had is
> going around. I didn't see anything beyond common sense and quite a
> story in Pam's post, and I think this flap is bizarrely censorious.
Common sense? Which part of being completely wrong-headed about
genetics is common sense?
Mark D. Garfinkel
Trish Roberts-Miller <red...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <OECf5.6$v3.299@uchinews>, mg...@midway.uchicago.edu (Mark D.
>Garfinkel) wrote:
>
>> In article <redball-2607...@pool-209-138-202-56-dlls.grid.net>,
>> Trish Roberts-Miller <red...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> [ripped from context so as to slip in a fine point]
>
>> not exactly...
>
>[explanation deleted]
>
>> So... one Down's individual has a 50% chance of passing Down's
>> syndrome to hir offspring. Given the dependency of most Down's individuals
>> on their parents (or other caretakers), I imagine it is rare indeed for
>> Down's Syndrome individuals to be born this way, rather than through the
>> primary non-disjunction route. Down's _can_ be inherited, in principle
>> if not in practice.
>
>Ah, true. So, I should have said cerebral palsy is not inherited,
>Down's is rarely inherited, and it almost certainly wasn't in this
>case. (As neither of the people who everyone is presuming were
>the parents had Down's.)
>Why does Down's have the secondary characteristics that it does? (One
>interesting "test" that they do for it is to look for things like the
>distance between toes in an ultrasound. They didn't say how accurate
>that sort of thing was, but they did look.)
Damned if I know, but sooner or later the research community will.
Human chromosome 21 was completely sequenced recently (and not the faux
completion that Tony Blair, Bill Clinton & a bunch of scientists and
pundits marked a month ago); it's one of the smallest human chromosomes,
yet is still nearly one-sixth the size of the _entire_ Drosophila genome.
Oddly, while the fly genome is predicted to have over 13,000 genes, human
chromosome 21 is believed to have only 225 genes. That's a mind-bogglingly
small number, but also is a managable number for trying to figure out the
connections between individual genes and individual components of the
overall Down Syndrome. For example, we might be able to figure out whether
the mental retardation is caused by possessing three copies of _this_
gene over here, while the tendencies toward congenital heart disease or
the webbing between digits occasionally detected by ultrasound is due to
three copies of _that_ gene over there. Of course, it's a long way from
knowing the parts-list to designing therapies that will ameliorate
symptoms or prolong life, but that's clearly the long-term goal.
Trish Roberts-Miller
> Trish Roberts-Miller wrote:
> > In article <397DE2E0...@mitre.org>, lynn...@mitre.org wrote:
[the term "PC"]
> I still think respectful fits in your examples. Respectful
> of...constitutional issues, environmental issues, rights. OK, so I'm
> stretching it, but, overall, I think the concept works. It involves
> being cognizant of the issue and treating it with respect, which, like I
> said before, can be kinda stretched to fit being "respectful of".
Well, you use PC in a positive way, whereas most people who use
the term do so to be dismissive (people used to use it in an
ironic way, but I haven't heard that in a while--sort of too bad).
So, the "you're just being PC" or "people are getting upset because
this attitude isn't PC." Those statements wouldn't work as arguments
to dismiss a point if the person said, "you're just being respectful"
or "people are getting upset because this attitude isn't respectful."
I guess what I'm saying is that your usage strikes me as correct, but
I doubt you'll get many people to follow it. (Would that you could.)
[about using more polite terms for things]
> > Which long predates the term PC or the movements (feminism,
> > environmentalism, multiculturalism) at which the term gets thrown.
> What does?? Finding more socially acceptable ways of saying things??
> I'm missing what you are meaning here.
Yep, that was baaaadly stated on my part. In other words, people use
the term PC as did Steve (meaning someone who is saying something just
to be part of a dictated ideology, and his example is a more polite
term). But, that sort of thing--finding more accurate and acceptable
ways of categorizing people--long predates the groups that people
usually mean by PC (feminists, multiculturalists, and so on).
[good point deleted]
> It's PC to be concerned about the
> environment--but, again, I think that's a GOOD thing.
Well, according to Donald Lazere (and another article I read somewhere
or other) the term originated with the Stalinists who meant it without
irony (Stalinists aren't known for their irony). A book, movie, or
political stance was "politically correct" if it was approved by
Stalin and/or the Moscow handlers of the American Communist Party (I
*think* I got the title right--I always get the Trotskyite and Stalinist
groups muckled). Then it popped up in the seventies in places like
Ann Arbor and Berkeley as an affectionate and ironic term; environ-
mentalists and feminists would use it to chide one another. It was
then picked up in the popular press as a dismissive term--something
you could throw at someone so that you didn't have to answer their
point.
Anyway, it's sort of as though you're using it entirely with
denotation and ignoring the connotation most people have for it.
(And, as I said, I think they don't really have a denotation anyway,
certainly not one they would acknowledge.)
> Then again, it can get pretty silly. I mean, using less offensive words
> to describe someone or something is one thing, but...what difference
> does it make if we call them "rogue states" or "states of concern"??
> What do they care what we call them??
Good example. (Of course, for all I know it makes tremendous
difference as to whether or not you get foreign aid.)
I get irritated when people take on themselves the place of spokesperson
for an entire ethnicity or group and dictate one term which everyone
must use and consign all others to one of the lower circles of Hell.
I like using "native American" or "Amerindian" or "American Indian"
because they are more accurate and avoid confusion, but I don't see any
compelling reason to choose one of those over another. Lots of
Native Americans call themselves "Indians," so I don't think the terms
that have that as part of the name are only used by Grand Poobahs of
the KKK.
Similarly, I understand the objection to the word "black," and I
generally try to use "African-American" (again, it's just more
accurate) but it isn't high on my list of linguistic changes to make.
Lots of African-Americans don't object to the term and use it
regularly, so I don't think it's a crime against God and nature to
use it.
> All that said, I get the feeling that what I think of as PC is not
> exactly what you define as PC. I know I'm very capable of taking a
> concept and accepting only what I see as good about it and tossing the
> rest.
Well, that's pretty much the strategy that a lot of folks have about
the term "queer" and it's my strategy in regard to "feminist." You
stick hard to denotation and hope to change the connotation by, in a
way, using the word correctly when other people aren't. Good luck
to you.
(Me, I'd be happy if people had to explain just what they meant by
the term.)
pig of death and destruction
>If I were to say "That person is visually challenged" it would be
>because I thought calling someone "blind" might hurt their feelings.
It can also be more accurate. Many of the visually challenged people
that I know do have some vision; they're not completely blind, but
they are functionally blind, or almost so. (And I would say visually
challenged instead of visually impaired to avoid hurting someone's
feelings, as with Kris, above.)
--
Piglet "Sober assessment of the contemporary scene makes it
pig...@piglet.org crystal-clear that a carnival atmosphere is in order.
-Bruce Sterling
Piglet Needs (NYC) Programmers!! http://www.evolution.com/jobs
Trish Roberts-Miller
du...@megahits.com wrote:
> On 26 Jul 2000 12:34:12 -0400, red...@mindspring.com (Trish
> Roberts-Miller) wrote:
> However. Motivism is only one of many forms of manipulation that can
> derail a discussion. There are many many others.
Well, I'm not sure that motivism is manipulative. I think it's often
very sincere--maybe that's why I found Jamieson's notion of a frame
so powerful. People can have a frame that they apply to everything--
I am victim; we're all out for everything we can get; women are from
Mars, men are from Venus; Jews are pushy; we're all going to die;
you should accept Christ as your personal savior--and fit everything
into that frame. (I used to love looking at the headlines of _The
Daily Worker_, as it took the news of the day and applied a really
crude Marxism to it, so everything showed that capitalism was about
to collapse. One semester I had a student who made every single
person we read into a fundamentalist Christian, so that Cardinal
Newman and John Donne were both saying that you should accept
Christ as your personal savior. I think both of those frames were
sincere, just very limited.) Anyway, motivism can be one of
those kinds of frames.
> I don't think you
> always need to be right; I question the level of threat to Democracy
> and Our Way of Life you seem to have identified from motivism of late.
That's legit. It's very much on my mind because of the people I've
been reading lately--lots of people talking about the terrible state
of American political activism. I'm persuaded by them, and I think
motivism contributes to that terrible state. In a year I might be
reading different things and have a different hobby horse.
> I guess, since I decided to tweak your nose about motivism, I owe you
> a response to the Megan's Law post in which you accused me of it.
Sigh. I thought that was funny. IIRC, I said something like, "I
didn't accuse him of a fallacy" and went on to say, "Motivism, otoh,
is a fallacy."
> My
> response, which I started but never posted, was something along the
> lines of:
> Give me a moment while I recover from the blow to my irony wetware.
> I threw your motives into the mix precisely because you were making
> patronizing references to Steve's motives. You wrote [to Steve]
> " I know that this is a very emotional issue, and I know that it is
> especially loaded for you ..."
> If you were merely trying to get past the other person's emotions,
> nothing past the comma is of use.
Actually, it is. IIRC, I went on to say something like, "You're
missing what is a relatively simple point. Not all people convicted
of a sexual offense against children are child molesters." I might
have to accept that patronizing charge, but that isn't what I was
trying to do. I felt that he kept misreading me, and that he
understood me to be talking only about compulsive and repetitive child
molesters. (So when I talked about their being misbranded, it made
absolutely no sense to him.) I thought that he thought (and any
situation that begins like that is trouble) that I was cold-hearted or
unconcerned about children being molested. So, I was trying to
acknowledge the power of his experience (which would be a *very*
powerful experience) while trying to say, as clearly as I could,
"You are replying to an argument I'm not making."
Does that make sense? I wasn't trying to get past his emotions--I was
trying to acknowledge them.
>Is there a purpose for "especially
> loaded for you" other than questioning the person's motives? Does it
> address the Mickey Mouse face on the moon? Looks to me like it tries
> to get the person to admit or defend the "loading" they place on
> Mickey Mouse faces rather than whether such faces are a good idea.
Well, I'm not sure I can figure out how to apply the analogy. What
is the Mickey Mouse face? It seems to me that the whole problem
was that the issue (that not all people convicted of a sexual offense
against children are compulsive child molesters) was getting obscured.
So that issue was the Mickey Mouse face, and I was trying to draw us
back to that. Whether it was the best way to do that, I don't know.
It seemed so at the time. But, I certainly was NOT trying to obscure
the issue. (On the contrary.)
> I don't have your training so I wouldn't have called your
> especially-loaded-for-you statement "motivism," but I flatter myself
> that I share your distaste for rhetorical tactics designed to derail
> discussion.
As I said, I *thought* I was getting the discussion back on tracks,
but calling it patronizing is probably not a bad call. And you
know what, I don't know and I don't care what training you do or
don't have. Tony has little or no formal training in logic and
argument (as far as I know--perhaps he is really Wilfred Hodges,
and he's just pretending to be Tony Quirke), and he knows more about
many aspects of it than I do. I've seen some really good resources
on the net from people who are simply interested in argument, and
there are people who are much better than I at listing (and explaining)
fallacies. If there is one thing this group shows, it is that
there is only random overlap between degree of knowledge and degrees.
So, I tell ya' what. If you don't bring up the issue of my degrees,
I won't. (And you wouldn't if you saw my dissertation anyway. My
favorite part of it is where I have written--and this in the final
version--
[Should I talk about this more?]
Shows how closely my committee read the thing.)
> >As to my need to be right, well, yeah, that's it. I am never wrong.
> >Ever. Shall we now talk about my flooding both the utility room
> >*and* the upstairs bathroom within the space of one week? I meant
> >to do it. Rilly.
> GOD, you overeducated women get on my LAST NERVE. You're ALWAYS doing
> that kind of thing. And then you try to compensate by lording it over
> hard-working, BA-holding, down-to-earth women like ME. Jaysus.
Yep, and we do it just to get on your nerves. neener neener neener
We do it because we're threatened by your down-to-earth competence.
(Actually, if there is one thing of which I am certain, it is that
I am undereducated.)
> >(Or would you rather talk about the three versions of the review
> >intro--we could try to decide which was worse.)
> Ooooh! Critique something I know absolutely nothing about? Now
> *that* I have training for!
Well, a book review is supposed to be written for people who don't
know about it. And I think you might have noticed a flaw or two.
("Um, Trish, isn't that first sentence a little on the long side?
Not that you want it choppy or anything, but I think half a page
might be a leetle hard for the reader to follow.")
Sara
I'll have the recipe for lemon ice cream tomorrow. (Something sweet just
for you, Lorre!) I've made the apricot marinade/glaze in this recipe and it
is great. I took a class from Hugh and he recommended to omit the savory
ingredients (chile sauce, garlic, sesame seed, onion and cilantro) and keep
it in the fridge (it keeps for about 2-3 weeks and I suppose you could
easily freeze it.) It's great on French toast!
Sara
--
--
Sara Running
Not speaking for my employer
Trish Roberts-Miller <red...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:redball-2607...@pool-209-138-61-31.dlls.grid.net...
> In article <8lnfer$t18$1...@triton.dnai.com>, sh...@dnai.com (Bathsheba
> Grossman) wrote:
>
> > I put my oar in: to me it just looks like whatever bug James had is
> > going around. I didn't see anything beyond common sense and quite a
> > story in Pam's post, and I think this flap is bizarrely censorious.
>
> Common sense? Which part of being completely wrong-headed about
> genetics is common sense?
>
Keith Rickert
red...@mindspring.com (Trish Roberts-Miller) wrote:
>
> Ah, true. So, I should have said cerebral palsy is not inherited,
> Down's is rarely inherited, and it almost certainly wasn't in this
> case. (As neither of the people who everyone is presuming were
> the parents had Down's.)
>
> Why does Down's have the secondary characteristics that it does? (One
> interesting "test" that they do for it is to look for things like the
> distance between toes in an ultrasound. They didn't say how accurate
> that sort of thing was, but they did look.)
As far as I know, it's not well understood. It's thought to be a gene
dosage issue; now that the genes on 21 have been defined, it may be
possible to narrow that down a bit further. For most of the rest of the
autosomes (non-sex chromosomes), I believe trisomy is lethal. 21 is
pretty small, and doesn't have too many genes.
Keith
--
Keith Rickert | "You want the truth? You can't handle the
rick...@netaxs.com | truth! No truth-handler, you! Bah! I
keith_...@merck.com | deride your truth-handling abilities!"
(note change) | Sideshow Bob, The Simpsons
Ginko
In article <8F7D93486jamme...@129.250.35.5>,
jamm...@mindspring.com (Jim Roberts-Miller) wrote:
>mucho snippage
>
>gi...@axs.net (Debbi) wrote in <397F2D49...@axs.net>:
>>Jim Roberts-Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>"Folks, maybe you should adopt."
>>
>>The suggestion that "maybe you should adopt" hits me a little off
>>center. Must be that soapbox thing again. First of all, it has been
>>pointed out already that under current adoption rules, they may not be
>>qualified.
>
> Almost certainly they would be disqualified on their apparent financial
>status alone. I was expressing a general sentiment, not a practical
>suggestion.
>
>>I counter that your genetically-desired couple should also considering
>>adopting instead of reproducing if one is to hold that standard to the
>>disabled.
>
> What standard is that? The only "standard" I have implied is that if a
>person or persons know within a reasonable doubt that their offspring will
>likely be disabled then maybe they should consider an alternative. You
>appear to be suggesting some other standard I'm pretty sure I never even came
>close to.
>
> And note that caveat: If they know. I'm not sure one *can* know, which makes
>my feelings worth considerably less than what you paid for them.
That is pretty much my point. One can't know. At least in the tools and
tests we have today.
-debbi
-------
-debbi http://web.axs.net/ginko
piranha
Steve Daniels <dan...@mind.net> wrote:
>
>When someone says "That person is visually challenged" rather
>then "That person is blind", I see them as trying to be Hip &
>With It.
they might also be aware that that person about whom
one is speaking isn't actually blind, but has some
degree of major vision impairment.
i don't call people who're hard of hearing "deaf" --
it's not as accurate.
most of the time i might not know whether somebody is
actually blind or deaf, and i will use the more gene-
ral term until i find out.
i agree with you that some people use such terms as a
means to be seen as sensitive when in fact they might
not even be. but i don't think that's something one
can necessarily determine from one remark or one use-
net post.
-piranha
theurgy
>theurgy wrote:
>>
...referring to Lorre's angry and disgusted post..
>> Are you, for example, advocating that every person, regardless of physical
>> or mental condition, should reproduce as often and freely as suits zir?
>> Your posts suggest so.
>Um...isn't that the way things are?? (Discounting for unplanned
>reproduction.)
Well, yes, it is. Ought it to be that way, though? In a world ever more
crowded, should there not be a moral imperative to limit reproductive
freedom, lest the "tragedy of the commons" befall us all?
Felicitations,
M.
theurgy
>trx...@xmission.com (theurgy), in article <8lkpl0$ifg$1...@xmission.xmission.com>, dixit:
>>Are you, for example, advocating that every person, regardless of physical
>>or mental condition, should reproduce as often and freely as suits zir?
>>Your posts suggest so.
>Are you suggesting there's something wrong with that position?
Are you suggesting that this position is tenable or sustainable on this
planet? Further, do you consider it morally justifiable?
Felicitations,
M.
theurgy
>In article <8lkpl0$ifg$1...@xmission.xmission.com>, trx...@xmission.com
>(theurgy) wrote:
>> Oh, let us sing the praises for "tolerance" now. In my experience there's
>> very litle of it anywhere, though a great hypocritical show is made of it.
>> The best I've seen is a grudging acceptance of those different from us, a
>> submittal to the law and its terrible consequences.
>I'm not sure about the terrible consequences bit. (In fact, I think
>a cursory glance at the history of ideas indicates some pretty good
>things come from tolerance.)
Permit me a bit of hyperbole. The "terrible consequences" is an allusion
to the power and majesty of the law which prohibits both the rich and the
poor from sleeping under bridges, said prohibition being backed by the
monopoly on the legitimate use of deadly force which the state claims for
itself.
>But, otherwise, that's exactly what
>"tolerance" is--a grudging acceptance of those different from us.
>Nothing hypocritical about it. You don't have to like them, but you
>don't get to pass legislation against them.
Hmmm... I've always thought of tolerance as smething a bit more noble, a
genuine acceptance of the fact that humans come in many different flavors,
and a willingness to nibble at some that do not appear immediately
palatable. But the consensus here seems to favor your interpretation, so
maybe I need to change my definition.
>> Are you, for example, advocating that every person, regardless of physical
>> or mental condition, should reproduce as often and freely as suits zir?
>That would be how the Supreme Court has ruled.
>And it hasn't exactly led to carnage in the streets.
>I had a prof who was the child of two deaf parents (they used to be
>sterilized) and another who was the child of trailor trash. One of
>my strongest students at Mizzou was the child of trailor trash. And,
>when you separate it all out, that's what was wrong with those people--
>they were trailor trash. There weren't four generations of heritable
>defects; there wasn't even any indication they were bad parents. They
>were just poor and weird.
>I have often said that I hoped certain people didn't have kids, but
>I'd like to think it didn't have to do with class. It should have to
>do with behavior. And, as far as I can tell, the people were actually
>behaving responsibly--they took a dog because they didn't think it
>was getting good care and they had contacted an organization they
>thought would ensure it did get that care. That seems to indicate a
>whole lot more judgement than lots of people I know.
Aside from the people Pam was referring to, whose familial and genetic
background is wholly unfamiliar to me, I'm referring to the general notion
- blessed by The Supremes, as you assert - that it's just hunky-dory to
procreate to one's heart's content. I'd really like to see someone try to
make the case that this behavior is ethically justifiable in the general
case, and hence to be treated as a "right" rather than a "privilege".
Felicitations,
M.
theurgy
>In article <8lkpl0$ifg$1...@xmission.xmission.com>,
>theurgy <trx...@xmission.com> wrote:
...referring to eugenics in the absence of understanding of the genetic
base for deleterious traits...
>>Whatever salutary
>>effect that might have had has gotten completely swamped by several large
>>wars and the indiscriminate slaughter of millions.
> I take exception to the use of "indiscriminate," as I doubt you
>are referring to the carnage of combatants and civilians alike inflicted
>by firebombing campaigns during World War II. On the contrary, the various
>20th-Century genocides were _highly_ discriminating in the definitions of
>whom to kill.
Well, actually, I was referring to both the effects of warfare on civilian
populations, the casualties among which greatly outnumber those among
combatants, and to the overall effect of genocides, which included entire
population groups without distinction among individuals, thus rendering
any "eugenic" ends moot.
Felicitations,
M.
theurgy
>theurgy wrote:
>>
>> <2g6rnss54oi3dg098...@4ax.com> <397DA870...@csc.albany.edu> <8F7C71E6Fjamme...@129.250.35.5> <397DC53C...@csc.albany.edu>
>> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 CURRENT #118
>>
>> Lorre <ls...@csc.albany.edu> writes:
>>
>> ...referring to a post which describes the prototypical "four generations
>> of morons is enough" family...
>>
>[...]
>> Are you, for example, advocating that every person, regardless of physical
>> or mental condition, should reproduce as often and freely as suits zir?
>> Your posts suggest so.
>I'm suggesting that all sorts of people have rights that are protected
>by the constitution, and there are good reasons for that.
It sez "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." in my rather
dog-eared copy; mebbe I need an updated version. There are plenty of good
reasons why I don't want the state to regulate reproduction - I'm a
libertarian at heart - but there's also the practical necessity of
limiting the tonnage of human protoplasm on this planet to something not
greatly in excess of what now prevails. Would you want to live in a worlf
in which everyone lives at the standard of the average American (Mr.
Ernest W. Stinson of 1237 Maple Avenue, Dacron, Ohio 50234)?
>[...]
>So... it takes what you perceive as a hissy fit about eugenics to
>bring you out of the woodwork?
>Say it ain't so!!
It ain't so. I just happened to pass through - every few months I take a
peek at s.s.m - and responded, as my spleen saw fit.
Smooches.
Felicitations,
M.
theurgy
>... (My last vet said that he has
>taken to telling people, "You should not have pets." In his mind,
>he thinks, "And I hope to God you don't have kids.")
This gets to the heart of the problem, doesn't it? Why should it be OK to
hold and express the opinion that some people should not have pets, but
it's not OK to say they shouldn't have kids? Simply because some nominally
ambulatory lump of protoplasm musters the requisite number of chromosomes
it ought to reproduce to the full extent it desires? Ought we to start
breeding programs in the prisons, asylums, and hospitals?
Why is the right to reproduce so much more sacred that the right to own
and abuse pets? Seriously, ask yourself why people have such a gut
reaction to the very notion that their reproductive freedom might be
curtailed to some degree. Why should it be so damn important that
precisely *my* set of genes replicate, rather than yours, given that they
match to 99.9% in any case?
(I am fully aware of the emotional and visceral impact that questions of
reproduction hve on humans, but I'm trying to get a rational response
here.)
Felicitations,
M.
theurgy
>In article <553sns87tscngo8mo...@4ax.com>, dan...@mind.net wrote:
>
>> Ya' know, I've known Pam for awhile now, and I think everyone is
>> reading *way* too much into this.
>I'm not sure that's true. A story like that functions largely by
>the people involved seeming so different. So, it's useful to re-imagine
>the story, but think about the people not being Other. Imagine them
>as your sister, yourself, or shift the details so that it does apply
>to people like you.
>Had Pam written about women over thirty-five, people with high IQs,
>people with conditions like diabetes, alcoholism, bipolar, or depression,
>I think more people would have come down as hard as Lorre. Had she
>written about going to visit people in a wealthy part of town, the
>whole story wouldn't have made sense.
>In other words, the story *depends* upon the people being poor.
Not for me, it doesn't. Ignoring for a moment the question of who was
related to whom, in what degree, and what defects, handicaps,
idiosyncracies and vile sexual practices were extant among the various
members of this family, it makes no difference to me if they were
named Smith, Chen, or Feldstein, or if they lived in the Bronx or Santa
Barbara. It's a visceral response to how far they deviate from what I
perceive to be the human median - which not surprisingly looks remarkably
like me. Too far, and the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, I make
the sign of the cross, and mutter "Unclean, unclean!" under my breath.
However, tolerant as I am, I no longer advocate burning them at the stake
but merely suggest a quick visit to Dr. Benway, who can perform a
vasectomy quicker that you can say "floccipaucinihilipilification".
Felicitations,
M. who's been waiting for years to use that word.
Bathsheba Grossman
>In article <8lnfer$t18$1...@triton.dnai.com>, sh...@dnai.com (Bathsheba
>Grossman) wrote:
>
>> I put my oar in: to me it just looks like whatever bug James had is
>> going around. I didn't see anything beyond common sense and quite a
>> story in Pam's post, and I think this flap is bizarrely censorious.
>
>Common sense? Which part of being completely wrong-headed about
>genetics is common sense?
That would be the "not arguing with people who have way more spare
time than me and huge bees in their bonnet" part.
-Sheba "Steve Was Not Wrong."
Eugenia
pdr...@mindspring.com wrote:
[I am puzzled...but then it might be because
I fell over at the court house yesterday...
I told that ex-PHB I don't do well under
extreme stress.]
> I met 5 members of the family, 2 were dwarfs, 1 had cerebral palsy,
> and 1 had Down's Syndrome, the other had married into the family. Of
> the two that were discussed but not present, one was "a bit simple"
> and the other was also a dwarf.I'd say that was plenty of evidence to
> suggest perhaps they might want to re-examine their genetic heritage.
I'm having a really hard time seeing dwarves as...
I don't know...anything other than on the really
"short" side. Might limit one's chances in the
professional basketball arena though. (By the way,
my family is on the shrimpy side: my uncle barely
made the law enforcement height requirement; my mom
can't reach the bottom of an ordinary shopping cart
and had wood blocks put on the pedals of some cars.)
And since each set of parents seemed to have one
child each that was "other than normal", maybe THEY
did re-examine the situation.
Anyway, that's all I wanted to say.
Lynnette
theurgy wrote:
>
> Lynnette <lynn...@mitre.org> writes:
>
> >theurgy wrote:
> >>
> >> Are you, for example, advocating that every person, regardless of physical
> >> or mental condition, should reproduce as often and freely as suits zir?
> >> Your posts suggest so.
>
> >Um...isn't that the way things are?? (Discounting for unplanned
> >reproduction.)
>
> Well, yes, it is. Ought it to be that way, though? In a world ever more
> crowded, should there not be a moral imperative to limit reproductive
> freedom, lest the "tragedy of the commons" befall us all?
I think there is a definite moral imperative for individuals to choose
to limit their reproduction, but that still falls under "reproducing as
often and freely as suits zir".
In theory I totally agree with you. But it's the "in practice" part
that makes it all fall apart. How would it be implemented?? Should
certain people be allowed to reproduce and others not? Should there be
genetic testing for possible damaging recessives that would disqualify
someone? Should income be the deciding point? What about religion or
race? Who makes the decisions??
I can't come up with a fair way to implement something like that (which
doesn't mean there isn't one), and unless it's fair and loop-hole free,
it's never going to be successful. Regardless, it will always depend on
the individuals to choose to limit their reproduction.
Lynnette
Lynnette
theurgy wrote:
>
> red...@mindspring.com (Trish Roberts-Miller) writes:
>
> >But, otherwise, that's exactly what
> >"tolerance" is--a grudging acceptance of those different from us.
> >Nothing hypocritical about it. You don't have to like them, but you
> >don't get to pass legislation against them.
>
> Hmmm... I've always thought of tolerance as smething a bit more noble, a
> genuine acceptance of the fact that humans come in many different flavors,
> and a willingness to nibble at some that do not appear immediately
> palatable. But the consensus here seems to favor your interpretation, so
> maybe I need to change my definition.
Maybe...but I _like_ your definition better.
Lynnette
(That's the way I try to implement it myself...)
Lynnette
Debbi wrote:
>
[Much snippage of good stuff]
>
> Today marks the 10th anniversary of the signing
> of the Americans with Disabilities Act, officially making this the
> Americans with Disabilities Day.
<SARCASM> And we've come SO far. </sarcasm>
I find it amazingly ironic that yesterday was the day that my friend
(who happens to be visually impaired) finally gave in to the University
she works at for an amazingly stupid, last-resort accomodation. She has
transportation in the form of a cab that will drop both her and her
daughter off at her daughter's day care center on campus. All she has
to do is walk the half mile from the center to her office. Last night,
she left her office to head over to the daycare center. The road she
has to cross was blocked by 18-wheelers making deliveries of some sort,
so she couldn't cross. She backtracked and took an alternate, longer
route. There was construction going on and no sidewalks (and she also
couldn't see the extent of the construction so she didn't feel
comfortable going on the grass). Frustrated, she went back to the first
route, managed to cross through all the trucks, got to the sidewalk and
walked straight into freshly poured cement. (Nothing had been put up to
prevent people from walking there.) The University's solution is that
they will provide an escort to walk her across campus.
What kind of accomodation is that?? She should be able to walk across
campus without needing a sighted escort. I think it's degrading. And
irresponsible of the University. If it's unsafe for someone with a
visual impairment, it's not particularly safe for someone who is
sighted. I remember that campus well, I know exactly where she stepped
in that cement--and considering the number of times I walked that way
and was talking with friends and paying more attention to them than to
the consistency of the sidewalk, I could have easily stepped in that
concrete myself. And trying to cross a street that is partially blocked
by trucks isn't particularly safe either.
This is just the culmination of 4 YEARS of transportation problems and
mobility issues with the University. I've watched her fight for what is
reasonable and fair and get shafted. She's an intelligent and worldly
adult. It's insulting that she's been reduced to having someone have to
hold her hand to cross the street because the University isn't doing
their job or even trying to follow the specific legal requirements of
the ADA.
I know some of you might find that a fair accomodation. And if it
hadn't been such a fight for so long, I'd be inclined to agree. And if
she were the only person with a visual impairment on campus, I might
concede the point. But it HAS been a fight and she isn't the only one.
She's in the special education field--she's worked with lots of people
and have come up with lots of low- or no-cost solutions to her problems
that have gotten shrugged off again and again.
This is how far we've come in 10 years... This and handicapped bathroom
stalls that are either too small to squeeze a wheelchair into or have
the bars so ignorantly placed that no one who would need to use them
COULD use them. But the establishement can say they have handicapped
restrooms because of them...
Three cheers for fair accomodations...
Lynnette
G. Wilkey Richardson
theurgy wrote:
>
> red...@mindspring.com (Trish Roberts-Miller) writes:
>
> >... (My last vet said that he has
> >taken to telling people, "You should not have pets." In his mind,
> >he thinks, "And I hope to God you don't have kids.")
>
> This gets to the heart of the problem, doesn't it? Why should it be OK to
> hold and express the opinion that some people should not have pets, but
> it's not OK to say they shouldn't have kids? Simply because some nominally
> ambulatory lump of protoplasm musters the requisite number of chromosomes
> it ought to reproduce to the full extent it desires? Ought we to start
> breeding programs in the prisons, asylums, and hospitals?
>
> Why is the right to reproduce so much more sacred that the right to own
> and abuse pets? Seriously, ask yourself why people have such a gut
> reaction to the very notion that their reproductive freedom might be
> curtailed to some degree. Why should it be so damn important that
> precisely *my* set of genes replicate, rather than yours, given that they
> match to 99.9% in any case?
At the risk of sounding overly simplistic, IMO it boils down to the
the drive to reproduce (*not* the same as sex drive) being
stronger in most people than anything except self preservation.
Trying to regulate it therefore evokes powerful responses that
are rooted below the rational level.
Wilkey
--
"Being disintegrated makes me *very* angry"
-- M.T. Martian.
Trish Roberts-Miller
> In article <8lop50$8he$1...@triton.dnai.com>,
> Bathsheba Grossman <sh...@dnai.com> wrote:
> >red...@mindspring.com (Trish Roberts-Miller):
> >>In article <8lnfer$t18$1...@triton.dnai.com>, sh...@dnai.com (Bathsheba
> >>Grossman) wrote:
> >>> I put my oar in: to me it just looks like whatever bug James had is
> >>> going around. I didn't see anything beyond common sense and quite a
> >>> story in Pam's post, and I think this flap is bizarrely censorious.
> >>Common sense? Which part of being completely wrong-headed about
> >>genetics is common sense?
> >That would be the "not arguing with people who have way more spare
> >time than me and huge bees in their bonnet" part.
Ah, okay. That would be the evading the question part.
> *heh* Amen. This group has never been exactly touchy-feely (um, yeah),
> but Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick! Get _over_ it, folks. Pam had a
> strong reaction and posted it. Who in this group hasn't done this at
> one time or another?
Except that *she* says that isn't what she did. Had she posted it
in the midst of a post-adrenaline rush and later regretted some of
the harsher comments, you'd be dead on. But, she says she posted
it after a week's consideration and that she doesn't retract any
of it.
> We're not all geneticists, and admittedly the
> information provided by Keith and Mark is very interesting and informative,
> but that's the only light I've seen in this thread.
The weird thing is that that light didn't change anything. I find it
really troubling that people would continue to post that something
is, for instance, common sense that is based on blazingly false
notions.
You don't have to be a geneticist to know that cerebral palsy is not
genetic. If, for some bizarre reason, you think it is, it shouldn't
take four people repeating that point to get it into your brain.
> The rest has been
> heat, which is great if you're fond of entropy but is less than wonderful
> if you happen to be on the receiving end.
Kill the thread then. I don't see anyone putting a gun to your head and
making you read it.
I'm not sure where my Chesterton books are, or I'd pull in a great
quote from him about reformers--how they almost always want to reform
the lives of people who are poorer than they are.
The fact is that people are far too willing to tolerate comments and
policies for other people (especially if they are Other) than they
are for themselves. It isn't that long since we had laws about who
can and can't reproduce, and there is serious discussion about
restricting the rights of people on some kinds of public assistance
to reproduce (not, of course, on the kind of public assistance that
the middle class gets, just the kind that the poor gets), and my
understanding is that there have been serious proposals to tie
foreign aid to population control. So, it's got me het up because
it's a way of thinking about public policy that I think is reeeeeeelly
bad. And it's on a topic which is on the agenda.
And non-lurker in email supports me.
Dr. Brat
theurgy wrote:
> Lorre <ls...@csc.albany.edu> writes:
>
> >theurgy wrote:
> >>
> >> <2g6rnss54oi3dg098...@4ax.com> <397DA870...@csc.albany.edu> <8F7C71E6Fjamme...@129.250.35.5> <397DC53C...@csc.albany.edu>
> >> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 CURRENT #118
> >>
> >> Lorre <ls...@csc.albany.edu> writes:
> >>
> >> ...referring to a post which describes the prototypical "four generations
> >> of morons is enough" family...
> >>
> >[...]
> >> Are you, for example, advocating that every person, regardless of physical
> >> or mental condition, should reproduce as often and freely as suits zir?
> >> Your posts suggest so.
>
> >I'm suggesting that all sorts of people have rights that are protected
> >by the constitution, and there are good reasons for that.
>
> It sez "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." in my rather
> dog-eared copy; mebbe I need an updated version. There are plenty of good
> reasons why I don't want the state to regulate reproduction - I'm a
> libertarian at heart - but there's also the practical necessity of
> limiting the tonnage of human protoplasm on this planet to something not
> greatly in excess of what now prevails. Would you want to live in a worlf
> in which everyone lives at the standard of the average American (Mr.
> Ernest W. Stinson of 1237 Maple Avenue, Dacron, Ohio 50234)?
>
hmmmm, I don't have a dog-eared copy in front of me, but it seems
to me that the same articles which guarantee the right to privacy upon
which a woman's right to an abortion is based would also serve as
the basis for a woman's right to reproduce. In other word, you
can't tell me what to do with my body, either way.
The fact is that the constitution protects me from your practical necessities
unless they come accompanied by due process.
Elizabeth
Trish Roberts-Miller
(theurgy) wrote:
> red...@mindspring.com (Trish Roberts-Miller) writes:
> >... (My last vet said that he has
> >taken to telling people, "You should not have pets." In his mind,
> >he thinks, "And I hope to God you don't have kids.")
> This gets to the heart of the problem, doesn't it? Why should it be OK to
> hold and express the opinion that some people should not have pets, but
> it's not OK to say they shouldn't have kids?
It's only marginally okay for a vet to tell people that they shouldn't
have pets (and it's my impression this was usually after people had
just killed one through incompetence or neglect.) I think it would
probably be pretty different for me to tell someone zie shouldn't
have a pet (unless zie had just asked). I expect I'd get about the
same reaction that I'd get if I told someone zie shouldn't have kids.
I think it also depends upon what crowd you run in. It's considered
pretty bad form in my crowd to tell people they *should* have kids--
that's a deeply private choice. But, I know that there are circles
in which it's okay to tell people they should. (Parents consider
it their right in many families.) I have no idea if those same
circles tell people not to have kids.
> Why is the right to reproduce so much more sacred that the right to own
> and abuse pets? Seriously, ask yourself why people have such a gut
> reaction to the very notion that their reproductive freedom might be
> curtailed to some degree. Why should it be so damn important that
> precisely *my* set of genes replicate, rather than yours, given that they
> match to 99.9% in any case?
You might look at the Supreme Court ruling on it. It's pretty eloquent
(and I've only heard sections). It says that the right to have
children is absolutely fundamental--the most basic of all rights.
If you believe in the more or less autonomous individual, then you
have to give people rights you might hope that they don't use.
But, in addition, we just don't know enough, and that's part of what
keeps me quiet when I have the impulse to tell people not to have
kids. There are people who are irresponsible pet owners
and wonderful parents, and people who are lousy parents whose kids
turn out to be great people. If I were going to list people who
would be terrible parents, and who I really hope don't have kids,
it would have to do with things like tolerance, empathy, ability
to handle frustration, glorf (you missed the discussion of selfless
love--while people seemed to agree on the concept, a bunch of
people objected to the term), tolerance, consistency, honesty,
a strong sense of self, kindness, and tolerance.
It's a little bit like the _It's a Wonderful Life_ thing. You
don't know what people will do. In an earlier post, you mentioned
Tiger Woods. Well, at the time his parents married, it was simply
a cliche that children of mixed marriages would have it way too
rough to be able to accomplish much. I think being the child of
a President must be unbelievably difficult, yet quite a few of
those people have turned out to be interesting and good people.
Borderline Personality Disorder would be waaaay high on my list
of reasons not to have kids, but I had a friend in grad school
whose mom had that, and the friend was bright, competent, and
simply wonderful.
I think it was Janet who said it so well--we just don't know
enough.
Trish Roberts-Miller
(theurgy) wrote:
> Lynnette <lynn...@mitre.org> writes:
>
> >theurgy wrote:
> ...referring to Lorre's angry and disgusted post..
> >> Are you, for example, advocating that every person, regardless of physical
> >> or mental condition, should reproduce as often and freely as suits zir?
> >> Your posts suggest so.
Btw, I'm with Piglet on this.
> >Um...isn't that the way things are?? (Discounting for unplanned
> >reproduction.)
> Well, yes, it is. Ought it to be that way, though? In a world ever more
> crowded, should there not be a moral imperative to limit reproductive
> freedom, lest the "tragedy of the commons" befall us all?
Yes, it ought, because the "solution" of limiting who gets to
reproduce leads to far greater tragedies.
Just yesterday I read Mencken on "the drink problem." It was pretty
funny (in his bitter and cynical way). He pointed out that some
people simply cannot say, "This problem is insoluble." So, they
propose all sorts of terrible things, and people will even go along
with them out of a kind of desperation. The fact that the cure
is not a cure but itself a worse disease just slides past.
And the drink problem is a pretty good analogy. Alcohol is associated
with an extraordinary number of social "ills"--rape, child abuse
and molestation, auto accidents, murder. And that doesn't even
take into consideration the social costs of what alcohol abusers
do to themselves (there was an interesting review of a book in
the _New York Review of Books_ about life in the ICU, in which both
the reviewer and the author remark on the number of people in the
ICU who are there due to substance abuse, one of which is alcohol.)
If you start thinking about lost work days, costs to health care,
and all that, yikes!
So, tragedy does befall all of us due to the drink problem. But
an even greater one befell us when we tried to eradicate it.
Jim Roberts-Miller
27070011...@pool-209-138-200-199-dlls.grid.net>:
>
>You don't have to be a geneticist to know that cerebral palsy is not
I didn't know it wasn't. Ignorance of what is and is not genetic ain't
necessarily bizarre; it just is.
You may not be able to recall where you put your keys, but I think you forget
what an otherwise spectacular sponge for information you are.
It is my totaly unscientific and non-peer-reviewed observation that most
people will remember things that
1) Affect them directly
2) interest them to some extent
3) affect someone they know
4) they have encountered multiple times
Other things will fade fomr memory at greater or lesser speed. If read
yesterday in some news article the CB was not genetic I would probably recall
that fact today. If I read it a year ago, or even a week ago, the results
might be different.
Jammer Jim Roberts-Miller
--
Texas A&M '89, '91 "Is there in Truth no Beauty?"
"Of course, you do not have to go to the moon to find cold, dark, and
inhospitable...conditions. Much of Canada will do." -- the Economist
http://www.mindspring.com/~jammerjim/jimpg01.html