Category: Let's talk
I'm breaking this up into two posts, as it's a bit long.
In this essay, I shall discuss rights. Ordinarily, I believe in democratic rule, in the form of a republic. But since I feel that there are times when military rule may become necessary, I have chosen to examine these under both types.
The first group of rights that I will discuss are what I call natural rights, as they should exist in all civilised societies and under all forms of government. These include the right to eat non-genetically modified food, to drink clean water, to obtain shelter, education (at least through a high school (or equivalent) level), and health care, and the right not to be harmed if you are innocent of a crime. This last includes the banning of all routine infant circumcisions for both sexes. The poor and the disabled should be given money specifically allotted for the purposes of buying food and finding shelter. All other people should be responsible for themselves. Education and health care, in contrast, should be available to all, through public funds, with a private option for those who can afford and who desire it. Eating and drinking whatever you want, growing your own food, bringing up your children instead of having them taken by the state (barring abuse, you being a direct threat to the nation, or desiring to have your child adopted), and wearing what you want while at home are all included here.
One may wonder why I didn't include the write to life under the category of natural rights. This right depends on several factors. When someone murders, rapes, or severely harms an innocent person, and especially when someone harms the nation, I believe that the right to life and/or humane treatment is no longer relevent. What's to stop him from killing or harming again, and why should tax money be spent to support him/her in prison? I believe in humane euthanasia for those born with such severe physical or mental disabilities that they will never be able to understand basic concepts,, care for themselves, or express themselves in meaningful ways. In this way, abuse in institutions (especially when they can't speak out about it), possible pain from severe illnesses, and spending of tax payer's money on caring for them, can all be avoided. I also believe that it is essential for the criminally insane to be euthanised for the protection of society at large. I also believe that chronic drug and/or alcohol users, abusers of people and/or animals, and those with diseases or disabilities which severely effect their lives, and who have a high risk of passing them onto their children, should be sterilised. But some of these can adopt if they change their ways, or if their disabilities don't prevent them from being able to care for children.
Firearms are common in many modern societies. Yet I feel that the right to own and carry them should be restricted to the military and the police, even in a republic. But I do not have an issue with civilians owning and using stun guns, bb and Airsoft guns), sling shots, bows and arrows, pepper spray, or clubs. Some of these are clearly for hunting and/or target practice, but others can be used for self-defence.
Now we come to rights which are an important part of life in a republic, but which can be modified or stripped should martial law be imposed. Freedom of speech is one of the cornerstones of a democratic society. The ability to discuss anything, to use profanity, to speak against the government, and so much more, is embodied in this right. Yet even in a free society, certain expressions are frowned upon with good reason. Yelling "fire" in a crowd where none exists, slandering someone, and sexually harassing someone (though the definition of that is being taken too far these days), are some examples of prohibitions on speech. The press, and the media in general, also have their own restrictions. During a dictatorship, these, along with protests and strikes, are among the first freedoms which must be stripped or modified, or they could lead to all sorts of problems. Once democracy is restored, or once things are calm enough to begin the process, these rights can slowly be returned. That said, even under democratic rule, I'm against strikes involving teachers, sanitation workers, postal workers, doctors, police, and fire departments, as all are essential elements to the well-being of a nation. I also don't approve of such things occurring during the work day, since many of these block traffic, thereby preventing others from working. Freedom of speech also includes freedom of expression, such as what to wear in public, what to watch on television and in theatres, and what to write and read. These rights can also be modified when necessary. But such laws, with the exception of encouraging parents to dress their children properly, and banning truly hate-filled things or works which may insight serious violence, should not be allowed under democratic rule.
Minorities of all kinds, at least in The United States, have made progress in gaining rights, though some, such as tobacco smokers, are now losing them, and others, such as homosexuals and raw milk drinkers, still have a ways to go towards obtaining them. Minority religious groups aren't officially discriminated against, but aren't welcomed everywhere either, and several, such as Hellenic Polytheism, Religio Romana, etc., are not considered as valid religions, both in america and in their homelands. I fully support the implimentation of such rights. After all, I'm a woman, a tobacco smoker, a Hellenic Polytheist, and blind, so am a minority in many ways. But during military rule, the leaders may feel it necessary to change these rights, to appease their backers or as part of their own beliefs. Yet even here, I think a line can be drawn. They may suggest that women stay home with their children, and not legally accept gays or followers of nonmainstream religions as equal. But forcing women to stay home by creating laws or physically harming or arresting homosexuals and/or followers of nonmainstream religions, strictly for those reasons, invites totalitarianism, which is never acceptible. I also realise that, even without the violence, stripping such rights in countries where they have already been gained can cause financial and other problems, particularly for couples and children.
The decision to have a child should never be taken lightly, and there are many reasons why couples or single women may choose not to do so. While I always stress the use of reliable forms of contraception for those who don't want children now but may in the future, and sterilisation, when possible, for those who are sure that they don't want biological children, all of these methods can fail for a variety of reasons. If a sterilised woman becomes pregnant, it could be ectopic and could ultimately kill her. So I'm extremely hesitant about modifying these rights. I can agree to banning hormonal contraception, as it can have truly undesirable side effects and can even be dangerous for some women. I can even tolerate abortions being limited only to those which are necessary to prevent the death of the mother and/or in which the mother was raped. But I draw the line at banning nonhormonal contraception, such as condoms, diaphragms, spermacide, sponges, and so on, and not allowing a woman to go to another country to have an abortion performed. Yet in a free society, not only do I support government funding of organisations such as Planned Parenthood, and sex education in high schools, but I also think that those who harass women at abortion clynics should be arrested and fined on the first offence and imprisoned on the second.
The final right that I will discuss is the right for the innocent to die, according to their wishes. While I do think that those considering suicide should be counselled, if, after the sessions, they still feel they should take their own lives, then they are making an informed decision, and should be allowed to do so. Of course, no one wants to lose a loved one to suicide. But ultimately, it is their choice. I also believe that there should be a law which enables the terminally ill to commit assisted suicide, and that those who are healthy should be allowed to create a living will stating that, if certain conditions of their choosing are met, and they are unable to express their desires at the time, their lives could be terminated.
As I have demonstrated, my views on rights are many and varried. Depending on the type of political rule, some may be taken, but certain rights must always exist in a society in order to keep it civil.
I know that I mentioned several of the same things here as I did in my General Political Views Essay, but this one is purely focussed on rights. So I was able to expanded upon a few areas, and didn't really discuss government etc. Some have called me contradictory, but I don't believe I am. I may have two views on a given right, but it really depends on the type of government. That said, I also know that some of these can be sliperty slopes, so am looking forward to debating here.
I know this might likely descend into the kind of (I don't know... maybe war?) that your previous topics seem to have brought on. Still, I must disagree with you about your second post. I cannot see any time when removing the freedom to access or express information. I can only imagine what would happen had no such freedom been written into the Constitution of whatever country. It is quite likely that, assuming an unjust ruler takes power (probably by force, but who knows), they have a legal right to crack down on the people getting information that details the dictator's faults, or attempts a revolution. I only see trouble ahead for a nation that does such a thing. I also cannot accept rule by the military, because they probably (with all due respect) don't know what they are doing. The military was not created to rule a nation, which is why they don't make our laws. The military was created to defend the nation from invasion, to fight for the nation, and to keep the nation safe. The "keep the nation safe" thing can be interpretted multiple ways, but in any good republic (to my standard) this should mean maintaining the basic rights of the people, not the government. The military should not take over unless that is in the people's self-interest. The problem with this is that the military has, on many many occasions in many different countries claimed they were helping the people when the people (or at least most of them) didn't want the military to do anything. I could have long discussions about Nigerian history where the military took power for no reason whatsoever, and the populus hated it. But anyway, I cannot trust the military with the rule of a nation because these are the people with all the force (automatic machine versus bow and arrow plus club, I think the gun wins). If you give them all the legal power too, who is to say that they won't take advantage of it. And again, and again, and eventually it becomes "Dump democratic rule. We have machine guns and they don't, so we don't have to pretend anymore. Big brother was watching you, but he took a break, and now the all-powerful big monster with the machine gun is watching you, and you didn't hold up. You will be dead in thirty seconds, tops." I would love to hear your view on this, since a good debate when we aren't insulting each other is always stimulating, and you have raised some interesting points.
This is exactly what I mean by a civil debate, with many valid points and opinions expressed! Thank you for starting it! Now, where to begin. It's important to note that I've based my views of military rule on the last two regimes in Greece. I firmly believe that such rule should be temporary, though it can last awhile. The Revolution of 21 April, 1967, for example, lasted, technically, until 1974 (though those of us who support Colonel Papadopoulos put the end in late 1973, when he was overthrown by Ioannidis). In any case, this is why I believe it's okay to strip certain rights, while the nation heals.
Certainly, the problems of protests, rebellions, etc., are why it's necessary to modify freedom of speech during military rule. I realise that some dictators take this way too far, and use it to do horrible things. But we're not talking totalitarian extremists here.
As for the military not knowing what they're doing, in some instances, that's true. But this is not always the case.
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_of_August_Regime
"Metaxas' government, initially unpopular, also gained popularity through an elaborate program to socialize the Greek economy, including:
• introduction of a minimum wage;
• unemployment insurance and the creation of a public employment agency;
• maternity leave;
• a 5-day, 40-hour workweek;
• guaranteed 2-week vacations with pay (or two weeks' double pay in place of the vacation);
• stricter work safety standards.
Many elements of this program persist in Greek economic policy. Metaxas' regime also founded the Social Security Institute (IKA) as well as the Workers' Center, which was established to look after workers' housing and recreation, among other things.
The 4th of August regime also initially stabilized the drachma (later replaced by the euro), which had been suffering from high inflation. Exploiting the newfound solidity of the currency, Metaxas' government embarked on large public works programs, including land drainage, construction of railways, road improvements, and modernization of the telecommunications infrastructure.'"
To be fair, General Metaxas was a real politician, and won his place in an election, before declaring martial law. The Colonels overthrew the government. Yet Colonel Makarezos was an amazing economist, and Greece was the fastest growing nation in Europe at the time. Quoting from another post here on The Zone. "Schools, airports, roads, hospitals, hotels,, the military museum and more were all built then, and plumbing and electricity were brought to places which still didn't have them. They were also the ones who started socialised education through the university level. I won't quote from this, since it's quite long, but pay close attention to D and 11 through 15. Mostly, these deal with the economic side of things.
http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v29/d314 "
This is another link, written in Greek, with wonderful charts and explanations of the economic miracle seen during The 21 April Revolution. It's from Stoxos, before they began leaning towards Xrysi Avgi.
http://www.hellas.org/april21/economy.htm "
At any rate, there are times when certain rights need to be either stripped or modified, and this is particularly true during military rule. So while I wouldn't be thrilled, I would also understand the need for many of these laws, at least until things calmed down and democratic rule could begin to be restored once mor."
Under normal circumstances, I fully agree that the military should not rule the nation. But as you so aptly pointed out, one of their jobs is keeping the nation safe, and this is done by protecting it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. So when the politicians can no longer rule properly, and when the people are suffering as a result, it's up to them to protect and defend the nation by taking power. As you've demonstrated, there are times when the military can go too far. This is why I firmly believe that it's essential for the leaders to write down a list of major goals that they wish to achieve, as well as the minor steps to achieving them. When they have met these goals, they must step down. If you are unwilling to give up power once the nation is saved, then you have no business taking over in the first place! This leads nicely into another point about 21 April. I cannot speak for General Metaxas, as he died in office, and I didn't hear anything about him returning the nation to democracy. But Colonel Papadopoulos tried to do so, several times, once by attempting to give up power, and then by trying to democratise the nation. In fact, this is one of the reasons why he was eventually betrayed by Ioannidis and his faction. See the section entitled Normalization and attempts at liberalization here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_military_junta_of_1967%E2%80%931974
I have a serious issue with one of your points, and a minor issue with another. for the sake of getting the worst out of the way first, I'll address my serious issue first:
you mentioned that people who have a serious disease with a high risk of passing it on to their children should be sterilised. First of all, what kind of serious issue are we talking about here? Are we talking airborne viruses that can kill in days and can spread like the Bubonic plague? Or are we talking about things such as blindness, the inability to walk, autism, or other common physical or mental disabilities? If the former, the focus should be on finding a way to cure the viral infection and keep it from spreading in the parent before deciding whether said parent can have children. A person in such a cinario is unlikely to be having sexual intercourse anyway. If we're talking about certain retroviruses like AIDS, which are not airborne and can only be spread through direct contact with bodily fluids, there do exist medications now that can significantly decrease the risk of passing along this virus to your fetus. and on the off chance that it does, yes, I will admit this is a risk to the child, but if appropriate measures are taken, he/she can still live a very fulfilling life. Now, to address the latter cinario: a person with any number of common physical or mental disabilities: I think we've established that over half the members of this site are blind, many of which live completely normal lives with nothing more than the usual annoyances that come with simply living. this can be said of many other disabilities as well. So, please tell me why a healthy person living a normal, productive life, should be kept from having a child who could also go on to live a normal, productive life?
Now, one thing I can somewhat relate to in terms of your proposal here is when it can be proven, beyond any doubt, that a child is going to be born with such a disability that will leave them in physical and/or mental pain each day of their life; pain that will make it impossible to ever be able to actively participate in life's various activities. However, I still believe that such cases should be dealt with based on the pregnancy itself, rather than the parent, unless it can, once again be proven beyond any doubt that every subsequent pregnancy will end up this way. If this can be proven, the parent should still be allowed to be involved in the decision making every step of the way. another point I can somewhat agree with is the issue of chronic drug abusers. However, once again, I believe that the parents should, instead of getting sterilised, be given the chance to heal from their addiction. there's nothing wrong with a former addict having a child, and it would be a shame if said person, who is now an active member of society, was sterilised because of an addiction they struggled with 10 or more years earlier.
You mentioned in one of your posts that you feel that minorities should have more rights. Let's take your religion as an example for a moment here: I gather from all of your posts that you believe in the Greek gods whole-heartedly. I also gather from your posts that you're tired of your religion getting stomped on as though it were worthless. So let's just say that some law maker came along and said to you: the likelyhood that your child will end up practicing this religion will most likely have a negative impact on his/her life. it may cause depression, or cause the child to be lacking socially in school. therefore, we've decided that you legally must not have children. To prevent this from happening, you will now be sterilised.
Whether any of these views are true or not, who's right is it to say you shall be unable to conceive a child because you worship Greek Gods, and your children are also likely to end up worshipping the same Gods?
Okay. now, onto my minor issue: this one's a lot shorter.
Why should information ever be restricted, apart from the obvious confidential records containing the personal information of others unrelated to you? What does the restriction of such information accomplish, other than to keep the public in the dark about any number of issues? I have always believed the government has something to hide when withholding information that would normally be public knowledge. Anyone who has studied World War I was probably aware of the war propaganda fed to the general public, about how the army was serving their country heroically, which was true, I'll admit, but nobody ever mentioned the fact that people were dying and rotting away in trenches, and how the survivers suffered shellshock from witnessing/taking part in all of this. why did nobody mention this? because the government wanted a certain response. they didn't want to be asked how it was so heroic to go and die in a trench, or to suffer for the rest of your life if you happened to be one of the lucky ones.
this is just one example, but I would like to know how hiding information would benefit the *nation* as a whole.
We're talking the latter variety, especially mental disabilities. While blindness or the ability to walk should never lead to euthanasia, as they can still be lived with and don't effect the brain, I still think it's utterly wrong to have children if you know that there's a very high chance of such things being passed onto them. I can't speak for being in a wheelchair, but I know what it is to be blind, and I certainly wouldn't wish it on an innocent child. I know these people wouldn't either, but essentially, they're giving them these lives. There are enough horrible things in the world without adding something else to their plate. This includes things like AIDES as well. That said, there's no reason why such people can't adopt. I have never understood why some feel so strongly that their children must be born from them or of their own blood, that they won't even consider all of the ones already born. Parenting isn't just about getting someone pregnant or giving birth.
Certainly, in cases where the child would be in pain, the mother must have an abortion if pregnant, and if not, should be sterilised. There is no excuse, whatsoever, to make a child suffer like that. I agree about former addicts, so long as they stay on the straight and narrow. I'm talking about ones who refuse to go to treatment, or who keep relapsing.
Physical disabilities which appear later in a child's life are very different from the above sinarios. If you have a sighted child, and he gets into a car accident and becomes blind or a paraplegic, the odds of you being responsible for it are slim, barring something like drunk driving.
I could never agree with sterilisation due to religion, as it's not a disability and will not harm the child. Even if the claims about my faith were true, my child could always change his religion once he was old enough to understand things clearly. At the most, during a dictatorship, I could tolerate not being able to worship openly, or to declare or discuss my faith. But these situations are supposed to be temporary, until the nation heals, and sterilisation is permenant. For the record, I was voluntarily sterilised on 22 September, 2011. I don't have any genetic disabilities, but did have many reasons for not wanting biological children and getting off hormonal birth control.
When you say "hiding information", I'm assuming that you're talking about the restriction on freedom of speech. My thoughts were along the lines of preventing certain music, books, etc. which might lead to violence, protests, or general uprisings. But some of this may include information on the regime as well. When the leaders first get in, they need to restore order, and then to work on saving the nation. They can't do this if they're constantly being criticised and questioned on everything. As things stabalise, they can start returning those rights. Yet even in a free society, certain works should be banned, if they're going to lead to violence, or if they're filled with hate. You mentioned the government keeping information from the people. This is certainly the case during war, and with valid reason. I believe in honesty 99.9% of the time. This is one of the few times, however, when I understand the need for propaganda and hiding the truth. This is even done in a republic. You can't release classified information, particularly if it puts the lives of soldiers, agents, etc., at risk, or if it lowers the morale of the military so much that they give up within themselves.
From your post:
Certainly, the problems of protests, rebellions, etc., are why it's necessary to modify freedom of speech during military rule. I realise that some dictators take this way too far, and use it to do horrible things. But we're not talking totalitarian extremists here.
But why are you so sure that totalitarian extremists won't take advantage of the laws put in place for totalarian country-fixers? Do you think they will do this:
First extremist: "We want to take over the nation, and force the people to do our bidding. I have been looking over the laws, and I think we can."
Second extremist: "I've been reading them to, but I see a problem. It says this doesn't apply to totalitarian extremists, which is what we are."
first: "Are you sure? Are you sure there isn't a loophole somewhere?"
second: "No. I have looked very closely. It clearly states that no totalitarian extremists can use these laws."
First: "OK then. I guess we can't take over the nation. Let's try taking over somewhere else."
I can agree with you about some of the sterilization thing, but I don't think I can about the military rule thing. Firstly, the colonel you like seems not to be extremely popular by others (especially those in Cyprus). From what you have said, he seems quite humane compared to other dictators. He sounds like a military dictator of Nigeria, Obesanjo. However, not all people will want to release their power, and many will take advantage of laws to install themselves in power and lock down the populus.
Again, I am looking at this from the Hellenic perspective. Neither the 4th of August Regime nor The Revolution of 21 April were totalitarian in nature. Ioannidis was far harsher than Papadopoulos ever was, but the military actually threw him out and called the politicians to restore democracy. So I think they can set limits. But I cannot speak for other countries. Xrysi Avgi (Golden Dawn) is also a problem, as some of their ideas are extreme. While they are doing certain things to help the people, and dealing with issues that the other politicians won't touch, I still wouldn't like to see them in power.
The problems in Kypros took place after Colonel Papadopoulos was overthrown, and while Ioannidis was in power. It's also worth noting that America had a hand in it, as they promised not to let the Turks invade, and then broke their promise. I will have to look up Obesanjo, as I'm trying to gather a list of benevolent dictators who actually helped their nations.
As you and others have said, there is always the problem of dictators wanting to hold onto power, and i do realise that many of my ideas are, in fact, idealistic. But when a nation needs military rule, it's because every other sane option has been tried. I believe that this is the case today.
tiff, you mentioned that religion should not be a reason for sterilisation. So, why then, should be the risk of a common disability? I have no issues with my blindness that wouldn't annoy me in life anyway. I live life, get around, socialize, and am reasonably happy most of the time, when I'm not going through a hardship of some sort. But life throws those at everybody. Of course, there's a possibility that any children I have that end up blind will disagree, but it's just as likely that they would agree. So why would it be fair to deny a child a life because there's a possibility he/she won't be happy? There are plenty of people born perfectly healthy with no disability who end up having a much harder life. As for the case of chronic drug abusers, anyone could relapse at any point, and recover just when everyone has given up. Where do you draw the line between a struggling addict and a hopeless case? This whole situation is based on "just in case". To put it another way, let's say you catch a 7-year-old child killing a snake in the backyard. Do you confine him to a closed environment for the rest of his childhood, and take him out of public school because he's demonstrated a desire to kill? I would hope not. You'd probably sit him down for a chat, and try to figure out what possessed him to want to kill that snake. Depending how he responds, you can go from there. But suppose he feels bad for it later. Suppose he appologizes and promises that he will never kill another snake as long as he lives. that still doesn't eliminate the possibility that he will again. and next time, it might be a human. My point is, even if you are a perfectly healthy person who can medically give birth to a child who is just as healthy, from the moment you conceive that child, there are many risks to keep in mind, from unanticipated illness to unfortunate accidents completely beyond your control. And once you give birth, the risk has hardly begun. this is why so many choose not to have children these days. But no matter who you are, and no matter who your child is, bringing this infant into the world is already putting him/her at risk.
The thing is this. You may be happy and can get around etc. But you also know the hardships that blindness causes. Why would you inflict that on a child? Why not just adopt one who's not wanted? Whether we admit it or not, blindness does have a serious effect on our lives. It's not a minor inconvenience or something that can be easily brushed away. If a child is born with four fingers on one hand or a limp, he most likely won't need to spend thousands of dollars on technology just to keep up with everyone else, and unless he's trying out to be an athlete, model, or actor, he probably won't face much discrimination in the workplace. If, as you say, "bringing this infant into the world is already putting him/her at risk", why would you make said risk even grater by passing on a disability to him?
Certainly, I wouldn't confine a seven-year-old for killing a snake. I would talk with him and see why he did it, as you suggested. Maybe, he's afraid of snakes, or thought it was going to hurt him. But if he continued to kill, I would have him counseled. If, as a teenager, or even younger, he started killing dogs, cats, and other animals, I would have him committed to a mental institution. Hopefully, they could cure him and he could be released. SBut sould his violence continue, and manifest itself towards people, I would have him euthanised, between 18 and 21 years of age. That's certainly old enough to grow out of such behaviour. On a similar tupic, I believe that those who cannot stop themselves from truly violent crimes, without the aid of medication, should be euthanised. I don't care if you think you're an elephant. But if you think that you must kill all humans around you, or start biting and kicking them, you need to be stopped.
Tiff, just cause you choose to see blindness as a huge barrier to your life, doesn't mean everyone shares your outlook. I'm certainly one who doesn't.
if I knew ahead of time that I was gonna give birth to a child who had any kind of disability, I'd still give birth to them. you know why?
as someone who has two disabilities myself, who has faced descrimination countless times throughout life, for various reasons, there would be no one more fit to love, and provide for any child, than me.
I have a friend who's severely autistic, who is unable to do many things for himself, and will therefore always need someone to care for him. are you seriously advocating that, given that fact alone, he no longer has the right to live? despite being one of the happiest people you'd ever meet, and, dare I say, appreciating life far more than individuals such as yourself, who, quite frankly, have no reason to have such negative attitudes about the hand you were dealt?
Since you know, firsthand, about discrimination, why would you knowingly give life to a child who will undoubtedly face the same? Yes, knowing these things would make you better able to understand them. But children grow up and have to face the rest of the world. Why not, in that case, adopt one who was already born and who is disabled? Is it not right for parents to wish better things for their children than to let them suffer in the same way? Could such a child get along? Of course. But that's not the issue here. As for people in the situation of your friend, yes, I would advocate euthanasia, at least when young. He may have loving family, friends, etc. But what about when they die? Who will take care of him? What if he winds up in a home and is abused? What can he contribute to society? I don't mean by working, necessarily, but in general. Maybe, he is still mentally competent, and that is worth something, as he can make intellectual and family contributions. For me, it boils down to mental capacity.
why would I knowingly give birth to a kid knowing they'd face descrimination? cause, believe it or not, Tiff, that's part of life. disability doesn't make it so.
you can argue with me till you're blue in the face about how sighted, able boddied people never face such things, but I assure you, they have, and will continue to...just like us.
having been through plenty myself, there's no one better equipped to help a child, be they disabled or not, learn how to handle whatever situations may come up.
as for my friend, I'm sure if it were up to you, he'd be dead by now. he's a 25 year old that's unable to think for himself in any copacity. yet, as previously stated, he loves life, and truly appreciates everyone around him, despite the fact he'll always communicate/get through life on the level of a child.
in case you're unaware, which, clearly, you are, there are group homes which hire workers to take care of people with severe disabilities, whether their parents are able to be involved, or not.
contrary to your perceptions, this gives the person with the disability positive self esteem. they're able to interact with members of society, help with household chores, and learn, to the degree that they can, about consequences that may result from their actions.
words can't even begin to describe how disgusted I am knowing someone even has such views as you've displayed on this topic. I sure hope you're never put in charge of caring for someone, let alone being the one who gets to decide someone's fate.
I'm not saying that sighted people never face discrimination. But it's not just like us. Try going and getting one of those holdover jobs, like cashier, stock clerk, receptionist, burger flipper, etc. Most sighted people can get them without a problem. But even when we can do the job, people either won't hire us, due to our disability (which, in some cases, could be a liability), or because they would need to invest in expensive technology for a job which could be temporary. Why spend thousands on a cash register for us, when we might leave in a year or two, when they can just hire someone sighted, at no extra cost?
If he is unable to think for himself, in any capacity, you're quite right on that one. How can he enjoy life, when he's not even aware of what's going on around him? That said, I did watch an amazing video of someone with autism, who, after many years of therapy, discovered that she was able to communicate with the computer. She writes as well as any of us here, and her words are very touching. She explained, for example, that she doesn't want to act out, but that she has this need to do so, and can't control it. Certainly, this was a very different side of the coin, and one which honestly made me pause for thought, especially because she does appear to be quite intelligent. Yet when away from the keyboard, she cannot communicate and cannot care for herself. Getting her to write is also difficult. So what will become of her in the longrun? Yes, there are group homes, and most, though not all, abuse their patients. The level of a child still isn't something like a vegitative state. So it may be something to consider.
may be something to consider? personally, that's beyond disgusting.
you clearly don't get what I've said about him enjoying life in spite of the hand he was dealt, so I won't bother wasting my breath any further.
He enjoys life because he's lucky enough to live with people who love and/or take good care of him. Would he enjoy it as much if he were being abused in a home somewhere and couldn't speak out, or had no one who would listen to him if he did?
You, and by you I mean the poster, have succeeded in doing what no one else on these boards has been able to do. You have succeeded in making me physically angry. Just the thought of someone holding such sick and twisted ideals as this is enough to fill me with indignant rage.
I would hereby like to retract all my defenses of you. I defended you on other boards when you were unjustly attacked without basis. Now I see that you are too morally bankrupt to be defended. You deserve everything you got. You do not deserve the accordences afforded to human kind. You do not belong in human kind if you cannot see how wrong your ideals are.
For anyone reading her posts, I am going on record now by saying that she, and I will not even give her the respect of a name, she will be designated by pronoun only, has no idea of history or politics, nor of humanity, nor of social interaction. She is completely ignorant of all the things she writes about in her so-called essays. She thinks that because she read some speech by her fucking colonel, that she knows about history. She thinks that because she read a few disgruntled writings by someone online that she knows about politics. The simple fact that she even includes a passage about genetically altered food in her essay negates all claims to scholarship that she may have been able to tenuously cling to.
It used to be that I hoped I would never meet her. I hoped that her and her idiotic ideals of Greekness would just go away and stop cluttering up my life. Now, that has changed. Now, I hope I meet her, I hope I am introduced to her at some convention or something of the sort. I dearly hope for the extreme pleasure of spitting in her face. For that act is the only one which someone of such nonexistent moral character, or character of any kind deserves.
Before anyone jumps up in arms, let me cut you off. I do not give a shit if you're offended, you are offensive to anyone with basic human morals. I do not care if you don't like me. My dislike for you has coagulated into seething hatred, and your opinion matters less to me than the opinion of the scum stuck to the sole of my shoe. I will hear no pathetic whimpering about how I don't respect you, or how this is supposed to be a civil debate. Nothing you have said here is civil, your ideas and thoughts are not civil, they are cruel, biased, prejudiced, inaccurate and inhumane. You do not deserve anything even somewhat resembling respect. Thus, I swear that, though some may see it as pointless, I will make it my soul endeavour on these boards and on this site to tear you down at any cost. Though I am banned for doing so, I will still do all within my power to tear you down piece by piece and piss on the ashes.
Finally, let me close with this, the reason you haven't been able to find a list of dictators who actually helped there country, is because it doesn't fucking exist. Any basic student of history would be able to tell you that one man rule does not work. Sure, things get better for a little while, even Hitler fixed the German economy, but they all crumble. That is why there are no dictatorships in first world countries, because you can't be a first world country and be a dictatorship. Next time, before spouting off your mindless drivel, you might try actually doing some historical research. and by that, I don't mean reading unreviewed articles online. IN case you didn't know, anyone could have written those articles.
Now please, before this gets any worse forr you and I actually lose my temper, stop talking.
I forgot to address something in my last post. of course there are things we as blind people can't do. however, does that mean we should allow that to impact our entire view of ourselves/blindness as a whole? no, not at all. in fact, it's all the more reason to face instances of descrimination head on, learn from our experiences, and perhaps, if you're nice enough, share what you've learned with others.
guess what? there are things sighted people can't do, too, and being sighted has nothing to do with it. maybe someone doesn't drive cause they're prone to having seizures, or any number of other reasons.
should they kill themselves, since, according to Tiff, their quality of life would be seen as less?
why talk about the what ifs that don't exist, in regards to my friend? you clearly think everything that comes out of my mouth is shit anyway, so there's really no need to act like you're genuinely interested.
I also don't support these idealistic views of yours, and I won't succumb to acting like I do, for any reason, especially considering you'd love me to see things your way.
oh, one more thing. I was really trying hard not to go here, as I'm really not an angry person. however, I have to. you're a piss poor excuse of a human being, original poster...and that's being nice.
These are my opinions, and I am entitled to have them. I don't care if you, or anyone else for that matter, hates me for them. I present them as my beliefs, and back them up with reasons and logic. I do not claim to know everything, for that is impossible for any mortal being, no matter how old or wise. I speak about what I know, and when I don't know something, or when I am corrected on a fact, I will research said fact to see why I was wrong. But when I am corrected on an opinion, and find the opinion of my opponent to be in disagreement with mine, I consider it. Then, if I still cannot agree with it, I do not do so. When questioned here and on other boards, I have given reasons as to why I believe the way I do. Now people can either take them as food for thought, or disagree with them. But to not admit when I'm right on something, just because you hate me, is idiotic. If my enemy said something that made sense, even though I hate his guts, I'll still admit that he was right, or at least that he made sense. But do as you will.
How on Earth do my claims about genetically altered foodnegate my claims to scholarship, which, by the way, i didn't claim in this essay. This is an opinion essay. In any case, I didn't pull the idea of genetically modified foods from my brain. Many besides me are discussing the dangers it can cause, as well as the loss of diversity in crops. Here's just one example, which I wholeheartedly support as a worthwile endeavour.
http://www.seedsavers.org/
As for dictatorships, the whole point is to stay in power for awhile, save the nation, and leave. Ultimately, however, it's up to the nation what they will do. Will they take your advice and prosper or will they fall into decline? I actually can think of a dictator who was so loved by the people that they asked him to rule not once but twice! Granted, just as with tyrant, the Roman definition of dictator is a bit different from the modern one, but this still holds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus
No, we shouldn't allow discrimination to impact our entire view of ourselves as a whole. Whether or not I'm hired for a job, I still believe in myself and still know I have worth. I also agree that learning from our experiences and sharing them is important. If you have the mental capacity to be concerned over discrimination or not being able to do things, and to decide to kill yourself over it, you're obviously mentally competent. Now if you were so disabled that you couldn't do anything at all, I could understand it. But to kill yourself over not being able to drive or work a certain job makes no sense. I don't think that everything which comes out of your mouth is shit, nor do I pretend to be genuinely interested in things. When you defended me and/or made valid points I thanked you and/or acknowledged them. You certainly don't have to support my views. That's the whole point of debating. Each person tries to convince the other that his view is valid. But this doesn't always happen, and sometimes, it's best to agree to disagree. That said, when someone posts a counterargument, I will naturally argue it, not for the point of fighting, but to continue the debate.
Ok, just for the sake of argument, exactly who gets to decide what equates good quality of life and who gets to decide who is and is not worthy of having biological children?
Death pannels, anyone?
While I mean you no disrespect personally, I find your beliefs regarding forced sterilization and euthinatia of the severely disabled abhorrant. Yes, you have every right to have those beleifs; I don't question that. I do however disagree in as strong a manor as humanly possible.
I do agree with your stance on people having the right to die in a peaceful humane way if they've been diagnosed with a terminal illness, but I can see that being abused as well. "Gee, Granny, you're really getting to be a pain in your old age. Have ya ever thought about just taking the big nap cuz we could really use that inheritance we're all waiting on?"
OK, so if someone should not kill themselves because of a minor to moderate disability, why should a mother abort her child for that reason?
If someone has no clue who or where he is, can never learn anything, or can only learn the most rudimentary things, how is that a good quality of life? The same holds true if someone is in constant pain and can't express it to anyone. I'd say doctors and psychologists can evaluate the person and make recommendations on what should be done. If the family decides to keep the person alive, then they should care for him, without any state assistance (charities are fine). Remember that we are talking about truly severe cases, not ones in which there is a chance of recovery or decent progress. Depending on the situation, psychologists, law enforcement, drug rehabilitation agencies, and judges can determine who should be sterilised. There may be some certain exceptions, but there should still be sound ground rules.
The problem with Granny is certainly a a serious one, which is why I believe so strongly in living wills. If she is mentally competent, then she should be able to decide for herself, with a doctor and/or counselor. If, during the process, she seems unsure, no attempt should be made to force her into it. Assisted suicides should only be performed when doctors are present and can record and/or take part in them, in order to prevent murder for inheritence etc. I know there are corrupt doctors out there, but I really can't think of a better way to do this, and most people do agree with me when it comes to this right.
As for committing suicides due to mild to moderate disabilities, since they're already born, and can do things, it really wouldn't make sense at this point. I, for example, have been blind since I was two-months-old, and know nothing else. So why would I want to commit suicide. It might be different if someone suddenly lost her sight, in which case, she should receive help in order to learn about all the things she can still do, how to cope with vision loss etc. But if, after awhile (say a year or two), she still feels that she cannot live as a blind person, she should be able to decide what happens to her. In the case of a fetus, it's not born yet, so the situation is different. Here, the suffering can be prevented. That said, since people with such disabilities can contribute to society and care for themselves, should the mother choose to have the child, state aid should be given, just as for everyone else (remember that I support universal health care).
Suffering? To be blind is to suffer? OK. show of hands; figuratively speaking, of course: who here considers their blindness to be a form of suffering?
It's not suffering in the same way as chronic pain, of course. But even for those of us who had never had it, we're still missing a sense. How can it not be suffering when we can't do so many things that others take for granted, even things like looking at the faces of the ones we love, gazing at the stars, seeing colour, and opening up a book or newspaper and reading it, without assistive technology? Then, there are the practical things, like driving, being able to read the labels on food, to properly handwrite, to not have to worry about mobility, etc. Yes, we can and do adapt, some more than others, particularly due to finances. For example, I found an I.D. Mate Omni, which usually sells for a few hundred dollars, for $48 on Ebay. So now, I rarely need sighted help to learn what a given item is by its' bar code. Even when I do, it's once and that's it. But without it, I had to have someone sit down with me and tell me what things were, so that I could braille out the labels for later use.
If a blind child is born into money, even into the middle class, it's not as hard. But even in the middle class, some of these things are downright expensive. We can keep up with our sighted peers, but at a cost, and if we don't have the money or the help, life is more difficult for us than for the average person. So yes, by all means, let us care for those who are now living who are blind etc. But why bring more into the world? Just so we can say they're our biological shildren? Is that not selfish on our part?
I, personally would not choose to bring a blind child into the world (one of the many reasons I've chosen not to have any)
but, it is not my place to tell others not to do so if they wish
No, I wouldn't say blindness is a form of suffering, but it is definitely an inconvenience at times.
The problem with saying somebody in a certain instance should be sterolized is simple. It suggests that you are in favor of government regulation to the tenth power. Nobody has the right to tell someone what must be done to their own body.
I've been blind all my life, and losing my hearing since I was about six. When it's so far gone that I can't enjoy music, TV, films, social gatherings, etc. then I'm done living. Disagree all you like.
Margorp, well said.
I wouldn't consider blindness to be suffering, either. An inconvenience? Yes. A pain in the ass? Sometimes. But most of the things that happen to us as blind people that can lead to suffering, such as bullying, discrimination and unemployment, happen just as much to sighted people. While these things may seem to happen more to us, I have to wonder, is it seriously because we're blind, or simply because we're a smaller population? Now, having said that, I do think that if a person doesn't want to live because they think those circumstances are unbearable, they should have the right to take their life if they've thought it over thoroughly and come to an informed decision. And if they hide behind the excuse that it was because they were blind, so be it. Just the same, a sighted person could choose to take their life if they experience many of the same hardships. I do support the right to suicide, as I think it would actually decrease stigma, not to mention help people see that there are other options. At least it's not illegal, but it's generally seen as one of the more taboo things, right up there with things like homosexuality, interracial dating and bestiality. To drop the walls of stigma would only be a good thing, and perhaps if people felt like they were free to make that decision without the added guilt of, "what if I fail? Will my family disown me? Will I be locked in a mental institution for the rest of my life?" hanging over their heads, thereby clouding their decision further. Removing the stigma would provide clarity, and, in my personal opinion, help to decrease the suicide rate.
Growing up, I never considered doing it just because of blindness. But as I say, blindness isn't the only thing I now have to contend with. My aunt (mom's sister) had the exact same condition (Norrie's syndrome,) which causes blindness at birth and progressive hearing loss. She killed herself five years ago because at that point she was almost completely deaf.
I have no problems with homosexuality, and though I wouldn't personally want to be in an interracial relationship, and think that having children in one may lead to problems, I can tolerate it. But I absolutely draw the line at bestiality. Just thinking about that makes me physically ill! I don't think that people should be institutionalised just because they tried to commit suicide, particularly if it has been proven that they're mentally competent. Not even a dictator should be able to tell you if you can take your own life, as that's the most personal of all decisions.
Imprecator, I can't even imagine what you're going through. Yes, there are deafblind people who make it in the world, and some are successful. But personally, if I were in your situation, I would feel the same way. I could handle not being able to walk. But not being able to hear would completely shatter my world.
I have to respond, I really do...
Your OPs and subsequent posts are so full of conttradictory stances that I don't know where to begin...
So dictators can control the music one hears and plays, the words out of our mouths, the clothing that can be worn - the most basic of rights and the most personal (though admittedly minor-scale) privileges - but they should not have the right when one can die?
But euthenasia should be supported?
So should forced steralization?
Perhaps I should make another pot of coffee... but...
WHAT?
I must say, I am confused as well. And what's this about interracial relations causing problems?
interracial relationships causes problems? wow. some folks sure have some strange views, in my opinion. Glad I'm not that closed minded.
if Interracial marriages can cause problems, you really shouldn't marry a Greek person. Like it or not, even if you follow their culture so perfectly that you could teach them a thing or two about it, you are physically not Greek. If wanting to belong to a certain race or nationality was enough to make you officially belong to it, what would be the point of banning interracial marriages in the first place? Wouldn't it be cool if everyone could just become whatever they wanted just by acting that way? Imagine all the laws that could be evaded.
good point OceanDream.
CrazyMusician, since we're talking about temporary military rule, these other rights would be returned. During The Revolution, the music of Theodorakis was banned. Today, you could blast it from your car and wear a shirt with Marxist quotes on it and no one could legally stop you, unless you were seriously disturbing the peace. But when someone is so severely ill that they're in pain every day, bedridden, or they know they're losing the ability to think, and they don't want to live anymore, they can't simply wait for democracy to be restored and then kill themselves. Some may be able to go to another country to do so, but then, someone else would have to take their body back to their homeland.
I merely said that a dictator shouldn't be able to tell you that you can't take your own life, by making suicide illegal. That doesn't contradict the fact that I believe in euthanasia and forced sterilisation, though both must be done with extreme care and neither should be taken lightly.
I knew that my comment on interracial relationships would be questioned, so I will now explain. I didn't mean that it would cause problems for the couple directly. But if they have children, said children could be forced to endure a lot of bullying, discrimination, and hardships because of how they might be seen in society. However, this is not a disability, and if they are brought up with a lot of love and taught the value of their own self-worth, they should be okay. It's just something to consider, as prejudice does still exist. OceanDream, I would not ban interracial marriage. If two people honestly love each other, they should have the right to get married, and that includes homosexuals as well. Also, in my particular case, I can easily blend in with Greeks. It's not as if my boyfriend was black or Asian, in which case, I'd stick out like a sore thumb. I've also had my tubes tied, so biological children are not an issue.
Tiffanitsa, your statement makes less sense than in your previous posts. As has been previously stated - if not here, then elsewhere - if something is a right, it is a right, and should therefore be inalliable. In the event of military presence and martial law, then right are not rights, but privileges. As has been pointed out here, what is to stop propagandizing and ultimately ushering in not only martial law but a dictatorship? Many have argued that dictatorships by their very nature do not provide rights such as much of the western world has known.
As for interracial marriages and bi-racial children, it seems like you want to protect people from themselves and from each other. All people, at the basest form of themselves, are capable of the most heinous acts, so saying that bi-racial children could be targets for bullying is preposterous, not because it doesn't happen, but because kids are cruel and can find anything to pick on. Are you going to suggest people with big feet shouldn't bear offspring to avoid creating children who have big feet?
Kate
But tiff, if a mixed race kid gets picked on for beeing mixed, it's no different that him or her getting picked on for any other reason. I was picked on for beeing the only blind person in my school. Does that mean I should get a vasectomy to make sure my kid doesn't get picked on? After all, there is the remote possibility that he or she could be born blind and subject to ridicule.
I agree. I don't understand why you think that people shouldn't have children if they know they will be blind or have another disability or condition that won't severely affect their lives. I think that if a person decides that they don't want to have children, whatever the reason may be, it's no one's right to judge. however, if someone makes an informed decision, knowing the risks, and still chooses to go through with it, there also should be no reason to interfere or say that it's cruel to bring yet another blind child into the world. Using that argument, you could say it's cruel to have children period, because everybody growing up will endure some kind of injustice or cruelty before they turn 18. But I do agree that if someone can't think for themselves, express themselves, and must depend on someone their entire lives to have their most basic needs met, and a parent goes through a pregnancy knowing that they will create a child who will be like that, it wouldn't be fair to either the child or the parents. First of all, I've attended a school for the blind, and I know how condescendingly the staff treated those kids just because they couldn't do anything about it. Plus, the kids were often violent, even if they were in a wheelchair and could only use their arms. They would bang on objects and scream, or attack staff, and I can only assume that these behaviors are caused by an inability to express oneself in any other productive fashion. Seeing them having to be fed, rocking severely back and forth and having seizures was heartbreaking. While I don't doubt what Happy Heart was saying about some of these people having lives that are meaningful, how would we know how they feel if they can't tell us? Is it not cruel to keep any human suffering who can't even help us to understand why they're suffering? Then, there is the problem of abuse in group homes, which has been previously mentioned. I don't doubt for a second that there are wonderful places with competent staff who don't take advantage of their positions, but the fact is that the bad ones do exist, too. As a parent, how could you live with yourself if you sent your child to such a place and then found out later that they were being abused? And what about after you die, and you no longer have a say as to where your child is housed? More importantly, I would be willing to bet that the quality places are quite expensive. What happens if you can't afford that? Would you settle for substandard treatment just to keep from going bankrupt? It's easy to say you would do one thing, until you were actually in that situation yourself. So I would seriously think about this before answering.
Indeed, now I do not want kids myself so I guess it's a moot point, but a point reguardless.
we as humans can't control everything. take, for instance, the fact my friend was placed in a group home that they later found out was shady. did his parents cry in a corner, feel hopeless about the fact they didn't know about this ahead of time, or wonder how they'd be able to live with themselves? no. they simply moved on, learned from the experiences, and made sure their child's happiness never wavered.
there comes a point when you have to realize, with any child, or situation in life, that all you can do is your best.
so, in the case of what happens when his parents die, there are still loads of people who love him and will provide for him in any/every way they can.
it's called a network group, which, clearly, none of you were thinking would even exist. you simply assume that since you already see this particular situation in such a negative light, his quality of life would be worthless if his parents were gone.
I strongly suggest you all do research before spouting such ignorant, uneducated views.
Ok, point taken. However, I'm only telling you what I've seen for myself. At the school for the blind I went to, the kids with the most severe disabilities lived in the dorm, along with a few of us who just lived too far from the school to commute back and forth every day. What was truly disheartening was the fact that those of us who didn't have any additional disabilities received more visits from our parents, care packages, etc. while the ones I described above had parents who weren't even involved in their child's lives, not even to pick them up at the end of the week (the bus would take them home, and everyone went home on weekends, since the dorm was closed then.) I remember when one of them graduated, no one was sure his parents would even show up. Another had been at the school since he was 3 years old, and his parents didn't even know where the dorm was the one and only time I saw them. I had to walk them to it. So, while I may not know every single situation, I'm not completely ignorant.
This is all very relative, though. I thought, at one point, that I had a really difficult childhood. Ongoing custody battles, very few friends at school, a couple of which moved too far away to see them more than a couple times a year, and other things. But now that I've branched out more and come to know more people, and hearing about their childhoods, I realize I had it pretty easy compared to some. Not just that, but being a loner in school would all but kill some people, while others wouldn't have it any other way. So even if you know someone well, it's still difficult to determine their level of suffering, if you can call it that.
shattered sanity, I've seen similar things as you've described, being that I also went to a school for the blind. that's one reason I added this story about my friend. it's also one reason I'm so outspoken; there are those who are unable to use their voice, and speaking up for them is an absolute necessity, in addition to speaking up for oneself.
this perception that people who have severe disabilities living a lesser quality life, not being happy, etc, really needs to disappear, though.
I think the underlying reason that really needs to be addressed is the fact that the poster is upset about her own life. She doesn't like the cards she was dealt, so this is how she whines about it. She thinks that her life is so terrible that she's blind, that she thinks others should be able to dictate others happiness. Well guess what, I like being blind, I enjoy being blind. Does it suck sometimes? Sure, but it also has so many perks.
I hate when people are so miserable withh their lives that they fail to see the good things in it. and don't give me that bullshit that you do see the good things in your life, its perfectly clear that you don't. If you saw the good things, you wouldn't be talking about forced sterilization in order to keep people from being teased. Fucking teased, show me a kid that wasn't teased, and I'll show you a kid that never met another child in its life. Everyone is teased for something, their hair, their skin, their teeth, their freckles or their blindness. And really, mixed racial couples are unpopular? Its not the 1950's anymore, despite the fact that you might be using technology from that decade. No one cares about mixed people. In fact there are many people which find mixed people highly attractive, myself included.
The basic fact of the matter is that the poster is upset with her life, and is a racist, and is using any excuse she can think of to propulgate her infuriatingly biggoted and twisted opinions. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this.
as am I, Cody. it's very refreshing, indeed.
The issue of interracial couples is one that's close to my heart. I dated someone who's black, and I'm white. I come from a small town, with its small town mentality, and believe me, if I wasn't blind, my parents would have thrown me out on the street when they found out about us. they even said that bluntly, when I asked them why, if they hated me so much, they didn't do just that. I know that part of it was that I was away all week at the school for the blind, so they didn't have to look at me as a painful reminder of the disgrace they had raised. So, big steps have been made to improve the quality of life for interracial couples, but prejudice will never completely disappear. It's not illegal anymore, but people sure can be hateful. I don't think my parents ever forgave me for what I did. That was by far the most difficult experience I've had to go through in my life. For the record, we didn't break up because of the racial issue. We broke up because he cheated on me with his ex, supposedly because we couldn't see each other outside of school thanks to my parents, and as anyone who has been in a dorm at a school for the blind knows, we sure as hell couldnt do anything there, either. And, he didnt live in the dorm, and I wasn't allowed to go anywhere at night, so that's how that happened.
One issue they cited all the time was just that, about mixed race children being freaks of nature, basically. They say that if you mix heritages, you're denying your own heritage and basically taking a shit on it. The thing is, there's a South Park episode about that very thing. I don't know how many of you guys watch South Park, so I'll explain. There was an episode where people from the future flooded back into the present time looking for work. These people were a mix of all different races, and basically spoke in a language of pig squeals. that's the best way I can describe it. That was because there was no such thing as race or ethnicity anymore, everyone was just one big jumble of every possible genetic combination. The world of the future was grossly overpopulated. Yeah, you can argue that this show is meant to exaggerate everything to the extreme for satirical purposes, but there are people who actually believe that mixed race couples are contributing to the downfall of society, and I'd venture to guess that the South Park creators, as well as my parents, are among them.
CrazyMusician, this is why I separated them into natural rights, which should never be taken, and rights which could be temporarily stripped or modified. When I say martial law, I'm also including dictatorships. Temporary could be anything from a few weeks, to a few months, to a decade.
I realise what you're saying about interracial children, which is why I tried to make it clear that this is, at best, a personal preference and concern, and that it should not enter into the laws. Some places are a lot more accepting than others, so location also plays a big role in the lives of these children. I think one of the best examples of the problems that interracial children can face is summed up in the song Half Breed, by Cher. In it, she explains how both sides were against her since the day she was born, and how she was teased by everyone, because she was half white and half Cherokee. To be fair, though, if the song is autobiographical, she didn't have the support of her family that's so crucial in dealing with bullying etc. and she also grew up in a different time. But she had the last laugh, as she became very successful.
http://www.lyricsdepot.com/cher/half-breed.html
In this world, bringing up children is difficult, yes. But blindness and other disabilities only add extra layers of hardship. I just don't see the need for it, when there are already so many children who deserve good and loving homes. ShatteredSanity, thank you for agreeing with me about the severely mentally disabled. As you said, it's for the benefit of the parents as well as the children. Like you, I don't doubt that there are good group homes out there. But the majority are bad, and if these people can't speak out, this is true suffering, since they have to endure this abuse day in and day out. Plus, the guilty parties almost never get punished, and just continue getting paid and hurting their clients. As you said, it's easy to say that you would never allow your child to go to such a place, but finances are a real concern, and like it or not, they often determine what we are actually able to do in life.
SilverLightning, granted, you said, "I think" before starting post 48. But you're still assuming. I may have difficulties in my life, as we all do, but I don't whine about them and don't think my life is terrible. it's just that I know the hardships that blindness can cause, and even then, not all of them, because I grew up in a loving and supportive family, and was sheltered from many of them. But I know I will face more as I start doing more things. So why would I want that for my child, or any child for that matter? I also don't fail to see a few perks of being blind. For one, I appreciate certain things more, since I have to be more detail-oriented. I'm also not into superficial things, and can get to know someone whom others might pass up because of how he looks. Blindness is also a benefit in my love life, as it gives me more of a reason to have physical contact with my partner. I think you missed the point here about the sterilisation. It's not just about being teased. it's about everything that goes along with living with a disability. Someone with freckles or big feet can be teased. But at the end of the day, they won't have to spend huge amounts of money or go through discrimination just because of their appearance.
ShatteredSanity, thank you for sharing your story, and I'm sorry your parents treated you so harshly. While I wouldn't be thrilled if my hypothetical son dated a black woman, if they honestly loved each other, I would have to respect them for it. I think the idea of a pure race is dangerous, both biologically and socially. Biologically, if people of one race only had sex with members of their race, it would eventually lead to interbreeding, which has all sorts of problems. Socially, the pure race idea could lead to all sorts of harm to the innocent, and I can never agree with that. That said, I also believe that there are different races and ethnicities, and that preserving culture, language, history, and national pride is important. No, you don't need to have the blood to be a patriot or nationalist, as I myself demonstrate. But there is still something to be said for those who do. So there must be a balance between fanaticism of purity of blood, on one hand and so much eclecticism that all the bloodlines of humanity are lost, on the other. So I say, when possible, try to stay either in your race or as close to it as possible. But love sometimes has other ideas, and it shouldn't be ignored if the person who captures your heart is from a completely different race or ethnic group than you.
Oh dear sweet god, can you please stick with one opinion and follow it through? Stop contradicting yourself. You do that more than a politician, and that isn't a complement. Do you even know half of what you're saying, or do you just go, "ooh, that sounds good, I'll write that down"? I have to seriously question even the conviction of your opinions if you can't even stick to them through one post entry.
First of all, let me clue you into a little fact of life, its hard. I know that may come as a shocker to you, but please manage to keep your heart beating long enough for me to explain. Everyone, whether blind, sighted, visually impaired, catholic, irish, redheaded or a midget have things which make there life harder, and make their life easier. If I weren't blind, I'd be an atheist still, and that makes life hard. So, should we euthinize all the atheist because life is difficult for them? You're a member of a crackpot unpopullar rreligion, and you hate it when I tease you, so you're life is hard, should I go get the needle while you expose one of your veins for me? My mother was a single mother at sixteen without parental support, should she have had a bullet put in her head because the next decade or so was going to be absolute hell for her? Oh, and did I fail to mention she managed to get married, have a second child which would be me, graduate with a masters degree from the university of oklahoma and become a head nurse at one of the best hospitals in the state during that said decade?
Let me, rather then simply pointing out how stupid you truly are, suggest an alternative to your sick and twisted and murderous ways. How about,, rather than just killing those who don't fit your perfect little way of life, you become open minded and realize that your way is not the only way. How about you realize that interracial couples are normal, and you need to stop being a fucking racist against black people. Its just a pigmentation in their skin, that's all, nothing else. How about you stop being prejudiced against the handicapped, and realize that while there are some who have horrible horrible lives, there are others whose families love them dearly, and will be well taken care of. There are even those who lead productive lives, there are several song writers and composers who could do nothing else. Motzart is rumored to not have been able to even tie his own shoes at some points in his career, and he wrote the most beautiful music. Would you want to murder motzart?
Finally, how about instead of spending tax payyer money on needles and chemicals, you spend it on research to try and fix these diseases. Why do you not put in, "the government should research cures for diseases, and run facilities to help rehabilitate the disabled until such a cure has been found". Nope, you go straight for, "Murder the mother fuckers". But, I guess that's what you do to those things that don't fit into your little bubble of a life. Says a lot about you as a person. Its no wonder you don't like american society, its becoming more accepting, and I don't think you can handle that. You know Greece is doing the same thing, maybe you should think about becoming arabic.
I've already stated that my views on interracial couples are purely personal and should not enter into the laws. I also provided an example of how, despite being teased etc. a woman of mixed race managed to become successful, thereby supporting the idea that no laws should be put in place about said couples. I don't hate black people. I used black because it was used in the previous example. I could just as easily have used another race. Even there, though, I explained that I would accept my child's decision and be respectful of the relationship. I would discuss possible culture shock, if his girlfriend was from a very different race (say Asian or Middle Eastern), but that doesn't mean I'd disown him.
The only point at which I can see confusion is pure race versus preserving culture etc. But even that is not really a contradiction. I can still believe in keeping races distinct without going so far as to promote so-called purity or the idea of making laws against mixing races.
No, I definitely don't think your mother should have had a bullet put in her head. That's ridiculous. But most 16-year-olds are not ready to have children. She may have been the exception. Still, at that time, I would have recommended an abortion, so that she could continue schooling and become financially stable, before taking on the responsibility of a child. If she choose not to go through with it, I would have demanded that the father pay child support, since he was a part of the making of said child.
Cures for diseases are fine. But what should be done with these people while the cures are being studied, particularly the ones who are actually dangerous to society?
Did you or did you not say that you wouldn't be thrilled if your son dated a black woman? That, no matter how you try to dance around it is called racism. Judging someone simply on the color of their skin is racist, period.
The point of the matter is, your laws control what someone can do or can't do to their body. That is a poke in the eye of liberty and freedom.
Oh, and as for what to do with the people until a cuure is found, try hospitals. A lot of them can be taught how to do work if its simple work, have them stuff envelopes or something of that nature. You don't have to kill them.
No, I wouldn't be thrilled. I would rather he marry a nice Greek woman, or at least a white one. But my preferences have nothing to do with what might really happen. I can't say "no, you're not allowed to date her" and wouldn't say "if you do, you're no longer my son." I would also love it if he stayed in the military passed his mandatory time and became a great general. But he might wind up doing his time and then becoming a businessman, a professor, a farmer, or even a plain office worker! I'd still love him. The only situations in which I would disown him would be if he refused to serve his time, started doing hard drugs (anything other than pot), got a woman pregnant and refused to take responsibility for it,,, raped someone or killed someone (barring self-defence or an honest accident.)
Which is still racist. Just because you don't disown him, doesn't mean its not racist. You're a racist, admit it.
Have you never heard the song Everyone's a Little Bit Racist Sometimes? it goes onto say "doesn't mean we go around committing hate crimes".
http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/avenueq/everyonesalittlebitracist.htm
If preferring certain races makes me racist, so be it. I wouldn't harm people over it. By the way, I'm posting the sites with lyrics for those who have trouble hearing or who are deaf. But both the songs I mentioned can also be found on Youtube.
I'm sorry to know, original poster, that you'd disown your son if he got a girl pregnant and failed to take responsibility for the child, among the other reasons you stated. I'm utterly disgusted that you wouldn't love him in spite of choices he has made, and do all you could to help him become a better person. cause, you know, disowning him is the moral, and right thing to do, since you aren't happy with his choices.
If he can't be man enough to take responsibility for such a life-changing action as that, then I want nothing to do with him. I'm not saying the couple needs to keep the baby, but if the woman chose to do so, he would need to at least provide monetary support, if nothing else. I would say the same for the woman if, after giving birth, she gave the child to him and he was willing to raise him/her. It takes two to tango.
How could you disown your kid for anything? that's not unconditional love. Granted, the issue of conditional versis unconditional love is a different topic altogether, but I don't personally know of anyone who thinks their own children should only receive conditional love from their parents.
Somehow I'm not shocked. I am glad she can't have kids though.
I can handle almost anything, except the things I mentioned. I cannot love anyone who goes out and rapes someone, and I don't mean her saying yes, then, after the sex, claiming that she said no. I mean actual rape, where she said no, either before or during sex, and he continued, especially if it was forceful. I cannot love anyone who purposefully goes out and harms the innocent, by shooting into a crowd of people or brutally attacking someone walking down the street, for example. These are not things that can be forgiven, and love won't help here.
Which is exactly why I'm glad you can't have kids. Now I just have to hope that I get to be a character witness when you try to adopt, so I can convince them not to let you. A parent needs to always be there for their kidss, no matter what. Even if your kid is ted bundy, you should always love them. Besides, I firmly believe that if a man goes out and rapes a girl, barring any psychological disorder, its partly the parents fault. So, you should blame yourself too, and still love your son.
So we've established that you are a racist and that you are a terrible future parent, where should we go next?
Oh, and parentheticallly, yes, I know the song we're all a little bit racist. I also know the song puff the magic dragon, it doesn't make it true. I don't care what color someone's skin is. If they act ghetto, that is different, but ghetto is not a race. To assume that all ghetto people are blacks, or all black people are ghetto, is still racist.
So Hitler's mother, had she been alive when he was in power, should have loved and forgiven him? Really? Now who's saying things that don't make sense? There has to be a line drawn between love and acceptance of things that are utterly wrong. And you're damn right I would blame myself! I would wonder what in the hell I did to make my son go out and do something so horrible!
Yes, Hitler's mother should have loved him. Forgiven him is questionable, but she still should have loved him. You don't have to forgive someone to love them. Just because you don't forgive them, doesn't mean you deny them your love and treat them like they aren't your son. The fact that you would over so small a thing as not stepping up when he got a girl pregnant is sad.
beyond sad; utterly fucking disgusting is more like it, and even that's too nice. each time I see posts like this, I breathe a sigh of relief that she can't have kids.
I'm glad to see that this particular issue isn't just a soft spot for me, though, having been raped, and immediately disowned by my entire birth canal's side thereafter.
How can anyone love someone who killed millions of people, or even went out and brutally attacked and killed one, for no reason? How can you live with the shame of knowing that you're this person's mother? What if we had a good leader and my son tried to assassinate or overthrow him, or harmed the nation in other ways? How could I ever even admit that I'm his mother without feeling horrible?
So I guess, in your book, it's okay to be a deadbeat dad? In mine, that shows negatively on his upbringing and on him as a human being. It's not as if he did something stupid and wound up harming himself for it. That's understandable. He helped bring another person into the world, or at the very least, made it possible, before the woman aborted. Even if, let's say, the woman lied to him and said that she was on birth control and wasn't, he should still take the responsibility for his actions. But in that case, the woman should either abort or put the child up for adoption (unless he wants to take him/her), as she clearly lied to him and put him in a horrible situation. But if both knew what they were doing, then it's even more of a reason to own up to his actions!
happy heart, I would never disown my child if he was a victim of rape! I'm seriously sorry if it came across that way. I would disown him if he was the rapist!
As a mother, I can honestly say that there is absolutely nothing my son could ever do that would cause me to stop loving him. I might not like the things he does, or might not even like him if he did something horendous but never, ever, would I stop loving him. Perhaps that's just something only a mother can understand though.
Before I had a child, I might have been able to understand but once I became a mother, a whole new capacity to love unconditionally opened in my heart.
it doesn't matter; my point was that there shouldn't be anything in the world that'd cause someone to disown their children. did you hear that? nothing, absolutely nothing.
nice job twisting my words regarding being a deadbeat dad. I never said it was ok. it's simply a fact of life, and a choice that some people make.
that doesn't mean it's right, just as having some of the views you do, doesn't make them true/beautiful.
why you would allow yourself to feel ashamed, guilty, etc, for someone else's actions, is beyond me, though. if anything, you should ask yourself where you went wrong in causing that child to feel so unloved and worthless that he decided to express himself through committing crimes.
Domestic Goddess, you may be right there. I'm not a mother, so can't argue with you. But even if, somewhere deep inside, I still loved him, I would also still need to disown him. I couldn't handle associating with someone like that, especially if it was known that I was his mother. happy heart, being a deadbeat dad is not just a choice that some people make, like vegitarianism, what style of furniture they have in their home, or whether to wear dresses or pants. It's a huge problem and involves the lives of others.
The fact that I was this child's mother, and brought him up with morals and values, none of which included rape or murder, would weigh heavily on me. Logically, I would know that i didn't do anything wrong. But emotionally, i would be devistated. How could my own son do something so horrible? What didn't I give him, or say to him, or wht was bothering him that he didn't tell me?
The important thing to remember is that even though as parents we do all we can to bring our children up with the values we hold dear, they are still individuals and will make their own decisions in life. They will be influenced by much more than their immediate family.
When a kid becomes a complete and utter fuck-up, it's often the first reaction for people to blaim the parents, and in many cases, that blaim is warranted. However, in life there are no guarantees, especially when it comes to other people.
To disown or not is an individual choice, I guess.
Fortunately for my son, he's stuck with me, whether he likes it or not because I'll always be his mom, no matter what. That's just me though.
I'm glad you have that view, domestic goddess. it isn't only refreshing to see that there are truly loving parents in the world, but it gives me a tremendous amount of fulfillment knowing unconditional love does exist.
Where is the like button? It sounds like you're a great mom and person.
On the subject of unconditional love, well that is a pipe dream but this is way off track. Tiff, you'd really want your hypothetical son to be faithful to Greece even as an American? What if he felt that was just rediculous?
Original Poster, every inkling of respect I ever had for you is gone. I truly believe that you are evil. It is unfortunate to know that someone such as yourself is free, walking around, dwelling on this planet with unalienable rights, and holding such evil and outlandish beliefs.
It is evil to forcibly take away someone's reproductive rights. While some of us seriously believe that certain people should not be parents, and that perhaps there should be some kind of test or evaluation put in place for potential and considering parents, it is ludicrous to sterilize someone regardless of their mental state, financial situation, desire to have children, and so on. If you honestly think that people should not have children because their child is at risk for inheriting a disability, then perhaps everyone should be sterilized because here's a news flash bitch: perfectly healthy people can produce an unhealthy child. All it takes is one mutated DNA strand, or a doctor's miscalculation and bam, bang, froosh, you have a child with cerebral palsy (insert disability/ailment here). And I love how you phrase things: "inflicting" a disability upon a child, as if conceiving and giving birth to a child you know will have or is likely to have a disability is just downright criminal.
Everyone is deficient or lacking in some way, but knowingly birthing someone who will be discriminated against or face financial hardships due to their disability is wrong? I don't think so. You could be easily discriminated against for being dyslexic, introverted, overweight, flat-chested, the list goes on and on, so everyone should stop reproducing. There is no life without difficulty; hardships and obstacles are an essential part of life. They help build your ability to handle a gamut of situations healthily, and builds you as a person mentally and emotionally. If you don't have a disability, there will simply be something else to impede your progress or inconvenience your life. No one has it easy, and the goal should not be to create some generation of children that face no discrimination, struggles or hardships.
Then you have the tits to say that you don't understand why people put so much emphasis and weight on producing offspring of their own blood! Are you fucking kidding me with this shit? Being pregnant and birthing a child is not the easiest thing, but when you have to take in someone else who is completely unfamiliar to you involves a number of inconveniences, issues, and hardships, which you seem to be all about eliminating. Now I've never been pregnant or carried a child to term before, and I will assume that you have not either. But when you produce a child of your own, there is an intimacy there that I do not believe can be acquired any other way. You carry a being inside of you; it comes out knowing your voice, and will know your scent, and part of you: your personality, looks, and talents are contained in this being. To me, pregnancy itself can create such a level of intimacy that is unimaginable and ineffable, and I don't think you can get the same thing from adoption. Also, when you have your own child, you know their medical history, which can avoid or assist in a number of situations down the road. And this is not even half of the reasoning behind producing your own children, not that anyone should ever have to justify or explain it.
Also, a parent should have unconditional love for their child. That means you love them no matter what crime they commit, what country they support, what ethnicity they decide to date, or any other life decision they make: minor or major. When you commit yourself to preserving, nourishing, and educating your baby, you choose to stick with them no matter what they do or what happens to them, or at least you should.
Banning hormonal contraception on the grounds that it has many dangerous side effects makes no sense. When you view a commercial or ad for almost any medication, there are about 3 million side effects and sometimes even a risk of death, so ban those too, right? Um, ... no.
The only restrictions on abortion should be the method and length of time after conception. A woman should be able to get an abortion no matter what the reasoning, whether she was raped, can't afford a child right now, or she doesn't want pregnancy to ruin her beautiful figure. Yes, I understand that people should use contraception, and that if they make the decision to have sex without it, they are ultimately deciding to deal with the consequences of catching a STD/STI or getting pregnant. But people don't always use contraception, and even when they do, they don't use it correctly. All that aside, it is your life and body, and the government should not place such strict limits on what you do with them.
The right to life is a natural and unalienable right, regardless of what you believe. This right should be and is taken away from criminals and other certain individuals, but it is a natural right.
I think that the right to life should include the right to death. Your life belongs to you, and if you make the decision to end it, it should not be viewed as criminal or a weakness. If a person pursues assisted suicide, there should be some counseling beforehand to ensure this person is making the correct decision for themselves.
While I do support euthanasia for chronic pain sufferers, the terminally ill, or those in a vegetative state, I don't think I could just make the call to kill someone with severe autism or any cognitive or physical disability. It's hard to make such judgments for a person that is someone's relative, friend, or client/patient.
Also, what is the reasoning behind not allowing civilians to own and carry guns?
And I diametrically oppose the filtering of media, even if it concerns covering the government's ass. In this country, we are, or at least should be, a part of the government, so every little detail affects us directly or indirectly.
Wow raven, seriously, you are now my favorite and I love you. Can I just copy and paste that for my next response? Please?
Go Raven, go Raven! While I do disagree on the abortion issue, I actually got out of my chair and danced a little jig... Woot woot!
Now now, be nice. After all, Big Papa Zeus might get mad and fry you with a lightning bolt.
The original poster left me with no words, and the need to go for a good hard run and a shower last night when I first read them. I'm glad whatever else she may do, she did not leave others speechless: I personally appreciate everyone's responses. Never have I seen anyone defend the controlling of media, nor the Nazi-style elimination of the disabled in this manner. Of course much of it is all hypothetical to her, but even in the hypothetical there are places I would rather not venture: and I venture into a lot of areas. A perfect opportunity to be overlorded, is what she presents.
way to go, Raven! thank you, thank you, thank you.
Well said, Raven and leo. Those were arguably the best posts on this topic so far.
Yes, margorp, I would. Since I'd be adopting, I would make sure that he was legally a Greek citizen. So even if I had to bring him up in America, he would still need to serve his military time, unless he renounced Hellenic citizenship. I would also teach him about Hellenic culture, from ancient times to the present, so that he would have an idea of why it's so important to protect, defend, and preserve it.
Sword of Sapphire, you said, "... it is ludicrous to sterilize someone regardless of their mental state, ..." So if a severely mentally retarded woman became pregnant, she should have the child, even if she will never be able to take care of him/her, and even if she may not understand what's going on? What if she was raped? I agree with you that everyone has the potential to be discriminated against, and that everyone has some kind of deficiency. But most people don't have to pay through their noses to keep up with everyone else, and are not physically or mentally hampered by their struggles. The overweight person may be able to lose weight through diet and exercise, and the dyslexic could read, but would need to retrain his brain to see the letters properly. Being flat-chested is one of those things, like having pimples, that may cause teasing or discrimination, but no serious hardships, as with a disability, unless she went for surgery. I agree that no one has it easy, but why have a child when you know they'll have it doubly hard? I would say the same thing to a couple who was just struggling to keep food on the table and whose jobs were insecure. Wait until you're more financially stable to have a child, so that you can give more to him/her, not just materially, but in quality time as well.
Granted, Mom is technically my aunt, so there is a biological connection between us. But we're so close that it's ridiculous. We can sense each other's moods even if neither of us says anything. We sometimes finish each other's sentences, and the love that we have for one another is so strong that it's difficult to put into words. My biological mother, on the other hand, couldn't care less about me. She was a heroin addict, who only cared about getting high. Mom didn't want any children, but after she tried to put my twin and I up for adoption, and saw that people only wanted my twin, she kept me and gave him to a friend who couldn't have children. Obviously, I'm not saying that all biological mothers are bad. Some are the most wonderful women in the world. But I don't think you need to physically give birth to a child to have an incredibly deep level of intimacy. It may not be 100% the same, but it can come very close. That said, you're certainly right about medical history. I'm lucky, in that aspect, to know who my biological parents are, so that I can answer important questions that may arrise. Prior to my brother finding our father, I didn't know that, so wasn't sure what was on his side of the family.
I'm not one for synthetics in most cases, as there are far too many side effects. But I know some are needed, as there are no natural equivalents, and some people just prefer them. In a republic, I wouldn't ban hormonal contraception, though I would try to insure that safer products entered the market in general, and that ones which can save lives get onto the market sooner. I wouldn't want to see such contraception banned during a dictatorship, but I accept that it's a strong possibility. Again, I'm very pro choice, and in a republic, as I said, I wouldn't restrict abortions, except partial birth ones. But this is another compromise during military rule. That still doesn't mean I'd like it.
I am very pro death penalty, regardless of the type of government. If you purposefully kill an innocent person, and it can be proven that you did so, you should die. I'm glad that we agree on assisted suicide and the right to die, and especially on euthanasia in certain instances. Most people wouldn't even go that far.
I have never felt comfortable with the idea of civilians carrying guns. Yes, they can be used for self-defence. But they can also be used for murder by a drunk,, by a child, because his parents didn't teach him to stay away from them/didn't lock the guns up (though that would be manslaughter and he shouldn't be punished), or by someone who just wants to go around shooting people for no reason. I know that most gun owners aren't like this, and that most are responsible. But there are other weapons for target practice, hunting, and self-defence. Leave the firearms to the pros.
Normally, I oppose filtering of the media as well. The restrictions only apply to military rule, or to very specific instances involving top secret operations, where people could get killed if they're exposed.
LeoGuardian, I do not support Nazi style elimination of the disabled, nor of anyone else. They killed people who were already living, with all kinds of disabilities, from the mild to the most severe, and their sterilisation methods were horrible! Some of the things I read about them, in general, made my skin crawl, and it takes a lot to do that!
The logic that civilians shouldn't carry a gun because it can be used to murder is complete and utter bullshit! Quick. think of 5 common household items, and I bet I could tell you how they could be used as a weapon. here. i'll do it for you:
1. A knife: Okay. That one's a bit obvious, but you didn't mention outlawing regular kitchen knives, so that could go on this list.
2. A housecoat. You could easily use one of those to strangle someone by twisting it up to form a makeshift rope.
3. A glass caserole dish: Broken glass is quite sharp; at least as sharp as a standard kitchen knife. need I say more?
4. cooking oil: Lubricate a grip or a handhold with this in the right circumstances un an unsuspecting victim, and you could do some serious damage.
5. Lemon juice: Splash that in someone's eye, and, let's just say they'd better hope there's some fresh water nearby.
So, would you like to have all those items banned while you're at it?
Just out of curiosity, would you also support the ilemonation of hormonal drugs used to treat women who've had hysterectomies or are going through menapause, or that are used to treat conditions like indometriosis.
Honestly, I wish the government would get out of health care, altoghther but that's something for another time.
The difference with all of those is that they have real uses which don't involve killing. Firearms are designed for one thing and one thing only, to kill! But I love the lemon juice idea, as it sounds like a cheap and effective means of self-defence!
No. Those things are needed to keep them alive, to regulate their systems, and to prevent pain.
Okay a few things.
1. Um, manslaughter should not be punishable tiff?
2. good points Raven
3. Ocean dream, remind me never to get on your bad side. lol!
Is manslaughter not killing by accident? If not, then I've used the wrong term. Also, remember that we're talking about a child, not a teen or an adult. Maybe, he took the gun out to show his friend and accidentally shot him. He'll be living with that for the rest of his life, and needs counseling, not prison or juvanile hall.
the point you've clearly missed here, that someone stated before, is that people that are severely mentally disabled likely wouldn't be engaging in sexual activities to begin with. many of them don't even know how they're done, nor would they have the ability to understand if someone tried explaining it to them.
another point you so obviously refuse to think about, is this. what if your child didn't wanna have anything to do with greek related things?
one aspect of being a good parent is realizing/accepting that children have their own sense of individuality. and, more often than not, it's likely they won't share similar core views of yours that you want them to have (at least to an extent).
does that mean you should disown them, love them less, or any number of other horrible things? no.
No offence to Greek culture, but forcing an American to be loyal to Greece seems wrong.
Yes, firearms are designed to kill, but they're not always used to kill humans. and also, you mentioned self-defence, which is a very common reason for people to keep a gun, and most don't keep it loaded, or within reaching distance of children. Like anything, yes, you will have some careless dumb asses to deal with, but they can do just as much damage with a lot of seemingly harmless objects, as demonstrated in my previous post.
By the way Tiff, I've noticed something about you: it seems that most of the things you take issue with are due to a situation that could happen, if the sun is shining at a certain angle, and the wind is blowing a certain way with the chimes ringing at a precise pitch and rhythm. figuratively speaking, of course, but most of the things you mentioned are either very minor setbacks, or very unlikely ones.
I agree that most of them don't know. But what if they were taken advantage of, either by praying on their ignorance (hey, let's play this fun game), or by violence? Is it still right to make them give birth?
As for not being interested in Hellenic culture, while it would certainly hurt me terribly, I wouldn't necessarily disown him for it. After all, I come from one culture but love another, so why couldn't he? The only thing I'd say is that either a. he serves his mandatory time in the military or b. he renounces his citizenship. I would draw the line at associating with him if he refused to serve and still wants citizenship. He would be shirking his legal service to the state, and would thereby be showing disrespect and carelessness.
margorp, idealy, I would be raising my child in Greece. So it wouldn't be wrong. But even if he was brought up here, he would still be a member of the diaspora, and shouldn't lose his heritage. Since I would also teach him Hellenic Polytheism (and no, I would not be angry if he changed religions later), that's yet another reason to insure he learned about the history, the language, and so on.
OceanDream, the constant use of guns in mass murders, particularly recently, not to mention in love disputes, gangs, roberies etc. mean that this is not an unlikely event. There is plenty of evidence where guns weren't used for hunting or for self-defence. Why not use other things for those purposes?
The media only wants to deliver the most interesting stories. thus, you're never going to here about Old Man Joe who keeps a gun near his door just in case a bear should happen to start hungrily prowling about his property. that would be boring, and the media would never make any money. robberies and murders are interesting. Horrible, yes, but interesting. they get people worked up. So even if a thousand homes have a gun, you're only going to hear about the two insane psychopaths who decide to shoot up the bank with them.
Tiff, this idea that someone can be forced to give birth is beyond ludicrous. I don't even know how you could ream up such an outlook, let alone articulate it *shrugs*.
no one, regardless of mental state, should be forced to have a child. in cases where a person is severely mentally disabled, considering they probably aren't aware of their actions anyway, as I previously said, someone close to them should make the decision as to what to do.
not you, not the government, but someone who will either be able to raise the child themselves, or who knows that having an abortion would be the best course of action for everyone involved.
but, I'll say this one more time, as much as you'd like to live under this idea that severely mentally handicapped people have sex, I believe you're mistaken.
many of them don't even know how to microwave food, or think about their actions/consequences on a day to day basis, much less longterm ones.
they're very simple minded, and I can assure you, while they may be curious about sex, they don't have the copacity to think things through.
Gun control is a crock. If you take guns away from honest citizens, the people who want to use them for bad things will only find other, illegal ways to obtain them, and keep on using them. I would think the crime rate would then increase, not decrease. the situation may be different in countries where guns are already banned, but that's not to say that there is no such thing as gun crimes in those countries. Certainly, it wouldn't work that way in America, not now that people have been allowed to carry guns for so long. Do you really think the bad guys are going to sit there and say, "oh, we have to play nice now. Our guns are gone. Boo hoo." I don't think so. Then what you would have are a whole bunch of people who can't defend themselves, and a whole bunch of criminals with the upper hand. Is that really what you want to see happen?
Oh, and I agree with Ocean Dream. Just about anything can be used as a weapon. If someone makes you mad enough, you'll grab the nearest thing within reach and swing it at someone, or use a knife, or any number of other things.
But tif, even hypothetically speaking, you would not be allowed to raise a child in Greece. I happen to know that only Greek bloodline is allowed over there.
I wouldn't be raising said child as a single parent. I would be married to a Greek. So I would hope that would make a difference.
as has been said before, just cause you marry into the ethnicity you prefer, doesn't make you one. so, I highly doubt that'd make a difference. if anything, you'd be looked down upon by the true greeks.
You hope this will be enough, which, to me, says you don't know for sure. Correct me if I'm wrong. But hoping is not much to go on.
If we're talking adopting, then I honestly don't know and can't say. My blindness might also create a problem. But I might wind up marrying someone who already has children.
Most disabilities present obstacles that need to be worked around, just as well, most things in life do. Fact is, there are countless factors that influence ones life that can not be changed. Just as one could be teased or shunned because of a disability, they could be shunned for being short in a predominately tall society, or having blond hair and fair complexion in an asian one. As a matter of fact, there are several factors based on physical atributes that tend to decide how much more or less money you make in relation to your peers. Many actually result in rather drastic differences.
Statistically speaking, men and women who are taller tend to make 4 to 9 percent more money than those of average height. those who are shorter are often penalized just as much.
Blond haired women tend to make 9 percent more money than anyone with different hair color. having proportionate looks also earns you more money.... Need I go on?
All this being the case, if you're short, not blond, not very good looking, and display any other factors that seriously could inhibit a child's quality of life, are you then according to tiffs logic better off not having a child, because statistically speaking this child has significant disadvantages that can not be overcome? Remember, the right combination of factors could potentially mean that your child is doomed to make anywhere up to 40 percent less money than those around him or her doing the same amount of work. Considering income hugely effects quality of life, how would you as a parent be willing to doom your child to a life of such object poverty?
Lets suppose your family is in the lowest economic percentiles.
guess what? Statistically, your child is going to stay in the same income group you live in now, because of many factors such as societal perceptions, statistically worse schools in low income demographic areas, statistically worse nutrition and child rearing practices in lower income households (which most often lead to below average intellect/potential in school) and you happen to come from a blood line that displays some or all of these undesirable traits?
By tiffs logic, what the hell are you doing even thinking about having kids?
Because looking at quality of life, they'll be just as disabled as many with moderate disabilities, if not more so. even in non economically challenged environments, your child will most likely never earn what would be considered standard wage, get promoted as often, have as high esteem in their community, thus leading to what could be defined as a lower quality of life.
I'll source articles referencing the effects of impoverishment in a followup post, but here is data relating to physical trates and employment.
http://www.businessinsider.com/if-you-have-any-of-these-20-physical-features-your-pay-check-will-probably-be-higher-2011-2?op=1
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-07-19-bias-usat_x.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/13/us/physical-traits-in-teen-agers-affect-later-income-study-says.html
http://www.top-colleges.com/blog/2011/03/23/how-your-appearance-may-affect-your-success/
http://www.salary.com/7-ways-your-looks-affect-your-pay/
Oh, I remember what I was going to say earlier, but the gun control issue sidetracked me. It concerns unconditional love. You know how you're supposed to leave a partner who's toxic to you? Whether it's because they're abusing you or just because they're emotionally unhealthy and dragging you down, or maybe your goals are too dissimilar, you have the right, and are commended for your strength, when you bail out of those situations, especially when you're being abused. Such relationships usually end bitterly, and the partners hate each other. So, what do you do if your child is physically or emotionally abusing you? It may be uncommon, but there are cases of it happening. Are you just supposed to sit back and take it because they're your child? That's bullshit, in my opinion. Yes, you should try to get them to seek help, and yes, you should do everything you can for them, but there is a line you have to draw. Have any of you ever heard of conduct disorder? If not, basically, it's the precursor to antisocial personality disorder, aka being a psychopath. Kids who have it go around destroying property, abusing others, setting fires, stealing, and having no rmorse at all for their actions. They usually grow up to be murderers, drug users, or at the very least, unable to cope with normal life, so they become homeless. Now, again, this is pretty rare, but how can you love a child like that without destroying your own well-being?
Stormwing, out of all the posts here, your's really made me think the most. In a way, you backed me into a corner, as your sinario was very logical. Personally, I would not choose to have a child if I was at the lowest income level, or even just very poor. But it would have to do far more with what I could provide for him/her when growing up, rather than how he/she would fair later in life. That said, I suppose there does come a time when a couple really wants a child, and realises that they may never get out of poverty themselves. As much as it hurts me to see a child living in those circumstances, I couldn't rightly tell them that they couldn't have one. After all, the colonels themselves were poor, particularly General Pattakos. In one interview, he explained how his family was so hungry that they used to go into the fields and gather potato skins to eat. The first time in his life that he even had a full stomach was in the military, and most people agree that the food there was horrible. And yet, this man managed to rise to the rank of brigadier general, and become a national saviour! Even someone like Markos Vamvakaris, a famous singer, composer, and musician, could make something of himself. Granted, he was never rich, and was actually quite poor when he died. But today, he's world famous, and his sons and wife have enough money to at least have a decent life.
I think the key here is food and education. Provide the poor with money for food, education on nutrition, and let their children receive good general education in schools. Trades and farming also need to be destigmatised, as does manual labour in general. Maybe these people can't be college professors, but there's no reason why they can't find some kinds of jobs. If they really show promise in a given area, then maybe they really can earn scholarships or can be trained as apprentices in various occupations.
Thank you, ShatteredSanity, for pointing out these things. Yes, it's rare, but as you say, how can you continue to love someone like that. Even if the love remains strong, how can you continue to associate with him? People like that tend to be the best liars and manipulaters, and will steal you out of house and home, then try for the shirt on your back.
Exactly, so you need to draw the line.
Domestic goddess pointed out something earlier that I think most certainly applies here. she said she doesn't like everything her son does all the time, but she always loves him. Even in these rare cases, how can you not still love your child? Here's a real life example for you: Now, I'm going to be really vague to protect the parties involved, but the events are real:
An older lady I know, (we'll call her Diann for this story), has a son, (we'll call him Mike). Mike lived at home all through his twenties, feeding his alcohol addiction and playing music. Diann tried to reason with him for years, but it all came to a head one day when Mike stole her credit card and maxed it out to buy booze, which he finished in a single weekend. Something in him snapped, and he checked into rehab. Diann never let him anywhere near her credit card again, but she went to see him daily while he was getting help. When he left, she wouldn't let him move back in, but she helped him get an apartment and a car. before too long, he found a job. he did really well for years, but because of a turn of events, the details of which I still don't know, he relapsed. And this time, it was worse than ever before. he got fired for repeatedly showing up to work drunk, and attempted to murder the man who had him fired. when his father found him, Mike turned the knife on him, too. Last I heard, he was in maximum security prison. Both his parents are deathly afraid of him now, but they both still love him and hope he will somehow get the help he needs. I don't think Mike will ever be able to come near their house again, ever. the worst part of all this is that he actually felt that his actions were justified. Still, his parents have hope for him, and still love him dearly. By the way, if anyone was wondering, the guy he tried to kill survived the ordeal.
Anyway, point is, yes, Mike's parents had to draw some lines, which unfortunately had to include keeping their son away from the home where he grew up. But it wasn't an easy decision for them, and they still find ways to love and protect him anyway.
In the beginning, I thought this was going to turn out well, and was about to say "good for him for changing his ways." But I guess old habits die hard in some people. Stealing is something for which I have no tolerance. You don't steal from me and you certainly don't try to kill me and then expect me to want anything to do with you!
Having never been a parent, I guess I don't understand the bond that forms between parents and children. But please explain to me how it's different for a person not to leave an abusive relationship, claiming unconditional love for their partner, and a parent to allow their child to walk all over them. But, hypothetically, let's assume that Mike's parents felt helpless, that they allowed him to keep stealing from them, and he eventually killed them. This is what truly sickens me about some parents, the way they turn a blind eye to everything their child does and calling that unconditional love. The way the story played out sounds like an example of unconditional love, but I'm trying to understand the difference here, because it seems like the same rules should apply, and hypocrisy in any form is not something I'm fond of. No, that's putting it mildly. I hate hypocrisy with a passion. And no, I'm not calling anyone who shares this particular viewpoint of unconditional love hypocrites, not before getting an answer to this question.
Thank you, ShatteredSanity! That was an excellent comparison and point. Many times, I'll hear about children who are out of control and wonder why their parents don't put stop them. Then, I remember that everyone is into political correctness today, and that they might get arrested for just yelling at their children or threatening to ground them! Mostly, I blame the parents for such things, but society must also take some of the blame. There needs to be a balance between discipline and actual abuse.
I also have no time for women today, who go around with broken arms and bleeding lips and say "but he loves me! He'll change," and then complain the next time they're abused but still stay with their boyfriends/husbands. Battered men are a different story, and I really do feel sorry for them. Many times, they're not taken seriously, and if they try to defend themselves, even by blocking a punch or slap, they're called the abusers. That's not fair.
That's a very interesting comparison between abusive relationships and the unconditional parental love. It's an angle which I haven't really thought much about. Perhaps because my son is only 8 and is a very kind child with a gentle heart, I haven't given it much thought.
There is a big difference between loving someone and allowing them to walk all over you. Of course I mean you in the plural sense.
I know families where that happens, not to the point of physical abuse but rather things like steeling, verbal abuse, lying, etc. It's really quite sickening and painful to watch. On one hand, I have empathy for the parents but on the other I want to tell them to grow some balls and kick the kid to the curb.
Loving my child will never mean that I have to allow him to treat me like crap. Many of the instances I've seen involve kids who are abusing hard drugs or alcohol. I would do everything in my power to help my child so long as it didn't involve enabling his negative behavior or help him avoid the consequences there of. Sometimes love involves tough love, i.e. not letting a drug addicted child who steels, lies, etc, live in the home. Will it mean he'll sleep on the streets? Quite possibly. Will that mean many sleepless nights for a mom worrying about her child? Most likely. However, personally, that would be a sacrifice I would be willing to make to feel safe in my home. I would just have to hope and pray that my child would be safe and hit rock bottom in such a way that he would be able to recover and turn himself around. Would that be painful? Yes, unbelievably so. Again, my son is still young so this is all hypothetical and something I pray I never have to experience. One thing I've learned as a parent is to avoid saying things like, "I would never ..."
Like I said in an earlier post, there are no guarantees in life especially when it comes to emotions like love.
Love and trust are two completely different things. In abusive relationships, there are often psychological issues on the part of the victim, and of course the abuser. There would have to be, wouldn't there? I suppose the same could be said for parents in this situation as well.
There's more I want to say but I'm only on my first cup of coffee so I'll wait until I can form my thoughts more articulately. Besides, I'm certainly no expert on anything; these are just my opinions.
I definitely see where you're coming from. And like you said, loving your children doesn't mean enabling them. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that enabling them would only make things worse.
as has been pointed out here by several posts, loving someone doesn't, by any means, mean enabling bad behavior.
if my child walked all over me, would I tolerate it? no. would I suddenly quit loving him/her due to the choices they've made? absolutely not.
so, while I, like domestic goddess, realize not saying "I'd never" makes sense in most instances, I stand firmly to what I said earlier that there's absolutely nothing that'd cause me to stop loving my child.
there's a difference between not liking things someone does, and no longer loving them. I mean, by the logic of being able to hate one's child when they mistreat me, I'd have to hate plenty of other people in life, since I've been treated shitty more often than not.
and, quite frankly, that isn't the way I choose to live.
I'm also glad Jess presented a real life situation, as stuff like that is more likely to happen than the hypathetical stuff that was presented.
Sometimes we are driven towards hating. Nobody wants to admit that but there it is, smacking you in the face. I don't go to someone who constantly gives me shit and give them a big hug.
I still believe there is a huge difference between refusing to associate, and refusing to love
there absolutely is a huge difference, Jess.
oh, and, to touch on what was said earlier about questioning why people make such a big deal out of creating their own children, it's obvious some can't even imagine the bond that comes with that. I, for one, know there's nothing like it in the world.
And how do you know that?
I certainly wouldn't know since there was never any special relationship or bond what so ever between my birth mother and I.
It's all relative. And I do have to agree with Margorp, how can you know what that bond is like if you've never experienced it? Sure, I've read about it, seen it in action, but you can't say you know what it is until you've actually felt it for yourself. Me, I don't ever plan on having children, due to a variety of factors, and I plan to get my tubes tied in a few years, when I'm of age to do so. It's something I've known I would do for years now.
while I of course can't speak directly from the experience of having children, I know what it's like to be loved by others, and, although I've never experienced parental love, as I've said in other topics countless times before, I've learned what it is, isn't, and should be.
although some say they don't know how to parent, due to how they were brought up, the opposite is true for me.
You say you know how it is, isn't, and should be, but don't you think you are just idealizing?
seeing how other children are raised, talking to parents, in combination with my own experiences/what I take from life as a whole, no, it's not idealism. it's called treating people the way you wanna be treated, and realizing that being raised as I was was wrong in every sense of the word.
I here ya.
I do too. But here's what I take issue with. You honestly do not know how you would react to any given situation with your own flesh and blood until that little bundle of joy is causing trouble. This is just one of the many reasons I decided not to have children myself, because I can talk about all the things my parents did that I wouldn't do to my own child, but at the end of the day, I wouldn't know that until it was too late, and that's not a chance I'm willing to take.
That's one of my reasons for not having kids as well. Let's face it, a kid can cause two people to become verry unhappy in an instant.
I'm not gonna go back and forth with people who are so quick to tell me that I'm A, wrong for feeling as I do, and B, that I can't honestly say I don't know what I'd do till I'm in certain situations. cause, believe it or not, I do know what I consider to be abusive behavior/what isn't right.
so, yes, I can say with absolute certainty that I wouldn't inflict such things on any human being, be they my child, or someone else.
I don't think anyone is saying you would abuse your child. I think we're simply pointing out the fact that you really shouldn't say that you would react such and such a way. It kind of takes away from your credibility if you should come back here a few years down the road once you have a kid of your own and completely go against your convictions. One thing I do know is that a major life change can completely shift your perspective. Even entering a new relationship can make you reevaluate your whole life, your beliefs, and your ideals. So why wouldn't it be the same, if not even more intense, when you find out you're pregnant, let alone once the child is born and you face all the trials and tribulations of parenthood?
I haven't seen chelsea say that she would do anything. I've seen hher say she wouldn't do things. Saying you wouldn't do things is a lot easier than saying you will do things.
For example, I know that I will never send my children off to bed without dinner. I remember my nights as a child lying awake with hunger pains, and finally being forced to try and sneak into the kitchen to get food. I never learned anything except what leftovers taste like when eaten cold and in a hurry. So I'll never do that to my child.
I'll never hit my child across the face, nor will I beat my child with any objects. I know how those things felt because I had them done to me, and so I will never do them to my child.
That is not saying what I will do, its only saying what I won't do. That is what chelsea is doing. The only thing she's said she absolutely would o, is love her children. That, I think we can all agree, is something one can be excused for hoping for.
Exactly. And how other people can think otherwise, I honestly cannot comprehend. It's one thing to lay out your child's complete life schedule before you even decide whether or not to have one, but to say you will never stop loving, and never abuse him/her, is not saying as much as some might think. Also, don't forget that she didn't say she was ready, at this very moment in time, to have a child. Just that if/when she does, she will be ready to fulfill those promises. Given that i, along with others, have expressed that loving your child, and having them as an active part of your life are two different things, and that making the decision not to have your child as an active part of your life is excusable in the worst of situations, can someone please help me better understand how not loving your child is Okay?
thank you, Cody and Jess; I appreciate your help in articulating what I was aiming for, but clearly couldn't. you both hit the nail on the head when you said I've only stated what I wouldn't do, along with the fact I'd always love my children. how that's harmful, I'll never understand.
for the record, I'm smart enough to know, through life experience, in combination with seeing how others have raised their kids/how I was raised myself, that when people are silly enough to talk about what they will do, it usually bites them in the ass.
so, no, contrary to what others seem to think I feel/am conveying, you'll never hear me say how I plan to raise kids.
besides, every kid is different, just as every person is different.
I understand what you are saying but the fact is we really never know what we will do in a certain circumstance until it happens reguardless of what you believe.
Yes we do. I can tell you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if I like a girl, and she says no, I won't rape her. I know that for a fact, because I would never rape a girl. There are absolutely no circumstances under which I would rape someone.
Similarly, there are no circumstances where I would hit a child with a belt, I just wouldn't do it. Its wrong, I abhore the practice. I won't do it.
Its simple to know what you will and will not do in certain circumstances. Its not like knowing what you'd do when someone breaks into your house, will you hide or fight back, that's not knowable. What is knowable is that you wouldn't abuse a child.
Trust me, as someone who has gone through that stuff, its easy as falling off a log to know that you'll never do it to someone else.
As a parent I will say that I fully agree with Cody. My daughter will turn 18 in a few days, and have lived out a childhood where she did not experience many of the things Cody talked about: things I also experienced, and I also said I would not do to my own offspring It happens all the time in life.
Now what is true is that you don't know exactly how you will interpret, or how you will feel, about a situation. You can, however, decide ahead of time that you are not going to respond based on unstable factors like beliefs / religion / feelings / emotions, all of which appeal to our baser selves. To be objective and respond to situations using your mind is what it means to be human.
You know, for instance, that you won't steal from the store when you go in. You don't know how you will react if you go in there and you are desperately hungry after a long day of work and a couple overlooked meals you didn't eat for sake of getting things done. You don't know how strong something may appeal to you at a given time, but because you're human, you can have made up your mind ahead of time that you won't steal from this business even though you are near starved and only have 50 cents in your pocket at the time.
right on, leo and Cody. my thoughts exactly.
Okay cody rape is a pritty extrime example. lol. The truth is, you don't know how far you may be pushed one day. Of course I would never rape but as I said, that one was way out in the eather.
I'm actually in agreement with the three of you here. There are certain things that we may not know. But there are others which are so deeply ingrained in us that we can say, with assurity, that we wouldn't do them.
Right, but we certainly can't knoe everything.
That's what makes us mortal. We all make mistakes. The important thing is that we learn from them.
Its not really that extreme when we're talking about abusing a child. Saying you'd never abuse a child, and saying you'd never rape a girl, or you'd never rob a store aren't really that different.
Ya know? Since I'm one of those who posted about never saying never, I feel this strange urge to clear up and make known the fact that, indeed, there are things which I would never do. lol
I figure yall probably know that but just to go on the record. lol
Margorp, I find it very ironic that you say you'll never know what you'll do in a particular situation until you're in it, then turn around and say you would never rape a girl. Extreme or not, by saying you would never rape a girl, you are supporting the idea that there are some things we have, as leo pointed out, decided ahead of time that we simply will not do.
To be fare, I've never been in a situation where I "had to" rape a woman. That's the difference. However, when the chips are down, you may find yourself doing things that would horrify you upon later reflection. Rape is never one of those things where you say "well, I gotta do what I gotta do."
If everyone agreed with that, we wouldn't have rapists. some people just don't get off to anything else. Mind you, I'm sure they wouldn't honestly intend not to, as much as they might say so, but point is, however unnecessary you might find something, there will always be someone who can't get enough.
It's like that song, "the green grass grows all around all around, oh, the green grass grows all around." lol. That's the world we live in.
But that's just it, I'd never have to abuse my child either, or beat them with a belt, or send them to bed without dinner. Thus, its equally easy for me to claim I won't do those things, as it is for me to say I'd never rape a girl. Its a logical progression.
right on, Cody.
Again, it is not the same thing. You seem to love the straw man arguments.
Sorry, but I disagree. I would rather die or be tortured than to harm my country in any way, or to harm a child or animal. The same goes for allowing someone else to do these things, barring hunting for food and/or humane euthanasia. I really do believe that death is a better option than those things. I could see someone saying "I'll never steal" and then stealing because he's starving to death. But there's no excuse to say "I'll never rape or abuse anyone" and then to do it.
I'm sorry, but this from the person who said they'd strike a child out of fear, or might possibly do that at the very least. Consistency Tif, its a good thing.
Striking a child once is very different from truly harming him, by repeatedly hitting, or using objects, or doing any number of other things. I also never promoted the idea of striking, even once. I just said it may happen. But I'm not going to shove a child against a wall, beat him with a belt, burn him with a cigarette etc. I don't care how angry I get! I'd rather walk away, or if I had to do something physical, I'd bang my own hand on the table or slam the door, so long as I knew he wasn't near it. But I'm not really a physical person, so the most I'd probably do is to yell.
cause yelling isn't bad at all, nor is smacking a child just once, right? nope, they're both perfectly fine, since they wouldn't necessarily be done repeatedly.
Good. I'm glad you finally got it, particularly about yelling, which is a normal human reaction!
Tiff, that was sarcasm; not an honest response. I can't believe you actually thought I was contradicting myself, as you're so famous for doing. try paying attention to the question marks, and the tone of the message next time, if that's possible.
I knew that was sarcasm, and so was my response. I'm just sick of the bullshit of people not understanding and twisting my words.
get used to it; that's life.
since you don't get out much, you wouldn't know that no matter where you go, you'll find some people will appreciate you, and some won't. however, if you were truly confident in what you stood for, it wouldn't bother you as it so obviously does.
for the record, though, we understand your meaning perfectly well. we just aren't gonna treat your views as they're something that should be respected, cause they most certainly aren't, nor are you.
Just because you disagree with me, that's no reason to disrespect me or my views. Maybe, that's something you and the rest will learn as you get older.
It's really a shame that we wound up arguing over one or two points so much that we didn't even get to discuss the rest of the essay.
So, let me ask those of you whom is saying that you never know what you are going to do until you're faced with a situation such as the abuse of a child or the rape of a girl; are you not equip with a sense of morality and thereby has little to no control over your impulses? Are you shirking all responsibilities by saying that it is instincts and not your conscience that guide what you would and wouldn't do in any given situation? If so, you are a scary lot that I wish I will never have the misfortune of meeting!
When I first learned of my pregnancy, I vouch to myself I would never, a. slap a child no matter mine or other's on the hands or across the face. B, give up nursing my baby unless she is ready to wean on her own. And C I will always put her best interests in mind when making any and all decisions even if it means going against the so call society’s norm… - thus far I am faithful to the goals I’ve set no matter the criticisms, and I won’t shift any time soon.
In short, choosing how one would, and would not react to any and all situation is something we owe ourselves and the people who counts on us. Saying and or doing otherwise is wrong!
contrary to your popular belief, original poster, I've learned that valuable lesson quite well. however, as has been stated countless times before, I refuse to give any amount of credit/what you deem as respect to you just cause you think I should. maybe, that's something you'll learn when you get older. oh, wait, you're already close to 30; never mind that thought.
oh, and one more thing. very well said, Kim. I'm glad you, a parent, who shares the views of many of us, had the tits to post your thoughts. it's refreshing, so thank you.
As usual I have a few things to say. First let me address yelling. We've all yelled and been yelled at; that doesn't make it right. Now on to what Chelsae said about not respecting tiff. Isn't it funny how I don't agree with everything she says but I respect her as a person? Hmmmm it's interesting. What good is it to continue to tear people down as you and cody often do?
What good is it to eroniously respect her when she clearly doesn't deserve it?
Just because I have different views than you means that I don't deserve respect? And you talk about my morals? You people make me out to be some monster, out to destroy the world!
you are a monster.
and, guess what? you're actually encouraging us to view you that way, through posting such warped views, demanding respect/civility of us, and expecting that this so called code of morals you supposedly live by be implemented into all of our lives, as you're so sure you know how everyone and everything should be run.
in your mind, everything that doesn't appeal to your so called values needs to be changed, and you have to have an opinion about every single issue in existence. how does that make you a respectable person? answer: it doesn't.
When, in any of my posts, have I said that everyone must follow my code of morals and values? I only asked that people act with civility. I post these essays as opinion pieces and explain myself when challenged on a point. It may appear that I try to persuade others, but that's the whole point of debating. I never said that you *have* to believe or act as I do, nor do I disrespect you for merely disagreeing with me. Everyone has opinions on issues, some more than others.
Yes, but your opinions are cruel inhumane and vile. Why in the world would I grant you respect when you hold such ideals? What have you done to deserve such consideration?
Most Libertarians, particularly the radical ones, believe that all taxes are robbery, and that all safety nets should be abolished. This includes help for the needy, the disabled, children, and the elderly. They also want to see an end to public education and the minimum wage, and don't believe in universal health care. I find these ideas to be selfish, unpatriotic, uncaring, and foolish. But I don't disrespect them as a group, for holding them. I would just never wish to see them in power.
so, the answer to Cody's question, original poster? or, are you gonna continue pretending you didn't see it, cause you don't have a response you know would hold any weight? better yet, perhaps you know he's right, and admitting that would just bruise your ego more than we already are.
Why must I do something to earn a basic level of respect? I'm not asking to be seen as a hero or a great leader, just to be respected as a person.
And who says people automatically get respect? Besides, even if I were to automatically respect you, you've claimed that A. you would strike a child in the face, B. would support the forceful castration of people for things which are not curses and are beyond there control but do not forbid them from living a fulfilled life, and C. would support the killing of people who do not fit into your perfect view of how the world should work, you've lost any automatic respect you may have gotten. So please explain to me why I would respect you in the slightest.
First off margorp, respect is not something you demand. It is earned… you should know that!
Secondly, I don’t give respect to hypocrites! Refer back to Friday night’s conversation if your memory needed refreshing…
Thirdly, and more importantly, if someone express his/her morbid ideas because he/she ultimately believe and adhere to said ideas in everyday live, then darn straight… I wholeheartedly disrespect them with all my being no matter be they stranger, family, friend or foe…!
Tif, am I to understand that you would freely give your respect to these so called radical libertarians even if they are heartless in their beliefs and ideas? – knowing full well that these said ideas and beliefs will come to fruition if these morons assume leadership??? If so, you have more loose screws in your mind then I thought possible!!!!!!!!!!!
another valuable lesson that some of you would do well to learn, is that respect is earned, not given automatically. well said to the last couple posts, as always.
SilverLightning, I've explained, countless times, that striking a child is something that I *might* do and that I do not advocate doing so. I've also said that, if I did, I would be in the wrong. I would only castrate rapists, child molesters, and the like. You're confusing castration with sterilisation, which is not the same thing at all. No one is perfect, nor do I expect anyone to be. I support euthanisation of those who would suffer otherwise, and abortions to prevent suffering. But those whom I would euthanise are not the same as those whom I would abort. I would never support killing someone just because he was blind or in a wheelchair. But I would support an abortion of a fetus that would grow to have these disabilities. That said, unlike sterilisation, except in the most extreme cases (severe mental retardation, vegetative states, etc.) I would never make said abortions or euthanisations mandatory. They would just be strongly encouraged.
I agree that there are certain kinds respect must be earned. I do not give such respect to someone just for being a person. But I am not asking for admiration, trust, etc., just for civility and cordiality. I will not respect Libertarians, in the sense of admire, trust, or support. I wouldn't want to see them in power, and I seriously take issue with their beliefs. But I respect the right for them to hold them, so long as they don't try to force them on me, and I will be civil to them when they're civil to me. Groups or people like The Westboro Baptist Church, in contrast, wouldn't even get a shred of cordiality or civility from me, as they are an abomination.
And you, to me, are equal to the westburro baptists, and so you will get not a shred of respect from me. Since you share this ideal, I assume we will have no more sniveling about how I don't respect you.
Since I brought them up, let me clarify my position here. While I still despise them, I still think they should have the right to voice their opinions in appropriate venues, such as among friends/family, on Facebook, etc. But they should not have the right to, for example, go into gay bars and start harassing the patrons, or to funerals (particularly military ones) and start protesting and causing trouble, or to encourage hateful actions by the public, regardless of where they preach. I don't go to the doors of the homes of the mentally retarded and start preaching that they ought to be euthanised, or to chronic drug users and start yelling that they need to be sterilised. I also don't encourage people to harm one another. If someone doesn't like my views, all they need to do is ignore my posts.
Or you could accept that you are putting your opinions out for the general publics viewing and commenting, and stop whining when you don't get the types of responses you want. You're nearly thirty, you're not a child anymore.
Neither are you. So stop acting like the bully on the playground.
better yet, stop acting like you can't handle your opinions being quashed, when, as has been said, you're the one who constantly puts them out there to be digested by others however they see fit, which, yes, does mean attacked, in case you weren't aware of that fact.
maybe grow a thicker skin, while you're at it. if you consider this bullying, never share your opinions on a public forum again. cause, like it or not, this sort of thing comes with the territory.
The Westboro Baptists? Well, if my brother fell in combat, and they picketed his funeral, I would gladly punch them in the face. They're all extremely loud so there is no fear that the blind would not know precisely where they are. That is my judgment of them, that is definitely not respect. I have family serving in Active Duty and I have also seen Youtube footage of these fools, so. I only wish that the right to free speech of their kind meant the right to receive unmitigated consequences for that speech.
well said Leo.
I don't understand why the OP chose to make an argument designed to pull at peoples emotions, using a small percentage of the population of a group with a viewpoint that can be taken to an extreme to justify her views, and somewhat contradict herself in one blow.
guess what? Any groups viewpoints can and often are taken to extremes. Just because a group has extremists among its ranks doesn't necessarily mean that the extremists are preaching the party/group line. there are extremist christians, Muslims, republicans, democrats, and so on and so forth. I'll bet we can even find extremist Hellenic polytheists.
does that mean they would represent your views?
So, you're stating you support freedom of expression in public places, and as far as i'm aware you haven't previously set a limit to the application or use of this expression.
Thus, by your logic, Dan calling you what he did, and posting publicly about your life and actions should have been treeted with respect and civility, because well, its freedom of expression.
He was just expressing a point.
You didn't agree with him, sure. But by your own code of morals, you shouldn't have told him he should never have been born/wished he lost the ability to type, because while its freedom of expression, you were not acting civilly.
Just food for thought.
lol! gotta love it when people such as the OP keep making attempts at sounding wise and intelligent and increasingly failing miserably.
LeoGuardian, I'm right along with you! You definitely made me smile there. But I think, therein lies the difference. These people actually go out and verbally abuse people and cause traughma to those who have lost loved ones. All I do is post on forum boards.
Stormwing, you're quite right in saying that every group has it's extremists. And yes, I've met a few Hellenic Polytheists in that camp. But as you said, they don't represent all of us. I chose to mention the Westboro Baptists because they're a very good example of an extremist group who actually does things to warrant true hate and disrespect towards them. They don't merely say that they don't like homosexuals, or even that they think it should be illegal to be gay. It's those types of people, not ones who post on forums, who deserve the insults and to be made accountable for their actions. But when someone is sharing an opinion, there is no need to attack the person and divert the conversation so much that it goes way offtopic. We've been arguing so much about me, as a person, and my views on one issue, that we've failed to get through the rest of the essay!
Yes, in a republic, I do support freedom of expression in public places. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with what is said, nor that, when attacked, I must act with civility. Coming out of nowhere and calling someone a cunt, and then going on about her love life, when neither thing is even close to relevant to the discussion at hand, and when you don't even know the person, falls squarely under the realm of attack. This is not a disagreement in a debate, and as such, I have every right to either defend myself in an intellectual manner, or to go on the defensive. Granted, I admit now, and also said then, that I may have gone a bit overboard. But I was essentially given a verbal slap in the face, with no rime or reason, by a total stranger! Perhaps, I should modify my beliefs about freedom of speech, even in a republic, so that they can include a prohibition on trolling.
I know verry well that respect is earned and I think the op has earned it. I never saw where she personally attacked any of you. I disagree with her on many points but I respectfully disagree. Do you see what I am getting at or must I begin despensing with the happy meal toys?
Lest someone confuse my meanings, yet again, I will stress that my call for civility related to debating and towards general opinions. It does not apply to attacks. If someone says hello to me in the street, I'll naturally say hello back. If they start up a friendly conversation, I'll probably either indulge them for a little while, or if I can't, explain that I'm a bit busy at the moment. But if someone comes up to me and starts shouting and calling me names, or punches me, I'm not going to say hello and start talking about the weather! I thought this was common sense!
Yes, margorp, and after the toys have been put away, perhaps you can define, very slowly and carefully, what you meant by inserting the word "respectfully" in front of the word "disagree". *smile*
Stop demanding respect you whiny, no good piece of shit.
As Cody has stated on your "Acting with Civility" thread, and probably on this one as well, your ideas are all that you are here online. I disrespect your ideas, and so I disrespect you. You believe in things that I find are insensitive, nonsensical, outlandish, not consistent with the preservation of humanity or unalienable rights, and evil. You support taking away people's reproductive rights, killing off people who aren't firing on all four cylinders (mentally or physically), you lay down grounds on which you would completely disown your own hypothetical child, and also you are racist. Evil! Evil! Evil! Evil! You deserve no respect, so stop demanding it, because you won't get it. On one thread, you said you believe everyone should have full rights, I asked you what you meant by that, so you turned around and talk about how people in various states of mind or with various disabilities should have rights taken away from them! What the hell? I had respect for you up until you posted your views on this thread. I already thought you nuts for claiming to be Greek, though no part of you is Greek at all. It's like instead of Gender Identity Disorder, you have National Identity Disorder, except your NID makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. But I still had respect for you, and I could still respect your views expressed on your "General Political Views" thread. But then you painted a clearer picture of your beliefs, and now I see you for the monster you really are, and I thank God that you decided not to reproduce. Hopefully, no poor orphan/s will be subject to being brainwashed by you--please, don't adopt.
Thank you for demonstrating both civility and a lack of it in one post! "Stop demanding respect you whiny, no good piece of shit." Not civil. "I disrespect your ideas, and so I disrespect you. You believe in things that I find are insensitive, nonsensical, outlandish, not consistent with the preservation of humanity or unalienable rights, and evil." Strongly disagreeing but still civil. Now do we understand, boys and girls?
You asked me about full rights, so I explained what I meant, and posted this essay as a further explanation of my views. I also explained that the only time I have ever claimed to be Greek was when I believed that I had Hellenic blood. I have not done so since learning this wasn't true. Claiming to be a Hellenic patriot and nationalist is not the same thing as claiming to have the blood or citizenship. I won't say that it makes sense, but I did try my best to explain it in a thread called "My Greekness: How it Began". I admit it's strange, but it's also genuinely felt, as are my other views. How could you see me one way after reading my General Political Views ess and completely differently after reading this one? I said many of the same things there that I did here. But here, I focussed more on rights, whereas there, I discussed several issues, including style of government.
I hate to say this, but you might do well to accept the fact that these people obviously aren't going to change their minds about you, no matter what you say, and in fact, they're probably going to ridicule you more so the more you try to ask for their respect. I agree with you on most counts as far as respect is concerned. No, respect isn't given freely, especially on forums. The way I see it, which I think I stated on your thread on civility, is that your online presence and your real life presence should be split right down the middle. Not because you're a different person online than you are in real life, but because there has to be that part of you who would care if people treated you this way in a real, face-to-face debate, and the part of you that sees that there's a difference when it comes to online conversations. Sure, the same rules still apply, the same dialogue may still be exchanged, but there has to come a time when you say, "you know what, fuck this. It doesn't matter one way or the other if these people think I'm a monster." The only time I could see it becoming a problem is if you happened to meet one of them on the street, or showed up to a job and suddenly realized they were going to be working at your side. But take some advice from someone who's been there, someone who's expressed more than her fair share of unpopular viewpoints, both online and off: separate the two, and you'll be a lot happier for it. I'm not saying that some of these responses are right, or justified, because I don't believe they are for a second. But you're in the comfort of your own home, and they're in the comfort of theirs, so take that as something, at least.
Still, no one has answered the question I asked in post 166. Answer that and we can move on and stop throwing the same arguments back and forth.
It does no good to erroneously respect her or her views when no respect is deserved. It benefits no one, and it achieves nothing.
OP, in your "General Political Views" thread, you vaguely mentioned some of the same things you discussed in this essay as far as rights go. You said you believed that severely disabled infants should be euthanized. You also said you support full rights for the functionally disabled, including those who are physically ill but mentally competent, which is contrary to some points you've made in your essay on this thread. Because on here, you basically said functionally disabled individuals have no rights to life or reproduction. Full rights, my ass!
In the other thread, you said nothing about people being sterilized if they have a disability/s that could be inherited by any biological children. You didn't deem genetically passing on a disability as a crime. You also said nothing about hitting or disowning a child, or the interbreeding of races.
Thank you Sword of Sapphire for stating what you said in posts 191 and 195. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Raven, I don't believe the op ever demanded respect, just that you act civelized. I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.
I've been thinking, ShatteredSanity, and I believe you're right. Colonel Papadopoulos survived an assassination attempt, and lived for 31 more years. All three of our saviours were called all sorts of names, and one is still living, at soon-to-be 101, while many who talked against him are not. So why should I give a damn what people say about me? In the end, I'll still be standing and my opponents will go find someone else with whom they can start trouble. I know that I'm right, and nothing these people can say will change that. Even if it could, due to the way in which they present their arguments, their points will most likely be lost in all the attacks. So my new policy, though I admit that it will be difficult to follow, is to ignore anything which comes from them, unless it's relevant to the topic and presented in a civil manner. Hopefully, this will lead to more productive discussions in the future. Now where is the like button for your wonderful post!
Sword of Sapphire, thank you for pointing out the differences between the two essays. I know that I wrote them, but looking over both many times in the last month sort of jumbled them in my mind. I suppose that I did contradict myself a bit with the functionally disabled. I think it's because I'm, if not on the fence, then at least leaning against it there. In the case of those with minor to moderate disabilities, I have no problems with the state paying for adaptive technology, rehabilitation and job training etc. But when someone can't take care of himself in the most basic manner, and needs constant supervision, it becomes a bit of a problem. On the one hand, this has now become a serious to severe physical disability. On the other, the person's mental capacity is still intact. So what should happen then? You can't just leave him out in the street if he has no means of paying for help, which he obviously needs. But what if he can never work, or can't work again? I suppose that, so long as he can communicate in some fashion, he can still do something, even if it's just sharing his thoughts and bringing happiness to others. So I would probably agree to giving him state assistance. It's those who can't do anything at all, and who have no idea who/where they are, whom I would euthanise or on whom I wouldn't agree to spend state money. The ones who ought to be sterilised are those who will have children with severe disabilities. I would recommend (not force) abortion in other cases, and if it was clear that all future children of this person would be the same, would recommend (again, not force) sterilisation. Mostly, it's about mental competence, as many physical disabilities can be overcome.
Ok, I'll rephrase my question for clarity. Why should I be civil to someone whom I think is vile and abhorrant? Why would I treat anyone who supports the things outlined in this thread with anything approaching civility? What reason do I possibly have for doing that?
I'll point this out again, since it doesn't seem to be having any effect. I don't start out cursing you. I don't immediately call you anything. If you write a post, I reply to it. Its only then that the debate gets heated. Most, in the case of this poster, because A. her opinions are a mixture of idiocy and evil which both bewilders and sickens me, and B. because she can't even keep her opinions straight when she has them, or resist the temptation to go back on them with practically every new post she makes, and C. because instead of looking through the responses, even the nice ones, and finding what is right and what is wrong and modifying her opinion, or supporting her opinion with evidence, (preferably something that doesn't involve greece, but I gave that hope up a long time ago), she insists on spending all of her posts talking about how she isn't getting the respect she arbitrarily believes she deserves. She, nor anyone else who sides with her, can even tell me why she deserves the respect in the first place. Just because she's a person I should treat her like every other person? But she isn't every other person, she's her, and her opinions are enough to make one sick to one's stomach. I ask again, why in the world would I respect that?
Yes, I grant you, she is a person, and there is a popular notion that all people deserve some respect simply because they exist; that you should allow them to have their opinions simply because they exist. However, this begs the question of what point constitutes the end of that, and the beginning of a rational response to the argument? At what point do we, as rational human beings who, I hope, don't buy in to her homocidal, infanticidal and genicidal opinions say enough is enough, you are dangerous? For me, she has o'er leaped that step with all the agility of a deer. The opinions expressed and defended in this thread are horrifying, and as I've said repeatedly, vile, inhumane, cruel, and absolutely abhorrant to me. So why would I treat them with the equal dignity that I would treat the opinion that evolution is sound science, or killing for personal gain is wrong, or any of the other commonly held opinions which we can all agree are good?
Moreover, why do those who say I should respect her not draw a line in the sand? Why are you not saying that her opinions are what they are, and should not be allowed to go unchecked? What reason can you possibly bring to bear to defend your stance of apathy? Why do you not have the courage to stand up and say that her opinions are wrong, and you will not let them go unchallenged?
True,, this is only a forum, it isn't like she is standing on a stage, preaching this murderous doctrine as a gospil, but what if she decides to adopt a child? What would you think if you found out she had a child, and was teaching it to believe all of her bloodthirsty claptrap? How would you then defend your stance that she is entitled to her opinion? How could you honestly look yourself in the face and say that you did all in your power to rid the world of the small evil that you were exposed to?
Despite the fact that this is a small evil, the saying is still appropriate. All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Why is it, that when you are faced with open and honest evil of such a proportion that it seems nearly unbelievable that it could be the honest truth, are you choosing to do nothing? Why do you not even raise a single word in protest? Honestly, what sort of men are you that can view such undisguised malice, and not even bat a troubled eyelash. Rather, you stand up and vehemently defend its right to exist.
The moral depravity inherent in that small fact, that you refuse to stand up and declare a wrong when you see one, saddens me beyond my powers of description. I hope, that when faced with an evil which actuallly does directly impact your life, you respond with more courage, more vigor, more conviction, and more decency than you have displayed hhere. I hope you have the fortitude to face an evil such as the one described in these posts, and forbid it to intimidate you. I hope that you find the capacity to destroy whatever evil you come across, whether great or small.
For myself, I swore once, and I will swear it again, the opinions outlined in these essays are absolutely and undeniably evil, and I will do anything I can to stamp it out, and whatever ideals are brought to bear to defend it.
original poster, taking the easy way out cause you aren't getting responses you've hoped for, is beyond pathetic. no one here has gotten off topic. it's you, and only you who have wined repeatedly cause most of us aren't saying, "ok, well, we respect that you believe what you believe. now, let's move on, and see what goodness is likely still in you".
I know it's hard for you to understand that most people in the world don't have the tits to tell you what a disgrace you are to humankind, and that you think when someone supports your idealistic views, or mommy says something is true, you should automatically trust it to the level you do with the oh so loving gods you claim to worship.
Normally, I would agree that people should be respectful and civil toward one another's beliefs. But, original poster, as has been pointed out countless times, you hold some of the most disgusting, vile and evil views I've ever heard of. I do not support, and have no respect for racists of any kind, I cannot support or respect the possibility that someone might emotionally/physically abuse their child due to feelings of anger or fear, having suffered that kind of abuse and knowing how damaging it is. I cannot respect someone who advocates the killing or forced sterilization for people who happen to have disabilities but can still lead productive lives and contribute to society. I could go on and on, but you get my point.
Oh, and, why are you trying to make yourself seem any better than the westboro baptists, when you clearly hold views that are just as despicable and sickening as their's?
It's fine to condemn someone's views. I never said it wasn't. But because she is indeed a person she at least deserves us to give her the benifit of the doubt. If she adopts a child and teaches him or her such things, what could happen? I wouldn't vote for them if they were to go into politics or anything but outside of that, I will remain apethetic. It is not my job, cody, to rid the world of all of this so called evil. I firmly disagree with much of what tif says but I don't think she is harming anyone. She is posting to a message board. That's all it is;no need to get dramatic.
No, I do not go back on my opinions with every post. It is true that I have modified some of them, but that's because important points were raised which made me think. This is what's supposed to happen in a debate. If I stubbornly clung to my original views, without even acknowledging the valid points of others, what would be the point in debating at all? I haven't changed them so drastically that I've become a hypocrite, despite what some here may think. If I did adopt a child, what do you honestly think I would teach him, to go out and murder people? If so, then you've completely misread everything that I've written here. I would teach him honesty, patriotism, honour, selflessness, discipline, and other morals. He might not even agree with me on the other things. Would I mention them to him as he got older, as a conversation? Sure. Would I try to force him to believe them? Absolutely not.
happy heart, If people would have stuck to just disagreeing with my views, there wouldn't be a problem here. In any case, I do hope we can move on, if not in this thread, then in others. If those who are so opposed to me that they think I'm a monster do not wish to debate them, that's fine. Maybe others, who will stick to the issues at hand, will do so, and it will end up being a decent debate.
TechnologyUser2012, a single smack wile wrong, is still not abuse. I also explained clearly, in the last post, that I would not advocate the forced sterilisation of those with disabilities who can still lead productive lives. I would only do so in extreme situations.The only possible exception to that would be those who are chronic drug/alcohol users, who refuse to seek treatment, as these things can lead to many problems in a child's life, from biological to emotional.
Thank you, margorp. I feel the same way. What is the point of stamping out evil when you can't see it? More to the point, wouldn't it be more productive to at least do that to people who you actually know? I understand that you're expressing your opinions, and I don't think anyone is saying you should back down from your stance just because some of us don't like it. It just seems like a complete waste of energy to continually beat your head against a wall when you know that neither side is going to back down.
And again I must ask, why is she immediately entitled to this consideration you continuously elude to? You keep saying it, but you never say why. Can you answer it this time?
I'll try, but I can't promise you're going to agree with it. Mostly, it's because of what I said a few posts back about separating your online identity from your real life one. While I certainly believe that she holds the same views in real life as she does on here, and is not simply posting this stuff to get a rise out of people, I think you should step back and realize that as much as you try to play hardball, you're never going to change her view on these things. Even if she recanted every single statement she made, and apologized profusely for each and every abhorrent thing she said, how would you know it was a sincere apology? How do you know that she isn't just trying to make amends, or put herself in a better life so that future discussions on this site might go better? On the flip side of the coin, what if she did adopt a child? Do you think she would shout it from the rooftops, hypothetically speaking, on this forum? I think not, given the responses she's gotten. So how would you even know? Frankly, how you can get so worked up over online conversations baffles me. I know you said in the civility topic that you don't, and while your explanation there was reasonable enough, it really didn't answer the heart of the matter, which is how repeatedly calling someone evil is going to make anyone change. Sure, that sort of tactic might work on an impressionable child who's still being conditioned, but none of us are children here. So why are we resorting to trying to break each other down when it's fruitless?
But that doesn't explain why I should automatically give her respect for her opinions. Just because you view it as pointless, doesn't A. make it so, or B. mean we shouldn't do it.
It might, at the very most explain why we shouldn't belittle her beliefs, or call her evil, or any of the other things I've done. However, not belittling is not the same thing as respecting. Just as jumping is not the opposite of lying down. Not lying down is the opposite of lying down. If you say, "I didn't lie down", it does not autommatically mean you jumped.
So even if I were to believe you that it is pointless and we should all just get along because no one listens to anyone else on here or whatever, which I don't, you still haven't answered the question of why we should give her any respect or civility. All you've done is expressed your opinion as to why we shouldn't belittle her.
Cody, you are starting to sound like a damn parot. Lol. Squack, I shouldn't have to respect you, squack! Is this how you deal with people in real life? You start out not respecting them until they show you that they are worthy. Oh, your magisty, I humble myself at your feet!
I guess what it comes down to is that everyone handles their online presence differently. Some people take it more seriously than others. I don't talk to people online, because for me it's hard to know how much of what the person is saying is real. So, I guess it's easier for me to respect someone, even if I strongly disagree with their views, because I don't know them and have no idea how they conduct themselves in their day to day life. I realize that most people disagree with this, and think of meeting people online as just another venue, but I could never wrap my mind around that concept. True, you can meet someone anywhere and have them turn out to be someone completely different than you thought they were, but there's a greater risk of that happening on the internet, and it's not something I feel comfortable doing. That's why I don't talk to people personally on the zone, or any other site. It's too disorienting for me.
You keep saying "How they act in real life", but then you basically say "this isn't real life". I'm not worried about how she acts in real life, I've never seen it. All I know is how she acts here, which is what she puts up to be viewed by others. Those things are the opinions, and my opinion of those has been made perfectly clear.
However, jjust to address the point, what does it matter how she acts in real life? She could be a nurse at a nursing home that volunteers her free time at soup kitchens and orphanages while donating blood and rescuing stray puppies, it doesn't change that she has terrible ideas of what is right and what is wrong. Just because you act nice, doesn't actually make you nice. Take mother teresa for example. People think she's nice, but if you look closely, you realize she's really evil. I'm sure she's a very sweet person, or was when she was alive, but if I had my choice of going to her for treatment of a disease, and a blind witch doctor, I'd take the blind witch doctor.
However, you still haven't answered the question. Can you answer the question?
This is really starting to make me laugh? lol! Okay I'll answer it. Respecting until people give you a reason not to is an extention of innoscent until proven guilty. That is the code I personally live by. If you don't, that's your choice.
For the record, I am the same online as off. I don't believe in personas. Certainly, there are times when I'm more reserved or share my opinion more, as the case may be. But that's just part of proper conduct. I also think that a person's actual deeds do matter. Someone could have the craziest appearance or beliefs in the world. But if they go around helping people, it should still count for something. Now if they then go and start killing people and trying to take over the world, that's different.
I agree with you, Margorp. I couldn't have said it better.
The whole idea of whether or not someone acts different online is a moot point. What I'm trying to say is that you should be more willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt simply because this is an online conversation, and it doesn't affect your life one way or the other.
I still fail to see how this discussion should be treated differently simply cause it's online. given that most of those who are outspoken like myself are the same way one way or the other, and feel that more people should be so, that's a lame excuse.
and, no, treating everyone with respect, or being innocent till proven guilty, as some of you call it, isn't the right way to act. respect is earned cause one has proven him or herself worthy, not cause he or she's a human being with feelings that deserve to be taken into consideration based on that little fact alone.
Ok, you've allowed me to not think the same way you do, and I've chosen to take it. Are we done with this pointless bickering? I'll keep telling the poster she's wrong and evil and crule ETC. and you just keep sitting there doing nothing but harping on the people who have the courage to tell someone they're wrong despite all your arbitrary and baseless social restrictions. Sound like a deal to you?
Yes, actually, it does, because this isn't going to affect how I feel about myself. it won't affect how I live my life, and it won't affect how you live yours.
Agreed. I'll take that deal. The end.
you just don't get it do you. I've had my reproductive choices made for me on 3 separate occasions none of which were of my own choosing. The first time I was knocked around by a member of my own family. The second time she was premature and probably wouldn't have made it without the best medical care to be had, I still would have loved her even though due to the prematurity in all likelyhood she would have been severely disabled, and the third time was under what I consider to be some very odd and disturbing circumstances. Oh and by the way I'm blind and don't consider myself to be an unfit parent if given the chance to try again. So how dare you try to say that just because we're disabled doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to have children. I would give anything to turn back the clock and undo the pain and loss because of people who directly or indirectly decided for me that I would suffer two early miscarriages and a premature birth, just to proof the point that I'm not allowed to have a child because I'm blind. Oh and while I'm at it, why don't you go find a family who has a child with one of the leukodystrophies and tell them they should kill there child because he or she is going to be severely disabled and in pain. Go on and do that and see what happens. Yes there children may be unable to move or talk or eat without the use of a feeding tube but they are still people who deserve to have the choice to live out there lives for however long it takes for the disease e.g adrenoleukodystrophy to killl them. who are you to say that its not okay for them to live just because they can't speak and have no voice.
I think this is what most people fail to realise when they jump to conclusions about my views. Say that a severely disabled person grows up in a loving family. He gets all the love and attention he needs, all the care that his parents can afford etc. What happens to him when they die? Who will take care of him in the same loving way as they did? And if he can understand a little, what will he think? "Mommy and Daddy went away. Why? What did I do wrong? I'll be good if they come back." How do you explain to him that they're not coming back, but that it's not his fault? What if he ends up in a group home or other place and is abused? What if, even when his parents are alive, they literally can't afford to take care of him, even though they may wish to do so? Now the financial burden falls on the tax payers. It isn't as if this person can ever contribute to society. Many of us blind people don't work. But in most cases, it's not because we are unable to do so.
I'm not against mildly to moderately disabled people having children as a hard and fast rule, provided that there's an able-bodied person in the couple ,or that the disability is light enough not to have an effect on parenting, and if it's moderate, that the child will not inherit the disability. Certainly, a blind person can make a good parent. But there are some times in a child's life when having a sighted individual around is helpful, or better for safety reasons.
Keeping a child alive who is in constant pain, who can't express himself, who can't move, or talk, or do anything, is downright cruel. We wouldn't consider doing that to animals. Why is it any better to do that to children?
What disability is there that's so slight that it does not affect the way a person would raise their child? Correct me if I'm wrong, but unless the disability has been corrected, I would say that there isn't one.
Also, just because a person has a mild disability does not mean that one or more of their children will not inherit the same disability with more severity.
And there are blind single parents and blind couples who raise children, without the constant aid or presence of a sighted individual. These things are not impossible, and perhaps not as difficult as you imagine.
Raising a child, whether you're disabled or not, has its difficulties and hardships, and I feel that every parent/couple faces their own challenges with child-rearing. Simply removing the factor of a disabled parent does not mean a child will have a smooth-sailing childhood. Trust me, I was raised by two perfectly sighted, able-bodied people and they still fucked up at parenting. If you'd like to create the ideal parent, it would take more than an able-bodied person/s.
very well said, Raven. my thoughts, exactly.
I suppose if you want to split hairs, every disability can effect parenting. But mostly, things like dyslexia, limping, having four fingers on one hand, having a mild speech impediment, and other such inconveniences aren't major game changers, and some can be corrected or at least lessened. I never thought about a mild disability becoming more severe in children who inherit it. But I still don't think this means people who have them should automatically not have children, unless it can be proven that the disability will be enhanced to the point that it would drastically altar the child's quality of life.
Certainly, all couples do have their own problems when raising children, and no, being able-bodied isn't a guarantee against bad parenting. If that's how I came across, I apologise. I merely think that it helps in many situations. Say my son wanted to put his hands on the stove. I would be able to see him, take him away from there, and explain to him that he shouldn't touch it because it can get really hot and hurt him. If he's too young to understand, then I can at least lead him to safety and get him engaged in playing with a toy.
And you're so helpless a blind person that you can't think of ways to prevent a child from doing that without seeing them? Like maybe, don't let your son go into the kitchen when he's too young to know not to touch the stove? Maybe not leaving the room if you can avoid it while the stove is on, in conjunction with the first one? That was just from about thirty seconds of brainstorming. I'm almost surprised these didn't occur to you.
Really, if you can't think of these simple fixes for little problems like this, no wonder you think blindness is a life ending disability. Lord, now that I think back on it, you don't go to the store on your own, still cling to completely outdated technology, and a vast array of other things. Its no wonder you think blind people can't raise children, you can't raise yourself to live in the world we have today.
So let me do you a service, cuz I'm really a nice guy at heart. Life sucks, for everyone. Does it suck a bit more for us, sure, but not that much if you're willing to fight a little bit and be clever. Hell, the IPhone has fixed dozens of problems we had just three years ago. Same with computers that didn't go up in the apollo missions. Maybe try getting your own life up to snuff and you'll realize its possible to raise children as a blind person. Then maybe you won't have sickeningly twisted morals and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
God I love problem solving.
I am right there with you when you suggest that if suffering animals are put down, suffering people should as well. However, I think we should give them a chance. If a child ends up in a group home he may get abused, certainly. He also may not. And to suggest that anyone can be classified as a burdin to others did kind of shake me up. Maybe I read your argument wrong?
Oh wow.
Ok, I'm taking some deep breaths here and will try not to be a bitch with my comments.
As one half of a couple who is almost totally blind and totally blind, raising a sighted son who is all boy in every since of the word, I take great offense at the notion that blind couples can't keep our children safe.
I would venture to guess that in some aspects, my son was kept out of more dangers because of our blindness. We new that there would be situations such as the stove thing you mentioned, kiddos getting into everything they can reach, etc.
Before my son even began to crawl, our house was baby proofed to extreme. No chemicals were ever placed anywhere where he could ever get to them. Baby gates were installed. Outlets were covered. Doors and windows had audible alarms. Hell, even the lid to our trash can had an audible alarm. Anything within his reach was stuff that would be safe for him to contact. About the worst disaster we ever had was when he fed one of my husbands drum sticks to the VCR. lol
Well, ok there was the time when he opened the fridge and painted the carpet and some of his toys with BBQ sauce. That was a fun one. lol We did have a couple of funny things like that happen but certainly nothing life threatening.
Could something life-threatening happen to a child while in the care of someone who is blind? Sure. Does a sighted caregiver guarantee safety for a child? Absolutely not. If that were the case, emergency rooms in children's hospitals would be much less busy.
Are there difficulties we face in raising our son that aren't like those faced by sighted parents? Sure. That's just life. The deal is though, we come up with ways around those challenges. Right now our biggest challenge is arranging transportation to all the the things our son wants to do. In addition to his karate lessons, I'm paying a driver $80 per month. He dropped out of Cub Scouts because of transportation. If I drove, it wouldn't be a problem but I don't. Ya know what? When I was a kid, I didn't get to do everything I wanted to either because of finances, or having a mom who had to work, etc. Life isn't fair. It isn't perfect. And there sure as hell aren't any guarantees.
I could go on for hours and hours here but I know I'm not going to change anyone's opinion but I just couldn't stay quiet on this one. I'll be damned before I stand by and watch someone criticize a person who is blind for wanting to be a parent, or hell, for wanting to live at all if the OP had her way.
in her eyes, margorp, yes, I'm sure she'd classify anyone she sees fit as a burden. it's likely she views herself that way. considering she rarely does anything for herself, much less get out on her own, I'm sure that's the case.
Sounds far fetched. If she indeed viewed herself as a burdin she would have killed herself a long time ago as she has mentioned suicide in previous board topics as the honorable way out. Again, I could have missread that as well. Wow, I'm confused!
I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying it's easier to have sight. I would do the same for a puppy, by shutting the door to the sittingroom when I was cooking, just to make sure he/she stayed safe. I admit that my mobility isn't the best, and it's something that I need to work on in order to be more independent, though to be honest, many stores now deliver. But why should it matter what technology I use? Does it make me helpless if my stove and microwave have dials on them instead of touchcreens?
margorp, thank you for at least giving me the benefit of the doubt. Even if they're not abused, what can they honestly do? Can they do crafts, or write, or have meaningful conversations, or help out around the home, etc? What about those who literally just sit around all day, who have no clue who they are, what's around them, etc? Why keep them alive? What's the point? And yes, i did mean that these are burdens, at least in the financial sense. But to be fair, keeping them alive does give jobs to their caretakers.. But is it really fair to them?
Domestic Goddess, thank you for your well-thought-out response. You've certainly given me a lot to ponder. i still wouldn't do it as a blind single parent myself, but it definitely seems as if you took all the precautions you could, and some of them probably were, in fact, better than what sighted parents would have done. Driving is another thing that I didn't consider, but it can be a hassle when you're in need of something and either have to wait for someone to bring you, pay large fees for a cab, or spend forever on public transport when the place isn't even that far from you, but say, can't be walked to due to there being a highway there etc. Still, there are sighted people who don't drive, and they manage. Mom is one of them, but she almost always has someone to take her places. I stress again that I would not support euthanasia of people just because they're blind. Once you're born, only a severe mental, or les frequently, physical illness could make me agree to that.
No, I do not see myself as a burden, as I'm mentally competent and physically able. I like to do as much as I can independently so Mom doesn't have to stop and do whatever for me. But if she's making dinner for the family and asks me if I want to bring some up for myself, I won't refuse. But when she's busy, I can cook for myself, or even pop something in the microwave. The only thing that bothers me is having to bring my clothing down to be washed. Hopefully, that will be resolved soon. No, margorp, you didn't misread my views on suicide. If I was in extreme pain, with no hope of a cure, or was rapidly losing my mental capacity, or became severely paralised, I would end my own life, for the sake of myself as well as my family.
No, it doesn't matter that your stove and microwave has dials on them. It matters that you refuse to update the technology that would make your life so much easier. Just browse back through the posts you've made on here and you'll see questions about problems that were overcome by the average blind person a long time ago. And you're not an eleven year old blind kid, or a recently blind person who doesn't know the solutions. You just don't want to use them for some unfathomable reason. But that is your choice.
What is not your choice, is who and who cannot have a baby. While you do not support the killing of blind people in your original post, you do support castrating them, whether chemically or physically. This is where the whole sick and twisted morals thing I mentioned came from. I'm sure you remember me mentioning that.
Oh, and as for being confused, I don't even think the poster knows what she thinks, let alone us. Its ok to be confused.
Many of these solutions cost a lot of money. Granted, not as much as some of the blind tech, but still a lot. They also have a learning curve to them. I prefer things that make sense, not things that are unnecessarily complicated. Why should I have to deal with a touchscreen when I have a perfectly usable computer with a normal keyboard?
I most certainly do not support castrating blind people. The only people I would ever castrate are rapists, child molesters, and the like. Sterilisation is not the same as castration.
News flash: Everything comes with a learning curve. As Cody pointed out, it's your choice if you'd rather not deal with that. But choosing the easy way out because you're scared, or just lazy, or whatever you are, has nothing to do with blindness, or any disability, or even inconvenience, since lots of things would become more convenient once you've overcome the learning stage.
What's the point of keeping them alive? Hmmm I'm not sure. Ask yourself what is the point of beeing alive in general. Are these home bodys bothering anybody by living? Are they properly cared for? Finally, are they happy?
right. But she can't honestly answer those three questions for anyone but herself.
Let's give her a chance...
My first thought, as a nationalist, is for the nation. Do these people receive government money? As I've said, I do believe that the needy, the elderly, and the disabled should receive assistance. The elderly have already worked and earned it. The needy are just looking for a temporary solution until they can get back to work or find something better. The disabled can fall into two categories. Those who are naturally disabled, and those who develop a disability later in life, perhaps due to an accident at work etc. I have no problems with these. But those who, from birth or an early age, are so severely disabled that they can't work, leave me to wonder. Is it worth it? In some cases, yes, particularly if they can do other things. In others, no. In the case of the severely mentally disabled, it seems to me that the money used to care for them can be spent on helping the more capable. So instead of cutting back on vocational counselors for the blind, or on adaptive technology, these things can be given more funding. And don't think that I believe I should get everything either. If, for whatever reason, I wanted JFW, and someone in a wheelchair needed a lift to be able to reach the second floor of her house, I would hope that the money went to her. I could always use NVDA. She can't just get out of her chair and walk up the stairs. Now if I was working and needed JFW for my job, it would become more difficult, as I'm trying to support myself, so would need the software, though not to help me actually live and do daily tasks.
On a less political level, life is about growing, learning, experiencing, sharing, and feeling the normal human emotions that come with all of the aforementioned. So even if, let's say, a person's family was filthy rich, and he never received any help from the government, If he couldn't do these things, especially if he could never learn anything, what kind of life would he lead? I suppose, if he was happy not knowing anything and just lying in bed all day, so long as his family or charity took care of him, I wouldn't mind, but they'd need to do so to the best of their ability. Keeping him alive only to abuse him or to make him suffer, to me at least, is a tragedy.
Okay, but it sounds like you are in favor of the government deciding who lives and who dies. This just bothers me on a verry primal level. Realisticly, so many people would be put to death under your belief.
Just to give some historical context here. There was a government who decided who lived and who died. It was in that little country in central Europe in the 1930's and the first half of the 1940's. Oh if I could only remember what that country was called... wait don't tell me... oh yeah, nazi germany.
Come on, let's everybody sing! All we are saying, is give genocide a chance! LOL!
yep. let's all get a cup of coffee and talk about what we can do with all the tax dollars once all the people in chronic pain who need constant help, die and free up the system. Man, there was this girl I went to high school with. Couldn't walk, talk, eat by herself, and always had to be supervised. She didn't even have the muscle control to tap out a few thoughts on a keyboard. O, and every time she had to go take care of business in the bathroom, everyone knew about it. Imagine being denyed that ability, that most of us take for granted, to discretely get up and head to the bathroom. Now, having said all that, she was a really happy girl most of the time. She did schoolwork like the rest of us, though a lot differently of course. But she went to social gatherings and laughed with all of us, and she found ways to communicate. She had a great smile, and I loved laughing at funny jokes with her after lunch. At the end of Senior year, she won an award for her courage. I'll never know what she was truly feeling inside, but whenever I asked her how her day was going, she usually said it was going well. that's just it. To the rest of the world, she seemed to be pretty happy, so who are we to automatically assume otherwise just because she doesn't have the freedoms most of us take for granted? She was born like that, so, if nothing else, she's at least used to it. I did talk to her main care giver a lot, though. She loved that girl like her own daughter. Such a shame someone like that would have to die just to free up some tax dollars. I think I'll go grab that coffee now, for real this time, and rejoice the fact that the OP doesn't have the balls to actually get herself into a position of power.
OceanDream, your example really gave me food for thought. I honestly don't know what I'd do in that situation. On the one hand, she would always need help and couldn't do the most basic things. But on the other, she had a mind and was still able to express herself, though I'm curious as to how, do academic work, and so on. It's easy when there's no mental comprehension or barely any. But when you're talking about someone who could do high school work, it means that there's much more than a little mental ability there. It's just that the person is trapped in a body that can't do anything. Would I wish to live like that? Hell no! But could I immediately say that someone else shouldn't, or at least, that no money should be given in that situation? I don't think I could.
OP, you are a truly scary and sad individual.
Amanda, you're just now realizing this?
Reposting this from another thread, slightly modified. I have a name, and it's not Original Poster, OP, or Poster. You can either call me Eleni, or refer to my username, which is currently Tiffanitsa. I have afforded all of you the basic respect of at least referring to your usernames when addressing you. I'm sure that it's not too difficult for you to do the same, even if you have to copy/paste mine in to avoid writing it. Thank you.
I just put three people on ignore. I refrained from doing this for the longest time, as it really does ruin the flow of conversation, and they did sometimes say things which were interesting. But I've had enough of the personal attacks, and the fact that they refuse to address me in a proper manner. So since they continually choose to act like children, I will treat them as such. Now we can get back to discussing the issues at hand, if not here, then at least in other topics. Those who merely disagree with me are fine and will not find themselves on that list. Certainly, I have been made to think about many aspects of my philosophy due to their posts, and I enjoy reading their viewpoints.
I would like you all to flip back in your browsers to my first post on this subject. Scroll down a little and read the passage where I say, and I'm paraphrasing, "I will not be calling this poster by her name. She does not deserve a name and will be referred to only by pronouns". Now, can anyone fault me for doing as I said I would do? At least I'm consistent, that's more than you'll get from her.
I would also like to outline something. Other posters on here have tried the nice and polite way of going about things. You tried being nice, and it did you no good. She either twisted your words, or denied she ever said what you said, or just completely reversed her opinion and acted as if she was holding that position the entire time. I, on the other hand, went straight ahead and went for the no nonsense approach. I actually got results. Yes, I consider being put on ignore results. Why, because it means that she could not handle my thoughts, and so must shield herself from them. She felt threatened by them, and so had to put me on ignore so she didn't have to hear them anymore. At least I assume she put me on ignore, I don't feel like checking and she's too chicken shit to actually say who it was by name.
At any rate, putting me on ignore only proves to me that her stance and her opinions were not strong or defensible enough to cope with my assault upon them. As I'm sure you can all agree, no one gets offended when they know they are right. You don't run from a fight you're sure you can win. If someone is about to punch you, you only block the punch if you know its going to hurt. You don't block the punch of a baby.
This tells me that she found me threatening, and she could no longer withstand the assault. So, I got results.
Now, I can say whatever I like, and no one can say I'm being mean, because she chose not to listen. She doesn't have the capability of being offended.
Well said. I said what I had to say because I felt like the rest of you that maybe just maybe I could change her mind. ocean dream that is really really nice tell me what happened to this girl is she still alive?
very well said, Cody. I am, of course, one of those she put on ignore, and am not bothered by it in the least.
obviously, she couldn't take the heat, and instead of walking away/taking up issues with us directly, she took the chicken shit way out by putting us on ignore, and being too cowardice to tell the world who the individuals are. her loss, though, at the end of the day.
Yup I'm one of the individuals she put on ignore also. Do I care though? Not at all! Obviously, if she's so bothered by those of us civilized human beings with a conscience who call her views exactly what they are, disgusting, cruel, and inhumane, then she's the one with the major problem. Saying anything else to her would just be a waste of time at this point. I just hope that the OP never, ever, ever holds any position of authority.
Hmmm but why should she say who the people are? Why is putting somebody on ignore the cowardly way out? It's no different than plugging your ears when a person speaks. Tif, do you mean to say that you would still consider killing a girl like the one in OceanDream's example? It sounds to me as if she could function as well as she could.
Have you ever noticed that the only people who actually use the cover your ears and go la-la-la-la tactic are children? That should tell you something of why ignoring things is the coward's way out. If you are strong in your opinions, you will not have to ignore people, because you will have the ability to go, "This is what I believe, and here's why", and it won't be based on some crock of wacked out theories. Obviously, since she didn't do that, we can assume she can't do that.
I mean that it would be very difficult for me to make a decision in that case, precisely because, while she couldn't do much of anything physically, she could function mentally. So I would probably lean towards keeping her alive and helping her reach her goals.
I think it would really depen on what she, herself, wanted.
Cody is exactly right, margorp. those of us who are strong in our opinions, and freely do/can except the fact that differing ones exist, don't use the ignore feature cause we don't hold them so dear to our hearts that we throw temper tantrums if someone questions us, or otherwise disagrees.
In that case, perhaps the ignore feature should be removed. And tif, you say you would probably lean towards keeping her alive? Isn't it easier just to allow her the same right to life that we all have?
I'm fully in support of removing the ignore feature, but most people disagree with me on that. Plus, it does serve the purpose of protecting some people on here from the stalkers that seem to be attracted to them. Which in my opinion is a completely separate issue from this. I'm sure you can see why.
I'm another in support of its removal.
I'd be okay with is removal I guess. And tiff, I'm still waiting for your answer.
All, except the criminally insane, would be "allowed" the right to life. These euthanasias aren't meant to be forced, unless there's no family, friends, charities, etc. to help with the bills. So it would be a recommendation. That said, I do think that, in this case, I wouldn't make such a recommendation, due to her mental ability. My fears would be for the future. Could someone like her go onto college or take any kind of job? In this day and age, many things are possible. I realise that I'm still probably not giving you as direct an answer as you deserve, but that's because I'm still wrestling with it. if I had to vote this minute, though, I'd say give her the government help and see where she goes with it.
But, it seems like a no-brainer to me. You say you are a nationalist. Okay, let's try it from that angle. Sooner or later, citizens are going to revolt when a friend or family member is given a recomendation to be euthinized. Revolts have never been good for any nation.
In a republic, unless there's violence, or the economy is drastically harmed, freedom of speech must be allowed. But under martial law, these people would be arrested.
Why do you think martial law is benifitial? Doesn't that restrict a person's civil liberties?
Yes, but sometimes, this is necessary in order to bring about calm, order, and security. Basically, there are times when the level of corruption becomes so severe, or people get so out of control that a firm hand is needed to bring the chaos to a halt. I'm quoting now from my General Political Views essay. Of course, this one deals with rights, and so I was much more elaborate here in discussing which should exist under each type of rule, and which should never be touched.
"I normally support a democratic form of government. But there are also times when I feel that military rule is necessary. Usually, this is the case when there is an above average level of corruption, lies and theft by the government, when most parties have become many faces of one whole, and when there are massive strikes, protests and demonstrations which run out of control. I'm referring to Greece for the most part. America neither needs nor could handle this type of rule in the proper manner. In any case, There are certain rights which, during a dictatorship, need to be suspended. These include obvious ones like freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but may also include ones which are done to cater to the supporters of the leaders. So they may strip rights for various minority groups, religious rights, rights on what to wear in public etc. All of these must be returned once democracy is restored, and a good dictator will recognise that his rule is not meant to be permenant nor passed onto his children. There are also rights, such as what to do in your own home, the right to grow your own food, what to eat, the right not to be tortured or executed without just cause by those in power/under them, what to believe (even if you have to keep it private) etc. which should never be touched. In short, the public is a dictator's domain. The home always belongs to the people, unless it can be proven that they're working against the government. Now am I saying that they have the right to go after innocent civilians and start shooting them for no reason? Absolutely not. But sometimes, healing takes sacrifice. Please note, however, that my support of military rule does not mean that I agree with starting (or entering) needless wars, as America often does, nor do I believe that one nation should force its' views on others. In fact, as a nationalist, I rarely care what other nations do, so long as their actions don't effect Ellada."
As for how martial law can be beneficial, please review post 5 in this thread. Granted, those are only two examples of martial law being imposed, and in the same country, but they do show that it can help the people. of course, there are dictators who have taken things way too far, but I would never advocate that kind of rule.
So how would the system be kept in check? It would be easy for even freedom of speech to be taken away if things got out of hand.
As I explained in the rights essay which began this thread, I do believe that freedom of speech should be modified under military rule. This can be found in the first paragraph of the second post. The first two posts are the essay itself, for those who may wish to reread it in order to refresh their memories. *smile*
I realise my last post might have come off as sarcastic, and I didn't mean for it to be. I just wanted to post a reminder, since we've been discussing other things to the extent that the other points in the essay were neglected/missed.
As for how things can be kept in check, that's a bit complicated. I wrote a note on my ideas for a successful dictatorship here. I won't post it all,, unless it's requested, as it's slightly long. But it does explain my mindset on the matter. I fully realise that this is idealised. It's also not meant to be taken as condoning or promoting a civilian revolution. It was primarily written for those who doubt that a benevolent dictatorship can exist. As such, it's a scholarly exercise. Feel free to replace the ww. in the url with m. for easier reading.
Rules for a Successful Dictatorship
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=497650312370&refid=21
For a short answer, I believe that such rulers need to write down a list of both their short and longterm goals, so that they will know when it's time to start restoring democracy to the nation. I also believe that it helps to have at least two or three top leaders at once, so they can check each other.
To TechnologyUser2012.
You are safe! the thing that created this board doesn't have the brains nor the gumption to be in any position of power, accept if she decides to be a mother, then god or whomever the higher being maybe, protect that child...
And, just for the reccord, I'm honored to be on her ignore list. At least now I don't have to listen to her useless dribbles which serves but one purpose, to hurt my brain do to illogical thoughts. So I thank you thing one and thing 2...
Just for the hell of it, and because I had nothing better to do, I read the posts from those I ignored, before logging in. I would have thought that, given the fact that only a few here have attacked me, it would be easy to determine exactly whom I have chosen to ignore. But since I was asked, here is the full list. The stars are for those who were/are engaged in the conversation. The rest are people who have either verbally attacked me in quicknotes or who have said nasty things about me, except lutherk, whom I'm sure others ignore due to his behaviour.
lutherk
*SilverLightning
*Sword of Sapphire
benito mussolini
*mini schtroumpfette
The Game
*TechnologyUser2012
*happy heart
calling my views "disgusting, cruel, and inhumane" is fine. Attacking me personally is not. That's what all of you on that list tend to forget. There's a way of attacking the issues without attacking those who believe in them. These are, after all, beliefs. I have not committed any crimes by expressing my views. I ignored all of you because I'm sick and tired of having to defend myself, not my views, but myself. I have been asked, many times, to defend my views and have done so to the best of my ability.
I am capable of running for office in America. I just have no interest in doing so. But I cannot run for anything in Greece, being that I don't live there and am not a citizen. But I do my best to acquaint those there, who can vote, with the party I support.
Now that I've addressed these final issues with all of you, I'll go back to debating the civil people on this site.
You have fun. I really don't think I can dumb myself down enough to think that military rule is a way to correct government corruption. Because shockingly, the military is an arm of the government. So the military is going to be just as corrupt as the government, and if its not, the commander and chief is going to be, so it might as well be.
Oh, and please, someone, I beg you, beat her in the face with a book on roman history until the information enters her brain through osmosis. I don't trust her powers of reading anymore.
The romans had a rule that said once the city was no longer in danger, the dictator would step down. Anyone wanna guess how many actually stepped down? You know, how many of those men who were in full control of the roman army, who had everyything they could wish for given to them, who had servants and slaves and guards at their beckon call. How many of them went back to their own home and gave that all up?
I'll give you a hint, its so few that the guys who actually do that are now a hollywood trope for uncharacteristic heroes. See maximus in gladiator for example. Though that movie was rife with historical inaccuracies, just so you know.
And please telll me I'm not the only person who finds something wrong with there being the phrase, "without good reason" after the right to not be tortured? Please tell me I'm not the only one to find that disturbing. Has she never seen what the government finds as a good reason? Hello, can anyone say gitmo, or spanish inquizition, witch burnings? The government finds good reasons when it wipes its ass, and you want to give it the right to torture you if it can come up with one? They found a good reason to deny the right to privacy after september eleventh, and you want to give them the right to torture you if they can think of an excuse?
And besides, whose going to tell them they're not using a good reason? The voters? You know, those ones they can torture if they can think of a good reason? Have you never even heard of stalinism? Granted, he didn't torture, he just put a bullet in your head, but its the same basic idea.
Does this girl even think about anything she says, or does she just see something some precious colonel or greek leader says and ride that thing like a bucking bronko? Seriously, someone back me up here.
And P.S. we said nasty things to her? Why don't you just take your ball and go home, we don't wanna play with you either.
you're right, she clearly has no capacity to think, Cody. she sure loves to hear herself talk, though, and, given how offensive she supposedly finds us assholes of human beings (lol) she sure continues taking time to read our wonderful words.
hahahaha. so much for completely ignoring us after all. OP feel free to keep cluttering up the boards with your idiotic debates for those who are bored enough to play with you.
and Mini, that was a great post lol!
Now tif, I don't know how much you know about the history of the Roman empire, but that, to me, is a great example of how governments can spiral out of control under a single group.
I know a bit, but not a lot. Mostly, I know that the emperors became more and more corrupt and insane as time passed. Certainly, I could never support rulers such as them, especially people like Nero and Caligula.
Not to mention the fact that many were mentally ill do to the fact that they came into power at a yung age. Anyway, the point is that one of the reasons the empire fell was, well, military rule. Of course they had no system of checks and balances but people revolted. Yes, they were delt with but the citizens outnumbered the government.
I would imagine that they also tried to make this type of rule a permenant way of life. I do not advocate that. These military takeovers are supposed to be temporary. if they're not, then similar situations to the ones in Rome can and do insue. The same thing happened in Sparta, though for different reasons. There, it was because they refused to change their strategies and society to keep up with the changing world around them. That's not good either. There are traditions and then there's being so rigid that everything breaks down. They were also so militaristic that they gave up most of their culture. Yes, they were at the top for a few centuries, but at a terrible price. At least, in my opinion.
Your opinion which is clearly not based on any kind of historical research to speak of, or knowledge, or really anything. Please stop talking and start looking at some of the examples of the things you're talking about. And please take notice of the fact that the country you love so very much but have never even seen or been to is in shambles right now because of the political ideologies you subscribe to. Really, logic is not a poison, you can use it, it won't hurt you. Welll, ok, it will, but its a good pain.
If you were to impose even temporary military rule as is done if the national security threat level hits red, you can always find trouble with broken storefront windows and the like. The government will have there hands full and will not be able to squash every single riot.
Sadly, that's true. But in Grece, that's already happening. So at least there can be a little peace and much less destruction of businesses, both physically and economically.
They would also deal with the issue of illegal immigration, which has become very serious in the last few years. So there would be much less crime as well.
Right, cuz illegal immigrants are the only people who ever commit crimes; fucking racist. And the military has never committed crimes. I mean its not like american soldiers stacked prisoners into a naked pyramid or pissed on them. Its not like armies have never raped their way across a city. I guess every single soldier in an army is entirely and completely well behaved; who knew.
I like this being ignored thing. This is fun.
I do not favor military rule or a dictatorship,. I have a sort of Lockean view of government. The government's job is to protect us, not to control us. I realize that protecting us sometimes involves protecting us from ourselves or other citizens, but a proper form of government is one in which citizens are the ultimate check on the government.
The military is just as capable as the average citizen of committing crimes and going on rampages.
The solution to revolts, protests, and strikes is not military rule. Citizens do not behave in this manner just for the fuck of it. These events are planned and arranged by people who are sincerely pissed off with the way their society is being run/legislated. Their trust in the government has been betrayed, and so the citizens are demanding change. This is not unreasonable and does not call for such restrictions as the Original Poster believes. This calls for a change in who holds power, and legislation concerning the matter at hand.
As a hardcore democrat, I feel that dictatorships and military ruling are forms of government that essentially violate people's rights, and do not have the people's best interests at heart. The primary aims of these establishments are control and power.
Well said raven. I would like to say, however, that the government's main objective unfortunately is to protect itself rather than it's citizens. The reason they claim to protect us is to avoid an uprising. Like it or not, when push comes to shove, the government will look out for itself and to hell what we think. And Tiffanitsa, you mention Greece? I'm sure you understand that the country is in ruin. The economy is crumbling for one thing. The history has not even been well preserved as Athens is essentually covered in spray paint. Oh and they never really could recover from what the Turks caused.
The difference is that the military really does protect us, sometimes from ourselves. As i've said, I am not advocating this route for America. they neither need nor could handle it. Actually, they're going too much to the right for a republic, especially one which prides itself on freedoms. The economy certainly wasn't crumbling when Colonel makarezos was handling it. As a matter of fact, it was thriving. So I have full confidence that, although it would take a few years,, the military could do it again. But this time, a more permenant solution must be found, so that the nation won't destroy itself once democracy is restored. I believe this problem stretches back to ancient times. We're constantly out to harm ourselves, to get the better of each other, instead of working together as a whole. This need to betray is at the heart of our problem, and it must be resolved in order for true healing to take place. As for spray painting things, I would love to see what happens if people tried that under military rule! I bet there would be projects to restore at least some of these things, and at the very least, steep fines for those found tampering with cultural icons.
But, as was said, the military is an arm of the government. If someone high up in government gave the order to kill any citizen in the way, that is exactly what would happen. Government tends to be verry robotic that way.
OK I haven't read everything in recent days on here but still: The reason those Roman leaders were what they were was the system in place which allowed them to be what they were. There are always people like that in every society, but a decent system - not totalitarian rule - prevents them from ascending to full dominance. Those are not leaders.
Also, isn't it a bit odd to put a bunch of people on Ignore, then log out and read their posts? I have blocked a few overactive mommies and a few numbnuts on Facebook, but I have not tried to see what they wrote. That makes no sense to me.
Stop trying to make sense of her LEO. It is an exercise in futility.
Yes, you are right, the system in place in Rome allowed the dictators to do what they did. However, lets just assume we get a dictator. What exactly is stopping him from saying, "Remember that system we had? Yeah, well we don't have it anymore. We've got this one, and this one says you have to lick my left nipple on a daily basis." He's a dictator, he can do that. If he has checks and balances, he's not a dictator.
That is why, or at least one of the reasons, that there has not been a good dictator in recent memory. Dictatorships don't work. Humans are too flawed. History has taught us this if we care to read.
Well said on all counts Leo.
It is a bit odd, yes. I just wanted to clear up the nonsense of whom I'm ignoring. But now I'm sticking to reading the decent posts on here, so that the endless bickering will stop, or at least, won't be feuled by my answers, which seems to go in one ear and out the other with them in any case. And no, totalitarian rule is never good. Thankfully, modern Greece has never had a truly totalitarian leader.
Ok, help me to understand something here. You support dictatorship, yet all your evidence to back up how it works is based on what has happened in Greece. Has it occurred to you to check out how other historical events involving dictatorships have played out? Is it just because you're so obsessed with Greek culture that you think what worked there should work everywhere else too? You talk about how this form of government has worked, then you say such rule should never be enforced in America. Seeing as how you want to debate the matter, it would appear that you do think that in any situation that calls for it, regardless of the country, this is what should happen. But if it's simply your personal viewpoint that this is how it was done in Greece so that's how it should continue to be there, why would you raise the issue at all? If you wanted to discuss Greek culture, why not make a separate board for that? It seems to me that you're contradicting yourself quite a bit. You're saying that these are your beliefs, in black and white, then hastily scribbling in the shades of gray later as you see fit.
If I was writing from a global perspective, I would definitely do the research. As it is, I am writing from the Hellenic perspective. So the suggestion for military rule strictly relates to Greece. My other ideas are more general in scope. This essay was originally posted to Facebook, where most people are aware of my loyalties. That said, you do make a good point about possibly discussing these things in a separate topics. I let the essay stand as written, since I wanted to give a full perspective, since I believe that some rights can be modified under one form of government but not usually another, while other rights should not be changed at all. In any case, I do apologise if I've confused anyone. It may help you to read my General Political Views essay, if you haven't already done so.
Now that I think of it, I did write a post sort of relating to Hellenic culture. It was more about how I came to be involved with it, rather than about the culture itself, so It's not essential for understanding my views on this thread. But it may prove interesting. It's quite short, and at the time of this writing, has few posts to the thread. It's called My Greekness: How it Began, and it can be found in the Getting to Know You category.
Ah, ok. In that case, I'll just say that maybe you should have discussed those things in the other topics and not this one. It would have made more sense that way, since this essay was about how you feel about rights in general.
Fair enough. *smile*
I thought these were on a global scale.
I discussed each right, or group thereof, under both democratic and military rule. The first is global and the second is not. So most of the essay is, indeed, geared to a global, or at least Western, audience. I cannot speak for cultures which are so foreign to me that to do so would make me look foolish.
So wait, is she talking about Greece, or is she talking about the world? Does she think greece is the world? Does she think the world is Greece? Does she even have a clue what she's talking about? Who wants to take bets that the next time she posts she'll say something completely opposite what she just said?
Oh, and can someone find a way to make her realize that if she was talking about Greece in this essay, that she could have put in a passage that said, "I'm talking only about Greece". Then we would have all gone off to make a sandwich or something, because we're not insane like her and don't give two shits about a country we've never been to. Am I the only one that makes sense too?
I believe she did state in her essay, or at least one of her posts that the style of government she's talking about would not work in the US. Regardless of what country she's talking about, her views still remains inhumane, sick, repugnant, evil, and so on.
And yes, I'm sure she'll say something in her next post that opposes what she wrote before. That's her pattern here, she states her beliefs, then when someone criticizes them or points out why they don't make sense, she either changes them completely or edits them slightly to make them seem less severe, cruel, or extreme. But no matter if shit is solid, somewhat soft, completely soft, or runny, it still stinks like hell.
Ok, then I'd like to give her the gift of a mmap. Preferably one which points out the fact that there are over 250 other countries besides america and greece. If she's writing for greece, that's fine, but not america is also not greece, unless you're talking about greece.
Its not really that difficult, but oddly I'm not having any trouble at all in believing she could mess it up
I can be interested in other cultures. I remember as a kid I'd dream about how I'd one day visit china. I think the music kind of made me view it as a magical place. That said, I am not a Chinese nationalist. Just the words Chinese nationalist make me laugh.
Oh I'm fully in support of being fans of other cultures. Absolutely, I do it myself, but she is the greenbay packer fan of cultures right now. If cultures played football, she'd be the one in the stands naked with a bikini of her team colors painted on and waving one of those foam fingers while shotgunning beers and getting in fist fights. In short, she's friggin' nuts.
Verry interesting analogy.
margorp, I believe you've read my essay on Greekness, as well as its' comments. if so, then you know it's about far more than liking the superficial things of Hellenic culture, such as food and music, though it did start with music for me. I can appreciate the diffference in a mere cultural interest versus patriotism. There's nothing wrong with being interested in other cultures. But it's a totally different experience from how I feel about Greece.
Right, she loves that romanticized version of the country she's never been too but arbitrarily loves and is a patriot of even though she's never laid eyes nor foot upon it. Remember, she's a nationalist. Even though she probably doesn't even know what a nationalist is, but she's a nationalist dammit.
Holy shitballs. Four pages?
I doubt it would even have come close to that without all the bickering and name-calling.
oh, I guarantee you it would've. we would've found something to pick at, considering what idealistic views she has.
yep 4 pages of utter bullshit. what a waste of board space.
Lol to Cody's Green Bay fan analogy left me laughing here in my office, makes me glad I work from home as explaining this one would take effort.
Seriously, we used to call what she does 'going native' meaning someone goes to another culture and adopts it: not just 'when in Rome, do as the Romans,' but idealizes everything about it.
You can even see some Northern people go to Southern states and espouse classic Southern thinking, never mind that many native people from there have worked very hard to divest themselves of such notions.
Only caveat with her is, she's not actually gone there: so she's gone native without actually going there first. Well, maybe there is an International Relations term for what she does now, since I went to school before the Internet was mainstream.
I got a chuckle out of that one. I heard the phrase "going native" maybe once or twice, but never really considered it. I usually call it cultural adoption, but I guess it amounts to the same thing. Not sure what my particular flavour of it would be called. But you're probably right in that they have come up with a phrase for it today. *smile* I can't be the only one in the world who's done it.
Well I'm not even a nationalist of my country, so good for her.
I personally think nationalism can get very dangerous, very quickly. Nothing wrong with having love for a country, its ideals and its people, but every nation, at the very least, has the right to live their lives and their culture in peace. I'm Canadian; I love being Canadian; I can't wait to go home again, but Canada, too, has its issues, and to deny that would be nothing short of hippocracy. and if Canada were ever to invade another country without provokation, (and by provokation, I'm only talking about vicious attacks), I'd be damned if I would support that.
Well said!
Well, I do see a difference between patriotism and nationalism, and while I realise that these are only my beliefs, I do consider the distinction to be a valid one. To me at least, patriotism is a simple love of country, and appreciation for the national culture. Most patriots will, when necessary, fight for their countries, and most are not afraid to die for them. Nationalism, on the other hand, is a deeper form of patriotism. The nationalist actively promotes, protects, and preserves the culture, language, and history of the nation for future generations. That said, I certainly agree that nationalism can be abused. Even patriots can be led astray by extremist ideas, particularly if they're phrased in such a way that they seem harmless. This is why I said the following in a Facebook quote. ""I think it's vitally important for a patriot to be able to admit his/her country's flaws, no matter how painful they may be or how much introspection it takes. Only then can he/she begin to work out ways of truly resolving them,." This holds true for the flaws of the individual as well, and applies to both patriots and nationalists. Blind belief in anything isn't good, and neither is hypocrisy.
I think you so often end up under the gun of a "personal attack" because most here believe that your views have about as logical a presence as crop circles. they get frustrated to see you selectively pull them out of context like a preacher with a bible, and they can't even pin many of them down because many of them blow like leaves in the wind. Depending on who you're addressing, the argument at hand, how you're feeling about that person asking you questions about your argument, which position the sun is in relation to mars, weather or not greek women are on PMS, ETC...
Honestly, I agree with the above. Its just really hard to get a sense of who what or how you're trying to argue when you can't even keep it together yourself.
I fail to see how my ideas can be considered inconsistant. I stated my views on rights, that some should never be modified, and that, depending on the type of government, some may change. I have remained consistant there. Yes, I have been forced to elaborate on, and in a few cases, to reconsider my views. This last may seem to bring inconsistancy. However, when I am presented with an idea which challenges my views, I usually consider it. Sometimes, upon closer inspection, I must admit that the idea is fully valid, in which case, I must change my own thinking. At other times, I find that it is partially valid, in which case, I might change a part of my ideas. At yet other times, I find that the new idea has no validity at all, so I can discard it without altering my own viewpoint. That's what is supposed to happen in debating. It's not as if I suddenly declared myself to be an anarchist or totalitarian. I have stayed away from both extremes. The changes were minor ones, reflecting what I have learned or the fact that I'm still pondering something. But my basic beliefs have remained the same.
From what I see, your opinions have offended people and they allowed themselves to get worked up.
ah, but Margorp, both sides of this debate have allowed themselves to get worked up.
exactly what I was coming here to say, Jess.
Yes quite true.
still, as has been said, some of us wouldn't have been inspired, if you will, to come on so strong, if Tittanitsa hadn't done so herself.
interesting play on her user name right there.
my thoughts exactly hahaha that was a good one happy heart!
thanks. lol. I figure it fits, since she still lives with mommy, practically does things only if mommy okays them or recommends them, and has no aspiration to ever live completely on her own.
Ok, it's been a while since I read the original post but I remember stuff being in there about limiting free speach.
I can't ever imagine a time when that would be a good idea. Perhaps I'm just too American and free-thinking but other than things like not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or slandar, speach should never ever ever be controlled by government. The media shouldn't either. Access to information is power.
Exactly, and I feel that those who want to limit those things want to limit our power. But Tif is fine with free speech within reason. But I take out the within reason part of it.
In a republic, you're absolutely right. I do believe in free speech, though as margorp says, within reason. I do think that truly hate-filled things, and things which promote riots, civil unrest, etc. should be prohibited or at least censored. Under military rule, however, it's different, and I can definitelysee a need to limit these freedoms.
I'm glad this is only fantacy then :)
She does realize that the stuff said by her colonel, and other much noted people like martin luther king and ghandi promoted civil unrest, right? She realizes this, doesn't hse? Doesn't she? Oh fuck, no, she doesn't.
And please, someone explain to her that changing your beliefs is not what contradictory means. We're talking about when she makes a claim, is challenged, then goes "well I actually meant this"; the this being completely the opposite of what she actually said. There is a huge difference there. One which I'm sure she won't understand.
As I said, it is all fantacy. It's like a form of porn that politicians watch accept that it depicts a sort of "perfect" world view. What's the harm?
Recently, I discovered a film which compliments many of my beliefs. Tonight, I finally got to watch it. It's called Gabriel Over the White House. The Wikipedia entry can be found here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Over_the_White_House
Here is the full film on Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&client=mv-google&v=Iz8sNARc6mw
I can honestly say it's one of the best films I've seen in a very long time. I didn't agree with everything in it, and there were certain points which were idealistic. But it was touching, inspiring, and makes me wish even more strongly for a leader like that in Greece. In this day and age, particularly with some of the candidates out there now, I think America would go way too far with that kind of power.
After reading the rest of the Wikipedia article, I also have an even deeper respect for FDR and his wife than I already did, and I tip my hat to Walter Lippmann, a columnist whom I've just heard of now, for having great insight on the real life situation which surrounded him.
As for my own beliefs, I don't se them as a perfect world view. Every government has its' flaws, its' corruption, and its' bad people. But I do think, as I have stated, and indeed, as others stated in the past (see article) that there are times when dictatorship is necessary. Obviously, I don't mean ones like Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, etc. as I do not support totalitarian regimes, world takeover, purposefully harming the innocent and so forth. These are also not meant to last for decades. But while they do exist, they can bring balance, order, and prosperity, so that the nation can recover and ready itself for democracy once more.
When England gets a king we will be able to test out that theory by watching the b b c. Of course, the queen will be dead before that happens.
Tiff, I do see where you're coming from in that a dictatorship could restore order to a new nation after a revolution, or something similar that completely overturned the way it was run previously. However, here's where the problem lies in my view: What gives a human, who holds morals, bias, and flaws just like every other human on this planet, the right to hold complete power for any period of time? You can say that this person must be chosen based on his or her ability to remain neutral on all issues that don't directly affect the nation, but which issues directly affect a nation are up for debate, as we've seen many times on this very topic. I'm sure there are some people who would accept this position, fully intending to do what's best of the nation, including resignation when the time is right. But nobody, regardless of how well they can relate to various situations, can possibly understand what it's like to hold such power until they have it. some people will break under the pressure, while others will slowly start exploiting their rights until there is nothing left of their noble intentions anymore. Any of those reactions are perfectly normal, given our nature, but would you really want to risk something like that happening to a particularly vulnerable country? if you noticed, most evil dictators managed to gain power while the nation was weak. Hitler and Mussalini both used their country's weakened morale due to the loss of world War I, and Stalin, though he wasn't the original dictator, used the recent Russian revolution. I don't know for sure if either of these three intended to exploit these weaknesses, but they certainly made the job easier.
I don't believe that it necessarily needs to be a "new" nation, just one which is really suffering and where things have gotten out of control. See post 262 for an explanation. I agree with you about all of us mortals having flaws. I also found your view on truly understanding what it's like to have power. Honestly, I never thought of this, but I would love to delve into this with General Pattakos sometime. In one way, it would have been better if I could have asked Colonel Papadopoulos himself, as he was the one at the top. But in another, I think it will be fascinating to hear the general's views on the subject, as a co-ruler. Did he sometimes feel overshaddowed by Colonel Papadopoulos? Did he, at any time, feel overwhelmed by the emense responsibility of being a national saviour? What, as you say, was it like to hold so much power? Why, after Ioannidis took over, did he not resign as did Colonel makarezos (our other co-ruler)?
You were quite right about the difficulties of following through with one's intentions once such power is gained. But I also believe that it is possible to do so, provided that the leader has support from others and works hard to ground himself in reality and in the knowledge that he must put the nation above all, including himself. Such people are incredibly rare, which is why being considered a national saviour is such an honour. I would rather take my chances with one of those than the greedy, thieving, corrupt politicians, whose only goal in life is to reward themselves and their families, and not to truly serve the people.
I must say that this concept of a national savior seems a bit romantisized. It's as if I am reading about another world.
I'm sure some of it is romanticised. It's sort of like a starving man thinking of a restaurant that no longer exists. It was fairly decent, but not the best of the best. Sometimes, the meat was a little overcooked, and sometimes, they would get his order wrong, and he would have to wait for them to fix it. But now that he can't even afford a piece of bread, he passes by the empty building and imagines that he ate gourmet food there, served by the finest chefs. When his children, who have never had a decent meal in their lives, hear the story, they imagine that he ate with the best celebrities as well.
For those my age and slightly younger, it might as well be another world. The sad thing is that my generation doesn't even know hope. We don't know what it's like to see the economy rise, only to see jobs taken away. We don't know what it's like to think "just a little bit longer, and we'll be okay", or to have leaders who actually give a damn. many of us in the diaspora, particularly the young, can't think of going there in a few years. The best we can hope for, at this rate anyway, is a few decades, hopefully before we're too old to truly appreciate it. Neither the heroes of the War of Independence, nor of World War II, nor General Metaxas, nor the colonels, were perfect. No human being can ever be. But they all loved Ellada and did what they could to protect and defend her, which is far more than I can say for those in power today.
Except she doesn't know what that's like, because she lives in New Jersey, and its a hell of a lot better in New Jersey. She isn't Greek, nor in Greece, nor has she ever been, so I don't know where she's getting this idea that her generation has never known anything better. I remember the nineties and early 2000's, things were damned good back then, and they still aren't all that bad considering. She needs to stick to New Jersey.
I wholeheartedly agree with that. I grew up in the 90's, and things were a hell of a lot better than they are now. Even if you think I'm biased because it was the time of my childhood, and believe me, I'm not, economically things were better, political correctness hadn't spread like an unstoppable cancer, and even the superficial things like movies, TV shows and music were better.
I wholeheartedly agree, Cody and shattered sanity.
Seems like things pretty much went to shit after September 11. That's how it feels anyway. Makes me sad for kids my son's age.
I once read a book called Generation Me though that talked all about how kids from my generation were being raised with a false sense of esteem etc. I won't go into it here because I'm sort of highjacking the topic but yall should check out that book. It makes allot of sense.
It all went to shit when the year 2000 came but that's a whole other topic. Sorry Tiff but you kind of sound like an old person. Do you know what it was like then?
For me, it's not even so much about how my generation was better than yours or anything petty like that. True, it's all I know, but I must confess to having a bit of an idealistic perspective myself. I would have liked nothing more than to have grown up during the 60's. When I listen to music from that time period, as drug-addled and influenced as it may be, it always speaks to me. It speaks the language of freedom, passion and eccentricity. The more of those things you had, the better. That's why, in my opinion, adults from that generation tend to be condescending towards young people, belittling us, telling us we're nothing, and discrediting our feelings at every turn. It's because they had the oppurtunity to be themselves, and either by choice or necessity settled down, perhaps regretting things they did in their younger days and hoping to prevent us from making the same mistakes. Some adults mean well, and some are just plain malicious, but it's not always easy to tell when someone is trying to tear you down just for being the age you are. I feel like saying to them, "Well, I can no more help being young than you can help being old and bitter and jaded." But, as much as I hate being talked down to, at least they have the experiences, the mindset, of being who they were, with no one trying to stop them or rein them in. Today, kids are being drugged with antidepressants and antipsychotics just so their normal playfulness and resiliency doesn't show through, either because schools have no time for it or parents are lazy and don't know how to be parents. As adults, we have to be so careful of what we do and say, whether it's on the job or in our own homes, lest someone go running back with a bit of juicy gossip to our employers to try to get us fired. Because God forbid we act anything but professional even in our personal lives. Then there's political correctness, which, as I said before, is getting worse all the time.
Ah, to have been a teenager during the 60's...
I think that would have been allot of fun. lol
As far as me, personally, and how I grew up, I never really had to do without anything, even when times were tough. When I did, my family sheltered me from the truth. I'm thinking mostly of the fire of 1989. I was six then, and we lost a lot, but I was kept innocent of that fact. Even now, with the economy as it is, I've still gotfood on the table, sometimes so much that I have to freeze it for leftovers. I've got a warm house, and hot water, and receive and give gifts during the holidays. This year, after my dinner, on Independence Day (25 March), I cried. Here I was, with my nice food, in my nice warm house, and there were people in Ellada starving! There were people committing suicide because they lost their pentions and didn't want to eat from the garbage! There were mothers going door to door, begging for food or a little work. All while the politicians sat pretty and did nothing. And what could I do? What could I give, to make things better? More importantly, to whom could I give it so that I'd know that it was going to those who needed it and not in the pocket of a thief?
So yes, I do feel for my generation. Even in America, things have gotten difficult, particularly for those with little to no job experience, in a bad economy, where everyone is after the same scarce jobs. But it's for Hellas that I cry. America, at least, has a chance of recovering within a decent amount of time. They don't need to pray for the military to come and set things straight. They don't need to look at the work of the last two regimes, even the most basic things, that have been around since the 30s, and watch as they all get destroyed. Yes, the retirement age definitely needs to be raised to at least 65. But the children of the 4th of August Regime, those in their 70s and 80s, shouldn't be going out looking for work to support their families! The children of The Revolution of 21 April, those in their 40s and 50s, shouldn't be losing their jobs and their homes! And those who came later? We should be using our college degrees to get jobs, and starting our families, not living with our parents because we can't afford to move out. And no. I'm not just talking about myself here. Others must move out of the country, just so that they can live!
I can't say I've had anyone, either in my family or out of it, talk down to me for my age. I find that concept to be quite odd, especially from those who grew up in the 60s. In contrast, I think they often let their children get away with too much. I myself was brought up to be myself, to speak my mind, and to ask questions. But I was also brought up with respect, civility, honesty, etc. As for political correctness, I despise it and avoid it 99.99% of the time. There's a difference between being respectful and being ridiculous.
why the fuck does she keep talking as though she lives in Greese, and truly knows their feelings/thoughts?
If you want to consider dictatorial rule, consider the Bush years. Now, I'm not saying Bush was a dictator, not by a long shot. Most of what was claimed about him attenpting to run everything turned out to be as false as the claims about Obama are now.
However, what you had was a very lopsided situation where the two partisan branches of government were all controlled by a single party - doesn't matter which. This left lots of people, including the members of that party, extremely unhappy. Now imagine you dispensed with Bush during that time, and instead of his party controlling executive and legislative power, you had just one man. Just one guy running things. Now there's no natural friction, what many would call gridlock, to balance things. Even if some intentions were good, you end up with catastrphe.
Now a real world example? Mao Tsetung's China, Pul Pott's Cambodia, Stalin's Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein's Iran, the list just gets longer the more I think about it. And nobody on that list is ever seen as a so-called benevolent dictator, except apparently, this colonel from Greece is perceived by Tiffanitsa at least. I admit, only once before in my entire life have I seen the defense of a dictator before, and that was by a Japanese native during Desert Storm.
As to 'kids now' or 'this generation,' or that one or whatever?
Honestly: the more things change, the more they stay the same. The only difference I really see now is that you all are faced with a devastating economic situation that my generation 40s and up has left for you. We deserve it if you hate us for it I guess. Unlike the Depression, Americans can't just go out and shoot squirrels to eat when the food gets low; the economic system is so interwoven worldwide, and in our nation at least, we hold the market to be sacred and so would rather let overseas companies finance our elections, ship our labor overseas, and sell our oil to the Middle East to again re-import it at a higher cost, simply so that we don't desecrate the sanctity of the global market: something we as a nation apparently hold dear. Modern Conservatives will at times quote Adam Smith (usually out of context), but I am afraid Adam Smith would be gravely disappointed at what he found. It's clear many of the modern liberals and conservatives have never even really read Adam Smith to begin with. Did the American Capital Experiment fail? I don't think so: we simply derailed it, and returned ourselves to the corporate mercantealism that our forefathers shook off. Only instead of the British crown, we've managed to yoke ourselves to homegrown global corporations with no national fealty and who wield more sovereign power than many nations. There is no national savior that will right the situation: like all things American I think it will come from the masses. But for that to happen, people will have to part ways with the current mercantile system we've got ourselves into. Expecting a national savior, or global corporations, or the government, to fix the problem only exacerbates it. We got ourselves into this, it's really up to us to get ourselves out of it. My only hope is that the young people aren't some sort of collateral.
Tiff, I have to ask you: what is honest about being sheltered from the truth by your parents? do you honestly consider this to be a good thing?
lol LeoGuardian! Bush couldn't be a successful dictator if General Pattakos himself taught him! By the time he finished his classes on basic reading, writing, and speaking, his presidency would have ended! That doesn't mean he couldn't be a tyrant, in the modern sense of the word. Anyone can do that, become totalitarian. But to be a national saviour, it takes far more than just the ability to order people around and call out the tanks. The examples you gave were all, to my knowledge, totalitarian regimes. Someone else once gave an example of a benevolent dictator in modern times, but I can't remember his name or where he was from! I'll have to do some searching in my e-mail or on Google.
I think there are far more important things than the global market. Namely, the nation! Yes, exporting and importing are important. Don't get me wrong. But America is, as you said, obsessed with it, and I think that this, along with other factors, will be their downfall, if not economic than at least moral. No, I don't think a national saviour could help america. They wouldn't even recognise one if he did, particularly those who cling to the idea of the government not doing anything for the people. They'd rather let the people starve to death, lose jobs, and become homeless, all so that they could claim that, if nothing else, at least they're not taking from the state.
OceanDream, it's not as if I knew nothing. I mean, we were living in the garriage for about a month, before someone took us in. I knew that part of the house burned and that we couldn't go back until it was fixed. I just didn't know how poor we were, or how many important things were lost. They tried to make it a fun experience for me, sort of like camping out or something. So yes. I knew we were in a bad way, but wasn't fully aware of the seriousness of the situation.
Blah, my last post has some rather glaring spelling errors in it, no doubt fodder for those who wax elephant about the blind and spelling. Though I contest it has more to do with being Monday and doing the post on a coffee break than anything else.
I'm one of those who is obsessed with grammar and spelling, and when I start typing faster than my fingers can go, particularly on a topic which is important to me, I make many errors. *smile*
so, cause she knew parts of the story growing up, guess that makes it honest/okay, after all. *shrugs*.
Yet again, I am verry confused. I was never sheltered as a child. If something bad happened, it was really impressed upon me that it was bad. I think that is why so many people can't handle things like death but that's way off topic. Chelsae, I think Tiff talks about Greece like she knows it is because her bf is greek and he tells her what it was like.
You want to see poverty, and why I fear for my generation and the future? Here it is!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vhjylEOl3k
I'm so upset and crying right now that I can't even type or think!
This kind of thing never happened in such an epic proportion, during The Revolution! Yes, there were communists who were taken away from their families. But even there, I'm sure there were exceptions, especially for single mothers or really poor families, so long as the commies were quiet and well behaved. Yes, there may have been charities like this, to deal with those who were abused. But they weren't streaming in, from poverty, like water in a flood! For the most part, people could also afford to leave the country if they hated it that much. Now, they can't even afford to feed their children, let alone buy plane tickets! They have no homes. They are giving up their childrren to be raised by charity! How, in the name of all that's sacred, can this be considered better than The Revolution! Please tell me, because maybe I have a few screws loose. But I simply can't see it! Is this what democracy is supposed to be? Starvation and the separation of families?
The dictator's name was Obesanjo, from Nigeria. However, he was not by any means a national savior. Instead, he was simply the only man who managed to get the country out of dictatorship. It had spent several decades in military rule, and the first thing Obesanjo tried to do was put in a democratic government. This took years, and Obesanjo was not extremely popular. But let me tell you he was extremely popular compared to the guy that took control four months after the democratic regime of 1979 was put in place. This third military regime of Nigeria since independence lasted until the early 1990s, and no one was happy then. The next democracy lasted for 83 days total, then more military dictatorship. Finally, the fourth democracy of Nigeria was created and Obesanjo elected president. This was in 1999, and the fourth democracy moving along. But the country is still poor, and government is no great helper. It's just not as bad as before.
By the way, from your post:
This year, after my dinner, on Independence Day (25 March), I cried. Here I was, with my nice food, in my nice warm house, and there were people in Ellada starving! There were people committing suicide because they lost their pentions and didn't want to eat from the garbage! There were mothers going door to door, begging for food or a little work. All while the politicians sat pretty and did nothing. And what could I do? What could I give, to make things better? More importantly, to whom could I give it so that I'd know that it was going to those who needed it and not in the pocket of a thief?
The problem I have with this post is that you seem only to care about Greece. This has been the problem in countless world nations for the last two centuries, but your only problem is with these activities going on in a relatively developed European country? By the way, how do you explain the 40% to 50% tax evasion in Greece? It would be easier to conduct things if the government got the money it deserved instead of having it denied them. It's hard to buy things without the money to do so, and half of the population refuses to pay taxes. I would like to hear your views.
You're making the mistake of linking political system - democracy - with an economic system - raw capitalism. This is typical for Americans, which you are showing yourself to be as much as any of the rest of us. The reason for that error is that the so-called "Great Experiment" was really two great experiments: one as a representative republic (the largest of its kind ever), and the other was a form of capitalism not bound by mercantile (corporate or royal ownership) but one where the individual entrepreneur was the main provider of goods and services.
These two experiments are distinct from one another.
synthesizer101, yes, that's whom I meant. Thanks for clearing up the situation. I am a nationalist. So naturally, I put Greece above all, particularly when it comes to serious issues like these. Obviously, it's true that other nations are in trouble, but unless their problems effect Greece as a whole, be it economically or militarily, I really don't pay attention to them. I do keep my eye on a few issues in america, but only if they involve something in which I truly believe, or if they will effect me and those whom I love.
I can explain the 40% tax evasion by the fact that the government didn't stop it! They even took part in it, and stole what they did get for their own means! This does not mean that I excuse tax evasion. But that's what happened. Now, even if people did want to go straight and pay taxes, they couldn't afford it! I say slash the pay of the politicians by at least half. Most can easily afford to live in that way, and put the money towards helping the nation.
LeoGuardian, I see what you mean about capitalism and democracy. But America also merges these two experiments when they go to countries for things like oil, and then force them to become democratic, or at least claim that they're going to said countries to bring about a democratic government.
Would somebody be so kind as to tell the tif thing to take her head out of her nether region and drink lots and lots of coffee or what ever it may be to wake her up to face the reality?.
Now now, take pitty on those with cranial rectosis. They can't help it.
wow, this tiff creature is so caught up in fantacies concerning a country she's never even set foot in, that she wouldn't know reality if it bit her on the ass. How sad and pathetic.
Bit her on the... ass? She's all ass. Oh wait, that could be taken wrong. Aaaargh.
Congratulations, Imprecator! You've just made it onto my ignore list! I cannot believe the nerve of such people, especially after i've just shared something so emotionally disturbing!
or all ass, no brains, thus no capacity to think her way out of a wet paper bag to save her pittaful life... lol.
Tiff, you still haven't answered my question about how sheltering you was honest.
Well, there was no lying involved. It's just that I wasn't told how little we had at the time. Should Mom also have told me that Vivian was my biological mother, and that I was born addicted to heroin, and that her children were staying with us at the time because she was in jail? I was six years old! I knew enough to know that we were under hardship and that we had to work together as a family. I knew enough to know that the house was burned. Should Mom have sat down with me to discuss the cost of having everything fixed, or how valuable and sentimental things were lost, or about how six people and a dog were going to fair under these conditions? I don't think so!
Hooray!! I'm honored!
I will admit, there were some cases where both Mom and I agree that she coddled me too much. Not going to the camp for the blind is a perfect example. But something like what we went through shouldn't have to be carried by a child.
just so people can see this, and possibly realize that others agree with what they might be thinking, yes, her mom should've explained things to her, in words a child could understand, regardless of their seriousness. at least, I'd certainly do that, if/when I become a parent.
I agree. maybe if she had, the OP would be able to differentiate fantacy from reality.
It depends on what you mean by explaining. I know of some parents who dump all their problems on their child and expect them to know all the answers, and that could be construed as brutal honesty. So let's be clear about what would be acceptable under these circumstances before I say whether I agree or not. Just playing devil's advocate, which I'm known to do, because I like to examine things from every angle.
If it were me, I think I would take my cue from the child. If they asked me what happened, I would explain the situation in basic terms and try my best not to frighten or overwhelm them. And if they had questions, I would answer them as honestly yet compassionately as I could. As a child, my parents weren't always clear with me as to why certain things happened, or why I was being punished. They would just tell me that I was wrong and that was that. Or, if it was a question I had asked that they felt I was too young to know a direct answer to, they would tell me to wait until I was older. In a lot of cases, that approach was wrong. But in some, it was at least acceptable. If our house had burned down, I think they probably would have told me why, assured me it wasn't my fault, but left it at that. I don't think they would go into their financial hardships unless I asked for something and they just didn't have the money to provide it. In that case, they would probably be honest and say so. But to discuss facts and figures would A. have gone over my head, B. stressed me out, and C. made them feel awkward. So where are we drawing the line here?
One problem with taking the cue from the child is not all kids will ask you what happened. Some would just draw their own conclusions first.
This is why I am more in favor of being proactive, sitting down with them and explaining a major event rather than let them try and sort out the fallout later.
I would've thought my meaning was clear, and that the fact I didn't, at all mean that parents should dump their adult problems on their children, was obvious to everyone. however, since it wasn't, I'll say that leo is right; that's exactly what I'm talking about.
if a situation is serious, such as the outlined burning of a house, I'd hope that, whether or not kids ask questions, the parents would be adult enough to inform him/her of what happened, and what it means.
as leo said, children don't often ask questions. therefore, it's best to not give them a chance to draw conclusions themselves without an honest explanation.
That's not exactly what I meant, although I can see how you got that impression. Let me try to be a bit clearer. After a catastrophe happens, like a house burning down, you should absolutely talk to them about it so they're not left wondering why, how they could have prevented it, etc. What I meant by taking a cue is how to expand the conversation from there. Depending on what kinds of questions the child asks after your explanation, that should be the direction you take it. If the child wants to know how the fire started, for example, laying it on thick about how much money you lost and insurance claims and all that would be counterproductive. So would you consider it sheltering just because you didn't do that? I hope not. Even if the child did want to know what was going to happen to the family, as I said before, burdening them certainly isn't the way to reassure them. That, too, would be counterproductive. However, what the hell would I know, I'm not a parent, nor do I ever plan on being one, so maybe I'm way off base.
One other thing I want to address while I'm here is all the Greek nationalist stuff that Tiffanitsa keeps bringing up. While I certainly can't get behind that, while the concept of loving another country more than your own when you've never been there boggles my mind, one thing I have to say is that if most people were half as passionate as she is about a cause, the world would probably be a better place. If most people felt as strongly, and didn't allow society to dictate what feelings should be suppressed and what few should be acted on, people would be a lot more proactive.
I'm just so so heartbroken. She ignored me! Looks for a shoulder to cry on ... Not!
I knew fully well why it happened, even then. One of our tennants left an old fan on. She had been told to buy a new one, and that this wasn't the kind for the window, but insisted on using it. As a result, when she left, and shut the door, the fan fell on the recliner and started the fire. My parents and I were out shopping, and didn't know what happened until we got back. Grandma and the other children were at home. So I did know exactly what happened, and I never felt, for a single instant, that it was my fault.
shattered sanity, telling a kid about insurance claims wouldn't be appropriate. that isn't something they could understand, let alone that would be beneficial for them to know. so, again, you're really thinking out of the box in an extreme way, here.
The only reason I wanted to clarify that point is because you seem to paint things as if they're black or white. Either she knew everything, or she knew nothing. It's just the way you sound at times in your posts. I'm sure you don't mean to, and you don't care if you do, but I just thought I'd point that out.
shattered sanity, I think it's you who has that perception. there aren't many others who have trouble understanding what I mean/where I'm coming from. just thought I'd point that out.
All a parent has to do is say "this is what happened. We don't like it but there you have it." It is as easy as that. Now maybe we can get back on topic?
ShatteredSanity, post 374 really touched me deeply. Thank you for your kind words. margorp, I agree. Let's get back on topic, or at least start discussing something more relevant to the issues at hand. We seem to get hung up on examples all the time in this thread.
Okay, so, how far should free speech really go? Should there be limits?
There should definitely be limits, even in a republic. But in that case, I'm a lot more relaxed in my interpretation. pretty much everything is fine, except true hate speech. By that, I mean actively promoting violence against individuals or groups or harassing them. This includes bullying and sexual harassment. That said, I would do away with political correctness. In a free society, people should not be afraid to say certain words or to express themselves just because they might offend someone. There's a difference between being respectful and being ridiculous. You can say short instead of vertically challenged, blind instead of visually-impaired (unless the person really does have vision), etc. Also, there is real sexual harassment and then there is joking. Telling a woman that you like her voice, that she looks good, or even that she has nice legs is fine, under certain circumstances. Continuously stopping her to say such things, when she's asked you not to do so, touching her, and/or making rude remarks is wrong. But if a woman is laughing and/or joking along with you, or if you apologise for your comments and refrain from making them or similar ones to her again, you shouldn't be accused of sexual harassment. Likewise, I am against censoring profanity in certain instances. It doesn't belong in children's programming, on family radio/television stations, in most workplaces, etc. But if it must be used, then it should be said/written completely, not with beeps or blacked out letters. I never really thought of it on the radio, as I don't listen to music which contains it. But if it should be censored to prevent children from singing such songs, then it's only right that other music be censored as well, for its' sexual or violent content.
Under military rule, I am far stricter about speech. In the early days of such a government, freedom of the press must be limited. Yes, this can be bad if the government isn't good. I know that. But in a situation with leaders who really do care for the nation, they don't need to deal with all sorts of rumours, protests, radical speeches, wild exagerations etc. There will always be those who don't understand, and whether or not bad things are afoot, they will make them seem a hundred times worse, in order to gain followers. Of course, now, with the internet, things are much different from how they were in 1967, and that opens a whole other can of worms. I'm not sure which sites should be limited or blocked, or for how long. It really depends on the aim of the regime and on their political leanings. Sites like Wikipedia and Facebook can be used for honest work, chatting with friends about nonpolitical topics, and promoting business. But they can also be used to look up banned materials, start a movement against those in power, and so on. Books, plays, songs, and films which promote civil disobedience, revolution of the people, anarchy, direct democracy, communism, civilians carrying firearms, antimilitary propaganda, globalism, and probably a few other things that I'm missing, must be banned. I don't take issue with nonmainstream religions, homosexuality, reproductive rights, etc. But that doesn't mean these leaders would feel the same. Speaking of which, the right to discuss religion openly, or to worship in an open setting might be modified here. I'm not saying I would be thrilled, but I would much rather not be able to discuss my religion or politics in public than to be homeless, jobless, hopeless and hungry! That said, freedom of speech should gradually be returned to the people, not only while transitioning back to democratic rule, but before that as well. This is what was done during The Revolution, as martial law was relaxed.
I just thought of something to add here. Usually, regardless of the type of rule, I believe that the home is the citizen's domain. So you can walk around in your underwear, and curse all day long if you want. But there are exceptions. If, under military rule, you went to a friend's house, and said friend was discussing what to do about the leaders, how to move against them, or how to write things portraying them in a bad light, it is your responsibility, as a patriot, to report this. Merely saying "I don't like these leaders" or "I wish they would just go away", and other such things is fine.
Hello, welcome to fahrenheit 451. You've been transferred here by a stupid little girl who thinks greece is the only country that matters, and wouldn't know her asshole from her elbow. We hope you enjoy your stay in this fictional, totalitarian dictatorship. I hope you weren't a big fan of books, or having friends, cuz that doesn't happen here.
I was thinking more along the lines of that book 1984. Now that is scarry.
I thought of that one too, but the freedom of speech thing made me think of 451. They both get the job done though.
You can't censor the internet. There are certain countries which block websites, but there are ways to get around those blocks. Besides, it's not like every website that you deem to be full of hate speech can be taken down. You know how everyone is supposed to think torrents are evil, regardless of whether the content you're downloading is illegal or not? Well, sites get shut down or change headquarters, sometimes to countries with less strict copyright laws,, some file sharing sites do the same, and everyone goes on their happy way downloading their legal and illegal content. Do you honestly think that this would be any different?
I must agree about the internet. I have a very good friend whose family lives in China, and she goes there a lot. She routinely breaks the Chinese firewall to use blocked sites. Also, I think the book choices were pretty good, but we would probably leave out the torturing underground in the ministry of love. Or maybe not. Eleni, your views on freedom of the press and speech are those I can never agree with. I can see some restrictions such as the proverbial crying of "fire", and I also can see eye to eye with laws against slander and other inflamatory speech. However, I think that your views about restricting the flow of information are terrible. I am in support of those dictators who are 100% certainly definitely without a shadow of a doubt going to just fix the problem and leave. They can do whatever they want as long as they protect the people. However, there's one little problem with that. I am not aware of any such person. Therefore, I wouldn't put such laws in place because that seems like an invitation to someone to take control and use them. Unfortunately, this is the case when international help is really necesary, and I don't think cutting the population off is going to help things.
This posting is really interesting. I missed it, so am to behind to add an opinion on it. I guess I know the posters opinions or views on life, so didn't think this topic would move so far, so didn't pay attenchen to it.
I am glad to see she's sticking. I might not agree, but she's sticking to her points pretty well.
I wouldn't try to censor the internet in a republic. Even though there are sites with hate speech on them, it's difficult to find them all. But as they are found, and if they are deemed to be truly dangerous, yes, I would block them. Under military rule, however, it's not just about hate speech. So it becomes more challenging. I do believe in torture, in certain instances. But with the exception of trying to assassinate the leaders, or organising a violent altercation, these are not on the list. Torturing someone for reading a book or for watching a film is wrong.
Carl Marx would most likely be patting you on the back, Tiff. I hope you understand that this form of rule you speak of will never work in any country.
I'm for torturing the op until she admits that she's not a fucking Greek. How bout it?
sticking to her opinions well? Wayne, I'm not sure what you're reading, but as far as I can tell, along with a few others, she has been doing nothing but contradicting herself/continuing to display her warped views.
perhaps, if you decide to read what you've missed, you'll see that. perhaps not, but it is what it is.
No! I am not a Communist! They take everything from everyone, own all the property, make salaries the same for everyone... no thanks!
Taken from my General political Views essay. "I find the ideas of Communism to be childish at best and insane at worst. The idea of classlessness, for example, is ridiculous in modern society. I also don't agree with the notion of violent revolution of the workers, nor, for the most part, of civilians in general."
wow... yay for torture! I really, really want to live in a society where that's acceptable... not!
Several things:
First, there is no case that can ever be properly made for military rule. Ever. The military is the defensive arm of the government to support the existing infrastructure, not to rule civilians. Period.
Second, how exactly would you do away with political correctness? Granted, I don't like it. Most people I know don't like it. But it's not a law now. You can loosely cite sources that make it look like a law but it's not. It's not even that well defined. If you don't like political correctness, don't use it, and more than that, don't be offended when other people say things you don't like. Don't live under the illusion that God or society gives you brownie points for you getting your feelings hurt or your panties in a wad. And lest you believe it's only the Left who does this? They, as they usually do, copied from another source. The Religious Right in this instance. It's not just ethnic or disabled people, it's religious people who just can't stand the term 'abort' as part of a sequence of commands on a computer, or the term 'devil's food cake' or any number of other ordinary terms.
Or feminists who on a Linux machine can't handle typing 'man' to get a manual page to load. 'man' being short for manual in that instance, not anything to do with gender at all.
If you really wanted to 'do away with' political correctness, you'd do like I do: look at both sides as a lot of fruits and nuts, and go carnivore instead. You're not going to decide for other people, get a totalitarian ruler to do things for you. Your only hope is a self-reliant dependence upon your own wit and resourcefulness. Everything else is pretty much an illusion.
And as if you needed any more evidence that she doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about, marxism and communism are not the same thing. They are related in some ways, but marxism and communism are not the same thing.
Okay, since you said "ever", relating to military rule, I must point you to ancient Sparta. Their entire government was the military, for centuries, and they were quite powerful during that time. Granted, I do think that's going way too far, as they lost out on culture, the arts, love, etc., but a case can be made that they were one of the most secure places in ancient times. This started with the reforms of Lycurgus of Sparta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycurgus_of_Sparta
Then, there were the tyrants, not of Sparta, but of Athens. Peisistratos comes to mind. He was not a military ruler, but helped the poor, promoted the arts, minted coins, introduced dithyramb and tragic drama, and helped preserve the works of Homer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peisistratos_%28Athens%29
Keep in mind that in ancient times, the word tyrant, like dictator, did not carry negative connotations. It merely meant someone, good or bad, who took power illegally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant
So technically, the colonels were tyrants, but General metaxas was not, as he was elected into power. He would also be considered a dictator, but I'm not sure about the colonels, as the three ruling together formed a triumvirate or oligarchy. I believe the military type of dictatorship began with Rome, but am still researching.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator
Certainly, this does sound like totalitarianism, and I could easily imagine such power being abused. But, thankfully, in most instances, there were also rules which stated that the dictator had to relinquish his office after a certain amount of time. That was certainly an interesting lesson in history. *smile*
I admit that the idea of doing away with political correctness is idealistic. i suppose the best that can be done would be to try and discourage it. That is, encourage politeness, but not fear of speech. We're talking about a republic in this instance, so encouragement is all that could be done in any case, even if it was possible to make a law preventing it.
drivel
Ok, I'd like to point out that sparta was a military state, which is not the same thing as military rule. Everyone was in the military in sparta, everyone, that is not the same as being ruled by the military. And secure, does she know what the marriage rights in sparta were, or the fact that to become a soldier you were required to murder a slave?
And wikipedia is still not a reputable source. You can't say you're doing research if you're looking on wikipedia. Its not research, its light reading.
The only problem is that the people in Sparta and Athens probably weren't all that happy about their rulers. A country can be strong if they enslave everyone and make them do their bidding or indoctrinate everyone from the outset, but the fact remains that they don't have the full support. The other fact is that neither you nor I lived in ancient Sparta or Athens, and don't have the meerest idea of what life was like then. We've got some facts, and a few reports, but who is to say that the Spartans all hated their rulers and wanted to destroy them, even if that meant they would die. Who is to say that Sparta was only powerful because their rulers really were friendly with Athens and Athens did everything. Obviously these two views were completely fabricated, but we don't know, and we don't have a way to know right now. Maybe someday, when we've got a time machine. But the next stop is room 101, right?
Yes it is. I wonder what is your definition of torture. What is it OK for military totalitarianists to do to somebody? Why is this OK? What would you do if the military decided to torture you?
Greece, Greece, Greece, Greece. OP, you. don't. live. in. Greece. You're not Greek, you've never even visited Greece! Get it? Stop talking as if you live there!
Let's boil her in a pot of hot... grease? Haw haw haw! Maybe that would wake her up.
at least, then, she could say she has been to grease. lol.
I won't waste my breath yelling about how she isn't greek. She is just fantasizing. And Tiff, can you find me some sources that have a bit more merit than wikipedia?
margorp, ever since I learned that I do not have Hellenic blood, I have never claimed that I do. My ideas are hypothetical, but my being a Hellenic patriot is not a fantasy.
synthesizer101, Athens was a mixed bag of rulers with a lot of support and rulers with little support from the people. I'm not too sure about Sparta. Certainly, you make a valid point about neither of us living there. It's difficult enough to imagine the time of the War of Independence, let alone ancient city states. So of course, we have our own ideas, which could be far from the truth, and this is even more so with my sources, as many come from Wikipedia. As part of my duty to promote and preserve Hellenic culture, I must truly learn about it, which means I must find more credible and scholarly sources for my information. But as of right now, my scanner isn't hooked up. So I must rely on the internet, documentaries, and the like. I may just take the plunge and subscribe to bookshare.com, as I've seen several promising works there.
At any rate, I'm not advocating that it would have been ideal to live in either place. Athens was very oppressive towards women. Sparta less so, but they had their own problems. Temporary military rule of a civilian population is one thing, and so is requiring all men to serve for a certain amount of time. But a society based completely on the might of the military, with no culture, no normal marriages and families, no civilian life, is quite another. I wouldn't support that for anyone!
As for torture, I believe it should be reserved for situations in which information is needed, particularly when there's a high chance of it impacting the nation, or when punishing extremely brutal crimes. This last holds true in a republic as well. But it should never be used for petty or nonviolent crimes.
Your question on what I would do if I were to be tortured by the military really made me think. Some things you just can't know before hand. I do know that if, for whatever reason, I was being held by an enemy of the state, and if I knew something, I wouldn't tell, no matter what was done to me. I also know that I would never give up my loyalty to Ellada, even if it meant my execution. But if it was the Hellenic Military themselves... I think the psychological pain of being considered bad, a traitor, whatever, and knowing deep inside how loyal I am, would hurt me more than anything they could do to me. The best way to torture me would be to strip me of Hellenic citizenship, assuming i had earned it, and banish me from the country. In any case, I would defend myself, trying to make them realise that I wasn't guilty of whatever charges they set against me. But in the end, I was the one who begged and prayed for military rule. So I really couldn't complain as i would under a republic. If I knew, somehow, that they were going way out of line, and not following the orders of our new leader, however, I would have to find a way to let him know about it, and hope for the best.
I was going to leave it at that, but since you asked me what kinds of torture are okay, I've decided to elaborate. Ordinarily, when the word torture comes to mind, I think of things like yelling, sleep deprivation, extremely low frequency, beating, solitary confinement, castration, etc. But I can get more creative when I hear about truly horrifying acts, like the mother who killed her two children because they were having problems with potty training,, the man who cut open his wife's stomach to rip out the fetus inside,, the 15 and 17-year-olds who purposefully killed a 12-year-old for her bicycle parts, those who randomly shoot into crowds and kill innocent people, and those convicted of serious animal and/or human abuse. I went, again, to Wikipedia, and looked up some more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_methods_of_torture
I've categorised them as follows. In extremely severe cases, such as those previously mentioned , a small handffull of the 3s, under both methods and instruments, might become 2s, and some of the 2s are probably better off as 3s. Anything involving burning, boiling, flaying etc., should never be done, regardless of the crime. While doing this research, I found an interesting form of punishment that I really like, and that should definitely be used for petty crimes, even in a republic. Public humiliation and shaming. Things such as shunning, the stocks, the pillory, and the tramp chair, are not really torture if used on their own. But throwing fecal material must not be allowed, as it's dangerous to public health. Note that many of the so-called crimes for which these were used in the past I wouldn't even consider as valid today.
At any rate, here is the list. Things which should only be used in very serious situations are starred or explained.
1
good for general use (after regular interrogation fails, in cases where information is sought).
Exploitation of phobias; e.g., mock execution, leaving arachnophobes in a room full of spiders
Being subjected to interrogation for long periods
Sleep deprivation
Solitary confinement
Exposure to unpleasant sounds over a long period of time (like a large group of children suddenly screaming at the top of their lungs.)
Beatings and physical violence
* Bone breaking
Chinese water torture
Flagellation
Foot whipping
Pressure points
Sound (extremely high volumes, dynamic range, low frequency, high pitched noise, intended to interfere with rest, cognition and concentration).
Stress positions
Threat of permanent, severe disfigurement (should not be carried out)
* Pharmacological torture *very serious cases only)
2
use in special circumstances, i.e. punishments for certain crimes.
Shunning
Shaming and public humiliation, being stripped or displayed naked, public condemnation
Sensory deprivation
* Abacination
* Blinding with light
* Castration (only for rapists/molesters)
Cutting
* Disfigurement (depends on what kind)
Dunking
* Genital mutilation/forced circumcision (See castration. I'm fully against routine infant circumcision.)
* Picquet
Riding the Rail
* Strappado/squassation (also known as "reverse hanging" and "Palestinian hanging")
* Ta'liq hanging from a metal bar.
Tickle torture
Tooth extraction
Thumbscrew (torture)
* Waterboarding
3
Several of these made me sick! In 99% of cases, these should never be used, and most should be off-limits 100% of the time.
Blackmailing
Intimidation
Threatening to hurt or kill the victim's loved ones
Boiling
Branding
Chelsea grin/Glasgow Smile
Choking
Strangling
Crushing
Denailing
Drowning
Flaying
Foot roasting
Force-feeding
Garrotting
Hamstringing
Keelhauling
Kneecapping
Oxygen deprivation
Pitchcapping
Rat torture
Sawing
Scalping
Scaphism
Starvation (denying food for a short but not dangerous period of time is fine)
Tarring and feathering
Water cure
Now for the instruments. The same categories apply.
1
Cattle prod
Electroshock weapon
Parrilla
Pau de Arara
Picana
Pillory / pranger
Stocks
Tasers
Tramp chair
2
* Brank / Scold's bridle (usually without spikes)
Choke pear (no key)
Heretic's fork
Jiá gùn/Kia quen (sexual offenders)
Judas Chair (sexual offenders)
Pendulum (more for fear than anything)
* Rack
Schandmantel
Tucker telephone
wooden horse / Spanish donkey (see Judas Chair)
3
Boot
Brazen bull (just thinking of that would give me nightmares)
Breast Ripper
Catapelta
Crocodile shears
Instep borer
Iron chair
Iron Maiden
Mancuerda
Scavenger's daughter
Tablillas
Tean zu
Tongue shredder
I'm speechless. How can anything be said after such unbridled ignorant cruelty?
While some of the above may seem harsh, I must stress, again, that they are only to be used in serious situations. If you get into a fight with a guy in a bar and punch him in the face, even kick him in the balls, you shouldn't be tortured. Same if you rob without harming, or just do some light myschief and break a window, throw eggs on a car, etc. Then, you should be monetarily fined and humiliated. But if you beat someone unconscious, or otherwise severely harm an innocent person, rape someone, harm an animal for fun, try to kill the leaders of the nation, steal large amounts of money from the nation, etc., you should be tortured. This is especially true if the person you've harmed is pregnant, a child, elderly, or disabled.
I'm glad she'll never have any power, much less be able to persuade anyone that these views she holds are true and good in any way.
I'm speechless. Previously, I thought you just had nationalistic views, but they do not seem to be that way. Your list of what is OK leaves me hoping that your government doesn't come here. I am not going to list my problems with each of your torture methods to save my sleep tonight. In my opinion, punishments should progress from monetary fines for smaller things, to jailtime, to solitary confinement, to the death penalty. I would never use any of your methods, even on serial killers. It would be inject and end of story as long as the person was proven guilty. No Chinese water torture, no public defamation, no "let's find your fears and exploit them". I want you to read 1984 and come back to discuss some more.
I have no sympathy for serial killers, and would take no issue with them being tortured. These are not people who accidentally killed someone. These went out deliberately to kill innocent people, not just once, but several times. I actually like the idea of gladiatorial combat as an alternative to execution, which they could choose. As in ancient times, they would be trained, and would fight each other (no animals, innocent people, or lessser criminals) to the death. My only concern there would be that people would think it's great to be a gladiator and would kill to get into it! Maybe, there could be noncriminals who can fight, but with safety equipment/rules, and not to the death, and who would be paid according to how well they performed and/or were liked.
As for capital punishment, I prefer hanging, firing squad, electric chair, and lethal injection. Euthanising is different, as the goal is to kill without causing prolonged pain or harm, so there must be a quick and painless option there. I was thinking injection, but that can sometimes be painful and frightening.
And the guy who wins? The serial killer who adds a couple others to his list of "people killed by me"? What do you do with those clever, strong, and cruel nutcases? Also, isn't this more of a way to seek revenge? Do you think two wrongs make a right? They killed them, so now I'll make them kill the other guy, and on and on while the public watch. This idea is sickening.
Certainly, you've given me food for thought. The idea of the killer actually liking it never crossed my mind, and it is, as you say, a sickening one. But there's also fear involved here. If he loses, he dies. So with each fight, he's also fighting for his very existence, and if he does die, then he'll know what it's like to be killed brutally, just as he did to his innocent victims.
Revenge, yes. But also money for the state. Such money can be used towards things like daycare for children, and to help troubled teens find safe outlets for their anger, to receive counseling, and to generally keep them off the streets. these would all combine to lessen the chances that they'd get into gangs, do drugs, or commit these violent crimes.
Yes, but what if he doesn't care. Face it. Most raging brutal serial killers out there aren't sane. They don't just go "I will get a benefit from killing these people. I will be noticed, taken to jail, and killed! What a fun thing." They mostly do it because they are insane. This isn't to say that what they do is justified; it most definitely does not. I'm only saying that these such people wouldn't care. If they thought of things, they knew they would probably die anyway, and if they couldn't, they wouldn't care. They just kill and destroy. What about the public. Wouldn't they start to revere the most successful gladiators as well? I believe you support making this a spectator sport - can anyone say motivating the crowd to violence. Some might go "Well, if this guy is permitted (even supported by the state) to fight the other guy to death, maybe it's OK for me to kill too. Maybe the government is OK with violence after all. The rest of us will either leave the country or find our hidden weaponry and see what we can do. I'm running, how about you?
By the way, I don't get the following. You said:
Yes, that is a good point. Maybe, these people really wouldn't care about having to fight for their own lives. What I meant was that I didn't think about the killer liking the idea of being a gladiator, or of not caring about it, since, as you said, he would already be mentally twisted. In my other example, I was thinking of people who hadn't killed, going to these things and thinking that it would be cool to be a gladiator, so going off and killing someone. This is why I thought of the other form, for those who like the sport and fame, so that they could compete in a safe environment, without killing anyone or being killed. I developed this idea several years ago, and have been struggling with these contradictions and issues ever since. This is probably one to file under idealistic, as it may create more problems than it solves. Maybe, just the safe sport for those who wish to be aggressive could be employed, to keep them from really doing harm to people.
Don't we already have things like boxing and American football and rugby for that purpose. I'm for getting rid of those, but whatever. Also, the people in the audience idea; I just don't like that. It's probably a deterrent, but some idiot's going to say this looks fun. I certainly wouldn't donate any tax dollars to a government training and paying this idiot. Also, wouldn't it cost a lot to keep these murderers alive and functioning? Why don't we get rid of them, make this really easy to see, as in the laws and punishments, not the executions, and use the money to keep violence down, help the people, and strengthen the nation?
I could agree to that. One of my main problems with the real system is keeping murderers etc. alive. But certain executions should be public, and if we're talking economics, the goal there should be to keep the prices down. Lethal injection and the electric chair are quite expensive. I can't imagine the same holds true for hangings and firing squads.
wow. I already thought she was twisted and evil, so her last few posts don't surprise me. The more she posts, the more ignorant, cruel and stupid she makes herself sound. I actually pitty her.
Why are your ideas OK? Why do you think it's OK to force people, even killers, to fight each other while the population watches? Why does the population even need to watch? Can't you kill them, or lock them up, or whatever without doing that? I see nothing but trouble in having them fight. Suppose one of the experienced fighters escaped, now with your training. He probably hasn't been coaxed out of killing by you saying "Here are some brutal weapons, go kill that other guy!", and he now has more experience. Reminds me of a story about two kids arrested for shoplifting and sent to a correctional school. They came out and said that they previously had shoplifted, but now they knew how to hotwire a car, use knives as effective weapons, and avoid security cameras. That sounds counterproductive to me.
I have a real problem with the concept that a crowd of people would watch these violent acts and then say, "hmmm, that looks fun. I'll purposely kill 10 people just so I can participate." If that were the case, something like the Hunger Games would have spawned just such cult followings. But it hasn't, and regardless of the fact that it would be illegal under the current system, that's just not how the average human thinks. Most would be sickened, and I would be willing to bet that most people wouldn't even go to these events, which is why I can't even wrap my mind around them being public. What if an area was blocked off for one of these gladiator fights to take place, and people who happened to be walking or driving by, who have no desire or intention to watch them, have to witness what's going on? If people actually want to go and see that stuff, fine. That's their choice. But innocent civilians should not be forced to see it if they don't want to. So just how public are we talking here?
I do have to say that I'm in support of the death penalty, but only in extreme circumstances. Serial killers who would just be leeching off the system, whose insanity and disregard for the lives of others is rooted so deeply that they can't be rehabilitated, should not be living in a system that forces decent people, who theoretically could have been their victims to pay to keep them alive. I'm going to dig out an old post on a topic about the death penalty that I wrote and paste it below, since I stated some points there that I don't have the energy to rearticulate at the moment.
Begin post
I don't think so many people would be so gung-ho about the death penalty if they felt prisoners were actually paying for the crimes they committed. In today's prisons, as others have said here, you get everything you need, and counseling. Counseling? What about psychopaths, who will never feel remorse anyway? What about people with an extreme ability to fake remorse just so their sentence will be lighter? If the person is really mentally unbalanced, and this has been proven, then they should not be in prison but in some kind of high security hospital or treatment center. After they complete their treatment they should still be put on parole for awhile depending on the nature of their crime. But to let prisoners have all these luxuries they may not have had before they were arrested is bullshit. If people are going to go to prison, they need to feel like they're being punished. The thing about a person who's in prison for a long time is that, even if they do get out, they may not remember how to inteegrate into normal society again. If any of you guys have seen the movie Sling Blade, you'll know that the main character, who's mentally challenged, spends most of his life in a mental institution for killing his mother and the man she was having an affair with, then is released for awhile but when pressures get to be too much for him he kills someone so he can go back. Granted this is fiction, and if you've seen the movie you'll know that the person he killed definitely deserved it, but still, I'm sure there are more situations like that in real life than we care to think about. That's what makes people so angry to the point where they feel the death penalty should be used, at least it's the reason for me and a few others I know. So do I believe in the death penalty? In our current justice system, yes. I believe murderers sitting around in a cell, but being relatively safe, while having 3 meals and a place to sleep, their only worry being dropping the soap, is just not enough. If the prison system was reformed, I would say sure, eliminate the death penalty, but until that day I'll support it because it's the only punishment that's harsh enough for murderers. Like someone else said, I only think it should be used for first-degree murderers, and you know what? As much as some of you are saying putting an innocent person to death is wrong (which it most certainly is), it's even more wrong to subject them to 60 years in prison and then say, "oh, our bad, we were wrong. You're free now." This goes back to the devastating psychological effect an experience like this would have. There's NO WAY a person who is probably convinced of guilt they really don't own at that point is going to be able to live a normal and productive life after they get out. And what about the effect it would have on their families? Having to go see them, knowing that person is innocent but being helpless to change a flawed system? having their children ask "Why is Daddy in prison?" And what would a parent say? It's a fucked up situation any way you slice it.
I corrected a few spelling errors I made in the original post, but that's about the size of it.
I apologise for my lack of clarity, synthesizer101. When I said "I could agree to that", in post 424, I was basically agreeing that you were right about it not being a deterrent for everyone, and about it costing to keep these murderers alive. So this is one of the very few times when I must recant my argument. You've clearly demonstarted, in this post as well, why it's not a good solution. Too many things could go wrong. The last one, about them escaping, is good enough on it's own to make me scrap the idea. That's downright scarey!
That said, ShatteredSanity, you did show the other side of the coin. Most people in Rome didn't kill people in order to become gladiators. When I said public, I didn't mean on the streets, as with public humiliation. I meant in an arena, with paid tickets and the like, and also minimum age restrictions. I love your comments on decent people, particularly family members, being forced to pay for these horrible criminals to stay alive! This is at the heart of my argument for the death penalty. The money should be put towards better things. And beautiful points about the prison system being too soft. If the person is really mentally unbalanced, and hasn't killed, he should be euthanised. If he has killed, he should be executed. Hospitals are a waste of money for those kinds of people as well. Angola and Huntsville prisons are excellent examples of how the system should run. But only the really bad criminals should go there. I also fully agree with you about subjecting innocent people to hard time and then letting them out. That's not fair to them or to their families.
As a sidenote, when I say public executions, those should be done in the centre of town, if they're hangings. They should also not be a constant, as people would become decensitised to it. But the fear of the gallows, the knowledge that if you kill you'll be killed in return, must be there.
Yes, it took someone telling her that these people might escape for her to think Hmm, maybe having people killl each other for sport isn't such a good idea. It wasn't the fact that she's saying she wants to let people kill each other that put her over the edge, no, it was someone saying they might escape. And public hangings, fucking public hangings? Has she ever seen a hanging? Does she know that if the hangsman makes one little mistake, the head gets ripped off the body and sprays blood everywhere? What kkind of barbarian is she that she can think killing people in the name of economy is right?
Oh, and just to show you just how stupid she really is, the death penalty in america is less cost effective than life in prison, by far. It cost a lot more to put someone on death row than it does to just throw them in prison for the rest of their life.
Now, does anyone still disagree with me that her ideas are sickening, twisted and cruel? Come on, tell me I'm still wrong about that, and that we should still treat her with respect. Someone please tell me she still deserves it.
Nope, she deserves to be put down. And I don't just mean verbally.
My thoughts exactly. I have more respect for the dirt stuck to the bottom of my shoes than for her.
You clearly haven't done your research on torture. If you had, you'd know that torture is the least effective way to get information out of someone. Why, you ask? BEcause they'll do/say anything to make it stop. In that sense at least, psycotropic drugs/truth serums chemically make sure you get the truth, with no fuss, no mess. does that mean I think those should be used? Not really. Should torture be used? No.
You also don't seem to grasp the fact that a key part of torture relies on intimidation, blackmail and the like. You can't really do something like use someones phobias against them and not call that intimidation.
Same thing goes for your methods you approve and don't. You don't aprove of oxygen deprivation, but guess what? Water boarding actually does this.
Have you ever seen a live video of a real hanging, or a real murder/water boarding, or are you just talking out of your ass?
I can tell you, I have seen videos of hanging, in the case of the former dictator of Iraq. I've seen cold blooded leaked videos of some of the horrific murders/beatings american, british, Australian and even nato/un troups have gotten away with in the UK. I didn't watch because I was craving a fix, I watched because I couldn't believe something so barbaric was still happening today. those videos and your ignorant misconceptions/views/things you irrationally advocate both leave me with a hollow sick feeling in my stomach.
I fail to see the logic in just about everything you've written as relates to torture. Your ideals and values are completely counterproductive to an effective society in my opinion.
You clearly haven't seen enough of the world.
The last time I felt a feeling like this was when I read graphic descriptions of what Hitler's followers did to the Jews. Sick! Not to mention, torturing someone to extract information is about as affective and logical as crushing potato chips to promote healthier eating.
Tiff, I must admit that I am shocked that you would ever be okay with such torture techniques. You sort of remind me of Queen elizabith the first who had a torture chamber in her home. I'm really shocked. I feel like I should say more but the words just escape me. I am squirming in my seat.
I agree with stormwing about the torture, but you seem so intent on it. What stops me from saying complete garbage when being tortured, so you'll stop? I'd also like to know who useless truth cerums are. Do they work and why? Because so far we don't know what part of the brain is going to relate to truth vs lies, and very likely they're quite related. I don't hold confidence for either getting information, but I assure you they would cause uproar and mass emigration.
As an adult, I am not ashamed to say that I want my blankie.
I was reading some Human Rights Watch articles a while back about torture in prisons in countries like Nigeria and Uzbekistan. Sickening shit. One guy told about being hung from a ceiling by the ankles and having a broom bristle shoved into his penis.
I agree that torture is never effective. What kind of sick fuck gets off on doing that, anyway? The torturer, if they were using any of those methods described, would have to be mentally unbalanced somehow. You don't do that stuff because you want to help your country, you do it because there's something wrong with you. There are plenty of other ways to get information from someone, and there are also plenty of criminals that escape the system. It's an inevitability.
That was an interesting question that was posed about the actual effectiveness of truth serum. I would assume, though I've never actually done research, that it would work somewhat like alcohol, in that it would give you a pleasurable feeling in order to get you to talk more freely. But, just like alcohol, there's got to be a limit on how much you'd reveal. If polygraphs aren't always effective, that can't be either.
Silver Lightning, I have one question for you. If it costs more to put people on death row, how much of that is due to the length of time they spend there? If the turnover rate was faster, wouldn't there be less costs associated with it? Then there's the sheer number of criminals who go to prison, no matter what their crime was, as opposed to those who end up on death row. So, in the grand scheme of things, it has to cost more for the prison system to function as it is now than to put a few of those criminals who deserve it on death row and get it over with.
and the original poster claims to have been raised by a loving and supportive family which makes me wonder what kind of people they are for her to have such evil, inhumane and disgusting views!
You would be correct, except you're skipping one step. In america, we have an appeals system. Those appeals, which people tend to do a lot of on death row, take a long time, and cost milllions of dollars. We can't get rid of it, because then we'd run the risk of executing innocent people. That is why it costs less to put them in jail, rather than on death row.
Shattered sanity, I agree. Ever here those halloween sounds of a torture chamber. The person doing the torture is laughing like a lunatick. Hmmm now why is that? Did they hear a funny joke? I doubt it.
So, to solve that, let's ... um ... exploit their deepest fears. Oh wait a minute, I meant let's ... make them fight other lunatic criminals ... or ... Chinese water torture them ... or maybe we put them both in an insane asylum or something a little less harsh. What do you think, Eleni. Can we torture the lunatic torturers, and then torture those who torture the lunatic torturers, and torture those that torture those that torture the lunatic torturers and so on?
Good points, Stormwing. I admit that I put the list together quickly, mostly late at night, without really thinking things through clearly. Later I noticed a few contradictions myself. Usually, when I think of blackmail, I think of things like bribes, threats to harm family or loved ones if certain conditions aren't met, etc. As for intimidation, you totally got me there! I'm not sure why I put that as 3. You're also right about waterboarding. I wasn't quite sure where to put that. It's like drowning, but not quite. It does deprive one of oxygen, though, even if they can breathe in between. So one of those definitely needs to be moved, probably the latter to 3.
As for drugs, if they were that effective, then I'd scrap torture entirely for information-seeking purposes. But I've heard that real truth syrum doesn't exist, and usually, when such things are employed, they're inaccurate. But I'm all for trying them if, as with torture, there is very good evidence to suggest that the person is withholding valuable information. That said, I did hear of an experiment in which no torture or drugs were used. The volunteers were asked to give truthful statements than completely untruthful ones. Somehow, the scientists were able to read their brain waves in order to determine the truth from the lies. That's another possibility for extraction. But even then, lengthy interrogations might still be necessary. Regardless of which types i exclude from the okay list, I stil believe that serious criminals do need some form of torture, or at the very least, extremely hard labour in prison.
I'm not sure how much I would be effected by seeing a video, or even a live demonstration of such things, as I'm totally blind. But since I haven't done so, I can't say for certain, unless I knew the person was innocent of a crime, or the crime either wasn't criminal or was completely unworthy of such a harsh punishment. I did read up on hangings, and it seems that there are several types, some which cause immediate death and some which are more prolonged. Obviously, it would be necessary to take precautions to prevent things like decapitations.
ShatteredSanity, I don't think the torturer would need to be mentally unbalanced, especially with the lighter forms, such as sleep deprivation, sound, Chinese water torture, or solitary confinement. But I definitely think that those who administer all forms need to have a psychologist with whom they can speak in confidentiality. I wanted to read the answer to the question on the prison system, and I'm ignoring the person who gave it. So I logged out in order to do so, which is why I saw these.
To the one who mentioned my family, we all believe in euthanasia in cases where people are extremely ill, or severely mentally retarded, and everyone in my family believes in the death penalty. But the views on torture are mine and mine alone. Appeals are fine, but not one after another, after another, and certainly not when the guilt of the person has been proven.
synthesizer101, those who administer such punishments must be psychologically tested. If, at any time, they are found to have abnormalities or serious stress, related to the job, they must be taken off it and receive counseling.
I think if you had an ounce of humanity you would be deeply affected. I find this so disappointing.
Like I said, it really depends on the situation. I'm not going to sit there and feel sorry for a child killer, or a rapist, or someone who thought it would be fun to shoot people at random.
I understand that however saying that if someone causes pain you cause them worse pain is actually quite childish. You can think what I say to be unpopular, you can add me to your ignore list, but I am really seeing a side of you that is a bit distasteful. I stuck up for you for about 3 pages of this circle jerk of a discussion; I am asking myself why I've done so. At the verry least, make the punishment fit the crime to the letter. Do you really have no empathy?
If the punishment should fits the crime to the letter, then you're agreeing that it's okay to rape rapists and to brutally kill killers who have done the same? Would some not consider that torture? I'm fine with the first, but in the cases of those who killed in a sick and twisted manner, what of the torturers? It's one thing to just execute someone, but what if the killer did something terrible to the victim before or afterword? Granted, most shoot or stab and run, but some are downright sick! So there must be some kinds of standards, some way to make them feel pain without going down to that level. I don't think that making them feel pain is childish at all. They didn't insure the comfort of their victims before committing their crimes. Most don't give a choice, say, between just robbing you versus killing you either.
As for sticking up for me, I thank you. You could easily agree on other issues and strongly disagree on this one. I do realise it's not a popular view. Most of the other ideas presented in this thread are less radical.
Tiff, I don't actually agree. I simply find it makes more sense. Personally I've never heard anything like this come out of the free world.
I am going back to the freedom of speech discussions vs the home being a private domain.
So, is one's home private or not, Tiff?
If it is you should be allowed to say anything you want in your home. If a friend should inform on you for saying something in his/her presence in their home, then their home is not their private domain.
I am at this time reading a book about the Jewish uprising in Nazi-occupied Poland during WWII, and I must say that I am grateful that these brave men and women were either smart enough to keep their mouths shut in the presence of those who hold your views, or were exctremely fortunate not to get caught.
Good idea. Freedom of speech is much safer/more mainstream territory. *smile* If we're talking friends, I would hope that a good friend could tell the difference between his friend being exasperated, annoyed, or moderately angry, versus serious. If he says "our leader is an idiot" and leaves it at that. It's usually obvious that he won't do anything. Perhaps, even just saying "I wish he would die" is okay, provided his friend knows him well. But if he says something like "I hate him so much that I want to kill him," that's serious. Yes, it could just be said out of anger. But what if his friend said nothing, and then he really did try to assassinate the leader? Even now, in a republic, if someone told you, in his home, that he was going to commit a horrible crime, and it wasn't just hypothetical, but serious, would you not inform the police?
I'm just going to go out on a limb here. I would never, under any circumstances, turn my friend in for political opinions and action taking. Now if he said he was going to rape someone, that would be different, but then he would also not be my friend.
Maybe I'm just weird and have that odd little thing called loyalty though. Stupid me, being loyal to my friends. I don't know what I'm thinking.
I agree with cody on this one. I would remain loyal to my friend. If he or she does go through with a crime they are no friend of mine anyway.
My loyalty is to my country, first and foremost. If I truly believed that someone was a threat to the nation, it would be my duty to report him.
Good thing you're not my friend then. I still find it sad that she is loyal to a country she's never even been to, or seen. All she's done is read about it, and she would already sell her friends out over it. Yeah, that's a person with a high moral framework.
hmmm...
Over 100 people have been wrongfully put to death in texas alone. Well over 300 in the US. this thing called death, is permanent. think about the meaning of that word for just a second. As in, can not be changed, set in stone. In my opinion, no innocent life lost is worth the use of the death penalty. We as a society have all that blood on our hands, not to mention the blood of those we've put to death, because its somehow more moral for a society to do it than an individual.
I don't understand it.
That's a valid point, but the main reason I support its existence is because that's the only way to ensure that certain people won't kill again. There are people who lack a conscience, who can look the families of those they killed in the eyes and say they don't regret a thing they did, and it would be true. That's downright scary. How do you contain a monster like that? Lock them away in prison, where they can get into fight and kill people, and everyone will sweep it under the rug and say, "oh, it's ok, it was self-defense. We'll just put you in solitary confinement for awhile." I understand that keeping them alive ultimately costs less. I hadn't thought about appeals, but anyone who can try to lie their way out of prison even after committing horrendous crimes is an entirely different kind of monster. As for the innocent people who are wrongly convicted, I truly feel sorry for them. But after doing hard time, after being exposed to all that desolation and victimization, they're never going to be the same again, even if they're released. If soldiers come home shell-shocked, and no, I don't give a damn what the politically correct term for that is now, wrongfully convicted prisoners most likely would, too. they could potentially become criminals themselves after being released, knowing no other way of ridding themselves of aggravation and distress. I really don't see how anyone could come out of that situation and be normal, but I'm open to reading reputable case studies if such things exist.
I agree wholeheartedly. If you can just go and purposefully kill someone innocent, and then have no remorse about it ontop of everything, how can you ever be fit to reenter society? I always thought that executing the innocent was the one and only case against the death penalty which makes sense, but shell shock from prison is a very valid problem. How do you tell someone, after 20 or 30 years, "oops, sorry. We made a mistake. You can go back to your life now." Even relatively short times, like five or ten years can be incredibly long to live in a situation like that, knowing that you're innocent, and having to deal with hardened criminals etc.
Yes. However, it should still be up to that person whether they want to live or die. The only time I believe it's OK to choose euthanasia for someone is if they are unable to communicate in any way, and no agreement has been made before hand where the person has indicated what they would like done in a situation like that.
She isn't talking about euthinasia, she's talking about execution. And what's more, she's talking about the willful execution of an innocent on the mere conjecture that they won't be able to return to normal life after having been in prison. A conjecture which has been seen to be entirely faulse based on the numerous cases of people doing just that. Even criminals, including people who admittedly murdered, have returned to the civilized world without permanent ramifications. To suggest killing them simply because you think it is improbable that they willl be able to live up to your standards of life is sickeningly subhuman.
Though, judging by what opinions have been giving here, her standards of life are exceptionally low at best. I know dogs who would not want to live up to her expectations.
This is the death penalty, for murderers and the like, not euthanasia. Those who kill don't give their victims a choice as to whether they wish to die or not. As for euthanasia, I really think it depends on circumstances. Is this someone who has a chance of recovery, or who will die in the next month or three, or who may spend years in a vegitative state, unable to communicate or do anything? Who is paying for this person to stay alive?
As for my previous post, I would really rather see an innocent person go free. I think it depends on how much evidence can be built up against the person. If there is any serious doubt as to his guilt, he should not be executed. If, on the other hand, there is a very strong case made for his being the killer, he should be.
If you're not going to give the people who were wrongfully put on death row a second chance, just because you don't believe they could return to society normally, then you are executing the innocent. How do you justify this? Especially based on a *belief* that this person will not be able to return to normal life. do you know more than a few people who have been in that situation? I don't just mean two or three, but several? and if so, did they all experience incurable PTSD? Even if you can still answer yes to this question, what are you basing your answers on? Is this an actual diagnosis, or is this just what you perceived based on their behavior?
This is why I said that when there is serious doubt, the person should not be executed. On the other hand, what if he really is a murderer? Is it right to keep him alive, since his victim/s are dead? It's a difficult situation, to say the least.
It is difficult. Most people come down on the side of either one extreme or the other, and draw their conclusions based on that. Honestly, there is no middle ground when we're talking about life. Physically killing innocent people is wrong, but so is killing their souls. I'm sure that there are criminals who integrate back into society, but I have to say that I believe a significant amount don't. No, I don't have any evidence to back that up, having never known anyone who went to prison. But there are always books and movies to fall back on. And before anyone says that fiction is made up for a reason, just remember that names, dates and stories may not be true, but all fiction, even science fiction, is based on something true. Whether it's based on morality, experiences that happened to someone the author knew, or historical events, or anything else, it all has a basis in fact somewhere, no matter how deeply buried it is.
Um... clearly you've never written a book. I can garrantee you tom clancy has never skydived into a terrorist fillled camp and gunned down people, james patterson has never investigated a murder, stephen king has never faced any of the monsters he writes about in his books, stephanie meyer has never boinked a stupid sparkly vampire, erica james has never been raped by a rich fuckmook named christian grey, JRR Tolkine has never marched with elves to fight for the good of middle earth, J. K. Rowling has never cast a single spell in her entire life. Fiction is taken from the imagination, its not taken from real events. In fact, good authors rarely base their writings on real events that have happened to them. You get too emmotional, and its hard to make the story sound good to a reader. But I digress.
Lots of criminals do perfectly well once they've gotten out of prison. A lot of them join the military, and do very well there. Hell, the french foreign legion, one of the greatest fighting forces in the world, is almost entirely manned by criminals. A lot of very wealthy people have criminal records. They just don't let it define them.
Its like saying no college drop out has ever done well for themselves, forgetting that bill gates dropped out of harverd. The reason you think its rare, is because you've never seen it. Do some research, you'll see.
well said, Cody. in fact, when I was gonna volunteer at the local VA hospital here, there was a guy there who also wanted to volunteer. however, he was convinced they wouldn't let him since he had been in prison before. yet, he had cleaned up his act, and of course, was proven wrong.
so, yes, criminals can indeed live full, productive lives, and be as compassionate (or not) as any of us who haven't committed crimes.
all fiction is based on something true? Seriously, what kind of books are you talking about?
All fiction is based on something true. I mean, to use Cody's example, there are boys, and schools. Not much left to turn this into Harry Potter, is there?
It is in fact Halloween, and her ideas are quite a propos for the holiday, if only she were not being serious.
What I mean about fiction all having a basis in fact is that it all starts somewhere. J.K. Rowling didn't come up with completely original ideas. Neither did anyone, when you think about it. But beyond that, every work of fiction has a real purpose. It's designed to make you feel a real emotion, relate to characters that you can imagine to be real, or show you the value of real morality. For example, the characters in Harry Potter demonstrate things such as strength of character, true friendship, and anti-racism. The spells themselves aren't real, but that's all part of the intrigue. Superheroes always follow a specific formula: they start out as losers, acquire some power that makes them feel awesome, meet a girl, screw up, think they lose their power because she's gone, and then save her in a dramatic rescue that restores their power and their self-esteem. Are superheroes real? Of course not. But the themes of love, loss, rejection, and victory certainly are. Romance novels may portray an overdramatic and unrealistic picture of love, but that doesn't mean that love isn't real just because the book was fiction. Then there's fiction that's all the more realistic because it could actually happen. I've read plenty of books that disturbed me for the simple fact that unpleasant situations have either happened to me or could easily happen.
By that logic a picture of a tree would be a tree because it makes you think of trees. Just because they contain real emotion, doesn't make them based on real events. They contain real emotions because we only have a certain set of emotions. You can't have a book which makes you experience a great deal of bladvack, because bladvack isn't a word. You can feel happiness, because happiness exists, but you can't feel bladvack, because bladvack doesn't. So you're pointing out the extreme obvious, and it doesn't do anything for your point if you're going to take that argument.
At first, I was inclined to disagree with ShatteredSanity's view on fiction. But now I think I understand. No matter what we create, it's based on something that we already know, even if the thing we create in fiction doesn't really exist. Let's take the computer. if I were to go into preindustrial times and try to explain it, no one would understand what I meant. I could say that it's something which makes me write really quickly, and that people all over the world could read what I write, but that's about as far as I could go. In the early 20th century, even in the late 1800s, I could say that it has something called a keyboard, which looks a bit like a typewriter, because those existed then. But I would have to wait until the introduction of cinema and television to add that it has a screen and truly be understood. Even in the 60s and 70s, I couldn't explain about the internet in modern terms. If I said that I went to a website, with Firefox, and downloaded a file, they would have no idea what I meant. Telling someone in the 80s or 90s that I just downloaded an mp3 to my iPod would make no sense, though they would be able to understand far more about it, as they had computers and sound files then, as well as touchscreens. So yes, everything, even an idea about an alien from mars, must be drawn from what we know. this is why it's so difficult to understand the true nature of the divine. We simply have no experience with such things.
Thank you. You just expressed my point a lot more eloquently than I could have.
I guess I get what you're saying...hmmm...
Tifanitsa I'm glad you can't have kids. I know there've been tings we agreed on but these views of yours, while you're entitled tohave them personally, are frankly outrageous. The only instance where I might agree with forced sterilization would be if an individual was known to have molested children. The and onl ten would I support forced sterilization. But to sterilize oneself or abort a child just because you know there's a possibility! that he or she might have a handicap is frankly outrageous. It denies the child any possibility to make something of him or herself in the world, regardless of whether he ends up rich and famous. Maybe if we're talking about a handicap severe enough that the child would never be able to do even the most basic things for himself, but it should be entirely up to the prospective parent and no one else whether they do or don't have the child or whether they do or don't get sterilized. But the government should have absolutely no say in the matter except maybe in the scenario I outlined above. But even that could be abused, which is why in a way I hope such laws are never implemented. But the absolute most outrageous thing I heard you say in this topic was about disowing a child if he gets a woman pregnant and refuses to step up to the plate. That's not a respectable act, granted, but I don't think it's worth disowning a child over. I agree with others in this topic. That's outrageous. I agree there should be consequences but the child should be disowned. Besides, as shocking as it is there are instances where the woman won't allow the guy to step up, even if he was willing and would actually be a good dad.
That is because of the woman's pride mostly. Insane? You bet!
What about serious users of alcohol and drugs, who refuse to go for treatment? their children are almost certain to suffere biologically or mentally, some quite seriously. The only time I would force sterilisations or abortions in the case of disabilities is as outlined above or when, as you say, the disability will be so severe that the child will never be able to learn or do anything. In other cases, it would just be recommended, with an explanation as to why.
I see nothing outrageous about teaching my child how to take responsibility for his actions and expecting him to do so, particularly in such a serious circumstance. This isn't something stupid, like stealing from a cookie jar or breaking a window with a ball. While I would be disappointed in him, I could still sit him down and try to explain to him that telling the truth is better than lying, even if there are consequences. Here, we're dealing with the life of a child, and of the woman who will now be that child's mother! Granted, there are women who lie about being on the pill and who purposefully get pregnant to bate their men to either stay with them or give them money, and this is a very serious problem. But I really can't figure a way to determine whether or not this is true in each case. So I can't say anything about laws, but if I was a mother, and if I knew my son was honest, I would have to trust him. Stil, he did choose not to use condoms, so part of the blame, at least, would be his. If, as you pointed out, the woman didn't allow him to step up, and he tried to do so, I would never disown him. He would have acted in the best way possible, and I couldn't blame him for her actions.
For drug abusers ther is rehab. I see no need to kill them off.
I didn't say kill them. I said sterilise them.
But even for the children there is help. They can recover from an ordeal like that and not carry on the cycle. But again, it should be up to the individual, not the government. Besides, those children can be rehomed if necessary. That doesn't always mean the children will be emotionally damaged to the point where they can't recover. Some of the best people I know and have ever known came from families like that and yet they turned out just fine. So just because there are those that don't is no case for forcing people to get sterilized. And as for torture, another issue raised in this topic, I firmly agree with most others in tis topic. I have no faith in it as a tool for getting information since people will say anything just to bring an end to it, regardless of whether or not actual physical pain is involved. That makes it the least effective means of information gathering.
If the children are rehomed, that is in fact up to the government. If you or any other blind or handicapped person gets any services at all, that is up to the government. I don't agree with Tiff's views, but I think it's rather hypocritical to say 'it's not up to the government' and then depend on the government to issue services and the like. Because it is then ... you guessed it, ... up to the government. That's a bit of a false flag.
Again, I don't agree with Tiffanitsa, but so long as the taxpayer pays for all these things, it is in fact up to the government. Just clarifying.
Those children are very lucky. I'm one of them, as my biological mother was a heroin addict. I'm blind, due to retinopathy of prematurity, but thankfully, I have no other disabilities. Not everyone fairs that well. thank you, LeoGuardian, for straightening out the part about the government.
did it ever occur to the OP, as has been pointed out, that using torture in hopes of getting people to admit something, is probably the most inaffective method? clearly, she hasn't considered the fact that people will say anything to stop the pain.
maybe she actually needs to experience torture first before she gets it.
It's still not and shouldn't be up to the government to decide whether someone should or should not be sterilized or whether a child should or should not be euthenized, regardless of whether someone does or does not get government assistance. The US government quite frankly gets itself into enough trouble as it is. If the government here in the US ever seriously tried the things Tiffanitsa seems so passionate about I bet there would be a hell of an uprising and rightly so. And as for torture I agree. Maybe Tiff ought to experience it herself before she makes statements about what she would or would not say or do in that situation or how effective it is at obtaining reliable information. I've always refused to say one way or another if asked what I'd do because you never really know how you'll react in a given situation until you're faced with it. And while I'd like to think I'd bear up under torture I'll never know for sure unless and until I'm faced with it. But Technology is absolutely right in that a torture victim more often than not will say whatever is wanted of him or her simply in hopes of bringing an end to their suffering, regardless of whether or not they're actually telling the truth. That's always assuming of course that they don't die or go insane from the pain before they have a chance to "confess." So no, I don't see it as viable.
If you'd like a real life example of what its like when trusting the feds with children, talk to one of the numerous blind parents who have lost their kids due to their disability. Then, because you will need something to do with your rage, come here and take it out on the poster of this board. Who will then ignore you, and you can go about your life knowing that you were so firm in your beliefs that you made someone else wet themselves and go home. Trust me, its a highly satisfying feeling.
I agree about not knowing. Personally, I believe I would go insane from the pain during torture. I am not confident about my chances. However, I wanted to return to an interesting topic mentioned before this torture discussion. It can be summarized by the following:
Tiffanitsa
This year, after my dinner, on Independence Day (25 March), I cried. Here I was, with my nice food, in my nice warm house, and there were people in Ellada starving! There were people committing suicide because they lost their pentions and didn't want to eat from the garbage! There were mothers going door to door, begging for food or a little work. All while the politicians sat pretty and did nothing. And what could I do? What could I give, to make things better? More importantly, to whom could I give it so that I'd know that it was going to those who needed it and not in the pocket of a thief?
Synthesizer101
The problem I have with this post is that you seem only to care about Greece. This has been the problem in countless world nations for the last two centuries, but your only problem is with these activities going on in a relatively developed European country? By the way, how do you explain the 40% to 50% tax evasion in Greece? It would be easier to conduct things if the government got the money it deserved instead of having it denied them. It's hard to buy things without the money to do so, and half of the population refuses to pay taxes. I would like to hear your views.
Tiffanitsa
synthesizer101, yes, that's whom I meant. Thanks for clearing up the situation. I am a nationalist. So naturally, I put Greece above all, particularly when it comes to serious issues like these. Obviously, it's true that other nations are in trouble, but unless their problems effect Greece as a whole, be it economically or militarily, I really don't pay attention to them. I do keep my eye on a few issues in america, but only if they involve something in which I truly believe, or if they will effect me and those whom I love.
I can explain the 40% tax evasion by the fact that the government didn't stop it! They even took part in it, and stole what they did get for their own means! This does not mean that I excuse tax evasion. But that's what happened. Now, even if people did want to go straight and pay taxes, they couldn't afford it! I say slash the pay of the politicians by at least half. Most can easily afford to live in that way, and put the money towards helping the nation.
Finally, my remarks.
I don’t understand why you still don’t see the problem with the same problems in countless other world nations. Face it; the people in Greece are better off than people in most African and Asian countries. Greek citizens may be unhappy. They may be hungry. But they have infrastructure for health care, food, etc. Other countries have nothing, and usually a corrupt government that doesn’t even pretend to work for the people. As bad as things are, I’m certain that you can find a worse place. Still, you care not about those people. If you took the world’s population (about 7,021,836,029 people), subtracted the Greek population (about 10,767,827 people) and the United States population (about 313,947,465 people), you get
6697120737 people which you do not care about because they don’t affect Greece much or your life in the U.S. This makes
95.3756% of the world’s population which you don’t care about, and that’s putting the number conservatively. I would like to know why you don’t see these people as important, especially as compared to Greeks. Greece is fine, and Greek citizens are people requiring the same amount of support and thought as others, but they have done little to prove themselves worthy of extra praise. What makes you such a nationalist? How does this affect your views on rights? Do you think it changes them because of the long period of autocratic and military rule in Ancient through modern Greece?
Source for population figures: CIA World Factbook. Information correct as of July 2012.
Fuck Greece! There, I've said it. Don't like it? Tough titty, said the kitty.
Very well put you two.
So tiff, by your logic, your biological mother should have been sterolized and you wouldn't be here.
It isn't that i don't see the problems that these other nations face. But I am a nationalist, not a globalist, except relating to animals and the environment. I'm glad that charities and other groups are helping them, especially the children. Some provide basic necessities and others provide education. But honestly, they're not my concern, nor should they be the concern of governments, who need to take care of their own first. There are plenty of people right here who are starving, without homes, clothing, water, etc., especially now after Hurricane Sandy. So it's not that I don't realise these things or that I don't care at all about them. But it's important to have priorities. I'm not a billion heir who can afford to give a little to every single country in need. So when I give, I give to those who matter to me. It's part of the human experience to do this. Granted, if there was an African near me who needed help, I'd give it, especially in the face of tragedy. But that's very different from donating money to his country. I'm not saying others shouldn't do this, but it's not on my priority list.
Yes, margorp, I'm not afraid to say that. I'm glad to be here, but I cannot make exceptions for myself. She certainly fit into the category of needing sterilisation. I can only thank The Gods that I didn't wind up with serious disabilities as a result of her addiction.
So even though you did it, and you're fine (well ok, you're relatively human-esque and you claim you're fine) others can't do that. So even though you yourself prove your theory wrong, you still cling to your theory. Yep, you're a fuckinng moron.
I'm afraid I have to agree with Cody. No one should be sterilized against their will unless they're a rapist or child molester who shows no remorse for their actions and no desire to work to better themselves. And I can practically guarantee that forced sterilization will never take hold in the US, not necessarily because the government would never try it (I woldn't pt it past them to at least try), but because the simple fact is tat if they did the people would revolt. And I would agree with them.
So why are Greeks important to you? Because all you've seemed to say was something along the lines of "Well, Greece is important, so Greeks are important, so I care about them". I see what you mean about not being able to give to all people in need, and I can agree with you. It's more the idea of Greece being more important that I wanted to investigate. Also, the torture idea: What do you classify (strictly) as tikmes when the military can torture people, and when it can't. Also, how would you prevent the military from torturing people out of these circumstances?
Easy. You can't. After all, if the Catholic church could for years hide the fact that its priests had been having sex with children the Military of any could and in many cases has! been able to conceal their less than honorable actions from their governments, often for years before anyone gets wind of them.
Lol, Impricator, your last post made me laugh. Good one.
I agree with what's being said here for the most part. You have no idea how you would react in that situation until you've experienced it personally. You have no idea what it's like to be tortured, so you can't fairly say what are justified methods and what aren't. Frankly, saying there are any justified methods of torture makes my skin crawl.
Holy cripple. this thread is still going on? Damn. Just reading these four pages has made me feel like I've been put into a torture chamber. So much wrong. So much crap. so much flip flopping... so much factual discreppencies... oh, holy fuck.... I'm speechless. if I ever am able to string the words together that will sum up my feelings about this entire thread, I'll come back. But for now, I'm going to go and tell zeus to fuck me. In fact, maybe zeus and I will have a threesome with afrodite. who knows. damn. ugh.
I have to comment on the bit about writing and books that some on here have briefly debated about.
Cody, I usually agree with you, but this time, I can't say i do. You said, and I paraphrase, that most good authors dont' write from experience because it would be difficult to write effectively about one's experiences. Dead wrong. I have to say that in all of the years that I've studied creative writing, six in total, every professional writer who has acted as my professor has said the exact opposite. To become a good writer you need to start off by writing about what you've experienced. You cannot effectively expand your imagination without starting out with at least a grain of truth, or truly relative emotion. I do understand what the other person was saying when they said that all fiction has a little bit of truth to it, though this was poorly presented. What the person meant was that most, if not all fiction has literary motifs that people can relate to. Without such motifs, a book is as poor as can be.
Take twilight for example. Stephanie Meyers penned a load of shit that sort of resembled high school kids, but the submissiveness of the heroin and the phoney heroic sparkly vampire put people off completely because, simply, both were phoney and unrelatable. Those who weren't put off by it were little teen girls, and certainly older females as well who had little to no idea how a normal healthy relationship works.
Now let's take harry potter, on the other hand. Yes, a lot of it was magic, spells, potions, fantasy basically. But the train rides, the scenery of boarding school, the emotions experienced by the characters were very realistic. No, they weren't factual, because the author didn't experience them first hand, but she could have. Or she could have witnessed someone else experiencing them.
And with regards to tom clansy and james patterson, both spent a certain amount of time shaddowing homacide detectives and the like, simply because they wanted their stories to be believable. They may not have busted a prostitution ring or solved a hanous murder, but they've delved deeper into it than you'd think. Good Writers are basically journalists without the obligation to report the truth, and with an emagination to expand a realistic scenario, or even a hint of relative emotion into a compelling tail. Every good writer has to do some research, therefore experiencing things indirectly or even directly to use in their book.
If I want to write a novel about a stripper, I better do a bit of journalistic interviewing, even meet with a stripper or peoplewatch until I encounter a couple of them before I even attempt to set my pen to the paper. Otherwise, my book will bust and I'm toast as a writer, because I've never been a stripper, nore have I known one directly. Nuff said.
And cody, stephanie meyers and e. l. james are horrible writers, not good writers--we both know that I'm sure. You inadvertently implied that they might be good writers by first using them as examples for your point and then stating something to the effect of, every good writer...etc,. etc. They may be successful writers, but they are very, very, very far from good. Please dont' let me catch you saying otherwise. lol
There. Now I can sleep with out this nagging me.
As compared to what you just said, my point was poorly presented. But I couldn't agree more with you, and I'm glad that somebody who truly knows what they're talking about did come to my defense.
No problem. I don't have a writing degree just for the hell of it. lol
You present a good point. I think I took it to mean that the writers simply relate a factual story. That is not a good way to write because, as I said, you get too attached. You want your story to fit the exact confines of reality, and it makes it too emotional for your readers.
Now certainly one can research, I research all of my books. That isn't a life experience though. I think we just had a disagreement on the degree to which a writer should go in relating reality.
Let me make it clear though, I think when you start out, you should tell your life experiences. It is a great way to learn what not to do. It also lets you thicken your skin, which is a wonderful thing for a writer.
And no, meyer and james are not good writers in the sense of talent, but you have to admit, they took their writing, (or the bleeding of their pen as it screamed in agony) and made it work for them. They wrote drivel, but they wrote drivel the public wanted to read, and I have to give them props for that; as painful as it is to do so.
True. Even fantasy authors draw at least partially from their own experiences, whether consciously or not. Just look at the parallels, and there are some, between Lord of the Rings and World War I. Tre Tolkien didn't want to tell the story of World War I in Lord of the Rings, otherwise the tale would have had a much different ending. But he did draw at least partially on his own experiences in the war and te fact that his own son Christopher would have been fighting in World War II at about the time the story was being written. So even though Tolkien himself never possessed the One Ring, he and some of his family and friends were affected by a war.
I'm shocked at just how many people don't know just how common forced sterilization was, even in to the 1970s in some cases. Sure, the disabled were sterilized, but even our government got in on sterilizing the poor.
Actually, the reason James and Meyer are so successful is because of great promotional campaignes moreso than their writing itself. I know this because I have some inside access to the publishing world and I've seen an example of the kind of package their agents scored for them. The publishers too the crap and ran with it, all the while feeding the general public with stupidity and subpar "literature". Of course, that leads me to believe that the general public is subpar. go figure.
Oh believe me, I'm not saying the writing is good, or that its even writing. I'm saying, they provided the fodder for the masses. Yes, the publishers played a large part, as did the negative critics, but it was still a crock of shit that the public ate up. It is a tragic thing.
I know there was a time when forced sterilization was comon and even condoned. But the people made their voices heard and would do so again. I guess the best we can do is be thankful the original poster will more than likely never find herself in a position of great authority in this country, otherwise I don't doubt she would try to implement some of these sick ideas of hers.
Okay kids, sit back and pay attention. This is history class!
Years ago the blind were sterilized simply for the fact that they were blind. Well, you can bet your bottom dollar that people's rights were called into question. Don't you just love the supreem court? I certainly do! Oh, everyone got the message:
"hey pal, you have no right to be nosing around in the reproductive lives of others!" Let's go back even further...
Torture was railed against after countless melenia. Again, rights were brought into question. Now, I know this is history class and not math but see if you can find the common dinominator. You can't? I'll spell it out. I'm gonna write it up on the board now so take notes:
Don't...mess...with...people's...rights. R'r'r'r'r'ring! You are dismissed.
Well put.
That really is what it all comes down to.
Exactly. So even if she were feeling patriotic enough toward this! country to try to get into a position of power, she'd be in for one heck of a rude awakening if she tried to implement some of these ideas of hers. Most if not all of them have been tried before and te people didn't stand for it.
synthesizer101, I'm not sure what you mean by tikmes. But going overboard is the one problem I can see with torture, even in a republic. Still, I think it would be a bit less there, as the laws would be written on the books and there would be more of a system of checks and balances.
It's difficult to explain why I feel the way I do about Greeks. I could give the old lines that, although there were advanced ancient civilisations, it was the Greeks who were responsible, ultimately, for much of the knowledge, art forms, etc. that we have today. But that's not entirely it. I can't say that it's because I was born there, as I was not, or that it's the home of my blood ancestors, as it's not. I suppose, though, it's partly the first and partly because when you love a nation and it's people as I do, you tend to put them above all. It's not that I believe Greeks are literally some super race, and therefore better than everyone else. But my patriotism makes me put them first in my heart and soul, and should anything happen, they would be the first I'd defend. This doesn't mean that I would defend a Greek if he was truly in the wrong. But I would give aid to him above others, except in very specific circumstances. If, during a natural disaster, there was a nonGreek mother and child who needed help, and farther down, there was a Greek in distress, I'd go to the mother and child first, particularly if their situation demanded immediate attention. Children must always come first, as they carry the weight of the next generation on their shoulders and are truly innocent. this doesn't mean that I would let a child walk into Athens wearing a bomb, or do nothing if one tried to shoot me, but those are quite different and unlikely situations.
write away, that is one of the most disrespectful things I have ever heard. It's one thing to go against me, but to say things against The Gods? Why! What do they have to do with this? I don't even know what to say to you. But I'm sure They'll do whatever They see fit to do with you, whether They make you aware of it or not.
Stormwing, I could never agree with sterilising people just because they're poor. If anything, I would work hard to educate them on contraception, and at the very least, make sure they were given condoms! I wouldn't sterilise the blind either, but I would recommend early abortions if they were going to give birth to blind children or if both parents were blind, with no sighted assistance. If they decided to have them anyway, said children would need to be cared for, and they would be entitled to the same rights as everyone else, including health care, benefits, etc. Blindness is not mentally dibilitating, nor so physically harmful that it prevents people from leading decent lives. It's just that I find it sad that couples would willingly bring a child into the world knowing that he would be born with a handicap, especially when there are so many out there who would love to be adopted into a good and happy home.
margorp, I do believe in what I call natural rights. I have explained these in the essay which began this thread, and have also stated that these should never be changed or taken, regardless of the type of government in power. It's just that my ideas on what these are differ from those of many other people.
I find it sad that you would be so narrow-minded as to say that blind parents need, must have, sighted assistance in raising a child. I find it unfortunate that you find your own blindness so dibilitating that you'd presume that others must find it just as cruel and life-altering. I'm annoyed that you seem bright at very first glance, but when one reads further into your comments, thoughts and ideas, there is very little based on facts and more solely on your assumptions. You see the world and it's people in a very skewed light. Maybe if you stopped and researched some other governments besides that of Greece, you'd have a clearer view of what is reasonable and what is not. I refrained from commenting on this topic for a very long time because I didn't want to get into it. I wasn't about to beat a dead horse, and I wanted to allow you to believe whatever you believe piecefully and without judgement. But the more I read, the more disturbed I was. I'm just annoyed that you'd go and spout off crap that you know next to nothing about, and try to formulate your oppinions on the little you know. I'm sorry that you were offended by my comment about the gods. I meant it in a humorous way, but also I wanted to give you a little taste of your own medicine. You talk of waterboarding, of childrearing, of governing a nation like you know something about it. You write these pseudoElaborate essays about things you cannot possibly have any authority on with the knowledge and information you seem to possess. Now, I have nothing against people having oppinions. I have nothing against people formulating them even if they dont' directly experience the issue that their oppinions are relative to. I do get ticked off, however, when someone is so pompous as to go and write an extensive piece about something they can only begin to understand.
You have such definite views about blind parenting for instance. You think it's horrible that a blind couple would raise a child on their own, or for goodness sake, even contemplate bringing a blind child into the world.
Did you think, for a second that perhaps there are plenty of blind parents who are entirely able to parent their child without sighted assistance, and they actually do an adequate job? I'm one of those parents, as is my partner. We've cared for a delicate, vulnerable infant for the last eight months without any special sighted assistance and we've faired well so far. Our son is healthy and happier than several of his peers that we've observed. Did you ever stop to think that the person who might raise a blind child best would be a well-adjusted blind person? You'll go back to the argument that the blind person should then just adopt a blind child. Well, perhaps some people would rather give birth to their own child, just like you'd rather date someone greek than a black person for example. I'm just going by what you've stated in the past. Is that so selfish that a woman wants to experience pregnancy? Can you even begin to imagine what it's like to feel your very own flesh and blood moving inside your womb? Can you try to fathom what it means to a woman to bond with her baby over nursing?. Maybe someone yearns for that. How inhumane do you have to be to want to deny that most basic, most naturally beautiful experience. Ask any real man who is a father how he felt when a nurse handed him his baby for the very first time after his significant other gave birth. I've never seen my fiance cry before the minute my son was placed in his arms. Go ahead and try figuring that out. You can't. You can't even begin to imagine this sort of thing because you're preoccupied with waterboarding, torture and gladiators. You'll never know that sort of joy because you said yourself, you were sterilized. So what gives you the right to presume that other disabled people can't lead happy lives, that disabled people can't be adequate parents, that disabled children will automatically have a shitty life just because their parents chose to have them. That a drug addict can't turn his or her life around and be granted the basic human right of experiencing their own child born from their own flesh and blood. Do you understand love and the idea of the joy of life? All of your oppinions seem to almost shout that, no, you don't. IT disturbs me that you seem to formulate your opinions with kind intentions. You can be compared to the ministry of love in the book 1984. read it, for you can identify with it quite well, I'm afraid.
So going back to your gods, did I disrespect them? Oh. I'm sorry. Guess what. You insulted a lot of us on here as blind folks, as parents, as people with your remarks. You meant for your "Essay" to spark an intellectual debate, instead you mannaged to piss some of us off. I meant for my comment to be crudely funny, instead, I mannaged to piss you off. so we're even. And to ad to that, I know jack shit about greek methology. Just as much as you know about being a blind parent. And it's called, mythology for a reason, by the way. that's why I'm not worried about what "the gods" are going to do to me once they find out I wanted to have a threesome with them. lol
Yeah, no need to apologize for offending her. She believes in stupid fairy tales.
Well hot damn, that's the way to bitch slap someone in writing. I doff my hat to you. Or I would, if I wore a hat, but the sentament is still there.
Thank you to the poster of 515 for the statements about blind parents. You said it much better than I would have, thus saving me lots of keystrokes and frustration.
I thought we had already covered the issue of people who are blind being quite capable parents but apparently not well enough.
I don't think we will ever cover it well enough for her to truly understand it. this is far from the first topic where this issue has been discussed in great detail. I would love to be proven wrong, but in order to do so, it's going to require a lot more than just stating you understand, followed by a paraphrase of what has already been stated.
I'm actually glad when parents decide to bring a child into the world despite knowing they might have a handicap, particularly when said handicap, let's take blindness as the obvious example since the original poster obviously finds her own so debilitating, otherwise she wold have no reason to be so against blind couples having kids or anyone else having kids despite knowing there's the potential for the kid to be blind or otherwise handicapped. But I have a news flash for her. Anytime a woman gets pregnant the child has at least some potential to be handicapped. Sometimes it just happens. And just because people are poor does not necessarily automatically make them incapable of caring for a child. It just means the child won't have all the fanciest toys and things out there. And as for torture, just because there might be laws on the books that ban the use of torture does not mean the government will always honor those laws or that individuals withint he government won't find ways to get around the laws. Nor does the Catholic priest's oath of celibacy mean that every such individual will not attempt to shall we say, relieve their need, otherwise there wouldn't have been years of sexual abuse for the church to sweep under the rug. So we can have allthe laws we want and people will still find ways to break them without those in charge finding out, either that or those in charge will just sweep it under the rug. So I'd like to know where the original poster gets the idea that a few changes will make everything all right.
It could also take at least a few more pages.
Yeah, I think this is the longest topic I've seen on the boards, besides the games. Damn.
Never wanted kids, but even if I did, I would adopt instead. Because I would almost certainly pass on my condition (blindness and progressive hearing loss). Call that cruelty all you like, I don't care.
Personally, I don't think it's selfish to make that choice for yourself. If you honestly believe that you don't want to have kids, for whatever the reason may be, no matter how shallow it seems to others, that's your right. There are a lot of reasons why I decided I would never have kids. Possibly passing on my blindness wasn't one of them, but lots of people would probably tell me I'm wrong for my reasons, too. What it comes down to is that everyone has a right to choose, and that should be respected. Where I draw the line, and what I think most people are taking issue with, is that the government should make this choice. They shouldn't. If they don't believe in our abilities as blind people to the point where we're constantly discriminated against, denied jobs, and subjected to cruel treatment like having kids taken away from blind parents just because they're blind, how can you honestly trust them to make the decision for you that you should be sterelized? If this became mandatory, what kind of punishment would be inflicted upon those who didn't go through with it?
agree with imprecator; I'm not having biological children either because they would inherit my blindness, along with other reasons. but it shouldn't be up to the original poster, or the government or anyone else to decide who gets to have kids or not. When is she going to understand that? probably never, so we're all wasting our time.
Perhaps, but we are beeing entertained.
I hate when I type random letters. I meant to ask you when (strictly) it is permissible to torture people. The word I was trying for was times. By the way, look at the "my randomnesses" board. That's way longer. Come to think of it, can't we just delete that?
wow, others surely have done better, in particular Write Away, on describing the blind parenthood phenomenon. While my wife is sighted, that doesn't negate my agreement with this in the least: we've all done things as parents singlehandedly and together. Sight is the least of challenges, though it can be a challenge at times. Ideological differences, perspective, even age difference, plays into parenting decisions. My baby girl is now 18, so for better or worse she's pretty well raised. Not that we don't have influence, but it's different now, even though she's still finishing the Senior Year.
But Tiffanitsa, I don't know what to say: Don't let the facts get in the way of your beliefs? Whoopee, makes you as nutty as any good fundamentalist wacko.
Her views on Greece remind me of many American fundamentalists' views on Israel: No practical experience, no real international understanding of the implications and most of all, drum roll please, TONS AND TONS AND TONS OF IDEOLOGY! Belief is not knowledge, and zeal is not understanding.
Thank you, leo. My sentiments exactly.
right on, leo and write away. thanks for proving that when forereel said (in a much earlier post) that the OP is good for at least sticking to her decisions, and clearly thinks things through, that he's sadly mistaken.
although I'm not yet a parent, I wholeheartedly agree with leo/write away's stance. couldn't have said it better myself, honestly.
Well she does stick to her decisions, I'll grant her that. But it's entertaining to hear what ridiculous rationalizations she comes up with for the rightness of her views even when we poke valid holes in them.
I beg to differ. sticking to one's decisions, isn't contradicting oneself, as she often does.
There's one sentence out of all five pages so far that really got my blood boiling. Cue explosion ...
Holy sweet Jesus H. Christ on an animal cracker! Write away, I! Heart! You! Massive virtual hugs! Just ... Wow! The anger I felt when she implied blind couples need sighted assistance raising their children was quieted with your post. I may not be a parent myself, so why do I still feel the urge to break something?
I was this close to throwing my laptop across the room a few minutes ago.
Tiff, have you ever actually interacted with blind adults who have families? asked questions and gotten information from blind parents about how they adjust to the different ages and stages of development as their children grow? No. You just sit there and assume it can't be done by blind people unless someone hovers over them. Never assume you know everything about what it's like until you're in the other person's shoes.
As for aborting a fetus who could potentially be blind? shit, noone knew I'd be blind until two weeks after I was born and given too much oxygen. It wasn't anyone's fault. I just showed up at 23 weeks gestation, weighing one lb thirteen ounces. both my parents are sighted, and so is my brother. So, under your twisted views, would a barely viable fetus at that stage be left to die, or be put on life support and come out of the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit after six months with possible life-threatening conditions? Fortunately, I did not, but other babies aren't so lucky. Doctors told my parents I had stage five retinopathy of prematurity, and I developed very mild epilepsy two years ago, but that's it. I'm still here. I don't consider myself a burden to others. I'm just blind. I can get things done, I just have to do them differently. My brain and everything else still works. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?
I know blind people who are competent, confident and loving parents where both people in the relationship are blind, and they manage just fine, thank you very much. They did well when the children were babies, and they do fine now that the children are school-age.
I feel insulted and I'm not even a parent. That's saying something. Rant over!
okay, apparently this thing is six pages long, but anyway ...
I am just waiting for Tiffanitsa to defend herself.
Let's roast her in a brazen bull. I'm sure she would be delighted to die by an ancient Greek torture/execution method.
Exactly. And while those blind couples may indeed have had sighted help at first it could only have been inte form of advice or being shownhow to do something once or twice. But once they got it down pat they were able to do it on their own and therefore able to raise their child/children. And if one of said children happened to be blind then so be it. Actually it would be good, since the child's own parents could begin to teach them how to function as a blind person rather than immediately resorting to a school for the blind.
I, too, have retinopathy of prematurity, due to being given too much oxygen after my birth. however, they had to do that to keep me alive (I was born at 26 weeks) weighing two pounds, three ounces.
wonder if the OP will say I should've been killed, or not even born to begin with?
I'm sure she would say that. It's sick.
I bet she would, too, or that the people who conceived me, should've aborted me. come to think of it, I bet that's exactly what she'd say.
It's a horrible thing to say to a person. You should have been aborted!
Holy fuck, this is still going on? I'm about 500 posts behind, but I guess when I have a crap load of time on my hands I'll go through all of this. Lol
Yes it is, but I would say it to the original poster.
indeed it's horrible, margorp, but what isn't horrible about her/her views?
Actually, there is one thing. She doesn't back down or bend over backwards to try to fix them to anyone's liking. She's obviously confident that the stances she takes are right, and whether that's good or bad doesn't really matter. She knows how she feels an that's that. I consider that a positive trait.
Hitler also knew what he believed and didn't back down from taking his stand. Thus, taking a stand and knowing what you believe alone are no virtue. it's actually what you're fighting for that may or may not be a virtue.
Fair enough. I admit that her stubbornness could be put to better use.
Why is this board still alive? We've long ago stopped having, or rather attempting to have, meaningful discourse with the poster. What's the point anymore. Everyone is just rehashing each other's statements. It's time to lay this thread to rest. Let's think of something new to talk about--Preferably something that makes our blood boil a little less.
write away, I have said, from the beginning, that these are my views and opinions. When I wish to write a scholarly essay, I will do so with facts, using proper notation and with a bibliography at the end. Thanks for at least clearing up the fact that you weren't trying to deliberately insult my faith. You're right in that I can't imagine what it's like to want to experience pregnancy, to be pregnant, or to bare and nurse a child. I'm sure this is a wonderful thing for those who do desire it, and I would be a fool to deny it. But the selfishness comes in when you know that your child will be disabled and choose to have him anyway. Blindness, as I said, is not so debilating that you can't live a decent life. But other disabilities can be, and it's these which really upset me. Yet even with blindness, why would you want to bring a child into the world who will suffer? No, it's not as bad as some disabilities, and yes, everyone has their own problems in life. But I can't understand how or why the need for having a child would be so strong that someone wouldn't care what happened, so long as the child was from her body! Whether we sit home all day or work three jobs and are the life of the town, whether we can barely use a slate and stylus or are the world's greatest computer programmers, all of us know that blindness causes hardships. So why, then, would we want someone else to go through it if it could be avoided? If anything, let's work on cures!
Mom jokes that I was brought up with so much love that I could bottle it and sell it. Despite what some here may think, I can be quite compassionate. I recently heard a story that will haunt me for the rest of my life, and that I can honestly say I found traumatising. During Hurricane Sandy, a mother, Glenda Moore, for whatever reason, was out with her children, 2-year-old Brandon and 4-year-old Conner, in the car. The car stalled and she got out with them. As the storm blew, she clung to tree branches, for hours, calling for help. Finally, she got to the house of a neighbour named Allen, and banged frantically on the door, but he ignored her. She went into the back to try and break the window, and still he ignored her. Her children were then ripped from her arms by a wave, and despite her screaming, no one tried to help her. The children were later found dead. Afterword, the man actually said that it was her fault that they died and that he didn't regret what he did, because he was afraid it was a man trying to break in. I can't begin to express the emotions I felt when I read that, from sadness, to pure rage, to hopelessness. It still brings tears to my eyes whenever I read or talk about it. That! my friends and enemies, is a monster! That! is the kind of "person" you should be fighting, not some woman on an internet forum, who is merely expressing her views and who has no power. He could have saved those babies, but his selfishness overrode any shred of decency he may have had in his life, and as a result, they're dead! So yes, I can love, and I can hurt, and I can sit and wonder what in the hell is wrong with humanity. Thank the gods, not everyone is like that.
As for 1984, I've read it but will do so again, just to see what I think of it now. I already know that I would disagree with several things in that society. That's really taking things too far. Still, there may be a few things that I like. As for mythology, the word mythos does not mean fake, contrived, etc. That was a later connotation added onto it.
Lmfao. It will never stop!
Now to the rest of you, who still don't get my points on blindness, no matter how many times I have explained them. I am not saying that blind people cannot be parents, nor that they should be sterilised for their blindness alone. I do remember what was said about safety here, and I admire those who really try their hardest to make their home as child-proof as possible. So I'm not saying that all blind parents are bad. I just think it really helps to have someone sighted around who could drive, help a child with learning about facial expressions and eye contact, colours, reading and writing etc., take out splinters, see things like rashes that he may develop, and so on. I'm not sure why people seem to have a problem with this. I'm glad that a few, at least, understand what I'm saying. ShatteredSanity, I've never thought of punishments for those who should be sterilised, so I really can't answer that. Certainly, if people choose to have children in cases where abortions are recommended, they shouldn't be punished. But that's not the same thing.
Reyami, interacting with blind parents is certainly a good idea, just to see how they do things. I might be surprised by their inginuity. But let me share a little story with you guys. We went to a few NFB conventions, mostly for the technology, and because, at that time, Mom was curious as to how parents of the blind did things eetc. From my own observations, I noticed that not everyone was clean, and I saw, or rather smelt, this again, when I went to a few other blind-related places. But she also told me that there were people there who were wearing mismatched clothing, and people who were rocking back and forth, with their fingers in their eyes. Several had dogs, and a few times, these started eating food from the table. Many had flees and/or were dirty, and one almost got his tail caught in a door! Does this mean that all blind people are like that? Absolutely not. Some were impeckably dressed, very clean, and their dogs were well-groomed and well-behaved. But should these others have children? I say no! If you can't even take care of your own personal hygene, what on Earth are you doing trying to take care of a child?
As I've already stated, I don't think that the poor should be sterilised. But I also think they should try to get themselves into a better situation before having children. Here, I mean those with both parents working all the time and no time to really spend with the children. Many of these families are abusive, and even if they're the most loving and caring they can be, they may live in truly dangerous neighbourhoods, where there's a good chance of getting beaten, shot, stabbed, mugged, raped, etc. What kind of environment is that for a child? Not having the latest toys is fine. Being constantly in fear for your life or for the lives of your family members is not.
Something like retinopathy of prematurity isn't something that can be prevented, and neither, in certain cases, is premature birth. Ordinarily, I would consider a child in that stage of life to be a fetus. But I suppose, if he is born that early, he might be considered a baby. Semantics aside, I would put the child on life support and see what happened. Hopefully, there would be no brain damage and/or no severe physical damage.
You're sure these were NFB conventions you attended? I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm genuinely shocked. Usually, it's the NFB, and more specifically, its members, who jump all over the kind of blind people you're talking about. It's usually NFB members who belittle blind people who don't have jobs, or whose clothes don't match one day in their life, because God forbid everyone thinks we're like *those* people. You know, the ones you were talking about. But, honestly, what's the difference between a blind person who obviously doesn't know the meaning of the word hygiene and a sighted person who doesn't? Does it matter whether it's a deaf person whose dog is covered with fleas as opposed to a blind person? I damn sure hope it doesn't. There's a woman my mom works with whose teeth literally look like they have moss growing on them, because she never took care of them in her life. While you're standing there having a conversation with this woman, her gums randomly start bleeding. She's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but she's not disabled, and she's fully sighted, too. She also has 3 kids. She doesn't want them, she's not ashamed of it, and she often goes to work bragging about how she passed them off to this or that relative just because she can and she doesn't want the responsibility. This woman is nearly 40. Now tell me, does she deserve to have kids? Obviously, her poor hygiene is the least of her problems, but how a person takes care of their body does make a bold statement about how they feel about themselves, which can in turn affect their parenting style. So before you A. go and say that all blind people are dirty, and B. say that because they're dirty, they make lousy parents, step back and look at all the sighted people who fit that very description. Then, try to think of the reasons why some, and I stress, SOME, blind people are unhappy enough to choose to live in filth. I highly doubt that it's all due to pure laziness and lack of ambition.
Finally, I think it was Write Away who said this topic should just die. Well, I find it funny when people complain about the duration and content of a topic, yet push it right back to the top by expressing their sentiments. If you want something to go away, don't contribute to its continued existence.
I'm positive that it was the NFB. I only heard of the ACB later on, so we never went to their conventions. Your story almost made me sick! No, it makes no difference, whatsoever, whether such a person is blind, sighted, or has three eyes! They should never! have children, and she should have her's taken from her. What a horrible person, to give birth to children she doesn't even want and then to brag about leaving them with whomever! If that's not a case for sterilisation, I don't know what is!
it's most likely utter bullshit the OP is making up, since she seems to hate blind people so much, and thinks they're incapable of doing anything productive... I cannot think of a single blind person I know in real life that matches the people she described at those conventions.
The people I interact with who happened to be blind are very competent, have great jobs, are intelligent, where nice clothing, and are not dirty people. So, guess what, original poster bitch, blind people can be just as productive and successful as sighted people. you're beyond pathetic.
And you think blind parents aren't able to get their child from point A to point B safely? How the hell do you think they get the child to the pediatrician, the park, traveling safely in general with him or her regardless of age using either a stroller or a sling or walking with them? Shit! Leaving the damn hospital if that's where they gave birth?
When teaching their children about colors and assisting with reading and writing, the parents can ask the child open-ended questions and interact while examining a picture book to get the child to explain in one or two- word responses what he or she is seeing. Common picture books the child may enjoy looking at could be adapted to suit the parent, including leaving enough space for Braille labels to indicate the different colors in the tactile pictures. this way if the child says, "Red," to describe, say, a candy cane, the parent can confirm in his or her copy. It's also an educational tool for the child because he/she is learning mom and dad have to use special books to read to him or her.
This concept can also help with learning letters as well. They have these things available called twin vision books: Braille with print so the kid can read along with the blind parent.
Blind parents have to be more hands-on with their kids than the average sighted parent. They will recognize when their child develops things like rashes and other ailments associated with illness. The same can be said for helping their children with bumps, bruises, cuts, and all the things that happen as the child explores the world around him. Blind parents can be just as intuitive as sighted parents when it comes to changes in their childrens' mood, changes in appetite, etc. It all comes with getting to know your baby, as with any sighted parent, whether it's their first or fifth.
It's a good thing the OP wasn't around when I was born then. I was three-and-a-half months premature and weighed just a pound and five ounces and,like some others of you, had to be on oxygen for a while and went blind as a result. In fact during the first week of my life some of the hospital staff told my mom they weren't sure if my folks would want to bother naming me because I was unlikely to live out the week. Here I am 32 years later. But I don't doubt that if the OP had been at that hospital she might have tried to talk my folks into letting me die. I don't mean to seem rude but that's exactly the impression I get from her repeated posts.
Reyami, that's interesting about the twin vision books. I can see how it might provide the child with two lessons, the one on print and the other on how people do things differently. I certainly agree with you about acknowledging changes in mood and appetite. Mom and I have that same connection, and it works both ways. So maybe, in a way, blindness could make a parent more aware of things and take less for granted, and also teach the child the same. If nothing else, he will learn to speak in direction instead of saying things like "get that over there."
BryanP22, your assumption is wrong. I would advise waiting it out and seeing what happened. You were on oxygen, yes, but not in extreme pain that was incurable. Neither were you brain dead.
Tiff, I'd just like to ask you a couple of questions; Perhaps interacting with you instead of stating some facts might make you realize that you're wrong about disabled people--in particular blind people.
As Joanne (riami) stated, what makes you think a blind parent can't bring their kid safely from one place to another? What makes you think that someone who's sighted and can drive can make a trip safer for there kid. Have you heard that driving in a car is statistically less safe than flying in a plane? People have been walking from place to place forever, and they have less accidents along the way than those who drive, so even if the parents were to resort to walking with their kids, why is that not a safe option?
A person who is blind has to have their hands on their baby at all times. A person with vision has a false sense of security in their ability to see. They let their kid go and play on their own, glancing at them from time to time, while a blind parent explores with his or her child. There's just no other choice.
The child of a blind parent is often more verbal at an earlier age because they can't wine and point to whatever they want, they have to communicate by speech.
Otherwise, they don't get what they're after. How is that not beneficial. Every good blind parent teaches his or her kid to stay at their side or to come when asked, no exceptions. That's a condition a child of a blind parent knows must not be broken. If it is, all activities stop. People who can see don't teach their kid to be descriptive like the blind parent has to. They don't feel the necessity to teach their kid about too much more beyond the visual aspects of life.
You said something truly ignorant... You said a kid of a blind parent needs a sighted individual to teach them about facial expressions and colors, and letters. Really?
Tell me, tiff. do you not smile because your blind? Do you not make physical gestures to express yourself? Because I do. And the eye contact issue has been dealt with a long time ago; For your information, as long as you face your child at close proximity and talk to them, make facial expressions, that beats out any real eye contact because you compensate with tactile contact. I am not making this up. I've been told that by three different pediatricians on three separate occasions. And have you not heard of magnetic, tactile letters and labeling pictures in braille to describe their colors and other visual aspects?
Like riami said, there are twin vision books. And talking puzzles. And scores of other tools to helpp a blind person be an exceptional parent.
Seriously. There are millions of ways to overcome the nonissues you pose. You remind me of my grandma who insists I shouldn't walk anywhere when it's dark. Why? Because it's dark. and I can't see. Never mind that I'm walking in a pedestrian-friendly place and I've been totally blind all my life.
I find it very hard to fathom why you think blind people suffer. Blind people suffer much in the same way obese people suffer. True, obese people don't have to buy special technology to aid them in their daily life, but they do face their own brand of discrimination. You'd go and say that an obese person can lose weight. well, not really. it's very, very very hard to lose weight once you're obese. Most people don't achieve that goal. So they are stuck with the inconvenience of being fat, and even if they do lose weight, they have to be extra careful not to gain it back again. it's an issue that stays with you forever and ever. Much like blindness. Everyone has a handicap. Yours is that you can't wrap your head around a disabled person living a full life. In addition to blindness that is.
I'm sorry you've met incompetent blind people, i believe they exist. I've met my own share of them. But it's not fair to say that judging by them, the blind make worse parents than those who aren't physically afflicted by a disability. The same goes for the deaf and those in a wheelchair.
You seem to rethink a lot of your statements once you're proved wrong. I just wish you'd think things over more carefully before making statements about them. It seems to me that you, as a blind person don't really know about all the resources that are available to us; You seem to be surprised by a lot that we tell you. You seem in awe of the people who say they parent with competence. But why?
When people find themselves in a certain situation, if they really want to make the best of it, they will find a way to do so. That's why it's not ok for any government to be making choices on the behalf of an individual. it's not ok to throw all the blind in the same boiling pot, nor is it ok to do the same with people afflicted in other ways. it's better, more humane to review each case individually. You can't just say, I've seen flee-infested blind people who poke their fingers in their eyes, therefore two blind people shouldn't be parents together. There are plenty of dirty, irresponsible people who have otherwise no other handicap. should we then sterilize everyone? Should no one be allowed to have kids because a bunch of people are irresponsible.
I've seen plenty of parents without any handicaps do things with their kids that I would never do with mine. It seems that society dictates that it's ok for a baby to watch tv, for instance. No one pays attention to how dammaging this might be to the development of the child, yet when seven different sighted moms sit their two month olds in front of a cartoon, they won't be looked down upon by someone like you. But someone like myself would be scrutinized just because I'm blind and have a baby. How's that ethical, humane or fair.
I don't necessarily think you're a monster. I just don't think you have ideas that would benefit the general population. I think you live in your own little world. You seem prejudiced against people with the same affliction you yourself have. How about spending some time learning what people have at hand to aid them in living a normal life. How about taking in to consideration a person's individual happiness before you spout out about what would be good for the government or the country.
Remember, a country or a government would be nothing without people. Countries were developed so that people would live civilly. People shouldn't live for a country, the country should serve them In the end, the human life is so much more precious than any land, any nationality, any ethnicity. You seem to disagree with that idea, that's why people call you inhumane. that's why people think you a monster. it's a cold and disturbing idea that someone might hold a land or a race over basic humanity. Your ideas do tend to have a lot in common with that of hitler, that's why people are so alarmed. What about that can't you understand. Do you relize that you'd be wiping yourself out, more or less, or at least stripping yourself of your basic human rights if you lived in this phantom country of yours?
Seriously. People live with imperfections. The world is imperfect. if you dont' suffer from a disibility, you'd suffer from something else. Unpopularity. Gender confusion. Obesity. Ugliness. Stupidity. The urge to be violent. Ignorance. Prejudice. Loneliness. Any number of those less apparent afflictions can make a person's life more of a living hell than having to live as a blind person or having to be in a wheelchair. Dont' you get it?
Everyone is going to have major issues in life. Depression afflicts eighty percent of people across every demographic. even more, I'm willing to bet. That can be a thousand times more dibilitating than deafness, and a person who is depressed can be a thousand times more neglectful to their kid than a happy, well-adjusted blind parent.
You really don't think your arguments through. I'm willing to bet, neither did hitler. Again, I'm going to echo other people's sentiments that I'm lucky you're not in power.
When your child is old enough to walk beside you, and to watch out for traffic, I'd say it's an acceptible option. When you must use a stroller etc. and watch out for yourself, along with your baby, or when said baby is old enough to walk but not old enough to understand what to do, I don't think it would be wise on busy streets, but it might be fine on quiet ones. But at that crawling or early walking stage, the only thing I could think of is to somehow tie the baby to you in a way that would give him freedom and also make sure that he stays safe. It sounds too much like a leash for my liking, but safety is far more important than an image. I never thought of the benefit of the child of a blind parent gaining speech earlier, but it does make sense and can give a big advantage, especially when starting school.
Let me explain what I mean about facial expressions, as that can be a bit confusing. I don't mean that a child can't learn to smile etc. It's the body language, the parent smiling at him, etc. that would be missing. To be fair, Mom had the same issue with me, as the blind child, and she substituted it with lots of touching of my face, kissing, talking, etc. But I myself am not really one for gestures. I occasionally make them, but mostly, I'm verbal. Thanks for clearing up the eye contact issues. I didn't realise that making faces could have the same effect as looking at a child. Yes, I have heard of and used magnetic letters, and of course, those can be used. But unless we stuck to those, how could I read a child's handwriting or teach him to handwrite? In my case, I would want him to learn Greek as well as English, and there are precious few braille books in Greek, let alone print, and I've never seen magnetic letters or talking products in the language. I myself am trying to learn the alphabet etc. and we're having to improvise to do it. I suppose I could teach him how to speak and then, when he's old enough, send him to someone sighted to learn his letters.
I never said or implied that "the blind make worse parents than those who aren't physically afflicted by a disability", and even if I did, I certainly wouldn't say such a thing based on those people whom I've met. That wouldn't be fair at all. My reasons would be different, as described when I merely said that it would be better to have a sighted person in the mix. I would like to say sterilise the completely irresponsible people, but it would be very difficult, indeed, to find those, and some do mature with time. So that wouldn't be wise. But I'd certainly push contraception on them, particularly condoms.
I don't see anything wrong with letteing children watch television, so long as it's age appropriate. I'd rather them read or at least listen to history, religious stories, or even fictional ones, but a little tv isn't bad.
"Countries were developed so that people would live civilly. People shouldn't live for a country, the country should serve them In the end, the human life is so much more precious than any land, any nationality, any ethnicity." I must strongly disagree here. If that were the case, then people wouldn't give their lives for their countries, particularly in cases where they fight off invasion or work towards independence. Here are three quotes which might help put things into proper perspective.
"For every human being, one's country and faith are his all, and he must make sacrifices of patriotism so that he and his kinsmen may live like honorable people in society. And only when adorned with patriotic sentiments do people earn the name of "nation." Otherwise, they are mere shams of nations and a burden on the earth." General Yannis Makriyannis: Memoirs
"It is not the rich man you should properly call happy, but him who knows how to use with wisdom the blessings of the Gods, to endure hard poverty, and who fears dishonor worse than death, and is not afraid to die for cherished friends or fatherland." ~ Horace, Odes»
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
—John Stuart Mill - English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)
As for me, I would not be stripping my rights away in a republic. Perhaps a few, during military rule, but they would be the same rights modified for all, not just for me. Certainly, I wouldn't treat people differently just because they're blind, in a wheelchair, etc. As for depression, if it has been proven to effect an individual so much that she cannot care for her own children and neglects them, she should have them taken away, with visitation rights, at least until she recovers. Such a thing is not good for a child to see, and said child shouldn't suffer for the personal hell that his parent is going through. Plus, the medication might turn the parent dangerous.
As for Hitler, out of curiosity, and because I've always been fascinated by his psychology (how/why did he develop his beliefs and allow atrocities to be committed), I've begun reading Mein Kampf. No, I do not condone what he did, and there are probably a thousand things with which I'll disagree while reading. But at least some of what he discusses he lived through, so on that one, he has me beat.
Very well said, Write Away. I do have to say, though, that the issue of transportation could become a serious problem if you were a blind single parent, or if both parents were blind, and you lived in an area with little or no public transportation. It would be easy to say just move, but after bringing a baby into the world, surely you don't have the money, time or resources to do so. Let's not forget also that even in places where public transportation is excellent, it may cost more in the end than owning a car would, especially if you must frequently take cabs or Paratransit. This is just one issue that made the decision for me that I don't want to have children. I've lived in a rural area for most of my life, except for the 4 years I lived in Philadelphia and attended a school for the blind. When I am able to move out of my parents' house, I'll certainly move to a more populated area. But sometimes these things can't be avoided, and more populated doesn't always equal more blind-friendly. So that could be one justification, hypothetically, why Tif is saying that transportation could pose a serious problem for a blind parent and not a sighted one. Imagine having to wait for a cab when your child has a doctor's appointment, or the extracurricular activities they could miss out on just because you couldn't pick them up.
You still don't have a good point regarding the facial expressions. A blind child can hear a smile in a person's voice. Can't you hear a person smiling? And as for a sighted child in the care of a blind parent, well, I already explain that.
You teach a child handwriting with the help of a screen board or a draftsman, a device which embosses your handwriting and that of the child onto a piece of paper. it's basically a textured screen which you put under a piece of paper and which comes through tactally when you press the pen upon the paper. I don't know about reek letters; I've never had the need to learn about them. How you went about that would be up to you.
Also, your kid would have years upon years to perfect their handwriting under the care of a sighted teacher at school. No big deal there.
I take daily walks with my eight month old in our neighborhood, where streets are busy and sidewalks are cracked. Have been doing so since he was a month old. There are plenty of ways you can protect your child from harm. Ever yeard of slings? Wraps? Snugglies and front packs in which you cary your child? How about a horsetail, a backpack which the child wares in the shape of a horse, with a tail which serves as a kind of handle that the parent holds on to?
Sighted people use them to control their kids, mostly because they're too lazy to keep an eye on them. But blind people use them to keep their little toddlers by their side at all times in public.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your nationalist philosophy and was never able to understand why anyone would want to sacrifice their life for a country and leave their families behind. Let's agree to disagree then. I find no perspective in yrou quotes because I don't think that a person should sacrifice their life or their way of life for their country just because it's their country. I think people should give to their communities, I think people should help their neighbors and friends, but my patriotism ends there.
But going back to the topic of parenting while blind, you have a lot to learn; You are only just beginning to understand how many resources a blind parent might have to his or her advantage. So maybe now you can agree with me that you made your original points very prematurely, and maybe now you can understand some of why we have been ticked off with your thinking.
As for hitler, I dont' know what makes a man a monster; Only heard that his mother's nurse was a jew and he resented her for the fact that his mom died on her watch.
Besides that, he had idealistic views, was unshakeably loyal to the arian race and thought jews, as well as disabled and the elderly, as very inferior. Now can you see why people were comparing your thinking to his?
I find it very telling that she says "I would not be stripping away my rights in a republic". First of all, it shows she doesn't know what a republic is. Second, it shows that she thinks these things don't apply to her. She thinks all these rules apply to everyone else. I'd be willing to go so far as to say there might be some narcisistic tendencies there, but I'm not a medical professional.
I also find it funny, not to cross boards here, but when I say something she doesn't like, which doesn't involve killing people, I'm sickening. Literally, she said I made her sick to her stomach and have a headache. But baby killing, sterilization and torture, that's just dinner conversation. For those of you who don't know the oh-so-terrible thing I said, look at the board entitled "sandy".
What I don't get is how she can say she wouldn't have advocated for my euthenasia, yet she thinks it's wrong for someone to bring a child into the world knowing the might have a disability. Because the hospital staff, even though they were pretty sure I wouldn't make it, still told my parents that even if I survived I probably would have been more impaired than I ended up being. That and my parents had absolutely no idea how to deal with a blind child at that time.
the ignorance of the creator of this thread astounds me.
I can't even begin to formulate a response to all the vometed ignorance and assumtions I have whittnessed in this thread...
My suggestion to you, Tiff, is simply to actually get out there and experience some of life instead of just going on what a small circle of people believe and what you read on the internet.
Occasionally, I log out and check the nonsense spewing forth from the keyboards of those whom I'm ignoring. Most are just more personal attacks, so I let them be. But I will address this one.
I explained, in this essay, in the political views one, and in the conversation, that certain rights, which would be modified or stripped during military rule, would be allowed, often times encouraged, in a republic. Therefore, it does make a difference. Despite what some may think, I do know what constitutes a republic, particularly as it differs from a direct democracy. In the former, people are elected to represent parties, various offices, and the country at large. In the latter, the people themselves vote on everything.
BryanP22, you've given me a quandary here, and I'm not sure how to answer it. I suppose knowing the real outcome has effected my judgement. At the same time, you were already born, so we're not talking abortion. You were really lucky, of course. I'd even say your story is a miracle! But it could very well have gone another way. I think part of it is that I myself fought for life in an incubator, though I was born two months premature, not three and a half. I know I shouldn't let either of those things get in the way of clear-headedness, but they do. So I would present both the options of euthanasia and of waiting to see what happens. If, later, the child had a severe disability, not merely blindness or being in a wheelchair, but something really life-threatening or debilitating, that might change things.
I want to know why you are bothering to ignore people if you read what they post. It seems that you are giving them a reason to tear you down.
That is a good question, but there is a method to my madness, I can assure you. I like to read the decent posts here, and to think and comment on them without the interruption of the nonsense. Then, I can go back, and see if what I missed is even worth reading. Most of the time, it's not, and I've pretty much hardened myself to their immaturity and attacks, so I just move on. But on the one or two occasions when a valid point is mentioned, I answer it. If I didn't officially have them on ignore, I'd probably cave in and answer the unnecessary things and the real debating would be lost once more.
I've heard these stereotypes about the blind since the 70s. And most the blind I have known in real life are hardworking taxpaying Americans who contribute and volunteer in their communities, just like untold thousands of others.
And yet if we started saying certain racial groups eat fried chicken and watermelon, smoke crack and draw wellfare, that is racist, yet the OP and many like her can make these types of statements with no repute. So, with all the so-called civil rights advancements, all we can say is that we have basically learned nothing.
Great, people. That's fuckin awesome and you know it!
Here here, Leo.
Right, she's hardened to my criticisms. She's a regular rock of ignoring me. I feel completely shut down right now. I mean, I can't even come up with a good way to come back at the evil twisted ignorant little fuck.
Oh wait, I guess I can.
I'm not making these up out of thin air. This is what my mother witnessed. As I said, there were many blind people there who clearly didn't fit that description. Never once did I say that all of us are like that.
But we should all be lumped together despite us not all fitting that description.
Anyone else thinking she's just a bitter bitch who is whimpering about how much her life sucks? That's the impression I'm getting.
sure sounds that way, Cody.
exactly. sure would be nice if she would just shut the hell up. the more she talks the more she sounds like a whiny miserable little girl who's unhappy with her life.
Just as there are pathetic blind people, there are pathetic sighted people. Why do so many people need to say, "all so-and-sos do this or that?"
I've been trying to understand that for a long time myself. I guess it's comforting if you've had a bad experience with one type of person to search for the bad in the rest of them, if you have that mentality.
I hope you get hit in the head by a 2 by 4 with nails on the end of it. That way you can get your head straight on and you wouldn't be making yourself look like an ignorant asshole like you are now.
Whoa, were you talking to me? Now I'm confused. I was only offering an explanation as to why I thought some people had stereotypes. I didn't say I felt that way, I certainly don't.
Have I been writing in Greek or was my English too difficult for you to understand? I explained, several times, that not all blind people are this way, and that my concerns regarding blind parents are not based on these ideas. I have also said that sighted people who follow these same stereotypes shouldn't have children. Did I make myself clear now or must I find a simpler way to explain things? I just shared a story and referred to those who, in fact, are this way, as an extra concern.
If anyone dared to up and tell me I should have been aborted because I'm blind, my response would be, "too fucking late, I'm here and I'm sticking around!"
And here we go again with what I have decided to call the Night of the Living Blink scenario. This is where the good guys are this tiny group of perhaps five or six very normalized assimilated blind people all up in their business suits holed up in an abandoned farmhouse somewhere. And now, as our camera looks outside, down the hill come thousands upon millions of shuffling, rocking, eye-poking blind people raising a stink one could only imagine from their unwashed selves, coming to attack the farmhouse to get after our ragtag band of blind businessmen and women for an as yet undetermined reason, I dunno, to borrow Starbucks money or a free iPad or some such ridiculousness, I don't know.
Sounds like a Zombie Apocalypse.
Yes, the blinkpocalypse is upon us! Lol.
It's the first time, during this thread, that I'm sitting here with a huge smile on my face. You guys are funny!
Brains, braiiiins, braaaaaaaiiiiiins! LOL.
How about you try being consistent in your opinions for once you idiotic, moronic fuckmook?
Sorry, had to get that off my chest. She pisses me off, she really does.
Christe... and the stupidity serve with extra dribbles of cruelty...! Wow, you do make Hitler look good, and in case you are too dumb to understand tifastupid I'm not by any mean complimenting you.
|Live on freedom of fucked up speech brought to you by the zone bs and the nut case...!
She is rather inconsistent though.
Okay, I lost track of what we were actually talking about. oh right:
We've all had moments in our lives when we have been lazy thus not contributing to society. Should we have been yuthinized? Or should we be sterilized because we have the lazy geen?
Being lazy, but still technically able to contribute, is very different from not being able to do anything. I don't just mean by working, but even by helping around the house, even just having conversations that stimulate people, make them laugh, etc. When you're so far gone that you don't know who or where you are, and you can't do even the most basic things, and there's no chance of recovery, there's a major problem. That's when I'd opt for euthanasia.
So, you can make people laugh, which means you can make people happy. Yet, you'd kill someone who is brain dead because you believe they can't make people happy. Yet it is possible to make someone happy simply by existing. Thus, a brain dead person can make someone happy. Thus, your argument fails. Just like all your other arguments. Because you're an idiot who doesn't know shit about shit. Now please shut up.
But you can't do anything else. You can't talk, take care of yourself, or even be aware of your surroundings. Someone must always take care of you, and you can't really contribute to society. I like my computer, and I sometimes read things on it that make me laugh. But it also provides me with a way to pay my bills, to buy things, and to communicate with others. The mildly, even somewhat moderately, mentally retarded may or may not be able to work, but they can still understand enough to interact with you many times!
What about animals, say dogs? Now I'm a big animal lover. But if a dog was in an accident and couldn't walk, was in pain, or even needed to be handfed and carried out to do his business, would most people keep him alive? I know it's difficult to lose a pet, especially if you're really close with him. But most would agree that keeping an animal alive, especially if he was so mentally disabled that he couldn't even recognise you or eat by himself, would be wrong. What is the difference here with a human?
the real question, here, is who is the OP to decide whether a person makes others happy?
as Cody said, how the hell do we know someone who's unable to contribute to society in the ways some of us can, doesn't contribute by just being their enthusiastic, loving selves?
as someone who has had many a friend throughout life that's nonverbal, unable to live on his/her own, I can attest to the fact that they're still able to make others happy.
so, even though they aren't able to contribute in ways certain other individuals deem necessary for them to be considered worthy human beings, or for them to live, period, they're doing so to the extent that they can. why isn't that enough for some people?
I don't understand why this is even an issue. it's pathetic, honestly.
Easy, dogs aren't people. I can bet that if you asked that dog's mom if she wants to kill her baby, she'd say no.
Utilitarian bioethics is basically what this is. I read a Dean Koontz novel that explored this very issue. Government should never decide whether a family has the right to keep one of their number alive regardless of their disability. That decision should be up to those whom it immediately concerns, the patient themselves whenever possible. But I agree wit others. I've known a lot of people who had family members who were nonverbal and would never be able to live on their own and none of them would ever dream of euthenizing their child. They're free to make that choice for themselves and that's how it should be. Because even the most nonverbal people I've ever met still had personality.
Actually, they're not free to make that decision. Even those who are mentally competent can't make the decision to be euthanised when they're terminally ill. This is the whole issue behind the right to die. In both instances, according to the law, it would be considered murder. Also, even if the family has the best intentions, who will pay for the care of these people, particularly if they need expensive equipment and such? What happens when the parents die or are unable to afford said care?
Not entirely true. People are free to decide NOT! to euthenize a member of their family regardless of their disability. And that area especially is where the government needs to stay out of people's business. I do agree that assisted suicide should be legal for those who are terminally ill and want to die on their own terms. And yes, I do believe families with severely disabled members who are incapable of acting or even thinking for themselves should have the legal option to euthenize if! they all agreed upon that course of action. But the choice not to euthenize should be in the hands of the family and only the family. The same is true of sterilization. Forced sterilization was tried in this country years ago and the government's still taking flack over it.Rightly so in my opinion. No one, and i mean no one, should have the authority to ake that decision aside from the individual, unless of course the person is a known sex offender who shows no remorse for their actions and no inclination to try to straighten up. But just because someone's poor or has a hereditary condition that is not an automatic justification for forcing them to be sterilized. Poverty can be overcome withhard work even if they never get rich. My family was pretty poor when I and my siblings were young and oftentimes we ate better than my folks just so they could be sure we got all our meals. And just because someonehas a hereditary condition does not automatically mean they will pass it on. There's as much cance that they won't as any other possibility. If you ask me it's wrong to abort or euthenize such a child, especially if there's any chance they'll grow up to be someone highly influencial in a positive way. They could be the next president of the US and lead the country in a positive new direction. By not allowing the child to be born you deny them any chance of groing up to do great things, even if they're nothing on the scale of being president.
Very well said, Bryan.
Thanks. I just think it outraeous when people think other people should be euthenized or whhatever for havig disabilitis that aren't really allthat debilitating.I meaI could understand it if we were talking about a completevegetable who cannever think, move or speak for himself or erself. But that isn't all we're talking about. But even ten the choice not to euthenize should onlybe up to the family.
Wo, proofread much? lol jk.
That's what I was thinking! *smile*
Getting back to the topic of rights, I read about a restriction which truly angered me yesterday. I take food rights very seriously, especially in a republic. Apparently, the mayor of New York is not allowing certain foods to be given to the homeless, due to their fat and salt content. I could understand regulations for places like hospitals and schools, but this? These people are starving, there has been a storm which made many people newly homeless, and he's worried about fat and salt? I can't even begin to understand this!
and this is why I think the government is sticking its views where they don't belong. The food in New York is a great example, but it's far from the only one. A person's view that this country should be eating healthier, although a valid one, should not make a law, especially when the government still goes out of its way to defend businesses who put additives in their foods. Pathetic!
I do believe that food should be labeled, and I would personally like to see raw milk legalised, and far more free range and organic food on the shelves of mainstream stores. But that doesn't mean that I agree with the reduced and 0-fat nonsense, and all the substitutions for things. I just don't like the idea of animals being raised in horrible conditions, and of pesticides, herbicides, hormones, antibiotics, and other chemicals in my food! Should they continue to label the salt and fat content of things? Sure, especially for those who really can't eat them for medical reasons! But should people be forced to eat certain things because they're healthy? No. If I want to eat a bag of junk food, that should always be my right!
Bryan, could you retype your last post, please? I couldn't understand it, either.
It's interesting that you think you should have the right to eat junk food whenever you want to but a family with a severely disabled person shouldn't have the right whether to euthanize that person or not. Seems to me the latter is more a matter of life and death, literally. Yours is just a matter of food.
While I find Tiffanitsa's views on euthanizing the disabled abhorrent, I reiterate: so long as the government pays for people they are in fact in their business.
When I was on SSDI for a year, for instance, there was an allotment allowed for my daughter. Now in order for me to be accountable to you the taxpayer who paid for this, I had to keep books and demonstrate that the money went to the daughter. Remember, this wasn't my money. I didn't earn it. I was the trustee of the public's money being alloted for the care of a minor (my daughter). So the government was involved, because the government, meaning in the U.s., the people, paid for it. I understood it, but of course I don't believe any of the B.S. about people wanting to remain on the system.
If you really want the government to stay out of everyone's business, stop using services, stop using entitlements, stop using any government help, just stop.
It sounds an awful lot like when the older kids say "Stay out of my life," when you pay for everything they do. If you're paying for it, you do in fact have a say. Otherwise those who pay for it are just slaves of those who are paid for.
It's the same as with the banking bailouts. Yes, the public should be involved because it's our money. Just as the public was involved in the business of SSDI maiking a specific payment for my daughter's benefit for a year. And I as trustee of that money was accountable on the books, needed to keep things in a separate account, so that I could demonstrate to you the public taxpayer at the time that the money went for her needs and not some whim of mine, or nott even my own needs. That money was allocated specifically for her. Granted, that's no way to live, dangling precariously off the end of the public titty, but it served the purpose until I got things straightened out. But I use this as an example to say, if you really want to say the government has no business in something, have them stop paying for it. For example, the government has no business in whether or not gays get married, because gays will pay for their own marriage licenses like the rest of us. But the government does currently have business in who gets entitlements and who doesn't.
And that's not just the government. Have you ever loaned a family member (hopefully not) or friend money for a specific purpose? It very much was your business if those were the terms of the loan, aka I'll pay to make sure you can afford textbooks this term. Now if they go blow that money, sure they could in theory pay you back, but you wouldn't have loaned it to them to begin with if you knew they weren't going to spend it on the textbooks.
I'm just saying claiming it's not the government business is only true if the government will never pay for the person in question. If the person's sponsor is wealthy enough to compensate for any and all expenses for all time. Otherwise, if the public (you, by the way) are paying for it, it is the public's (your) business.
I agree with you to an extent Leo. However, I think there is a point at which it is no longer the governments business, even if they are paying for it.
Using your example, you were given money to buy your daughter clothes. You were not, I assume, told whether you were allowed to buy your daughter a red shirt, or a blue shirt. That was left up to you. Colors are none of the governments business.
Neither, I feel, is who should live, and who should die. No outside party ever has the right to make that decision.
I too, however, find it funny that the OP is unhappy about people being forced to eat healthy, but is not unhappy about the fact that she wants to torture criminals. This, is what we call idiotic hippocracy.
As for my opinion on the food issue, I think its a good idea. If you're going to ask for handouts, you take the handouts you're given. New York's governor wants to give out healthy food. That's his right. Welcome to poverty and homelessness.
Thank you, LeoGuardian, for post 607! This is exactly! what I've had in my mind, only you expressed it far more eloquently. I'm all for giving benefits to people, but how can we be sure that they're going to help the ones who can't do anything, or take control of their own finances? And where does it end? It's not as if these people can ever recover, or even take responsibility for themselves, as many others who cannot work do. So the public is basically paying for them to live, for the rest of their lives, and probably for someone to take care of them as well. If this is not the case, and the family can afford it, fine. Let them live.
Torturing criminals is far different from punishing the innocent. What I eat in my home is my business. Maybe, under military rule, they can demand that restaurants only serve healthy food. But this is not acceptible in a republic. Maybe, they could try to get in with food stamps, since that is the government's money. But if I go to a restaurant, or even a store, and use my own money to pay for food, I should be able to eat/buy what I want. As for New York, they weren't talking about the food given directly by the government. They were stopping donations from citizens to shelters.
But serving only healthy food in restaurants is much different from demanding that everyone eat healthy in their own homes.
Well, I did say that the right to eat what you want is a natural one. So even under military rule, I could see this as a slippery slope, and personally, I would never enact such a law. What's to stop them from saying that, after the food is served, I couldn't add salt or sugar to it? The only possible advantage I could see in such a ruling would be for the local farmers, particularly the ones who produce organic and free range food. The health of the nation is certainly important, and I could understand the need to want to prevent illness etc. But I think the best way to go about it is to have restaurants state the contents of foods in their menus, and particularly if any artificial ingredients, chemicals, etc. was used in the preparation of the food. This is true regardless of who is in power.
Tif, you're really mixed up... Sorry for the ineloquent post, but I can't fathom how you can seem to care about people one minute and then dismiss them, just because they can't contribute, as if they were yesterday's trash. I agree wholeheartedly with Cody's last post. You can't decide who should live or die when you're a government, especially if the person hasn't done anything wrong. Drain on tax payer's money? Well, I find that those who spend time with that vegetable of a human being, as you would probably call them, probably view their time as priceless. So if I'm poor and my sister is disabled, I'm the only one left in her care but I can't pay for her to exist, you're saying she should die. Even if my time spent with her is joyous and precious, and the bonds between myself and her are beyond anything a government, hell, an outsider, can possibly understand. I think that's cruel. and maybe if you had a vegetable for a sister, you would be more partial to keeping her alive, because it seems that if something effects you directly, the government shouldn't dare limit your rights connected to it.
No. I think I would be hurt even more if it was someone I loved. I would call for euthanasia, as I wouldn't want her to live like that, and seeing her like that would hurt me. All of us in my family have living wills. My mother even said that she doesn't want to live in that kind of situation, and to let her do so would be cruel. Furthermore, she told me that she doesn't want me taking care of her in such a circumstance, even if it was just very serious illness. Seeing her like that would traumatise me.
I'm not sure what the deal was with that last post. I did type all the right letters LOL. My computer's been doing that a lot lately. But in essence here it is again. I do in fact believe people should have the right to end their own lives if they wish it and, at least in situations where we're talking about terminal illness or pain that medication can't cope with, they should be allowed to have the assistance of a doctor if they wish. And I can understand the euthenization of those who can never act, speak or think for themselves, but even in those situations it should be no one's decision but the family's. But that also means it should be up to the family to decide not to euthenize. It needs to work both ways. And even when it's an individual who maybe can't do things physically for themselves but has the ability to speak and think, the final choice needs to be theirs and theirs alone as to whether or not they choose to live or die. Because people like that can still contribute to society since that's so important to the OP. They may be immaterial contributions but they're contributions nonetheless. And I absolutely would not support the forcible sterilization of people simply for being poor or having a disability that they might or MIGHT NOT! pass on to their children. And even if they do the government isn't and if I have anything at all to say about it never will be the one who decides whether or not that child gets to live and possibly make a positive difference in the world. The only situation in which I support forced sterilization would be for known sex offenders who show no remorse for their actions and no inclination to seek help. The government tried the forced sterilization of blac people and other groups and is still taking well-deserved flack for it.
Explains a lot.
Just because your family is unanimous on the issue of euthanasia doesn't mean that everyone else's family shares your views. Therefore, it's still not right for the government to have the power to decide such things. You need to get out of your own bubble, abandon your own way of thinking if you're going to decide for someone other than yourself. There's a reason why dictatorships are not popular.
I certainly agree that those who can speak and think need to make the decision. To euthanise a mentally competent person without him agreeing to it is wrong. Even if he is suffering, if he wants to live, it must be so. As for the others, it really does depend on finances, the availability of caregivers etc. If the family can't afford to take care of their relative, what, then, should be done? Should he be left out in the street to die? That doesn't sound right. But neither does burdening the public with his care. If we're talking about someone who will die fairly soon, that's one thing. But if we're talking lifelong vegetables, the money would be far better spent on helping those who can recover. Also, again, I've never said that the poor should be sterilised, and if I did, which I doubt, then I apologise. But they should be given condoms and encouraged to not have children until they can get back on their feet.
Most things which are good for people, but which also have a work ethic, or a down side, are not popular. Tell someone you'll give him a free meal and he'll be at your door just as the food is coming out of the oven. Tell him he has to mow the grass first, or help with the cooking, and he's likely to grumble. Not always, but many times. Try giving a child his vegetables or telling him to take a bath, and you're likely to get the same result.
Anyone else disturbed by her constant references to military rule?
Well, things do differ between the two. Ordinarily, as I've said, I do support a regular republic. I suppose I've got the military in mind given all the things going on in Greece right now. They're the only ones who can fix it. But this is not needed in America. Still, I do think it's fair to present both sides of the issues.
Clearly you have never been too or spoken with a college student. Tell one of those you'll feed them if they mow the lawn, and they will edge that fucker just to get dessert.
Have you ever lived under military rule, or a dictatorship? You keep saying dictatorships are good things, but can you point to one in recent history which has had a positive outcome? Greece clearly isn't on that list, considering the fact that right now Greece is only a name. Its in so much debt it barely has borders and can be called a nation at all.
As for military rule, can you point me to one time that has been good? Maybe 1940's poland? How about Japanese ruled shang high. Nazi run Paris? Hell, US run baghdad? None of these places are any good.
Hell, even Greece, which you love so much, hasn't been a real world power since Alexander. Which in case no one told you, was in 350 BC. Name me a Greecian empire since then. There is a reason the US is a world power, and the UK is a world power, and Greece isn't.
Finally, let me clue you into something here, and this is going to come as a shock so take a breath. You're not in Greece. We're not in Greece. All but maybe two of the people who have read this are not in Greece, do not care about Greece, and probably don't really want to go to greece right now considering that its a shithole.
You can claim all you like that you are writing about Greece, and if that is true, you can shut up. You want to write good essays, you have to know who you're writing to. You are currently writing to people who A. think you're a fuckmook, and B. don't care about Greece. Thus, if you want to write essays about Greece, find the greek zoneBBS, and post it there. Until you find that website, we don't care.
Now if you'd like to talk about a real topic that people actually care about, rather than your arbitrary choice of a country based on nothing but romanticized readings and tellings by people who no longer live there anyway, I welcome your contribution. As you are currently contributing nothing but helenistic drivel, I beg apollo to shut you up.
I didn't say that all people are like that. Of course, there are those who are hungry, including college students, who would gladly do the work. But many would rather not, if they could find another place to eat, even if the food isn't at as good or there isn't as much.
The current problems in Greece are not the fault of the last two regimes! They're the fault of the "democratic" politicians who came after them, who let the stealing, lying, and corruption continue, and in many cases, even led them. As for relatively recent advancements, how about these. A minimum wage, unemployment insurance, a public employment agency, maternity leave, a 5 day 40 hour work week, guaranteed 2-week vacations with pay (or two weeks' double pay in place of the vacation), stricter work safety standards, the Social Security Institute (IKA), the worker's centre, and public works projects. Those were brought about during The 4th of August Regime (1936-41), and many of them still persist to this day, though they're slowly being chipped away, and probably won't exist for much longer. What about an economic miracle that made Greece the fastest growing nation in Europe at the time, and the building of schools, roads, hotels, the Military Museum, houses, hospitals, and the introduction of things like plumbing and electricity to places which still didn't have them. Not to mention socialised education, and incentives to the tourism and shipping industries, and to farmers? those were done during The Revolution of 21 April (1967-74). You'll find the links explaining these in the comments to my essay entitled My Greekness: How It Began. I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that everything these leaders did was right or good. But you asked for positive results, and I gave them.
It's not about being a world power. It's about having dignity and pride, a nation which remains true to it's values, one which remembers those who fought in 1821 for independence, and in both world wars for freedom. But I will say this. If it wasn't for the Greeks, you know, the ones whose bloodline you carry and whom you put down, we would probably all be speaking German. They were the ones who held the Nazis, who came in after the Italians asked for help. Why? Because they were beaten! And had the Nazis not come, they would have entered Russia earlier and defeated them. I don't know about you, but I consider helping to save the world one hell of an achievement!
I have stated that many of these views are general, so relate to everyone. The ones which mention military rule can also be taken as general, I suppose, though when I write them, I am thinking of Greece. But there's certainly enough basic content here for everyone to participate. Actually, I haven't mentioned anything Hellenistic. You were the one who brought up Alexander. *smile*
Never seen someone so dumfoundingly obsessed with a place she's never even been to... Let's get off this topic before we all get GreekItus.
I mentioned Greece in answering a question, and would have been happy to continue with the rest of the discussion. But I had to stop and backtrack, to explain things relating to the country, due to other posts. It was better when I really did ignore them, as we had a normal discussion of the issues.
I wonder what evidence you have for Greek role in world war II. Yes, Greece proved difficult for the Germans to conquer, but much of the defense were British RAF fighters. Also, Greece can do nothing to compare itself to Russia, the United Kingdom, or the United States in defeating Germany. All three of these countries had gigantic forces that trapped tthe Germans. Yes, Hitler made a few mistakes, but even if you erase these, these three powers overshadow Greece by a mile.
Please, please, would someone be so kind as to remove the OP's right to continue posting? She's making herself look like the most ignorant stupid fool on the planet. it would be for her own good. Just like euthanising peple who can't contribute to society in ways she thinks are important would be for their own good. Right?
Tiff you keep saying poor people should be given condoms and encouraged not to have kids until they're more financially secure. This is of course good advice in theory and, shockingly enough, I agree with it. But I have some rather shocking news for you. Condoms, and indeed every form of birth control, has the chance that it'll fail. Sometimes people use multiple forms of birth control at once and yet the lady still gets pregnant. Is she then to be forced to abort the baby? There are only two instances in which I would support abortion, and those are cases of rape or cases where the pregnancy would kill both the mother and the child. But even in those situations it needs to be up to the individuals involved, not some government power. The only instance where I might support a very poor woman having an abortion simply based on the fact that shhe was poor would be if she lacked a strong support network to help her with caring for te child, and that only if se couldn't find a willing adopter. And given some of the rules adoption agencies have with regard to candidates I wouldn't be surprised. But I believe it should be up to each individual, which is why despite my personal stance on abortion I couldn't support a full ban because I also support the individual's right to decide for him or herself. And I agree with others. I've never heard of a situation throughout history where military rule actuall did anybody any good.
The thing is, poor people, disabled people, people who don't know parenting from their asshole, they're all going to keep having kids whether anyone approves of it or not. The government shouldn't ever have the power to tell anyone whether they're allowed to reproduce. But I do agree that making condoms and maybe other forms of birth control more widely available would at least cut down on the chances of women getting pregnant who shouldn't be having children. Of course no method is 100% effective, but it's better than nothing, I say.
And, holy crap on a cracker, I can't believe this topic actually made it to 7 pages.
Cough cough cough. Tiffanitis.
LOL.
Tiff, what is so great, in your view, about a republic?
And the nightmare continues.
I've never been asked to explain my views on a republic, but after much consideration, I think that I can give you an answer. A republic is the middle ground between an autocracy or oligarchy and direct democracy. While the former may have it's benefits, ultimately, the power must return to the people, lest it get to the heads of the leaders. But how much should they be given? The problem that I see with a direct democracy is that everyone, from the teenager worried about a mobile phone, to the elderly person worried about her pension, from the first-time voter who doesn't know much, to the veteran who studies the papers daily, would be voting on everything. This may work if we're dealing strictly with local communities, but I can't see how it could possibly work for an entire nation. I might know what my part of New Jersey needs, but can't talk about the wetlands or the shore, let alone about the needs of, say, Arizona, where the climate is totally different. Whether it's a good thing or not, most people don't really involve themselves in politics. Many just don't find them interesting, but many are also busy with their lives and really have no time for them. So how could they gain the knowledge necessary to vote on important matters? Then, there's the fact of being a nation. While it's all fine and good to take care of local business, there are certain laws which need to be national, as well as problems that people face as part of one country. America seems to forget that at times, making laws which should be national into local ones, but that's for another topic.
The point is that, in a republic, theoretically at least, knowledgeable people are chosen to represent different parts of the country, and also different political parties. It's the job of these people to deal with various issues, day in and day out, and to then unite to discuss and to vote on them. So, again in theory, they would be better able to serve both their regions and their nation, and the people can vote on other matters when necessary. Of course, republics, like every form of government, can turn bad, or at least have people in power who indulge in corruption. But I can't think of another alternative between the extremes. The other positive is that a republic offers freedoms which don't usually exist under an oligarchy, but not the chaos of anarchy or direct democracy.
I find it strange that you put democracy under the same umbrella as anarchy. You seem verry much against our system of government which, by the way, is not full democracy.
Oh, give up already. She's a hopeless case.
Ah, but it's far too interesting seeing what her next answer will be.
Clearly, nobody has ever challenged her views. I really do want to see how far this goes. I am interested.
I suppose I can't help but associate direct democracy with anarchy. Maybe it's because of Xrysi Avgi. While not anarchists, they do involve themselves in violence, riots, and the like, and call for it. Plus, I can't imagine such a system, without the middle ground of a republic, as stable. Not in modern society anyway. But I admit that I could be wrong on that one.
I'm actually interested to see where this goes as well. I have had my views challenged many times, though not on all things. This challenge and debate is why I write these essays in the first place!
And things like that don't happen in so-called republics? Interesting...
Verry. Are you saying that America and Greece are close to anarchy?
Tiff, you live in a democracy. Or are you too wrapped up in greece to realize that you actually live somewhere far from it, in a country that was founded on nothing other than democracy. Goodness. Are you in that thick of a bubble?
write away, America is a republic, not a democracy. Even in it's Pledge of Allegiance, it says "and to the republic". I know of no nation on Earth with pure democracy, and it is that which makes me think of anarchy and confusion, not what exists now.
Right, cuz you know, we're not a world power or anything, we don't have the biggest economy in the world. We don't have some of the best rights for most people in the world. We don't have all that stuff, and its all the fault of anarchy.
I hate when people use the word anarchy as if it would solve anything. They think anarchy means having no government. It doesn't.
Lets present a little scenario. Lets say that me and the OP live in an anarchist government. There is food in a room, we both want it. I win, I have a gun, she doesn't, I shoot her in the head and eat like a king. She has no gun, doesn't shoot me in the head, and doesn't eat like a king. Welcome to anarchist government. It is the rule of the bullet.
I encourage you to question the intelligence of anyone who uses the word anarchy seriously.
LOL well put. Because while our economy may not be in the greatest condition I'm glad we don't seem to be nearly as bad off as Greece from all I've heard about it from the news and other sources.
This is the first thing I saw when I typed anarchy definition in Google.
"an·ar·chy/ˈanərkē/
Noun:
1.A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
2.Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
Synonyms:
chaos - misrule - anarchism"
From Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
"Anarchy has more than one definition. In the United States, the term "anarchy" typically is used to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority.[1][2] When used in this sense, anarchy may[3] or may not[4] be intended to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society.
Outside of the U.S., and by most individuals that self-identify as anarchists, it implies a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level although there are a few successful historical examples,[5] that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society.[6]"
While there are, indeed, different definitions of the term, the idea of chaos and lawlessness wasn't pulled out of thin air. I can easily see a system without representation or definite authority leading to such a state. I don't mean strict authority, but at least some law and order, rules, representatives etc. To suggest that the benefits and the drawbacks of America are due to anarchy is downright laughable. I wasn't referring to America in any case, and while Greece certainly does have many protests, strikes, riots, and much violence, it doesn't meet that description either. Not yet anyway, and I pray it never does.
I remember that The Hunger Games were mentioned earlier in this thread. Out of curiosity, I decided to read the trilogy. I found the whole thing on Youtube and just finished the third book tonight. I'm glad that I was just listening to a single narrator, and that there were no sound effects. If there were, or if it was a film, I probably would have had nightmares. The world described in the book was entirely at the other end of the spectrum, a totalitarian regime which I could never support in my wildest dreams. There's a difference between punishment and terrorism, between strict rule and insanity, and between temporarily stripping some rights while leaving most basic ones intact and instilling such a level of fear in people that they're afraid of losing their lives at every turn. Not to mention extreme cruelty and not only condoning harming children, but making it a part of daily life! I haven't read 1984 in awhile, and this will be my next book. But this trilogy almost makes the world of that book look sane! and no, I wouldn't agree with living in a place like that either.
The comment about the Hunger Games (which is a terrible trilogy, by the way) was sparked as an argument for, not against you. You claimed that people wouldn't want to join gladitorial combat because of the death rate, I disagreed, and the comment was made that if this were the case, the Hunger Games would have sparked itself. I don't think the comment is correct, but those are the actual facts. By the way, how would you know how sane the world of 1984 is if you haven't read it?
I didn't remember if it was for or against me, so thank you for clarifying. I just remembered it being mentioned, and vaguely knew there was a film made about it. So I decided to look it up and then to read it. I personally thought it was a wonderful trilogy and touched upon some very real and important issues, such as loyalty, honour, friendship, love, respect for authority versus the time for rebellion, sacrifice, cruelty, compassion, etc. As for 1984, I did read it, but quite awhile ago. So I will need to refresh my memory. Still, I do remember that I supported those against that government and didn't care for the ending when i first read it.
I have the answer we've all been waiting for. Buckle your seatbelts everybody, this is going to make this threat come to a screeching halt and you don't want to be eating dashboard when it does.
We've all been wondering what the OP actually believes. There are two answers to this question. The first is whatever the fuck she finds on the internet, even more quickly if it deals with Greece. The second, is nothing at all.
How can that be possible you ask? Well here's the thing. In order to believe something, truly believe it, you have to understand it. The OP clearly could not even understand a children's rhyme about tying your shoelaces unless they were Greek shoelaces, and even then she'd be well challenged unless her colonel was singing it. Thus, because she has clearly demonstrated that she does not understand jack squat, we can easily extrapolate that she does not believe anything either.
She is, as she will see if she does another little google search, gullable, and easily manipulated by what she sees as trustworthy sites. For evidence, I point you to all the times she presented wikipedia as a reputable source of fact. Also, any time she went back to her tired line of, "I was only talking about Greece", when she never said anything about Greece in the post to which the argument referred at the time.
In short, my gentle readers, she's a moron. That being said, it is devilishly fun to watch her try and dance back and forth over all the strings she's laid down for herself. So I say keep going. Dance little puppet, dance for me.
Ah, thank you for the wonderful comic relief! I wonder just how many logical fallacies you used in your last post to try and prove your ridiculous point? Perhaps, this might help you recognise some of them. Surprisingly, the source is not Wikipedia.
http://listverse.com/2012/11/08/15-bad-arguments-we-all-abuse/
And the idea of the colonels singing made me laugh even harder. But I'm sure that, in their hands, even a silly rhyme about tying shoes would turn into an eloquent masterpiece. That's far more than I can ever say about your abilities. Also, if they really wanted to disprove me, they could easily do so without the constant use of personal attacks. But I guess you don't have that talent, which is why you must insult them. Just incase you didn't realise it, since you're so used to doing it, the above was a personal attack, based on opinion.
You have to admit though that you have presented Wikipedia in almost every instance when you've presented information from the internet to try to prove your claims. It's like those commercials for insurance, at least I think thhat's what they're for. Anyway it's this guy and girl talking about how you supposedly can't put anythin on the internet that isn't true. Then this other girl shows up and one of them remarks how she met her boyfriend, a supposed French model, on the internet. And that comercial always makes me think of the OP.
I wanna fuck Aphrodite in the ass whilst playing the kazoo, and then rub cottage cheese on her tits and tell her she's a dirty dirty bitch.
You don't even want to know the kind of torture I think you deserve for that last post, Imprecator. But it's not up to me. At the very least, I hope Aphrodite makes you permanently impotent, and that every time you consider doing something else sexual, you get interrupted so are unable to do anything.
As for using Wikipedia, they have become much more strict about sourcing than in the past. They are quick to tag sections of articles as needing more materials, or as being questionable. I would gladly use Britanica, but I believe that, for most of their articles, they require a subscription. Certainly, if I was going to propose a scholarly argument, I would use more than one source. But in general, Wikipedia is fairly accurate, certainly enough for our purposes.
Having sex while playing the kazoo? Greek shoelaces? I think we're all just getting silly. Now then:
We are not even a total republic. We are a mixed government.
margorp, thank you for your sanity! I am actually interested in why America is not a full republic. I am not disputing you, but have always heard this was the case. Perhaps, I should look up Rome, during the Republican period.
Thanks for the laugh, delusional one.
You don't need to go all the way back to Rome. Start with great Britain and go from there. While you're at it, look up our political parties.
Fair enough. But I find Rome to be interesting on it's own terms, so it will be interesting comparing the ancient and modern concepts of the idea of a republic. Of course, Platon comes to mind here as well, but his ideas are not the norm. *smile*
Silverfuck, who died and made you ruler of this board? If you have a problem (and obvious you have several) then shut your fucking mouth and move on to some other post that is total to you liking and thinking! You seem to miss the entire point of this board. People come to express opinions and views.But you and many others (too many to mention) would rather unload personal attacks on this poster. She is nearly expressing her views! So personal insults like fuckmook, etc. have no place hear at all! Nor to over half of the posters that commented, many of whom couldn't conjor up a thought of their own if their worthless, troubled lives depended on it. FUCK OFF
Wow, new user, you made a great impression of yourself.
Seriously, we're going down this road again? I don't have the energy to right out why posts like that are hippocritical and stupid to a point beyond description. New poster, go back along the long long path of this board, find a post where I explain why telling me I should just let her have her opinions is a moronic and dangerous idea, and apply it to yourself.
I will take a bit of time to explain to you that when you are trying to put someone down for using words like fuckmook, using half that word is usually not a good tactic. Its usually best to put someone down for swearing by... oh I don't know... not swearing. Have a nice day new poster, happy reading.
Exactly, New User. She basically implied that were she in charge people she deemed too poor or too disabled would be forcibly sterilized or euthenized. About the only thing she said that I agree with is that people who are poorer should be educated about condoms and other forms of birth control. Unfortunately she worded te statement poorl and said we should just give them to them. Granted I do feel they need to be made more easily available, but people need to understand that no form of birth control is completely effective.
I don't know why this became a bitch fest. Back to reality!
Contrary to how the poster intended it, 'SilverFuck' sounds less like an insult and more like some rather amazing sexual prowess. Not everyone can take the gold medal, but silver is still miles ahead of the rest of us. It's Friday and I'm looking forward to the weekend: what can I say.
LOL that was my thought as well.
I should have clarified that I'm very much in favour of proper sex education in schools. It is, as you pointed out, vital for people to know that birth control can fail. They also need to know their options in such situations, and should be made aware of any side effects of the contraception they choose to use as well.
The problem is that you unforunately worded your previous statement in such a way as to imply that you believed that birth control was foolproof and therefore the be all and end all of problems with poor people getting pregnant.
Birth control is infinitely cheaper to pay for than unwanted babies.
I personally don't think sex should be taught in schools but that is a whole other topic.
As for unwannted children what really needs to happen is the government needs to stop saying who can and can't adopt kids. If gay couples want to adopt they should be allowed to.
It would also be nice if it didn't cost so much to adopt. My step brother just paid $62 thousand to adopt a baby.
When I had my son, it cost us about $25 hundred with our insurance.
We looked into adopting when our son was about 3 but the cost to adopt a baby without all sorts of disabilities and health problems was ridiculous.
That's also what we found, when adoption was up for consideration 10 years ago.
Margorp, what do you have against sex education? I agree that the way it is now is completely ineffective, since abstinence-only propaganda obviously doesn't work and never has, but a lot of parents aren't going to talk to their kids about sex either, so what would you suggest?
Perhaps abstinence-only education or no sex education at all is ineffective... but the annual or semi-annual "sex talk" is not nearly enough to tackle thorny issues such as STIs, pregnancy, etc. Do I have an snwer? No.. but I don't think there is a FULLY correct way...
You're right. What works for one person might not work for another anyway. the religious students will eat up abstinence-only education, just as others will take that same curriculum and use it as a reason to experiment just for the sake of rebelling. It's true that one size doesn't fit all, pardon the pun, and there's no easy answer.
I realize I came off as a prude and that wasn't my intention. I just feel that it is up to the parents and not the schools. I just think it is wrong.
So since you believe it is up to the parents, and most parents do not talk to their children about sex, you truly must believe it is up to youth to explore sex and sexuality on their own. If you believe something should be done to prevent spread of STD/STIs and unwanted pregnancy, part of the solution is education from people who know how to talk about sex, and know the various aspects of the issue that ought to be discussed.
Also, what is wrong about an educator coming into schools and teaching children and youth about sex? Simply saying that it is wrong does not mean it is wrong, and does not tell us what about it you think is wrong.
Good points.
I completely agree that gay couples should be allowed to adopt. It makes me sick that, in a supposedly free society like America, they have to fight for that right. I also can't understand the horrible cost of adoption, which has also been mentioned here. Perhaps, if it could be brought down to a decent level, more people would do it. I was actually taught about contraception, stds, etc. in high school health class. Then, I did a lot of studying on it, plus other things, on my own. Mom was fully willing to discuss things with me as well, but for some reason, not all parents are like that, as was said. I certainly wouldn't encourage teens having sex. But many do, and they need to know the risks involved as well as the precautions that they can take to prevent them.
America is the land of the free as long as you're straight. LOL. And even then it probably won't be free much longer if the politicians get their way. But we need to start looking at homosexuality not as the sin the bible supposedly claims it to be but as a means of population control. Then all those homeless kids who are in foster care or orphanages and who would like nothing better than to be placed in a warm, loving family environment can get that wish. Because those kids aren't gonna care if it's a gay orlesbian couple raising them. As for sex ed I don't entirely agree. I see nothing wrong with learning about it in school but I can definitely agree that parents need to take more of a hand in teaching their kids about the birds and the bees than they have been.
I wanted to talk about torture again, and since this has calmed down I believe we can. Eleni, are there specific occurrences that would justify torture to you? Not general "This person is considered an enemy to the nation", but actual events? Also, how would you, as the military dictator of Greecia (in case you don't know, a country based in Athens with a population of 0 and area of 0 square kilometers) prevent the republic you are about to put in place from torturing innocent people?
Damn. Soon enough, this topic'll have more posts than the games here on the boards. Hahaha.
Aphrodite and I had amazing sex last night.
That whore, fuck that. I did the nasty with Athena. For a virgin, that girl knew what she was doing. Guess we can't call her a virgin goddess anymore though.
You skull-fucked her in the forehead? Far out!
Oops, Zeus was the one with the hole in his forehead. My bad.
Yup. That was where Athena came out of. LOL.
I have breaking news... Athena just cut her wrists because she had unprotected sex and got an STD, and Zeus hung himself because he was tired of being teased for the hole in his head...
Awww, what a bummer.
LOL good one. The funny thing is I remember reading somewhere (in a book of Greek mythology as I recall), that because most of them were so cruel and petty that ancient Greeks were just as likely to poke fun at their gods as pay homage to them.