|
|
|
Wag
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:15 PM
Posts: 1,166,
Visits: 1,014
|
|
Marios (2/6/2007)
If you want full equality for the disabled - rather than viewing them as 'accidental citizens', then you have to reject the option to abort on grounds of disability. No. She'd have to reject the option to abort late term on grounds of disability or support the rights of all mothers to abort late term for any reason. She already made it clear she feels the parents have a right to choose to abort.
|
|
|
|
|
Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 5:34 PM
Posts: 66,
Visits: 467
|
|
[b]Marios (2/6/2007)I don't think that's what tolerance means (unless you really twist a point):
I've always thought of "tolerance" as a passive action - being "tolerant" of Jews is not throwing stones at Jews/actively being nasty to Jews - rather than putting your hand into your pocket to pay for a synagogue. So what is tolerance to disabled people, then Marios? Is it not throwing stones or actively being nasty to them? because sure, that's always nice, but in a world where we would like to try to fit into normal life as best we can that's not really going to get us that far. Being nice to us won't feed us, or put us in a job (unless nepotism comes into play, in which case niceness is great). Note - you used the word tolerance in the first place, I believe.
I'll have a look for the article but it came out some months ago - a new prenatal test that might show whether a child is disabled or not - disabled groups up in arms and opposing the development or use of such 'eugenic' technology. I know about that test. If that test had been around when I was concieved my mother may not have had me. My adoptive mother may not have even considered even having her son, who was born with Brittle Bone disease and died whehn he was three. It comes down to choice, in the end, free will. There was another article - in New Scientist, I think, some time last year - about deaf parents (somewhere in America) wanting to use genetic embryo selection techniques to select for deaf children (so that their kids would be part of the same community they are). The kids could be part of the same community anyway. Being deaf doesn't exclude anyone from a community, people exclude people for being different. And, if they want to do that, then they have the right to decide what they, as parents, think is best for their child. If they think it'll be happier with deafness then they're right in their own minds. I don;t believe all disabled people are the same. Hell, there's three of us in my family and we're completely different. I'm blind, my cousin's got cerebral palsy and one of my second cousins has Downs Syndrome. But we're all equally determind to live as much of a life as we can get. For me, that includes having a job, earning money, and running round fields dressed as an elf. Or a Noble. One of the two. But that's my right to life and I don't see why people who are rude, intolerant of difference or abusive when faced with something that scares them, perhaps, should make my life a living hell because they've decided to call attention. Bluefaerie
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LT: Zai, fetcher, carrier, all round good guy.
PD: Elaia De Brynn, High Class Lady with more suitors than sense.
Riftworld: "Luscious Gin" Jones, holder of the "Most Athletic BaitGirl This Side of The Warp" title.
CP: Niniel Alberann, Healer Extra-ordinaire...
SG: Dr Maya Hakkar, The Only Alien in The UKGC. RL: Kate, mostly confused, sometimes not....
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:27 PM
Posts: 1,981,
Visits: 8,379
|
|
Bluefaerie (2/6/2007)
So what is tolerance to disabled people, then Marios? Is it not throwing stones or actively being nasty to them? because sure, that's always nice,
I think it would unwise in the extreme to take this for granted (quite a lot of people all over the world can only wish to be tolerated in this fashion).
Bluefaerie (2/6/2007)
but in a world where we would like to try to fit into normal life as best we can that's not really going to get us that far. Being nice to us won't feed us, or put us in a job (unless nepotism comes into play, in which case niceness is great).
Welfare states aside, everyone else is in the same position. I can see how people can demand that tolerance be defined as equality of opportunity (e.g. you aren't pelted with stones and shit), but I can't see any way that it can be defined as stipulating equality of result (if someone else can get a job then you have an automatic right to have gotten that job as well).
I'm not saying that charity/redistribution of wealth isn't laudable (different debate), but I don't think 'tolerance' is a useful word to describe that. I'm always distressed when I see 'basic liberties' getting mixed in with more tentative ones as if, somehow the right for black people to get on a spare seat in a bus without being abused or attacked is really directly comparable to the right to black quotas for high paying jobs. It's not that I particularly oppose the latter case, but that I think the former case - a clear example of 'intolerance' - should not be abused for temporary political capital to support the latter case.
Bluefaerie (2/6/2007)
Note - you used the word tolerance in the first place, I believe.
No - Flannel did halfway down the first page. Then you did here:
Bluefaerie (2/6/2007)
Aware, yes, but notnecesarily more tolerant of or more willing to accept.
Bluefaerie (2/6/2007)
I know about that test. If that test had been around when I was concieved my mother may not have had me. My adoptive mother may not have even considered even having her son, who was born with Brittle Bone disease and died whehn he was three. It comes down to choice, in the end, free will.
That's your opinion, but it's hardly a show-stopper. If I were to agree it would only be because I already agreed (I don't want to have children, but if I were to have children I think I'd prefer them to be cheaper and capable of supporting me in my dotage, rather than likely to be more expensive and less likely to provide later support).
Crucially, vocal members of the disabled rights lobby groups disagree with you utterly. They don't want a test for disability to allow people to abort disabled foeta - they don't want a legal option to abort at late term because a child is likely to be disabled - they don't want it to be acceptable to abort a child because it's disabled at all at any time. They are, in short, in opposition to any law or social expression which suggests that disability should be viewed as a bad thing (which is both wonderfully rational and wonderfully irrational).
Bluefaerie (2/6/2007)
And, if they want to do that, then they have the right to decide what they, as parents, think is best for their child. If they think it'll be happier with deafness then they're right in their own minds.
Indeed. Does that also apply to Sambai (obligatory oral sex for the male children) and the many African groups practicing female circumcision? Precisely the same situation applies there - a group of people carrying out a practice which most Westerners would perceive as detrimental if it were applied to them or their children but who view it as what is best for their child.
Bluefaerie (2/6/2007)
But we're all equally determind to live as much of a life as we can get. For me, that includes having a job, earning money, and running round fields dressed as an elf. Or a Noble. One of the two. But that's my right to life and I don't see why people who are rude, intolerant of difference or abusive when faced with something that scares them, perhaps, should make my life a living hell because they've decided to call attention.
Well, you may consider the way you want to live your life your "right to life". I imagine the people who were rude to you also consider the freedom to express themselves as they please their "right to life".
In practice, "rights" are just placeholder words - you get what you can take. If you can convince people that you have a "right" to 50,000 pounds a year because of your disability, say, then you have a "right" to 50,000 pounds a year. More practically, you've advanced your interests. Ditto, if someone abuses you in front of their mates and gains status, they've advanced their interests.
Expanding the remit of "rights" is big business as directly self-interested as abusing someone else for personal gain/satisfaction. If you want to know _why_ people find it satisfying, simply meditate on why you started the thread and called these people Chavs. Isn't it basically satisfying when someone replies "Chavs are shit, you're great"? Is there some deeper moral distinction here than "they're not me or my friends"?
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 12:12 PM
Posts: 619,
Visits: 2,459
|
|
I'm afraid I'm rushing off now, and don't have time to properly contribute to this debate. So all I want to say is:
Marios (2/6/2007)
Does that also apply to Sambai (obligatory oral sex for the male children)
Sambia, Marios.
WARNING: the information above may have been subjected to dangerously high levels of ignorance.
OOC (and on Pagga): Carrie
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:23 PM
Posts: 1,059,
Visits: 1,591
|
|
Shelford (2/6/2007)
Could the problem be that society now relies on the powers that be to police discrimination and social attitudes. Once a bigoted fool would get a telling off from their peers, now society reports the offender to the boss/ police/ council/ forum admin, instead of standing up and saying that the offender is wrong. .  actually the bigotted fool would more likely find themselves part of a mob of equally bigotted fools who would then make the disabled/foreign/homosexual/different person's life hell right up to the point when they lynched/burnt or drowned them. The sad fact is that most of us are bigotted fools over one issue or another- we do not however take the piss and abuse blind people in the street-there's a world of difference between being a bigot and acting on it (actually there isn't- just a few carefullt chosen words)
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:27 PM
Posts: 1,981,
Visits: 8,379
|
|
nesciomancer (2/6/2007)
Sambia, Marios.
Woah! We're going to let peadophiles tell us how to spell now?
Anyway, Sam-buy just sounds more, you know ... ethnic.
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Overlord
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 5:48 PM
Posts: 1,546,
Visits: 4,075
|
|
| To be honest I think tolerance is the problem. Britain is one of the world's big multi-cultural experiments and through this it has become a very diverse society. Unfortunately a big part of modern british culture appears to be tolerance - i.e. passive ignorance of anyone who is different to the social/cultural/ethnic group that individual belongs to. At least part of the original intention of the multi cultural society was to create a more philanthropic/diverse society, where everyone would be able to experience the different diversities of culture and thereby become more enlightened in the process. Unfortunately, the majority of British society appears to "tolerate" as opposed to accept, understand or embrace the differences all around them. By being "tolerant" we create little social epochs defined by ignorance and ignorance is really no excuse for prejudice of any kind; it creates a hegemonicaly prejudice attitude. The recent Celebrity Big Brother series being an example of this. Often any of the individual professing this ignorance do not have the ability or will to change and therefore they will perpetuate it. I have a lot of sympathy for your experiences Bluefaerie.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:27 PM
Posts: 1,981,
Visits: 8,379
|
|
nesciomancer (2/6/2007)
Sambia, Marios.
If you're going to nitpick - female circumcision isn't only prevalent in Africa - but areas including Saudi Arabia and Indonesia (3rd biggest human population - China, India, Indonesi
Allen Stroud (2/6/2007)
At least part of the original intention of the multi cultural society was to create a more philanthropic/diverse society, where everyone would be able to experience the different diversities of culture and thereby become more enlightened in the process.
Sorry - whose intention was this and where have you drawn this manifesto from? How can we driven by an 'original intention' which is so profoundly modern! I can't imagine a Victorian expressing such a sentiment and it's distinctly non-Churchillian.
Allen Stroud (2/6/2007)
Unfortunately, the majority of British society appears to "tolerate" as opposed to accept, understandor embrace the differences all around them.
What does it mean to "accept, understand or embrace the differences all around"? People seem to chuck this out as if 'understanding' was synonymous with 'co-operation' and 'ignorance' conflict. There are some famous examples of intra-civilisation conflict born on a lack of understanding (Incans responding to Spanish incursion), but more of them seem to breed on people who accept, understand and fully embrace the differences of others (as the Spanish did grasping immediately the key differences of the Incans). 'Understanding' people may mean immediately grasping contradictory goals and key avenues for exploitation (why a lot of 'indigenous' populations are not willing to hand over their DNA for the Human Genetic Diversity Project).
The Star Trek "we could all just get along if we'd just be a bit more understanding" is frightfully (and frighteningly!) naive. Calling dissenters "ignorant" or "uneducated" is not an improvement on calling them "stupid" - in any case, it belies a refusal to admit or allow any possibility for rational dissent which prevents any serious attempt to question what the actual motivations are (equally, starting from an assumption that 11th of September bombers are evil and hate democracy is all good, sympathetic press, but it doesn't help generate useful insights into motivations/repeat incidents).
Marios
|
|
| |