Originally posted by Nemesio[/b]False? How would you handle a body that is covered with psoriasis? Do you know what that is? False? Yea. right.
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
[b]My arrogance? The dumb alcoholic know nothing who has never done anything of value in his life? That arrogance?
False humility is a form of arrogance.
An old saying that I just made u ...[text shortened]... hat
you believe is right and moving on with your life.
Nemesio[/b]
If I have an arrogance, it is in recognizing fools who are too full of themselves. To that I plead guilty. big time.
I will suffer no fools, and you qualify. Because? You offer nothing. You give nothing. You demonstrate nothing. You just pick and choose like a silly school kid. You have no moral stance.
I believe in people having the right to abortions, guns, liberty by war, freedom by whatever means they can obtain, no censorship and the right to be hit in the mouth when a bigger something doesn't like me. Hell. I will even grin and buy em' a beer. I can't see you doing anything but hiring the marauder to sue them.
Am I wrong?
Originally posted by NemesioWhat does "having a mindless automaton" have to do with this?
You have it stuck in your head about design.
How is trying to have a deaf child and trying to have
a mindless automaton any different? One is trying to
optimize a genetic design, the other is trying to optimize
a psychological design.
These parents have a 50% chance. How many children
of cultist fundamentalists (and I mean the real nutjobs,
not ...[text shortened]... brainwashing?
Do you think it's 50%? I don't. I'd be surprised if it were
5%.
Nemesio
Where did this invention come from?
Originally posted by NemesioWhat a laugh. I was brain washed by mormons. Your pitiful example pales by comparison.
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
[b]Like wow. that is a surprise. You don't even see that his point of view is the deliberate act of denying one of five senses to a child.
Yes. I see that. That is the point!
Let me ask you this: let's say a child raises a kid and teaches him
that a magical book is 100% literally true and all people ...[text shortened]... mon juice out of lemons,' but such arrogant perspectives have no currency
with me.
Nemesio[/b]
You really do think it is right to deliberately try to deny a child of one of it's senses? Try to be brave. Follow my lead. I say NO. What say you? Yes or no?
Originally posted by Nemesio
If I speak falsely, testify to the wrong. But if I speak truthfully,
why do you lash out at me?
Nemesio
Nemesio, until now you reasonably managed not to make a fool of yourself, but now you are really going overboard ...... one advice from an ignorant lamentable human being: Don't praise yourself too much .....
It only appears cruel and deprived to us because we can all hear (maybe there are deaf members on RHP who could give us some more insight). To deaf people, it is a whole new world which these couple are aware of, and us hearing people are not aware of.
For example, Evelyn Glennie is a musician and is deaf. She is a composer herself and "hears" music through vibration.
Beethoven was also deaf when composing and conducting his 9th Symphony.
This is not a handicap, it is a different way of life.
If a hearing couple was to decide to have a deaf child, I would say that is another matter. Their motives would have to be completely different.
I am not saying these couples are either wrong or right, but being a hearing person, I am not in a position to possibly know the benefits of being deaf.
Originally posted by lauseyThere is an enormous difference between someone who was born deaf, or became deaf at an early age, and Beethoven who realised he was going deaf in his 30s. Someone who was born deaf could never hear music in the same sense that Beethoven could remember hearing it.
Beethoven was also deaf when composing and conducting his 9th Symphony.
A person born deaf who composes music would either focus on rhythm, eg percussion instruments, or rely heavily on mathematically-based theories of music. They could understand the effect of a falling melody by reading about it, but they could never have any memory of what it sounded like and the associated emotional response.
There is one part of no1's argument that really bugs me. This "intent/recklessness" thing.
Yes, it's true the law often equates the two. But I think it's highly misleading to try and use 'recklessness' in this context. It assumes that the normal behaviour is NOT to be 'reckless' in terms of the genetic makeup of the child, and that simply isn't true. The normal course of events is for a couple to play genetic roulette. We don't live inside the movie Gattaca.
In fact, what we are talking about is not recklessness in the sense of being able to control the outcome but choosing not to. In most circumstances of ordinary everyday life, a couple cannot control the genetic makeup of their children.
The references to sterilization are a complete red herring in my opinion. In fact, I see it as a deliberate attempt to conflate selection of characteristics of a child with the question of whether to have a child at all. I DON'T think most peoples views on this have anything to do with the fact that the couple were lesbians - which might suggest to some conservative elements of the population that they shouldn't have children. If a deaf heterosexual married couple went to an IVF program so they could choose a deaf embryo, I think exactly the same issues would arise.
Originally posted by lauseyAt least give the child the choice of walking around with earplugs in...
This is not a handicap, it is a different way of life.
Maybe the kid wouldn't want to live the life of the hearing impaired. To do that on purpose is wrong.
AND.. what about when the child finds out that the parents they love did this to them on purpose... they better start saving for the physc treatments now!
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou are just being grumpy because you made two mutually
Nemesio, until now you reasonably managed not to make a fool of yourself, but now you are really going overboard ...... one advice from an ignorant lamentable human being: Don't praise yourself too much .....
exclusive claims. You got called out and then you blamed #1 for
misunderstanding your use of the word 'Crime.'
You assert points, but won't argue them (but call yourself a master
debator). You make claims which are irreconcilable with each other.
Believe me when I say, your calling me ignorant hardly has an effect.
Nemesio
Originally posted by KneverKnightHow does brainwashing your child from birth, changing that child's
What does "having a mindless automaton" have to do with this?
Where did this invention come from?
life and perspective for ever, differ from trying to have a deaf child.
As I see it, the only difference I see is that one is a social-psychological
effect, the other a genetic one. Both are seemingly negative (of
course to people with edic stances).
One is perfectly permissible, the other is 'wrong.'
How do you account for this?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioHear! Hear! (Sorry couldn't resist...)
How does brainwashing your child from birth, changing that child's
life and perspective for ever, differ from trying to have a deaf child.
As I see it, the only difference I see is that one is a social-psychological
effect, the other a genetic one. Both are seemingly negative (of
course to people with edic stances).
One is perfectly permissible, the other is 'wrong.'
How do you account for this?
Nemesio
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
I will suffer no fools, and you qualify. Because? You offer nothing. You give nothing. You demonstrate nothing. You just pick and choose like a silly school kid. You have no moral stance.
Well, I can't argue with someone unwilling to look at the facts
objectively.
For example, I gave you reasons why I feel that the war in Iraq was
wrong.
What did you do? Assert it was right with absurd and irrelevant
questions. I responded with answers about why the questions were
absurd and further supporting my stance.
So, in this case, I did take a stance, but because you didn't like it and
didn't want to argue it, you intentionally wipe it from your memory.
I believe in people having the right to abortions, guns, liberty by war, freedom by whatever means they can obtain, no censorship and the right to be hit in the mouth when a bigger something doesn't like me.
Well, I am opposed to the degree to which guns are proliferated in
this country, thoroughly opposed to this immoral, egotistical, and
money-driven war, and don't believe anyone has a right to hit another
person for 'disliking' a person, irrespective of size difference.
Your badgering of me with false accusations is another thing I am
opposed to. I don't mind discussing my beliefs, but your continual
intentional misrepresentation of things I say and believe make such
debate fruitless. As such, generally I am disinclined to respond to
the few reasonable points you make (and, at the same time, ratify
and defend your right to make them, good or bad).
Am I wrong?
Absolutely.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThere have been cases of children being removed from "cults"
How does brainwashing your child from birth, changing that child's
life and perspective for ever, differ from trying to have a deaf child.
As I see it, the only difference I see is that one is a social-psychological
effect, the other a genetic one. Both are seemingly negative (of
course to people with edic stances).
One is perfectly permissible, the other is 'wrong.'
How do you account for this?
Nemesio
One man's cult is another man's religion, but I see no clear parallel between something like a cultish brainwashing and deliberately having a deaf child.
For one thing, a mind can be changed.
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "You are just being grumpy because you made two mutually
You are just being grumpy because you made two mutually
exclusive claims. You got called out and then you blamed #1 for
misunderstanding your use of the word 'Crime.'
You assert points, but won't argue them (but call yourself a mas ...[text shortened]... n I say, your calling me ignorant hardly has an effect.
Nemesio
exclusive claims."
🙄
Nemesio: " ...... but call yourself a masterdebator).
I never gave myself this lable .... and I must admit I never read someone else calling me this .........
It is about time I invite you to prove your laughable claims. So prove this ......
You are becoming a really dominant little pain in the neck, Nemesio.
Nemesio: "Believe me when I say, your calling me ignorant hardly has an effect"
.... hardly ..... 😉
By the way, did I call you "ignorant" ?