Author Topic: Theists and Atheists Participate in Ableism  (Read 566 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4706
  • Darwins +320/-116
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT
Re: Theists and Atheists Participate in Ableism
« Reply #29 on: February 28, 2018, 06:07:30 AM »

From my textbook: Fetuses with disabilities, especially intellectual disabilities such as Downs, are at greatly increased risk of being considered expendable with some report rates of those prenatally diagnosed nearing 90% (Britt et al., 2000;Dixon, 2008; Lawson and Walls-Ingram, 2010)

Does your textbook explain reasons given, or does it ignore them in favor of promoting its own agenda? From what it sounds like here, the class is promoting an agenda, which is a shame and a sham. Education should be about teaching critical thinking skills, not emotional manipulation.

Yes, this class is extremely emotional. I almost come to tears with every documentary I watch. Then I feel bad for having pity, and I change the definition of what I feel to compassion, but honestly I feel both. :'(

I certainly do think it has an agenda, but not one as malice as you think. They are trying to get us to accept the Social model and promote it in our practice as professionals.

Funny thing is the accessibility to my campus is not even top rate. Half the time the damn handicap doors will not open with the button. I am seriously going to get my class to write a letter to the Dean to demand improvement. The closet parking to the library is a football field away, and those are the doors that are broken more than they work.

To answer your question, yes it states that geneticists only report the disadvantages of having children with Downs, and do not give examples of people with Downs living a good life.

From the text: Issues of eugenics arise in current practices of prenatal testing and genetics counseling. Blumberg (1994) explores in detail the matter of screening for fetal "defects" with the objective of aborting unwanted, disabled fetuses. With prenatal screening now routine, women are more likely than ever to be made aware that they may carry fetuses with disabilities. If the physicians find increased risks for abnormalities in the fetus, they may suggest abortion and/or genetic counseling. Too often health-care providers emphasize the negative aspects of disability while minimizing the positives. For example, Skotco (2005a, 2005b) reports on research with more than a thousand mothers of children with Downs in Spain and the U.S. A significant number of these women reported that their physicians emphasized the negatives and minimized the positive aspects of life with Downs. Blumberg discusses the dangers of genetic counseling: " Too often counselors do little more than provide future parents with a dreary laundry list of problems their child could have and express sympathy. Rarely are parents encouraged to discuss disability related concerns with people who are disabled or who are parents of disabled children" (p. 5). He concludes, "Instead much medical literature seems to assume that the purpose of counseling is to help ambivalent parents to accept giving up the fetus just as they earlier accepted testing" (p. 7)



A moral dilemma to consider, if Downs fetuses are expendable; why not give birth to them, euthanize immediately, and harvest their body parts to save children with bad hearts and livers?

Case in point. This is a loaded question which assumes the premise is that the other party believes fetuses are expendable. Despite the big, bold, totally seriously here guys "IF," the argument is one-sided. If this is how your class is run, 'bug, you have the opportunity to call out guilt-tripping and logical fallacies, and model for the other students how to think critically on the spot. This is just terrible.

I will agree that this class does manipulate my emotions.

The main point to all this is: would mothers who want their pregnancy keep a child with Downs if society was designed to accommodate them? It's all about promoting the Social model of disability, and rejecting the moral and medical models.

We don't get to debate. :(

It was presented as a moral dilemma. Hypothetical Moral dilemmas are always loaded.

It is possible to use those unwanted, undesirable, expendable fetuses to save lives, but only if you carry them to term. Perhaps they can be incubated once they reach viability so the mother doesn't have to carry it to term. 

This whole section I'm referencing here is called Expendability. It's about how an ableist society views those with disabilities as expendable.


When you have geneticists advising the abortion based on fetus abnormalities I do not think you can escape the similarity to eugenics. Neither do the authors of my textbook.

I can not only escape it, I can throw it out with the rest of the garbage this class seems to be producing. The similarity is at the surface only, and hardly even so. A woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy for any number of reasons, each of which are personal and circumstantial - not a declaration of her social beliefs.

Accusing a woman of eugenics! Accusing her of trying to clean up the genetic pool of society by terminating an unwanted pregnancy! Good god, what a cruel and heartless thing to do to a person already facing a difficult choice. Punishing women for seeking abortions for any reason is capricious and oppressive. To ignore the many reasons clearly and freely offered to explain why women make this choice is sociopathic.

Anyone who values the autonomy of women to be allowed to self-own their bodies should be outraged by such a blatant display of emotional manipulation. It's right up there with accusing a woman seeking an abortion of being a slut or irresponsible. It's worse, for it accuses her of being so bigoted that she would volunteer her part to the cause of genocide - despite the stupidity of that idea! How dare that professor imply to a classroom of students that women ought to feel guilty for seeking an abortion for a different reason than he or she does. How dare that professor ignore the fact that someone is going to come through that classroom and will have either faced such a choice, or will in the future. How dare they impose their own moral hang-ups on a person who came to that class to be taught information, not preached to.

I'm curious what this textbook is now. If it's anything like it's being portrayed here, I find it reprehensible, and completely irresponsible for a college class, unless of course that college is xian affiliated. Which is the only thing that makes sense.

Nobody is accusing the woman of eugenics. They're arguing against the Medical model. They do it by using eugenics as inspiring the Medical model.

It's called: Disability, A Diversity Model Approach in Human Service Practice

Yes, I changed my pathway again. I want to work in a mental health facility as a technician, or an intake worker at Family Services.


Where I will agree is a woman with an unwanted pregnancy makes the choice BUT should geneticist make that decision for them. In the cases of abortion due to fetus disease, that pregnancy was not necessarily unwanted.

Slippery slope fallacy. When has a geneticist made the decision for a woman to continue a pregnancy or not? Under what realistic circumstance is this even remotely possible? Omg, what a scary future this class is proposing! Do they use Fox News clips too? 700 Club? Does the argument that eugenics is an atheist thing come from this class too?

See above text from my book. It's based on research.

Poverty is a social construct.

Wth does this even mean?

Damn, the fearmongering in this class must be exhausting! Sweet and Glorious Lord Satan, what a mess.

It means poverty is a result of failed policies in a capitalist nation. I am willing to hear a different perspective.

To me, the only way around that statement is to say, people are poor because they are lazy and do not want to work. Maybe I'm being too simple minded here. Help me out. Our minimum wage is $7.50 @ hour. Our cost of living comfortably is about 3 times that.
If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4706
  • Darwins +320/-116
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT
Re: Theists and Atheists Participate in Ableism
« Reply #30 on: February 28, 2018, 06:20:50 AM »



As I pointed out there are excellent reasons for aborting expending the aberrations that have nothing to do with eugenics and everything to do with practicality and how one wishes to live life.

Just a point on etiquette here.  When you change something in another person’s quote you must state what you changed explicitly.  Otherwise people might mistakenly think I wrote something I did not.

I apologize for that. Point well taken.  ;)

When you have geneticists advising the abortion based on fetus abnormalities ...

I don’t know that that is happening.  Do you?  And if you do, how do you know it?  I am not even sure that is legal.

Please read the italic text from my textbook for this in my response to albeto right above this one. Thanks.

I do not think you can escape the similarity to eugenics. Neither do the authors of my textbook.

That’s moving the goalposts.  What you said was, “That is a form of eugenics.”  That’s a long way from “similarities”. 

I'm hoping the text I ask you to read above will clear this up. Coming from textbook and coming from student can lose a lot in translation. My fault.


Well, if it’s before birth, it’s not euthanasia.  It’s just an abortion, which I’m totally fine with.  Otherwise, I am not in favor of euthanizing anyone for any reason.

What about babies born with anencephaly, basically born without a brain? If euthanized...

If it’s not got a brain, can it even be euthanized?  I dunno.  But I don’t see a whole lot of women willing to go through pregnancy for that.

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/anencephaly
This link defines anencephaly.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722973/
This link informs of how transplants from these babies are successful.
If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4706
  • Darwins +320/-116
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT
Re: Theists and Atheists Participate in Ableism
« Reply #31 on: February 28, 2018, 06:23:40 AM »
I have made a horrible mistake. :-[ I'm going to do my best to fix it.

I do not know much about eugenics history. When I've read my textbook I mentally flip the word eugenics to mean atheist.

If anybody can share something about eugenics history that would be great. Thanks.
If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1471
  • Darwins +282/-3
Re: Theists and Atheists Participate in Ableism
« Reply #32 on: February 28, 2018, 12:25:46 PM »
I'm saying that society is designed for able body people. The text book compares ableism to racism and homophobia. It considers disability culture a diverse culture.  At the end of my response I'm going to leave you a link that will explain this stuff better than a student can.

I don't disagree with you. The frustrating thing for me is that you're not responding to what I'm saying; you're just throwing out more guilt-bombs.

In my mind, granted I can be incorrect, reality does not change, a tree is a tree, and will always be a tree.

The point that you continue to ignore is people don't have the resources to do everything they want to do, and having foreknowledge offers a measure of control you're not appreciating. Is your argument really that parents should raise children with known special needs despite knowing they are unable to adequately care for those needs because society has a prejudice against disabled people? I hope not because that's amazingly short-sighted and careless.

The textbook claims the moral and medical models are the reasons. I think reading the link will help.

Reading just the indented part in italic (I assume that's what you wanted me to see), I couldn't disagree more. Professor Oliver is misunderstanding and ignoring, and misrepresenting information to support his point that people are mean to people with disabilities. If this is how your class is run, learn to recognize the logical fallacies that keep shitting all over the objective information that is available.

I get your point. You're saying that before there was belief in supernatural things, infanticide was a natural instinct used to survive. Then came along supernatural belief and it rationalized that behavior. Am I getting it?

I'm asking myself: what could any ancient tribe have done to accommodate for disability, but rationalize it as a curse from something? Exceptions were made for soldiers injured in war.

Keep in mind for most of human history, people lived in small groups (about 200), and everyone knew everyone personally and for their whole lives. A mother giving birth to someone with dwarfism, for example may or may not have been a worrisome event depending on the needs and culture of that community. As the human population grew, different communities developed different cultural responses to people with disabilities according to their own moral codes. You already know how Spartans valued strength for the community over personal attachments in their formal public policy. Now consider Seneb, a dwarf in ancient Egypt, a high official serving King Pepi II in the 6th Dynasty.

I would encourage you to resist the temptation to assume a one-size-fits-all historical path here, or anywhere. History is always more complex than people tend to assume.

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1471
  • Darwins +282/-3
Re: Theists and Atheists Participate in Ableism
« Reply #33 on: February 28, 2018, 07:44:51 PM »
I agree with most of this. You confirmed what I suspected- that Christians participated in eugenics too.

Suspected? You made an argument without knowing anything about the events surround that argument?

And why are you looking for confirmation from some yahoo on the internet?

JB, I hate to tell you this, but these are terrible critical thinking practices. There's nothing critical about them.

Did I make ableism synonymous with eugenics? I do not think I did; not from that quote. The view is ableism was a driving force behind eugenics.

Okay, but what does eugenics have to do with ableism in the US today? Are there active political groups forming policies that function to alter the human genome with regard to disabilities? If you're talking about people being prejudiced and unjust in their treatment of a group, there's no need to jump to the worst imaginable consequence to make a point. Use real information. There's certainly plenty to refer to. It can help to have a single thesis statement or question and focus on that without straying too far into rabbit holes. Instead, this thread is just a hodgepodge of frustration and poor illustrations that rely on misinformation and scare tactics to make a point of assigning guilt to anyone not on board.

One more thing, is science not an authority for most atheists? I don't mean like a god, but as an expert authority. Do most atheists except TOE as an explanation for how we came to be?

Irrelevant. Atheism is defined by one, and only one thing - lack of faith in god/s. Anything above and beyond that is outside the parameters of atheism.

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1471
  • Darwins +282/-3
Re: Theists and Atheists Participate in Ableism
« Reply #34 on: February 28, 2018, 08:06:38 PM »

Yes, this class is extremely emotional. I almost come to tears with every documentary I watch. Then I feel bad for having pity, and I change the definition of what I feel to compassion, but honestly I feel both. :'(

I certainly do think it has an agenda, but not one as malice as you think. They are trying to get us to accept the Social model and promote it in our practice as professionals.

There's a difference between being emotional and being emotionally manipulative.

To answer your question, yes it states that geneticists only report the disadvantages of having children with Downs, and do not give examples of people with Downs living a good life.

That wasn't my question. My question was when has a geneticist made the decision for a woman to continue a pregnancy or not? Under what realistic circumstance is this even remotely possible? Genetic advising is not deciding for someone. Genetic advice isn't intimidation. It's professional advice based on the respected opinion gained from a career specializing for years (decades) in a field that one can't simply replicate through Google University.

Interestingly, you don't seem to see the irony if assuming genetic advising is manipulative, but you don't see your class as being manipulative. One uses facts and information that is pertinent to the individuals, the other is misrepresenting and facts and purposes of groups in order to elicit a desired emotional response. Can individual genetic advisers be manipulative? Sure, but the practice isn't predicated on manipulation, it's predicated on giving information that requires specific knowledge, information that can be hard to hear. Your class seems to be predicated on manipulating young people to go out and join their social agenda.

From the text: Issues of eugenics arise in current practices of prenatal testing and genetics counseling. Blumberg (1994) explores in detail the matter of screening for fetal "defects" with the objective of aborting unwanted, disabled fetuses. With prenatal screening now routine, women are more likely than ever to be made aware that they may carry fetuses with disabilities. If the physicians find increased risks for abnormalities in the fetus, they may suggest abortion and/or genetic counseling. Too often health-care providers emphasize the negative aspects of disability while minimizing the positives. For example, Skotco (2005a, 2005b) reports on research with more than a thousand mothers of children with Downs in Spain and the U.S. A significant number of these women reported that their physicians emphasized the negatives and minimized the positive aspects of life with Downs. Blumberg discusses the dangers of genetic counseling: " Too often counselors do little more than provide future parents with a dreary laundry list of problems their child could have and express sympathy. Rarely are parents encouraged to discuss disability related concerns with people who are disabled or who are parents of disabled children" (p. 5). He concludes, "Instead much medical literature seems to assume that the purpose of counseling is to help ambivalent parents to accept giving up the fetus just as they earlier accepted testing" (p. 7)

Exactly. Manipulation, misrepresentation, fear-mongering. Shameful.

It was presented as a moral dilemma. Hypothetical Moral dilemmas are always loaded.

No they're not. They're neutral, they test the waters of individual responses to moral dilemmas. They aren't loaded like your questions and hypothetical circumstances are.

It is possible to use those unwanted, undesirable, expendable fetuses to save lives, but only if you carry them to term. Perhaps they can be incubated once they reach viability so the mother doesn't have to carry it to term. 

Jesus christ on a cracker, if I hear how fetuses are "expendable" one more time I'm gonna go bonkers. What a cruel and capricious thing to say. What a nasty, loaded, guilt-trip to put on a woman. That's hateful and misogynistic and it should be utterly unacceptable in a society that values autonomy and self-ownership of one's own body. Good god, why not call the mothers future baby killers, encourage the students to throw animal blood on them at the medical clinic and be done with it? 

It means poverty is a result of failed policies in a capitalist nation. I am willing to hear a different perspective.

You mean poverty doesn't exist in non-capitalist societies? Someone ought to tell that to Russia, China, Venezuela. That's more self-soothing gobbledygook. Look up poverty in an encyclopedia and stop trying to shove it into one agenda or another.

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4706
  • Darwins +320/-116
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT
Re: Theists and Atheists Participate in Ableism
« Reply #35 on: March 01, 2018, 07:02:32 AM »
I would give you a +1 for every one of your posts if I could.

You touched on some of the same conflicts I've had with this class.

I do agree with the main point of it, that society is designed for able bodied people, and disabled people are oppressed because of it.
If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1471
  • Darwins +282/-3
Re: Theists and Atheists Participate in Ableism
« Reply #36 on: March 01, 2018, 12:50:25 PM »
I do agree with the main point of it, that society is designed for able bodied people, and disabled people are oppressed because of it.

All disabled people? Oppressed in what ways, exactly? I do agree there is a shit-ton of oppression going on, but I admit my mind is stuck on the reality of public schools responding to challenging autistic students with physical restrictions and "time-out boxes." Fucking boxes. Cages for kids who haven't had adequate time to learn and adopt appropriate social skills to deal with the kind of stress most kids their ages could never conceive of.

But my dad with Parkinson's isn't oppressed by society. He can go to whatever restaurant he wants and see whatever movie he wants and even get shorter lines provided specifically for the handicapped. My neighbor with an amputee has a better job than I could ever get. She works for the state and has desirable medical benefits on top of job security. Accommodations for physically disabled students are available for the asking. Accommodations in the public places are guaranteed by law. Accommodations in the workplace favor the disabled. I'm not saying there is no prejudice, and I'm not saying our society can rest easy about its ethical approach to disabilities, but oppressed? All of them? What do you think oppression means?

Of course society is designed for able bodied people. Able bodied people are by far the largest majority of people! But it's dishonest to ignore the gains being made. It's unreasonable to assume a culture yesterday ought to have had the moral code of your culture today, and its irresponsible to teach as if it should.

Your professor is banking on students not recognizing the emotional manipulation because they're too distracted with the feeling of outrage. Your professor probably doesn't recognize the emotional manipulation themselves. People rarely do when they're the ones laying the guilt-bombs.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2018, 01:23:06 PM by albeto »

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4706
  • Darwins +320/-116
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT
Re: Theists and Atheists Participate in Ableism
« Reply #37 on: March 02, 2018, 08:02:47 AM »

I do agree with the main point of it, that society is designed for able bodied people, and disabled people are oppressed because of it.

All disabled people? Oppressed in what ways, exactly? I do agree there is a shit-ton of oppression going on, but I admit my mind is stuck on the reality of public schools responding to challenging autistic students with physical restrictions and "time-out boxes." Fucking boxes. Cages for kids who haven't had adequate time to learn and adopt appropriate social skills to deal with the kind of stress most kids their ages could never conceive of.

But my dad with Parkinson's isn't oppressed by society. He can go to whatever restaurant he wants and see whatever movie he wants and even get shorter lines provided specifically for the handicapped. My neighbor with an amputee has a better job than I could ever get. She works for the state and has desirable medical benefits on top of job security. Accommodations for physically disabled students are available for the asking. Accommodations in the public places are guaranteed by law. Accommodations in the workplace favor the disabled. I'm not saying there is no prejudice, and I'm not saying our society can rest easy about its ethical approach to disabilities, but oppressed? All of them? What do you think oppression means?

Of course society is designed for able bodied people. Able bodied people are by far the largest majority of people! But it's dishonest to ignore the gains being made. It's unreasonable to assume a culture yesterday ought to have had the moral code of your culture today, and its irresponsible to teach as if it should.

Your professor is banking on students not recognizing the emotional manipulation because they're too distracted with the feeling of outrage. Your professor probably doesn't recognize the emotional manipulation themselves. People rarely do when they're the ones laying the guilt-bombs.

I did mention the Disability Act of 1990 and the Education Act of 2004 earlier in this thread. You are right, I should have qualified that sentence.

This is an online class. It's the textbook describing the HISTORY of disability and Disability culture. Yes it does tug at my emotions. It has made me more sensitive to my own ableist attitudes. I don't think that's a bad thing. I also do not accept that it's irresponsible to teach history. I did mention the Disability Act of 1990 and the Education Act of 2004 earlier in this thread. Your outrage is misplaced.

To be oppressed you have to be in a minority. Just as you said, able bodied people are the majority. To be oppressed the majority makes it either impossible or extremely harder for that minority to participate in society.

Ableism is oppressive because many disabled people internalize ableist attitudes and have a psychological challenge to overcome[1]. Disabled people in poverty are more affected by ableism than those with financial means. You can still observe this psychological challenge in African Americans today[2], even though laws have been passed. You can still observe this psychological challenge in homosexuals in America today[3], even though laws have been passed.

People should feel guilty for having an ableist attitude. It's the only way to get rid of it[4].
 1. http://www.theafflictionfiction.com/2016/02/ableism-101-internalised-ableism.html
 2. http://federalsafetynet.com/us-poverty-statistics.html
 3. https://www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/youth.htm
 4. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/well/family/a-healthy-dose-of-guilt.html
If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1471
  • Darwins +282/-3
Re: Theists and Atheists Participate in Ableism
« Reply #38 on: March 02, 2018, 12:00:53 PM »
I did mention the Disability Act of 1990 and the Education Act of 2004 earlier in this thread. You are right, I should have qualified that sentence.

I am aware of that. It doesn't change what I'm saying.

This is an online class. It's the textbook describing the HISTORY of disability and Disability culture. Yes it does tug at my emotions. It has made me more sensitive to my own ableist attitudes. I don't think that's a bad thing. I also do not accept that it's irresponsible to teach history. I did mention the Disability Act of 1990 and the Education Act of 2004 earlier in this thread. 

What's going on here? What did I say that makes you think I'm arguing against teaching the history of such a thing? Did you read what I wrote?

Your outrage is misplaced.

You have no idea what outrages me. You certainly haven't addressed it. Again, I think you're not reading what I wrote because just yesterday you said you wanted to rep me for it.

To be oppressed you have to be in a minority. Just as you said, able bodied people are the majority. To be oppressed the majority makes it either impossible or extremely harder for that minority to participate in society.

This sentiment indicates you don't know what oppression is, what it looks like, or how it works. You might look into it a bit more if you're going to argue its application.

By the way, the word you might be looking for is "marginalized." A group need not be in the minority to be oppressed. Consider the system of apartheid in South Africa. Consider the traditional caste system of India. Consider governments, whose official members are a fraction of the percentage of the population, that oppress their own people by controlling information and censoring speech. Consider also that women make up slightly more than 50% of the population and are, in most cultures, oppressed in some way. One most certainly does not have to be in a minority to be oppressed.

Ableism is oppressive because many disabled people internalize ableist attitudes and have a psychological challenge to overcome[1].
 1. http://www.theafflictionfiction.com/2016/02/ableism-101-internalised-ableism.html

What do you think "oppression" means?

Disabled people in poverty are more affected by ableism than those with financial means. You can still observe this psychological challenge in African Americans today[2], even though laws have been passed. You can still observe this psychological challenge in homosexuals in America today[3], even though laws have been passed.
 2. http://federalsafetynet.com/us-poverty-statistics.html
 3. https://www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/youth.htm

Which is why poverty is more than a "social construct," wouldn't you agree? But again, you're arguing for something I'm not actually arguing against. It's like you're finding statements that kinda sorta fit this conversation and are tossing them in willy-nilly rather than responding to what I said. Please stick with the topic.

People should feel guilty for having an ableist attitude. It's the only way to get rid of it[4].
 4. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/well/family/a-healthy-dose-of-guilt.html

Again, I do not disagree. I really can't tell if you've read what I wrote. You're not responding to what I wrote anyway.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2018, 01:19:34 PM by albeto »

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4706
  • Darwins +320/-116
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT
Re: Theists and Atheists Participate in Ableism
« Reply #39 on: March 03, 2018, 04:37:36 AM »
I think it's interesting that both theists and atheists participate in ableism, and that both participate in eradicating ableism.

I am atheist and I don't like it. Full stop.

Atheists do not have the extra complication of trying to explain how an all-powerful, loving, omniscience being would allow disability and the cognitive dissonance that comes with that belief. We know prayer won't help. Like most issues education is the necessary tool that will bring ableism to awareness.

I was looking for my link I have to find for my weekly forum post after watching, Blindsided, a documentary about an eleven-year-old boy with Leger's Hereditary Optic Neuropathy and his family. There were components of the moral, medical, and social models exposed. The moral model, the father said if he had known his wife carried that gene he would have never married her. The medical model, false hopes of a cure and money wasted. Finally the social model, once the father acknowledged that his son was going to be able to participate in society his family was able to heal emotionally. I was looking for a link that would help families deal with emotions, psychological challenge, that comes with learning about an impairment or disability, and from psychology websites a "belief in a higher power" was one of the coping mechanisms advised. I refused to use those links. I found one from the NIH that covered the subject without inserting gods. I used that one.


The way I perceive the medical model is like this: yes it sucked in the 20th century, but I don't think the suffering disabled people went through was in vain, much knowledge was gained from it, unlike the moral model that dominated the attitudes towards PWD for thousands of years and brought nothing but harm to them, and still does.
If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4706
  • Darwins +320/-116
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT
Re: Theists and Atheists Participate in Ableism
« Reply #40 on: March 03, 2018, 06:07:59 AM »

I do agree with the main point of it, that society is designed for able bodied people, and disabled people are oppressed because of it.

All disabled people? Oppressed in what ways, exactly? I do agree there is a shit-ton of oppression going on, but I admit my mind is stuck on the reality of public schools responding to challenging autistic students with physical restrictions and "time-out boxes." Fucking boxes. Cages for kids who haven't had adequate time to learn and adopt appropriate social skills to deal with the kind of stress most kids their ages could never conceive of.

I'm not aware of time out boxes. :o This is happening in our schools today?

I did mention the Disability Act of 1990 and the Education Act of 2004. Still I should have qualified that sentence.


But my dad with Parkinson's isn't oppressed by society. He can go to whatever restaurant he wants and see whatever movie he wants and even get shorter lines provided specifically for the handicapped. My neighbor with an amputee has a better job than I could ever get. She works for the state and has desirable medical benefits on top of job security. Accommodations for physically disabled students are available for the asking. Accommodations in the public places are guaranteed by law. Accommodations in the workplace favor the disabled. I'm not saying there is no prejudice, and I'm not saying our society can rest easy about its ethical approach to disabilities, but oppressed? All of them? What do you think oppression means?

That's a rather general hastilization seeing as how there are 58,000,000 people with disabilities in America. None of them are oppressed? None of them? Again I did mention the Disability Act and Education Act. No I did not mean all of them. I also mentioned some rather important people with disabilities that have made significant contributions to humanity. I guess you forgot about that. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/miscellaneous/cb12-134.html

Oppression: prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.

Ableism is oppressive because many disabled people internalize ableist attitudes and have a psychological challenge to overcome[1]. Disabled people in poverty are more affected by ableism than those with financial means. You can still observe this psychological challenge in African Americans today[2], even though laws have been passed. You can still observe this psychological challenge in homosexuals in America today[3], even though laws have been passed.

There's also the matter of ever rising health care costs keeping people on SSA with Medicaid to afford their medical needs. Some employers are skeptical to hire a PWD because they are afraid of getting sued, or do not know what accommodations need to be provided. Accessibility is still an issue. I mentioned earlier that the very campus teaching me has sections not accessible to a person in a wheelchair. I mentioned their handicapped buttons for doors do not always work. There's still issues with transportation. Unemployment rates for the disabled has risen since 1990. http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/26/news/economy/americans-with-disabilities-act-problems-remain/index.html


Of course society is designed for able bodied people. Able bodied people are by far the largest majority of people! But it's dishonest to ignore the gains being made.

Again I mentioned the Disability Act of 1990 and the Education Act of 2004 earlier in this thread. That's not being dishonest. It would be dishonest to ignore that there is still improvements to be made. As I mentioned earlier, the unemployment rate has risen since the deployment of the ADA.

It's unreasonable to assume a culture yesterday ought to have had the moral code of your culture today, and its irresponsible to teach as if it should.

Who's positing this? Seems to me you are.

Your professor is banking on students not recognizing the emotional manipulation because they're too distracted with the feeling of outrage. Your professor probably doesn't recognize the emotional manipulation themselves. People rarely do when they're the ones laying the guilt-bombs.

Again with the mind reading. How do you know what my professor banks on? What makes you think students are outraged? What I feel is empathy, and a desire to help when I can. I feel the need to self-reflect on my own attitude. I haven't used not even one mad emoji. ;) That's a sample of 1.

The point of this thread is to bring awareness to ableism, and that atheists and theists both share a HUMAN responsibility to adjust their attitudes about it.

People should feel guilty for having an ableist attitude. It's the only way to get rid of it[4].

I hope this makes you feel better, and more like I responded to what you said.

Is your outrage over the expendable argument made by my textbook? Maybe try looking at it through the lens of someone with a disability. People are fighting for their right to not be perceived as expendable by an ableist society. I'm torn by that argument as well because I'm pro-choice. I don't think it's impossible to argue for women's rights and leave out the part about fetuses with a disability. The "I can't afford to have this kid" and "I'm just not ready to be a mother" is reason enough. I can completely empathize with PWD on this matter.

Since nature provides many resources, yes poverty in Western Cultures is a social construct. I don't have a clue why people stayed in areas where resources are scarce. Perhaps, maybe to keep away from aggressive tribes that would kill them...I dunno. Fucking trickle down economics is a thing predicted to bring on Armageddon.
 1. http://www.theafflictionfiction.com/2016/02/ableism-101-internalised-ableism.html
 2. http://federalsafetynet.com/us-poverty-statistics.html
 3. https://www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/youth.htm
 4. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/well/family/a-healthy-dose-of-guilt.html
« Last Edit: March 03, 2018, 06:10:08 AM by junebug72 »
If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4656
  • Darwins +457/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Theists and Atheists Participate in Ableism
« Reply #41 on: March 03, 2018, 09:08:33 AM »
The man in the picture is the exception.

You should keep your eye on what the argument is, rather than answering as if there had only been one post prior.

Quote
Stephen Hawking is not dead Ad. You speak of him in the past tense. Hawking has a notepad, an electronic one.

I speak of his life prior to him being 76, which I assume there is a lot of, unless the concept of birthdays is an illusion. Mathematicians do their best work by 22.

Quote
Nobody is apologizing for the disabled.

Without reading previous posts, I would suggest you are.

Quote
Cannot cure the common cold. Many have died from the flu this year. Mosquitoes causing Zika virus. We are a long way from engineering a super breed.  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: If doing so means euthanizing less superior humans then there is no morality left,

Breeding a superior race does not necessarily entail exterminating the leftovers. The superior race can exist alongside people like yourself.

The reason we are so far away from breeding the superior race, is in part due to never having tried, except for a couple of attempts in Nazi movies. Largely the human dick is attracted to the wrong mates.

Quote
Why MUST it be engineered? Evolution may be the vehicle to increasing human strength and intelligence. Why rush it? It has brought us from the Stone Age.  ;)

The stone age is not very far away, and developments since then could have been backwards.

Large animals teeter on genetic contamination, rather than development, unless there is massive selection pressure. That's why Skeptic8757654 is skeptical of evolution even working. At the moment, we have 7 billion humans all gathering random mutations which are all basically worthless, unless selection pressure is applied at some point. The selection pressure also tends to be worthless. Like it will be a virus, selecting for some enzyme that does nothing.

I have wallabies around my lawn and the biggest killer of them is pythons, cars and hunters. None of these deaths enhance the species in any way, so the gene pool is decreasing with no development. I just saw one small nice wallaby die this season... wanna know the reason? His call was not loud enough. Neither him or his mother could call loudly, so when separated more than 100m, he got lost and died of thirst. That mother is going to keep producing young that don't call loudly, so she may lose all 13 of them. Her whole life will be a waste of time, licking the arse of joeys and then accidentally killing them all, just prior to being free. There is another wallaby who is very small, but has exceptional parenting skills. By virtue of her parenting, she will pass on her small weak genetics. The most intelligent wallaby I have, invariably produces very sweet, laid-back intelligent young, but they are eaten by pythons.

Evolution takes its fucking time... millions of years, and it's not even interested in designing for useful outcomes. Humans have been designing themselves for some time, but it has only worked at all, because of the mammalian alpha male method, AKA polygamy. Our current marital ethics pair everybody off, no matter how stupid, defective or ugly. Everybody gets a chance to reproduce.

In short, it has to be rushed unless you think the planet can stand another 10 million years of this dumb shit. We've lost our sense of smell, apparently due to dogs. Our strength is decreasing. Lifespan and intelligence seem to take a back seat to everything else. That's why dogs live until 10.


« Last Edit: March 03, 2018, 09:29:16 AM by Add Homonym »
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3769
  • Darwins +507/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Theists and Atheists Participate in Ableism
« Reply #42 on: March 03, 2018, 11:10:59 AM »
Humans have been designing themselves for some time, but it has only worked at all, because of the mammalian alpha male method, AKA polygamy.

Jaw. Fucking. Dropped.

I seriously never considered this. Brand new intriguing idea before I'm done with my morning coffee. What a great way to start a Saturday, thanks!

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1471
  • Darwins +282/-3
Re: Theists and Atheists Participate in Ableism
« Reply #43 on: March 03, 2018, 12:44:54 PM »
I'm not aware of time out boxes. :o This is happening in our schools today?

You're talking about oppression in the context of people internalizing prejudiced thoughts but have no idea to what extent our legal authority can and does exercise cruel and unjust policies. Yes, this is really happening in our schools today. If you're going to make a case, do your research and know what's out there. You're focusing on people feeling bad, a Special Snowflake Defense. Color me unimpressed.

general hastilization

????

None of them are oppressed? None of them? Again I did mention the Disability Act and Education Act. No I did not mean all of them.

I can only respond to what you say, not what you mean, or wish you had said.

"society is designed for able bodied people, and disabled people are oppressed because of it."

I gave you specific examples that conflict with this claim. In short, your claim is overgeneralized and supported with paltry examples of relatively unimpressive first world problems. It doesn't support your point, it detracts from it because it's such a sloppily made, easily contested claim. 

Again I mentioned the Disability Act of 1990 and the Education Act of 2004 earlier in this thread. That's not being dishonest. It would be dishonest to ignore that there is still improvements to be made. As I mentioned earlier, the unemployment rate has risen since the deployment of the ADA.

Your mention of these Acts is in the context of how very recently these gains have been made, as a matter of shaming people (society? all the readers flooding WWGHA? us? your professor?) into feeling guilty for not having already installed policies that match modern moral codes. [link to comment] What should I feel guilty for, exactly? I didn't create or support any public policy designed to oppress people with disabilities. I don't employ anyone, disabled or not. I have a personal history of advocating for the rights of people with disabilities, legitimate rights that have been illegally and immorally denied, rights that are more concrete and legally protected than the pretend right to feel good and confident about yourself no matter what.

Maybe try looking at it through the lens of someone with a disability.

No. Why should the onus be on the woman to consider only the positive aspects of a potential future? Why should her consideration of potential negative futures be censured when a negative potential future is upsetting to an outside specific group? The argument you are presenting essentially suggests a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, unless that pregnancy indicates a potential birth defect or genetic mutation, in which case she should be morally compelled to carry it to term so as not to offend a particular demographic. I reject any argument that suggests a woman ought to feel guilty for not carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term for any reason.

To suggest her rights should be limited in any aspect is to suggest she can't be trusted to make the "right" decision and the public should make the decision for her. That's the epitome of misogyny and I refuse to support it. I refuse to support suppressing the freedom of one group because it negatively impacts all of society.

People are fighting for their right to not be perceived as expendable by an ableist society.

To suggest women ought to be compelled to carry unwanted pregnancies to term in order to not upset one group or another is to suggest women ought not be given the autonomy to make their own decisions. Women should not be compelled to carry unwanted pregnancies, whether it upsets religious groups or ethic groups or racial groups or any other special interest, and I reject any double standard that says women ought to have the right to choice except when it bothers you.

I'm torn by that argument as well because I'm pro-choice. I don't think it's impossible to argue for women's rights and leave out the part about fetuses with a disability. The "I can't afford to have this kid" and "I'm just not ready to be a mother" is reason enough. I can completely empathize with PWD on this matter.

Me too, but not in such a way that I would support restriction of a person's legal and moral right to self-ownership of their body. Funny how this only impacts women, and women are expected to not ever upset other people. By your definition of oppression, this is an oppressive policy. You're supporting the oppression of women. I can't agree.

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4706
  • Darwins +320/-116
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT
Re: Theists and Atheists Participate in Ableism
« Reply #44 on: March 04, 2018, 08:29:03 AM »
Breeding a superior race does not necessarily entail exterminating the leftovers. The superior race can exist alongside people like yourself.

The reason we are so far away from breeding the superior race, is in part due to never having tried, except for a couple of attempts in Nazi movies. Largely the human dick is attracted to the wrong mates.

Geez, that's a relief. :laugh:

Sounds like you want to Make Australia Great Again. MAGA baby!


Quote
Why MUST it be engineered? Evolution may be the vehicle to increasing human strength and intelligence. Why rush it? It has brought us from the Stone Age.  ;)

The stone age is not very far away, and developments since then could have been backwards.

Large animals teeter on genetic contamination, rather than development, unless there is massive selection pressure. That's why Skeptic8757654 is skeptical of evolution even working. At the moment, we have 7 billion humans all gathering random mutations which are all basically worthless, unless selection pressure is applied at some point. The selection pressure also tends to be worthless. Like it will be a virus, selecting for some enzyme that does nothing.

I have wallabies around my lawn and the biggest killer of them is pythons, cars and hunters. None of these deaths enhance the species in any way, so the gene pool is decreasing with no development. I just saw one small nice wallaby die this season... wanna know the reason? His call was not loud enough. Neither him or his mother could call loudly, so when separated more than 100m, he got lost and died of thirst. That mother is going to keep producing young that don't call loudly, so she may lose all 13 of them. Her whole life will be a waste of time, licking the arse of joeys and then accidentally killing them all, just prior to being free. There is another wallaby who is very small, but has exceptional parenting skills. By virtue of her parenting, she will pass on her small weak genetics. The most intelligent wallaby I have, invariably produces very sweet, laid-back intelligent young, but they are eaten by pythons.

Evolution takes its fucking time... millions of years, and it's not even interested in designing for useful outcomes. Humans have been designing themselves for some time, but it has only worked at all, because of the mammalian alpha male method, AKA polygamy. Our current marital ethics pair everybody off, no matter how stupid, defective or ugly. Everybody gets a chance to reproduce.

In short, it has to be rushed unless you think the planet can stand another 10 million years of this dumb shit. We've lost our sense of smell, apparently due to dogs. Our strength is decreasing. Lifespan and intelligence seem to take a back seat to everything else. That's why dogs live until 10.

MAGA!

And you wonder why a guy like skeptic54678, or any theist, is leery of accepting TOE?  :o

If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4706
  • Darwins +320/-116
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT
Re: Theists and Atheists Participate in Ableism
« Reply #45 on: March 04, 2018, 10:05:13 AM »
I'm not aware of time out boxes. :o This is happening in our schools today?

You're talking about oppression in the context of people internalizing prejudiced thoughts but have no idea to what extent our legal authority can and does exercise cruel and unjust policies. Yes, this is really happening in our schools today. If you're going to make a case, do your research and know what's out there. You're focusing on people feeling bad, a Special Snowflake Defense. Color me unimpressed.

I don't recall bringing it to the discussion. Will you provide a link to support your claim?

general hastilization

Quote
????

I already clarified, you mysteriously left it out (a pattern of yours). You gave me a small sample of two out of 58,000,000.

None of them are oppressed? None of them? Again I did mention the Disability Act and Education Act. No I did not mean all of them.

Quote
I gave you specific examples that conflict with this claim. In short, your claim is overgeneralized and supported with paltry examples of relatively unimpressive first world problems. It doesn't support your point, it detracts from it because it's such a sloppily made, easily contested claim. 


You gave me a small sample. I gave you a link that states unemployment rates for PWD has risen since the deployment of the ADA. That supports my point, which is why you left it out, no? (I'm seeing a pattern here)

Quit pretending, like I have not responded to your point. Thanks.


Again I mentioned the Disability Act of 1990 and the Education Act of 2004 earlier in this thread. That's not being dishonest. It would be dishonest to ignore that there is still improvements to be made. As I mentioned earlier, the unemployment rate has risen since the deployment of the ADA.

^^That was me, not you.^^

Quote
Your mention of these Acts is in the context of how very recently these gains have been made, as a matter of shaming people (society? all the readers flooding WWGHA? us? your professor?) into feeling guilty for not having already installed policies that match modern moral codes. [link to comment] What should I feel guilty for, exactly? I didn't create or support any public policy designed to oppress people with disabilities. I don't employ anyone, disabled or not. I have a personal history of advocating for the rights of people with disabilities, legitimate rights that have been illegally and immorally denied, rights that are more concrete and legally protected than the pretend right to feel good and confident about yourself no matter what.

No albeto, the point was how the Moral and Medical models have held back the progression of rights for PWD. It's their HISTORY.

Nobody was specifically talking about you, unless you participate in ableism. Do you think PWD are a burden to society, are perpetual children, are a menace to society, needs fixed, an object to be pitied, ugly and sexless, Incompetent, better off not being born?

Maybe try looking at it through the lens of someone with a disability.

Quote
No. Why should the onus be on the woman to consider only the positive aspects of a potential future? Why should her consideration of potential negative futures be censured when a negative potential future is upsetting to an outside specific group? The argument you are presenting essentially suggests a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, unless that pregnancy indicates a potential birth defect or genetic mutation, in which case she should be morally compelled to carry it to term so as not to offend a particular demographic. I reject any argument that suggests a woman ought to feel guilty for not carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term for any reason.

To suggest her rights should be limited in any aspect is to suggest she can't be trusted to make the "right" decision and the public should make the decision for her. That's the epitome of misogyny and I refuse to support it. I refuse to support suppressing the freedom of one group because it negatively impacts all of society.

Nobody suggested not having the right to abort for any reason. I asked you to consider empathy for PWD. That's all, nothing more, nothing less. I am expected to because I'm on a Human Services Pathway. How good would I be in that industry without that empathy?

People are fighting for their right to not be perceived as expendable by an ableist society.

Quote
To suggest women ought to be compelled to carry unwanted pregnancies to term in order to not upset one group or another is to suggest women ought not be given the autonomy to make their own decisions. Women should not be compelled to carry unwanted pregnancies, whether it upsets religious groups or ethic groups or racial groups or any other special interest, and I reject any double standard that says women ought to have the right to choice except when it bothers you.

It is dehumanizing for PWD. It is part of the Medical model. Just as racism is dehumanizing for African Americans, just like homophobia is dehumanizing for homosexuals, just like misogyny is dehumanizing for women, just like ageism is dehumanizing for seniors; ableism is dehumanizing for PWD. You can pass all the laws you want to, but when you live in a society that views you as expendable, you live in a society that is oppressing you psychologically.

It's no different than African Americans using white privilege and systemic racism to argue for their rights, now is it? A good argument has egos, pathos, and logos. That is part of their pathos.

One major problem I have with this class is this: they say they don't want pity, but use this argument that is clearly there as pathos, a way to evoke pity. I'm still trying to figure out how to pull that off. I replace the word pity with compassion. That's all I can do, but the words are synonymous.

I'm torn by that argument as well because I'm pro-choice. I don't think it's impossible to argue for women's rights and leave out the part about fetuses with a disability. The "I can't afford to have this kid" and "I'm just not ready to be a mother" is reason enough. I can completely empathize with PWD on this matter.

Quote
Me too, but not in such a way that I would support restriction of a person's legal and moral right to self-ownership of their body. Funny how this only impacts women, and women are expected to not ever upset other people. By your definition of oppression, this is an oppressive policy. You're supporting the oppression of women. I can't agree.

Absolutely nobody has suggested banning women from getting an abortion, just re-framing the argument to exclude an ableist attitude.

I suggest actually listening before responding, and then I don't have to respond to things you have made up.

Excuse me while I go watch a video that will evoke pity that I'm not supposed to feel.
If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4706
  • Darwins +320/-116
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT
Re: Theists and Atheists Participate in Ableism
« Reply #46 on: March 09, 2018, 05:26:27 AM »
To further prove my point that reframing the abortion argument to leave out an ableist attitude is something that should be done here, let's replace some other groups.

If a woman is pregnant with a homosexual and it's against her religion, she has a moral obligation to abort the fetus.

If a Baptist girl gets pregnant with a black boy's baby she should abort, to keep her family from finding out.

If a woman is pregnant with a white male she should abort to prevent racism.
If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4706
  • Darwins +320/-116
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT
Re: Theists and Atheists Participate in Ableism
« Reply #47 on: March 11, 2018, 07:23:43 AM »
As I mentioned earlier, needs pity is an ableist stereotype. Not having pity is something I am struggling with.

I am coming around after the documentary I watched last Sunday, My Flesh and Blood. I literally broke down in tears watching this child suffer from a disease that affects the collagen in your body. That child's skin and limbs just fell off. He shivered in pain as his adopted mother, Susan Tom-adopted 12 children with disabilities,  gave him a bath.

I cannot be crying like that in front of a client I might be working with. Anthony did not seem to feel sorry for himself. He lives everyday to the fullest, appreciates every moment he is alive. Anthony watched as his little sister died from the same disease.

Instead of pity/compassion, all I need is to care about PWD as I would for anybody else.
If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman