The Ends of Religious Tolerance

[ToadBrother]

ToadBrother: Regarding your rant towards me on evolution.....

As pointed out earlier in this thread, medicine has improved to the point where what would have been non-viable specimens in the past are now able to survive, with treatment.

Perhaps my word "defective" is the source of your consternation.

Let me put it another way. If a bunch of borderline-mindless idiots is kept alive after birth via medical treatment, and throughout their lives by welfare/support/caregivers/whatever, then go on to breed large numbers of other borderline-mindless-morons, then THAT, if carried on over a very long term, could do inestimable damage to the gene pool.

First you would have to demonstrate that mindless idiocy is genetic. Then you would have to demonstrate that mindless idiots are more likely to reproduce, and much more importantly, produce offspring capable of sustaining that.

And therein lies the rub. While some forms of mental incapacity are genetic, there are also many that are developmental and environmental. The latter two would not produce mindless idiot offspring.

In one of my earlier posts I went into that at greater length, but this is the Reader's Digest condensed version.

I think it demonstrates quite well the dangers involved in eugenics.

The trouble with our society is that people who likely would never have lived to breed because of physical and/or mental defects, are now breeding, and in some cases breeding very large families.

Could you give me some examples here. I'm having a hard time seeing much evidence of large numbers of low intellect people having lots of babies. Perhaps you could cite some figures here.

When you have no job, very little mind, and lots of hormones, what else is there to do???

This looks more like an economic statement than a genetic one. You're falling into the eugenics trap of defining economic circumstances as if they were heritable traits.

Once there are enough of them running around, and some slightly-less mindless dolts start in with them, and so on and so on, it has an overall negative effect on the gene pool.

I think you need to provide some actual evidence of any of this. You're committing the same fallacy that Lictor does.

This, too, is evolution.

Backwards.

No such thing as backwards evolution. There's just evolution. Intelligence is not the only solution to survival. In fact it's a rather niche solution. Bacteria have the best solution, stay largely unicellular and reproduce through binary fission at rapid rates.

[Michael Hardner]

MDancer,

Children have a remarkable ability to love and be happy regardless of their circumstances. I can't say she will always be able to love or be happy; I couldn't say that about anybody. But the value of her life here and now is the capacity to love and be loved....

Those who for their own twisted depraved ideology feel she would be better off dead despite the childs own feelings, or in spite of them, do not have the capacity to love and consequently their own value is nothing and truly, they would be better off dead than having to endure a world where horribly deformed children are loved uinconditionally.

Thank you. This comment provides a valuable insight: it links between our collective values - the meaning of our existence - and public policy. This is why political discussion is important.

[Michael Hardner]

As I have said on this thread, if the issue is about money then that's a separate discussion. I think Lictor is disingenuous because he at once talks about having sympathy for those in pain, and complains about the costs of keeping them alive. The system can support $5.8 to care for someone with a rare disease - but it has to be managed well in order to continue.

[PocketRocket]

True but no one has ever accused me of being civilizied.

:lol:

Touche...

[PocketRocket]

Mornin', TB. Moving a little slow as I just started coffee #1, so go easy on me....

First you would have to demonstrate that mindless idiocy is genetic. Then you would have to demonstrate that mindless idiots are more likely to reproduce, and much more importantly, produce offspring capable of sustaining that.

And therein lies the rub. While some forms of mental incapacity are genetic, there are also many that are developmental and environmental. The latter two would not produce mindless idiot offspring.

As for me "demonstrating" that mindless idiocy" is genetic, you yourself just stated that some forms are, so perhaps we can take it as read???

As to being more likely to reproduce, keep in mind this entire theory is, well, theoretical. I was simply mocking up a scenario for sake of debate and discussion.

But that being said, let's look at it this way; many people choose not to have children or have them later in life so they can pursue career advancements, etc.

Someone who is mentally handicapped, living in a group home with other similar people, is PROBABLY (is that word okay to use here???) not going to be thinking all that far into his/her future and considering long-term career goals. The stronger likelyhood is giving in to the instant gratification one feels when one's friend "plays with my pee-pee".

Could you give me some examples here. I'm having a hard time seeing much evidence of large numbers of low intellect people having lots of babies. Perhaps you could cite some figures here.

See reply above.

This looks more like an economic statement than a genetic one. You're falling into the eugenics trap of defining economic circumstances as if they were heritable traits.

No, the economic aspect may have attached itself to an example, but is not my concern.

I think you need to provide some actual evidence of any of this. You're committing the same fallacy that Lictor does.

Again, see reply above. The difference between LICTOR and I is that I am voicing a concern based on certain interpretation of theory. He is advocating something different.

No such thing as backwards evolution. There's just evolution. Intelligence is not the only solution to survival. In fact it's a rather niche solution. Bacteria have the best solution, stay largely unicellular and reproduce through binary fission at rapid rates.

Personally, I would see our evolving into a race of bacteria as being backwards, even though it may increase the race's chances of survival in the very long term.

So if there is no backwards evolution, what do we call a theoretical situation wherein the race stops advancing (mentally, physically, the whole ball of wax), and starts becoming weaker, slower, stupider, and all because nature's way of culling the species is overridden by man's tampering???

[GostHacked]

wait a minute... just so we're clear... are you actually claiming that Julianna's conditions is "fixable"?

I have more confidence her physical appearance will be 'fixed' before you are 'mentaly fixed'.

There are different degrees of treacher collins, some are so minor as to be even undetectable to the human eye. Julianna's condition is not at all mild... the doctors caring for her were all quoted saying that it was the worst case they'd ever seen, and that Julianna has no hope of ever being able to speak or breathe normally (she lacks the facial structure to do it.

Well, the doctors are taking the approach like a challenge. It's at least worth trying and then we can understand more about the condition and now to fix it in the future.

<--- not sure how this relates to the thread, but somehow it does.

And no amount of reconstructive surgery will make her look like anything but a mangled flesh colored Elmo/squid like creature.

Same with the other guy and the infection due to fungus. His wife is a very very strong person. I applaude her for it, because I am not sure if I could deal with that. But that is my flaw and not the person with the condition.

Her biggest barrier is struggling to breathe (she's up to her second tracheotomy) and developping resistance to anti-biotics and pain killers... (she's apparently immune to pill pain killers and has to be given what some call "heroic doses" of powerful painkillers INTRAVENOUSLY).

No her biggest barrier are people just like you.

I doubt that everyday people's reaction are as important. But they surely lower the life quality of what is doubtlessly already a living hell.

Julianna's parents will tell you quite different. They will say i's hard, but they will never say it's hell.

[ToadBrother]

As for me "demonstrating" that mindless idiocy" is genetic, you yourself just stated that some forms are, so perhaps we can take it as read???

But it's even more complicated than that. Perhaps the "mindless idiocy" gene is recessive. In that case, you're going to have lots of people walking around with the "mindless idiocy" gene but who are normal. So clearly just cutting off the testicles and ripping out the ovaries of mindless idiots isn't going to solve your problem.

As to being more likely to reproduce, keep in mind this entire theory is, well, theoretical. I was simply mocking up a scenario for sake of debate and discussion.

But that being said, let's look at it this way; many people choose not to have children or have them later in life so they can pursue career advancements, etc.

Someone who is mentally handicapped, living in a group home with other similar people, is PROBABLY (is that word okay to use here???) not going to be thinking all that far into his/her future and considering long-term career goals. The stronger likelyhood is giving in to the instant gratification one feels when one's friend "plays with my pee-pee".

I think this is an incredibly pointless conversation. When you can provide some solid numbers that large numbers of mentally deficient people whose deficiencies are genetically linked (and thus actually heritable), then I think we can go to the next step. But to be honest with you, I doubt that this group, which probably doesn't make up a terribly large segment of the population, is, in fact, breeding at any particular larger rate than the general populace.

In short, it's a solution to a problem that does not exist.

[lictor616]

Because it's hard to advocate murdering a child. It's much easier to dehumanize. Nobody ever got too upset about killing its.

why do you all avoid my obvious central point here?

The title of the thread is "THE ENDS OF RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE", what I am deploring is the state of affairs which tolerates and even encourages attitudes such as that of the parents of Julianna Wetmore...

the growing lunacy that ordains that every human is somehow a miracle and gift of god, and that we're all the same inside, and that we should never opt for abortions.

That's what I'm attacking here... there was scarcely any talk of murdering, killing anyone... my point in creating this thread was to show what happens when fevered liberal/egalitarian minds are permitted to display their irrationality and (in this case) cruelty.

I don't know how this got twisted up into a semantics debate, in which people tried to make me call her a specific name for some random reason... or how we drifted unto me personally...

[lictor616]

Neither was his.

no mine WAS an argument... were talking about the dangers of letting a population drift into religious knavery... and entertain illusions about the sanctity of human life...

which you responded by calling me an idiot, and in other threads..."gay", and worthy of death...

its pretty easy to an unbiased observer to see who is the one flinging ad hominem muck around and who is actually making an attempt at reasonable argument.

[lictor616]

Because they love their child.

One day, After you have grown up and shed your social pariahnes you may find a woman with low standards...and you may have a child. If you do suddenly beoome normal, you will find that you would do anything, endure anything for your child.

And that's the point...it is why we have evolved to the point where we can take caand nurture a child that would not have survived in a degenerate society ....because we love our children unconditionaly...even the ugly ones and sometimes even the ones that embrace morally degenerate ideaologies.

well you know dancer, its obvious that your only interest is in insulting posters you don't like, and legitimizing your obvious transgressions of forum rules and minimal civility, but I'll assume you're being honest and truly believe that these parents are preservig the horrid life of julianna "out of love"...

a mere moment of thought suffices to see that the parents (who despite being told many times by doctors, that their child would be badly disfigured, badly handicapped and not make it past 20, who still opted to engender julianna despite these clear indisputable warnings, and STILL decided to inflict this poor child with her current condition, DID SO not out of LOVE, but out of a catechism, out of what they thought a tattered old book was TELLING THEM TO DO)....

if this didn't occur to you, then I'm sorry for you...

Edited October 29, 2009 by lictor616

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman:

The challenge, though, is that you and I have a frame of reference to compare it to. We know a different life, we've lived a different life. So when we talk about what we would choose, we measure that life against the life we've always known, and of course it comes up short.

But it comes up short for her, too; there is a frame of reference for her to measure her life against too, once she's old enough to realize it, and that 'frame of reference to compare her life to' is the lives she sees others living. Surely there will come a time when she's aware of that, since she is not lacking in intelligence.

But for Juliana and her parents, this is the life they have, and regardless of what we may or may not choose, they are choosing to try to give her the best life possible.

I'm not denying that they are trying to give her the best life possible. I'm not denying that they love her. I believe both of those things are true. But it's not about them. It's about her. She is the one who has to live her life, a life we wouldn't chose to live, and that's the point. I don't believe it's always the right thing to use extraordinary means to keep someone alive. I don't believe it's always the kind thing to do. I don't believe it's always the loving thing to do. Sometimes I think we have to look at life from the point of view of the person involved, and make our decision as to how we would feel if we were that person; if that were our life.

It's not just her looks, which is what a lot of people seem to be focusing on. It's the physical pain she's constantly enduring, and will continue to endure; it's the emotional pain she's sure to be subjected to; and it's the things she'll be missing. As I said, it's about thriving instead of merely surviving.

I wouldn't chose to live her life, and I wouldn't subject those I love to it. And I wonder how many people, if they were truly honest, feel the same way. I'm guessing it's the vast majority of people.

Edited October 29, 2009 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

That's the American system. Her medical bills are covered because her father is in the Navy. You know, "Support the Troops". According to the website, her dad has just returned from deployment not long ago - there are many that will argue that his service to his country far outweighs the cost of his child's medical care.

Yet there are many veterans and their families going without health care, as she receives millions of dollars worth of care.

1.8 Million Veterans Lack Health Coverage

Of the 47 million uninsured Americans, one in every eight (12.2 percent) is a veteran or member of a veteran’s household, according to a study by Harvard Medical School researchers published in the December, 2007 issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

Uninsured veterans had as much trouble getting medical care as other uninsured persons. 26.5% of uninsured veterans reported that they had failed to get needed care due to costs; 31.2% had delayed care due to costs; 49.1% had not seen a doctor within the past year; and two-thirds failed to receive preventive care.

Many uninsured veterans are barred from VA care because of a 2003 Bush Administration order that halted enrollment of most middle income veterans. Others are unable to obtain VA care due to waiting lists at some VA facilities, unaffordable co-payments for VA specialty care, or the lack of VA facilities in their communities.

Edited October 29, 2009 by American Woman

[lictor616]

I have more confidence her physical appearance will be 'fixed' before you are 'mentaly fixed'.

Well, the doctors are taking the approach like a challenge. It's at least worth trying and then we can understand more about the condition and now to fix it in the future.

what are you serious!!? do you think your blarney imposes on anyone?... so now you think its "ok" to preserve the life of a suffering wreck of a human being for "studying" a condition?

Either way, TCS is GENETIC... its not "curable"! once a child has been conceived WITH IT.

worth trying? WHAT??!?! there is ZERO ... repeat ZERO chance that Julianna will ever have a remotely normal looking face. And I mean "remotely" in the most extreme way...

julianna looks WORSE NOW then she did 2 years ago... you really are being willfully obtuse? the girl has 2 tracheotomy holes in her gullet and throat, soon she'll be getting a third! After that what? And what happens when her body stops responding to anti-biotics (which is already happening in her case) and painkillers?

why not put her on a "Chinese Tiger Bench" as additional torture while we're at it!? http://photo.minghui.org/images/persecutio...tiger_bench.jpg

maybe burn her with some cigarettes?

I mean what else can we do to satisfy you self-righteous bleeding hearts out there? Maybe we can get some of Julianna's DNA and try to produce more kids like her... so as to "study her condition"...

pfff what's amazing is that I'm being made the "heartless nazi guy" in the middle of this... unbelievable.

[lictor616]

No her biggest barrier are people just like you.

no no, i'm pretty sure her biggest barrier is figuring out how she'll breathe when her second tracheotomy hole becomes unusable...

and actually, I,m confident that finding a place for herself in the world as something other then "biggest freak in the US" ranks a bit higher then people (like me) who are dastardly brazen enough to call an apple an apple... and describe her as the abused, torture shell of a human she is.

its because of people like you that her suffering is permitted to continue...

[GostHacked]

no no, i'm pretty sure her biggest barrier is figuring out how she'll breathe when her second tracheotomy hole becomes unusable...

She has many challenges.

and actually, I,m confident that finding a place for herself in the world as something other then "biggest freak in the US" ranks a bit higher then people (like me) who are dastardly brazen enough to call an apple an apple... and describe her as the abused, torture shell of a human she is.

its because of people like you that her suffering is permitted to continue...

I have no way to control or influence the parents decision to do what they think is best. And only with their doctors help can they ever make a proper desicion. It's not up to me to decide if she lives or if she dies. She is not my child, and in the end I have no say in what the outcome will be. And after a few posts you dropped the religious bit altogether, and now you are reviving it because all your other arguments seem to have fallen flat. There are many other cases where you can say that there is idicodicy in religion when it comes to helping a child who is suffering.

For example , Jehovas Witnesses are against blood transfusions. All medical knowledge and practices say that a blood transfusion or a minor operation will save the childs life. You could go with this angle.

Julianna's parents have not given up on her .. why should we? Not to mention Julianna has not given up either.

[lictor616]

She has many challenges.

her biggest one not being me or likeminded people (which doubtless number in the tens of million)

[lictor616]

I have no way to control or influence the parents decision to do what they think is best. And only with their doctors help can they ever make a proper desicion. It's not up to me to decide if she lives or if she dies. She is not my child, and in the end I have no say in what the outcome will be. And after a few posts you dropped the religious bit altogether, and now you are reviving it because all your other arguments seem to have fallen flat. There are many other cases where you can say that there is idicodicy in religion when it comes to helping a child who is suffering.

For example , Jehovas Witnesses are against blood transfusions. All medical knowledge and practices say that a blood transfusion or a minor operation will save the childs life. You could go with this angle.

Julianna's parents have not given up on her .. why should we? Not to mention Julianna has not given up either.

and yet if anyone else would deny a child blood transfusions for anything other then religion... they would be dubbed INSANE and disgusting.... and the parents would likely be put in jail and loose custody of the child...

THAT IS WHAT I'M ATTACKING... HELLO!??!? read the thread title over!

julianna's parents are unstable... and judging by the clips I've been shown, not terribly bright...

julianna has not given up because she has no idea what's going on... she lives in a world that doesn't exist....

but as she grows... so will her understanding of her plight... and that's not a good thing.

[GostHacked]

and yet if anyone else would deny a child blood transfusions for anything other then religion... they would be dubbed INSANE and disgusting.... and the parents would likely be put in jail and loose custody of the child...

THAT IS WHAT I'M ATTACKING... HELLO!??!? read the thread title over!

But you have used only one example. You need to broaden the scope to include the others. But you are focusing only on one family here.

julianna's parents are unstable... and judging by the clips I've been shown, not terribly bright...

Gotcha..... Your Honour.

[lictor616]

But you have used only one example. You need to broaden the scope to include the others. But you are focusing only on one family here.

Gotcha..... Your Honour.

I don't need any other hypothetical arguments to illustrate the point further... the parents, put this terrible burden on their own child out of a religious catechism and orthodoxy ... nothing else. Without their interpretation of the old boob book the bible, none of this would be happening ...

I'm astonished that you fail to grasp this.

[Melanie_]

American Woman:

I don't know a whole lot about the American health care system, but I always thought that veterans and their families were a priority. Someone is deciding where all that money goes, and has decided to put it towards Juliana (although I notice, via Google, that there is a lot of fundraising that gets done as well). I certainly can't answer why the people who make these decisions have decided to fund her procedures and not others. The fact that 47 million Americans have no health care at all is scary - that's more than the entire population of Canada.

I understand your point that you wouldn't choose to prolong a life that was filled with pain, and seemed hopeless. But it sounds like Juliana's family doesn't see it as hopeless, and are choosing to continue. You may disagree with their choice, but it is their choice to make.

[GostHacked]

I don't need any other hypothetical arguments to illustrate the point further... the parents, put this terrible burden on their own child out of a religious catechism and orthodoxy ... nothing else. Without their interpretation of the old boob book the bible, none of this would be happening ...

I'm astonished that you fail to grasp this.

Of course you don't need to use hypothetical arguments. There are plenty of real world ones for you to use.

We probably would not have wars if it was not for religion.. but tha's another thread.

[Guest TrueMetis]

no mine WAS an argument... were talking about the dangers of letting a population drift into religious knavery... and entertain illusions about the sanctity of human life...

which you responded by calling me an idiot, and in other threads..."gay", and worthy of death...

its pretty easy to an unbiased observer to see who is the one flinging ad hominem muck around and who is actually making an attempt at reasonable argument.

Just because this family is religous doesn't mean that there aren't families out there that do the same thing regardless of religon. Having your child or not is not a religous issue, while religon might factor in some case it is not the decideing factor. Chalking this situation, and by extension all situations like this, up to religon is moronic.

You are an idiot, show me were I called you gay, and show me where I said your were worthy of death (I probably did say it just can't remember where).

Edited October 30, 2009 by TrueMetis

[PocketRocket]

I think this is an incredibly pointless conversation.

It is when I'm trying to make it a hypothetical discussion and you're insisting on making it a by-the-panel-rules-debate.

Nonetheless, I've said my piece and you've said yours (and said it very intelligently and respectfully, by the way, kudos to you for that), and we've hit a point where we can't seem to agree, so why don't we just call it a truce and leave off for now???

Maybe later on I'll open a thread so you and I can get into this in more depth.

Meanwhile, cheers to you.......

Edited October 30, 2009 by PocketRocket

[PocketRocket]

why do you all avoid my obvious central point here?

Possibly because you spent a great deal of time introducing irrelevancies at various points in the thread, however.....

The title of the thread is "THE ENDS OF RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE", what I am deploring is the state of affairs which tolerates and even encourages attitudes such as that of the parents of Julianna Wetmore...

......now that you're getting back to the original point of the thread, which has been a bit unclear since the outset, we can carry on.

the growing lunacy that ordains that every human is somehow a miracle and gift of god, and that we're all the same inside, and that we should never opt for abortions.

As to the "miracle", I cannot say as I do not know the mind of God, or his name, nor can I say for certain that He (or She) exists.

That said, I definitely stand on the pro-choice side when it comes to abortions.

That's what I'm attacking here... there was scarcely any talk of murdering, killing anyone... my point in creating this thread was to show what happens when fevered liberal/egalitarian minds are permitted to display their irrationality and (in this case) cruelty.

I don't know how this got twisted up into a semantics debate, in which people tried to make me call her a specific name for some random reason... or how we drifted unto me personally...

Perhaps if you had spent less time lingering on Juliana's appearance, and omitted some of the "human wreckage", "walking squid", "cephalopod" and other such rhetorical descriptions, showed a bit more compassion for the kid herself, and concentrated more on the issue at hand rather than letting yourself be steered away from the topic, that would not have happened.

But again, to get back to the issue, which appears to be your disgust with all things religious.

All I can say is some of the highest spiritual achievements have been achieved by religious people in the name of God.

Conversely, some of the darkest moments in history, and some of the worst and most barbaric acts have also occurred because of people acting in the name of God.

Despite all this, I believe the vast majority of religious folk are good people with good intentions toward their fellow man.

Unfortunately, I have to temper that remark by once again bringing up that stuff that the road to hell is paved with....

[PocketRocket]

a mere moment of thought suffices to see that the parents (who despite being told many times by doctors, that their child would be badly disfigured, badly handicapped and not make it past 20, who still opted to engender julianna despite these clear indisputable warnings, and STILL decided to inflict this poor child with her current condition, DID SO not out of LOVE, but out of a catechism, out of what they thought a tattered old book was TELLING THEM TO DO)....

And perhaps it is indeed love.

A personal story here......my sister was born VERY prematurely. Not sure exactly by how long, but the doctors told my Mom and Dad (R.I.P. to both) it would be best to leave her out of the incubator and let her pass on naturally. They said she'd likely never see her 5th birthday, may be mentally handicapped, all the bad stuff.

My Mom and Dad decided to give her a chance. They kept her in the incubator, did everything they could to keep her alive.

My sister today is 54 years old. She has 2 kids of her own, both now adults, both healthy, both wonderful people and hard workers.

She has been a registered nurse for over 30 years.

It appears that my parents, who made a decision against the doctor's advice, not only saved one little girl, but indirectly contributed to saving others via her participation in the medical trade.

Doctors are not always right. They too are only human.

Maybe Julianna's parents were simply taking the same chance my folks did, and doing so out of love.

Unless you have the ability to look inside their minds, then we cannot discard that possibility.