The Ends of Religious Tolerance

[Michael Hardner]

lictor,

what doesn't sit right?

As I said, the money-saving angle - portrayed in your unique style - along with the call for mercy. It's an aesthetic aspect of the discussion, so we should likely disregard it. I have nothing concrete to say about you in this regard.

[Guest American Woman]

lictor, As I said, the money-saving angle - portrayed in your unique style - along with the call for mercy. It's an aesthetic aspect of the discussion, so we should likely disregard it. I have nothing concrete to say about you in this regard.

I do think lictor sounds as if he really feels for this child. And I do, too. No matter what anyone says about how "brave" she is, her life has got to be extremely physically and emotionally painful. Furthermore, as un-PC as it may be, it's difficult to argue this:

... and think of all that could have been done if the resources allocated to her hopeless cause would have been diverted to other sick children with real prospects at a normal life?

Not that I think she's less deserving because of her extreme needs, but is she more deserving than those who go without? I think that's the issue being raised.

Edited October 26, 2009 by American Woman

[Shwa]

"I think that's the issue being raised."

Come on now, you really don't buy into that do you? Who is to determine who is worthy or not - death boards? The fact of the matter is that she is a survivor and thus "fit." That takes care of the evolutionary angle. Secondly, any attribute of condition you assign to her says more about you - and how you feel - than her. And finally, with the rate of modern medical discovery, there might be a treatment that alleviates most of her symptoms - including looks - within 5 years or so.

So is the real issue that we dispose of human beings because we lack the wherewithal and resources to treat their unique or complex medical conditions? Why bother with medical research at all then? Ask Stephen Hawking.

[Guest American Woman]

"I think that's the issue being raised."

Come on now, you really don't buy into that do you? Who is to determine who is worthy or not - death boards?

I already clearly said that her parents had the right to bring her into the world.

The fact of the matter is that she is a survivor and thus "fit." That takes care of the evolutionary angle.

Not if she lived only because of "extraordinary means."

Secondly, any attribute of condition you assign to her says more about you - and how you feel - than her.

The "attributes of condition" I "assigned" to her are based on reality and knowledge of reality. The Real World.

And finally, with the rate of modern medical discovery, there might be a treatment that alleviates most of her symptoms - including looks - within 5 years or so.

One has to look at the likelihood of that happening.

So is the real issue that we dispose of human beings because we lack the wherewithal and resources to treat their unique or complex medical conditions? Why bother with medical research at all then? Ask Stephen Hawking.

There's a whole range of areas that "medical research" covers, so using this one example, then saying "why bother...." is ludicrous. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, there are plenty of children with more minor, yet serious, problems who aren't being helped because of the lack of money. That's the point that was being made. Lastly, I repeat, I never even remotely insinuated that we should "dispose of human beings," yet there are plenty of human beings who aren't being helped because of the lack the money.

You seem to have gone off in a direction that has little to do with the actual issue that was raised.

[Shwa]

This is what you wrote:

"Furthermore, as un-PC as it may be, it's difficult to argue this:

QUOTE (lictor616 @ Oct 24 2009, 06:07 PM)

... and think of all that could have been done if the resources allocated to her hopeless cause would have been diverted to other sick children with real prospects at a normal life?

...but is she more deserving than those who go without? I think that's the issue being raised."

As I pointed out earlier, she was born and raised in an environment in which she was "fit" (worthy) to survive. Her life in no way takes anything away from anyone else and it is dangerously naive to think that it somehow does through some fuzzy economic logic about "resources allocated" or "lack of money."

They have done a few face transplants lately that have improved the "quality" of life according to the recipient patients. So the liklihood of this person obtaining similar results are quite good don't you think? The way technology is advancing in the areas of prosthetic technology alone is astounding.

So...I am merely replying to what you wrote and it is not difficult to argue this at all.

[Guest TrueMetis]

What does this have to do with religion? Plenty of people choose to have kids they know will have genetic diseases. Are all of them doing it because of religion?

[Melanie_]

So really, the only environment she is not "fit" to live in, is one you have created with your mythos. This is a typical problem and is solvable with a bit of intellectual shifting. Since her appearance and reports of her surgeries and pain have touched a nerve with you, you have mistakenly attributed your weakness for hers. You think she is weak because you would not be able to live with her afflications when in fact she is strong to survive in our modern environment whereas you would - I am guessing - likely kill yourself. In this scenario 'survival of the fittest' works perfectly fine.

Well put, Shwa.

[cybercoma]

Wasn't Social Darwinism thoroughly rejected after the Second World War? Darwin made observations about the genetic and biological development of species; he did not evaluate the evolution of social circumstances, influences, and pressures. You want to understand social facts, read Durkheim. Leave Darwin to biological evolution.

[Shwa]

"Wasn't Social Darwinism thoroughly rejected after the Second World War?"

Earlier: "...misapplying the leading theories of evolution which have been vastly reconfigured since the old fish to modern man diagram we are so familiar with. Thing of the past. There is no orderly march forward as a species and never has been."

Nah, skip Durkheim and go straight to Levi-Strauss.

The interesting notion is that the discussion of this person is multi-faceted that requires more than a pure biological angle and more than a sociological angle (and, as the original poster raised - the moral and religious angles as well). For instance prosthetics - biological or social? To me the use of prosthetics have elements of both...

[Peter F]

Elimination of the genetically degenerate is the first requisite for the survival of a nation or people. To neglect this unavoidable duty is knowingly to break the inexorable law of nature that ordains the survival of the fittest.

This is the welcoming sign to Lictor's never-never land where a inexorable law of nature requires enforecment by mankind. Will there also be a department of Gravity?

[ToadBrother]

This is the welcoming sign to Lictor's never-never land where a inexorable law of nature requires enforecment by mankind. Will there also be a department of Gravity?

He doesn't even understand the laws of nature. Natural selection does not pick the perfect specimen. As long as an individual can reproduce, its genes will be passed. Evolution works on populations, not on individuals, and even seemingly delirious traits can have benefits. Probably most famous is the sickle cell anemia mutation. In individuals with both alleles, the disease is usually lethal. In individuals with only one, a partial immunity to malaria is conferred.

The real secret to any species success is variation. The more variation the better. Species that are bred (either naturally or through artificial selection) into a very limited range are far less adaptable to environmental changes.

The whole idea of eugenics, that there is this idealized human specimen is bunk. It grew out of medieval notions of blood purity, and like a lot of absurd racist ideas, was layered with pseudo-science in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The idea that if you got rid of all the degenerates (most of which were defined in what was ultimately economic terms; ie. the poor, certain ethno-racial groups, the mentally ill) you could produce a better human race was fantasy land retellings of real science.

Even Neandertals appear to have cared for their sickly. There have been a small number of human societies that seem to have flaunted the general nature of humans to care for the infirm and less capable (the Spartans come to mind, but even they were considered a pretty nutty bunch by other Classical writers), but all in all, it's what humans seem to have done since before there were modern humans.

[cybercoma]

The interesting notion is that the discussion of this person is multi-faceted that requires more than a pure biological angle and more than a sociological angle (and, as the original poster raised - the moral and religious angles as well). For instance prosthetics - biological or social? To me the use of prosthetics have elements of both...

Nothing to argue here. I agree with what you're saying.

[Guest American Woman]

This is what you wrote:

"Furthermore, as un-PC as it may be, it's difficult to argue this:

QUOTE (lictor616 @ Oct 24 2009, 06:07 PM)

... and think of all that could have been done if the resources allocated to her hopeless cause would have been diverted to other sick children with real prospects at a normal life?

...but is she more deserving than those who go without? I think that's the issue being raised."

No, that's not what I said. Here's what I actually said:

Not that I think she's less deserving because of her extreme needs, but is she more deserving than those who go without? I think that's the issue being raised.

And I do think it's difficult to argue that she is more deserving than some who are going without. If you feel she is more deserving, if you think it's right to spend millions on one child as many more go without, then that's your prerogative. I never said she shouldn't get the care, but I can see where some would question so much going to one when it could have gone so far to help more lives. As I said, that is the issue that was raised.

As I pointed out earlier, she was born and raised in an environment in which she was "fit" (worthy) to survive.

Since I never said otherwise, it really wasn't necessary for you to repeat yourself.

Her life in no way takes anything away from anyone else and it is dangerously naive to think that it somehow does through some fuzzy economic logic about "resources allocated" or "lack of money."

What's "dangerously naive" is to think that there's enough money to help all those who need it; to believe there aren't those doing without needed care because of lack of money.

They have done a few face transplants lately that have improved the "quality" of life according to the recipient patients. So the likelihood of this person obtaining similar results are quite good don't you think?

It really doesn't matter what I think regarding whether or not she'll get "similar results" some day down the line since my concern is for her; for the physical and emotional pain that she's going through right now. It's her pain and suffering that I care about. It may give you peace to know that maybe some day she may be better off than she is now, but I'll go on record as saying this: if I'm ever in a situation where I would have to endure what she's endured, for the number of years she has and likely will, I hope those who love me would not keep me alive by extensive means. And many people feel the same way, which is why people put such clauses in their wills.

Edited October 27, 2009 by American Woman

[Shwa]

"What's "dangerously naive" is to think that there's enough money to help all those who need it; to believe there aren't those doing without needed care because of lack of money. " Really? Prove it. Or at least cite a source or two.

Here are a couple of questions: how much needed health care could be obtained with the 700 billion dollars used to bail out Wall Street and other financial thieves? How much quality of care could be improved with one 10th of the US military budget - about 50 billion? If it comes right down to a money issue - or an issue of resources - the US has plenty to go around. Wouldn't you agree?

[Guest American Woman]

"What's "dangerously naive" is to think that there's enough money to help all those who need it; to believe there aren't those doing without needed care because of lack of money. " Really? Prove it. Or at least cite a source or two.

Here are a couple of questions: how much needed health care could be obtained with the 700 billion dollars used to bail out Wall Street and other financial thieves? How much quality of care could be improved with one 10th of the US military budget - about 50 billion? If it comes right down to a money issue - or an issue of resources - the US has plenty to go around. Wouldn't you agree?

What in God's name do Wall Street and the Military have to do with the topic at hand??

And if you need me to "cite a source" 'proving' that everyone who needs medical attention isn't getting it, you'll have live with your ignorance, because I have no desire to spend my time educating you.

[Shwa]

"I have no desire to spend my time educating you." Whoa. That's a titch arrogant don't you think? No need to get snippy now.

AM asks, "What in God's name do Wall Street and the Military have to do with the topic at hand??"

But previously AM stated, "What's "dangerously naive" is to think that there's enough money to help all those who need it; to believe there aren't those doing without needed care because of lack of money."

The point about "Wall Street and the Military" was in reference to all the money that is there to help all those who need it; to ensure there isn't anyone doing without needed care because of lack of money.

The reason I asked you to cite a source or case or two is because the original thread is about a specific case and you bringing up specific examples will help ground the discussion in specifics instead of comparing an orange with some vague and general apples.

As soon as you do (if you can) cite specific examples of where the lack of money is causing those to go without care, then the "Wall Street and the Military" comments will make a little more sense.

Look I know it is much easier to fight the large moral questions with little personal anecdotes and then beg off. If that is the route you choose to take, that is fine by me.

[Guest American Woman]

"I have no desire to spend my time educating you." Whoa. That's a titch arrogant don't you think? No need to get snippy now.

No, I don't think it's arrogant at all. If you seriously don't realize that there are people who need medical care but are not getting it due to lack of funds/eligibility, then I don't have any desire to spend my time educating you on the subject. I find it tedious to take the time and effort to look up links for something that is generally well known. The issue was raised with the idea that people understand that there are people going without needed care/timely care.

AM asks, "What in God's name do Wall Street and the Military have to do with the topic at hand??"

But previously AM stated, "What's "dangerously naive" is to think that there's enough money to help all those who need it; to believe there aren't those doing without needed care because of lack of money."

The point about "Wall Street and the Military" was in reference to all the money that is there to help all those who need it; to ensure there isn't anyone doing without needed care because of lack of money.

Wall Street and the Military have nothing to do with Health Care. If you want to start a topic on why there isn't more money for health care, go for it. But that's not the topic here.

The reason I asked you to cite a source or case or two is because the original thread is about a specific case and you bringing up specific examples will help ground the discussion in specifics instead of comparing an orange with some vague and general apples.

As soon as you do (if you can) cite specific examples of where the lack of money is causing those to go without care, then the "Wall Street and the Military" comments will make a little more sense.

No, they don't make sense as I explained above.

Look I know it is much easier to fight the large moral questions with little personal anecdotes and then beg off. If that is the route you choose to take, that is fine by me.

The route I wish to take is to discuss the actual issue.

Edited October 28, 2009 by American Woman

[PocketRocket]

Further to this. Jesus was a weakling. If Darwin's theory was correct he wouldn't have influenced the world in the way that he did.

Jesus, if he did indeed exist, was a carpenter by trade. This was in a time when unions and 8-hr workdays did not exist. Hammer weighed a fair bit more then that they do now.

I very much doubt he was a "weakling".

If you've ever shaken hands with a lifelong carpenter, you'll know what I mean.

The fact that most of the portrayals of the man on the cross show him as a skinny, emaciated guy has always bothered me as it is inconsistent with his upbringing and his pre-messianic career.

[PocketRocket]

Jesus also never existed... another swing and miss from charter...

You speak as one who is certain.

Out of curiosity, do you know anyone who was hanging around the Galilee area about 2,000 years ago???

If not, or if you were not there yourself, then this is simply your opinion and not a statement of fact.

You should preface it as such.

[Shwa]

"Wall Street and the Military have nothing to do with Health Care."

No discussing that line of reasoning.

[Guest American Woman]

"Wall Street and the Military have nothing to do with Health Care."

No discussing that line of reasoning.

Do you even read all that I write? Seriously.

Here's what I said: Wall Street and the Military have nothing to do with Health Care. If you want to start a topic on why there isn't more money for health care, go for it.

I'm talking about Health Care as it exists, ok? It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if you think money that goes to Wall Street or the Military should go to Health Care because it doesn't. So again, in this thread, with the issue that was raised, it's in regards to the way things are, not the way you think things should be.

So in that regard, no. Wall Street and the Military have nothing to do with Health Care.

An issue was raised. A pretty clear issue. And you've done nothing but dance around it.

[PocketRocket]

So far (at least as far as I';ve got in this thread so far), SHWA seems to have the most lucent argument against LICTOR's stance. (See post #33)

I agree with elements of both arguments, disagree with others.

Seeing as LICTOR has already addressed most of those who have railed against him, I'll concentrate on the following points from SHWA

"There is only one supreme law of life: the survival of the fittest, with its corollary, the elimation (or, through a hazardous compassion, subjugation) of the unfit."

I dunno dude, you seem to have fallen on a slipperly slope here by misapplying the leading theories of evolution which have been vastly reconfigured since the old fish to modern man diagram we are so familiar with. Thing of the past. There is no orderly march forward as a species and never has been. And now you are bogged down in defending mythos.

The rules don't change, only the venue. I'll get back to this later.....

Survival is all about environment and adaptations to that environment. In our present environment, we have medical machinery of all kinds to help us breath, beat our hearts, clean our kidneys, act as prosthetics, etc. If a person can survive in this environment they are "fit" enough to qualify.

But you are not considering that other people are also part of her environment.

Society IS or WILL BE her environment. How will she and it deal with each other??? Will she be another "Elephant Man", fit only to be a freak in a circus???

Once she's grown up (if she gets that far), how is she going to deal with society??? How is she dealing with anyone outside of her family now???

Will she survive her dealings with society, or will she eventually take her own life out of despair???

One thing is certain, I don't envy the poor child the road ahead.

So really, the only environment she is not "fit" to live in, is one you have created with your mythos.

But will the environment (ie; society) accept her and allow her to participate???

You think she is weak because you would not be able to live with her afflications when in fact she is strong to survive in our modern environment whereas you would - I am guessing - likely kill yourself. In this scenario 'survival of the fittest' works perfectly fine.

With today's medical tools and knowledge, we could remove someone's brain and keep the body alive indefinitely. But is this truly "survival"???

As to her "strength" in surviving, that is a testament to those selfsame medical advances, coupled with the natural proclivity of a living body to survive.

But if she was mature enough to be aware of her state, would she even WANT to survive???

Without the medicos, she certainly would not have made it even this far.

I said I'd get back to "the venue" later. Later has arrived.

I have mixed feeling on the entire issue of Darwin and his laws and their applicability to the human race.

A noted sci-fi writer once stated (through one of his characters) something that made a great deal of sense to me. I can't recall the exact quote, but it went along the lines of "Once a society has reached what we define as 'Civilization', the evolution of the members of that society ends, and the race will evolve no further".

The premise being that a "civilized" society coddles it's sick, it's crippled etc. Rather than the race becoming stronger, faster, smarter because those qualities are required to survive, the race begins to stagnate. Inferior genetic specimens (of which I consider myself one, by the way, hence my decision to not have kids) survive, breed, procreate, and continue to pass on inferior genes. These remain in the gene pool, and down the line serve to dilute more favorable and superior genes.

Furthermore, he noted that many of the "misfits", due to their inability to work, have more leisure time, and tend to reproduce MORE than the superior stock who are presumably out getting something useful done.

(A personal anecdote supports this part of the theory. Several years ago, I overheard a drunk young lady in a bar saying "The bastards cut my welfare benefits. Now I'm gonna have to have another f*%king kid just to be able to afford to go out drinking".

Needless to say, I was less than-touched-at her less-than-obvious love for her kids.)

Back to the point; we now live in a society wherein many members of our population would never have survived on their own. Further, mentally-handicapped people not only survive (which is good), but they are given group homes (also good), places to work and earn a living and self respect all at the same time (also good), and procreate (bad bad bad).

We have people with hereditary mental-illness issue who are given a home, money, food, and a free rein to breed as they will.

We now have, for the first time in human history, third-generation welfare recipients. People who cannot work, live on a marginal income, and are actually ENCOURAGED to produce more inferior stock because that will get them more support money from the government.

We have created a society wherein inferior genes are not only tolerated, they are promoted, and the inability to be a contributing member of society is not penalized, but rewarded.

If there is substance to this whole idea, and genetic theory tells us there is, then the race as a whole has not only stopped evolving, it can be argued that it is in a slow state of regression, evolving backwards into a slower, weaker, stupider species.

The entire idea of this causes me grave concern for the future of the race.

What to do about it???

Good question.

[PocketRocket]

Here are a couple of questions: how much needed health care could be obtained with the 700 billion dollars used to bail out Wall Street and other financial thieves?

As unfortunate as it was, the Wall Street bail-out was something that bailed us all out. If those Wall Street institutions had been allowed to collapse, we'd have a full-blown depression on our hands rather than a recession. The dollar would have been de-valued to pennies. Personally, I don't want to see people jumping out of buildings, although I wouldn't mind seeing a couple of those executives TOSSED out of buildings. It would serve as a good warning for their successors.

How much quality of care could be improved with one 10th of the US military budget - about 50 billion? If it comes right down to a money issue - or an issue of resources - the US has plenty to go around. Wouldn't you agree?

As American Woman said, these funds have nothing to do with health care.

However, I agree that it would be nice if they were re-routed into something more constructive.

When you consider the amount of money spent on the so-called "War on Terror" alone, it boggles the mind.

And this so we can send our bravest and brightest to die overseas for a non-existent "war".

[Peter F]

Lictor says:

There is only one supreme law of life: the survival of the fittest, with its corollary, the elimation (or, through a hazardous compassion, subjugation) of the unfit.

Society must eliminate or subjugate the unfit. And who are the unfit Lictor? The Dull? Panamanians?

And who are the fit who will be doing the subjugating and eliminating?

[PocketRocket]

Natural selection does not pick the perfect specimen. As long as an individual can reproduce, its genes will be passed. Evolution works on populations, not on individuals, and even seemingly delirious traits can have benefits. Probably most famous is the sickle cell anemia mutation. In individuals with both alleles, the disease is usually lethal. In individuals with only one, a partial immunity to malaria is conferred.

I was not aware of the Sickle-Cell Anemia thing, but I agree with you on much of the rest.

But if the individual DOES pass on his genes, then eventually the superior genes will win out and remain in the population, whereas the inferior genes will eventually be eliminated from the species. Other inferior genes will come to the fore, but in time, they too will be eliminated.

It's how the species stays healthy. Superior genes survive generation after generation. Inferior genes eventually are eliminated.

The real secret to any species success is variation. The more variation the better. Species that are bred (either naturally or through artificial selection) into a very limited range are far less adaptable to environmental changes.

True, to a point. But if we introduce a large number of inferior genes simply out of the desire for more variety, those genes will introduce defective specimens which will also tend to have a lower survival rate, and so these genes too will eventually be eliminated.

I think what you were looking for was "healthy variations".

With that caveat, I agree completely.

The whole idea of eugenics, that there is this idealized human specimen is bunk.

Nonsense. I'm right here

It grew out of medieval notions of blood purity, and like a lot of absurd racist ideas, was layered with pseudo-science in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The idea that if you got rid of all the degenerates (most of which were defined in what was ultimately economic terms; ie. the poor, certain ethno-racial groups, the mentally ill) you could produce a better human race was fantasy land retellings of real science.

So the theory was not necessarily wrong, but rather the yardstick they used to measure good vs bad was flawed.

Even Neandertals appear to have cared for their sickly. There have been a small number of human societies that seem to have flaunted the general nature of humans to care for the infirm and less capable (the Spartans come to mind, but even they were considered a pretty nutty bunch by other Classical writers), but all in all, it's what humans seem to have done since before there were modern humans.

Hell, elephants care for their sickly herd members. So do gorillas, wolves, many of the lower primates, even dolphins.

But like elephants, it is unlikely that the sick or lame neandertals found a mate willing to breed with them. In most social animal groups sick or lame group members are cared for to some degree, but due to the pecking orders in these animal societies, those sick/lame members are VERY unlikely to reproduce.

That is the difference with our species. We are allowing/promoting procreation of those misfits who are mentally or physically handicapped, and furthering the distribution of the faulty genes which are responsible for their conditions.