skippy the dead wrote:I will try to follow right behind you on this one. It is one case where I wish we had an "ignore" feature, since it is quite difficult to wade through the board at this point without encountering his bazillion posts. It's as good an excuse as any, I suppose, to take a short vacation from the board until this hurricane blows over.
Take responsibility for your actions. YOU engaged ME. If there is a hurricane, you certainly took part in it. So I react and you look for an ignore button?
Lack of responsibility is an earmark for a great deal of the board members.
Gadianton wrote:Does classifying a black skin as a genetic fault bigotry? (yes)
Is classifying Down Syndrome a genetic fault bigotry? (no)
Why isn't the second a case of bigotry? In other words, what constitutes a genetic fault? I think that's pretty shaky ground--not to mention ultimately futile.
Down Syndrome is a genetic disorder because there is an extra chromosome. Genetic disorder has a clear, defined meaning and if it fits under that heading then it is appropriate to label it as such.
But by that definition, being a human instead of another primate is a genetic disorder because we have one less pair of chromosones than they do (a couple having been fused together sometime in the past). No, I don't think number of chromosones will do the trick. I suppose, however, that one could use that definition if one wished and it would be easy to determine. However, the term "disorder" would possibly be misleading in such an instance.
It's not my definition. There are hundreds of disorders that fall under the heading of "genetic disorder". I don't classify those that have genetic disorders as being flawed, nor do I stereotype their abilities. It is a merely a way to classify. We are called human because that is a way to classify us. Those that are primates fit under their classification. Humans that have one extra chromosome (or any other genetic disorder) are not flawed ( by my account) but they still fit under that classification. Is it the name that bothers you -- disorder?
I'm fine with the term "disorder" in the right context. However, since the initial context here was about whether calling black skin a genetic disorder is bigotry, I'm not so sure what substantially separates that from other genetic changes. I certianly wouldn't like to compare skin pigmentation to Down's Syndrome. I just think that our choice of calling one a genetic disorder and the other not such is perhaps problematic.
Arguably white skin is a genetic disorder which likely leads to higher incidence of skin cancer.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
I admire your recent thoughtful posts here and elsewhere, abman. Your patience and restraint is much better than my own. While I do restrain myself from comments on egregious misspelling, after all typos happen to all of us, "What is Joshua's Beliefs" told me nearly all I need to know.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Gadianton wrote:Does classifying a black skin as a genetic fault bigotry? (yes)
Is classifying Down Syndrome a genetic fault bigotry? (no)
Why isn't the second a case of bigotry? In other words, what constitutes a genetic fault? I think that's pretty shaky ground--not to mention ultimately futile.
Down Syndrome is a genetic disorder because there is an extra chromosome. Genetic disorder has a clear, defined meaning and if it fits under that heading then it is appropriate to label it as such.
But by that definition, being a human instead of another primate is a genetic disorder because we have one less pair of chromosones than they do (a couple having been fused together sometime in the past). No, I don't think number of chromosones will do the trick. I suppose, however, that one could use that definition if one wished and it would be easy to determine. However, the term "disorder" would possibly be misleading in such an instance.
It's not my definition. There are hundreds of disorders that fall under the heading of "genetic disorder". I don't classify those that have genetic disorders as being flawed, nor do I stereotype their abilities. It is a merely a way to classify. We are called human because that is a way to classify us. Those that are primates fit under their classification. Humans that have one extra chromosome (or any other genetic disorder) are not flawed ( by my account) but they still fit under that classification. Is it the name that bothers you -- disorder?
I'm fine with the term "disorder" in the right context. However, since the initial context here was about whether calling black skin a genetic disorder is bigotry, I'm not so sure what substantially separates that from other genetic changes. I certianly wouldn't like to compare skin pigmentation to Down's Syndrome. I just think that our choice of calling one a genetic disorder and the other not such is perhaps problematic.
Arguably white skin is a genetic disorder which likely leads to higher incidence of skin cancer.
I was only replying to your comments about Down Syndrome being a disorder. It's classified as such because there is a mutation in the genes. Now, I don't think all "disorders" mean someone is flawed. Certainly many people are not neuro-typical, and may not desire to be! I wouldn't think that black skin would be a genetic disorder -- I have just a few thoughts as it relates to skin color and the natural evolution of the various skin colors of humans from a simple understanding of the process. I would think anyone equating black skin with a genetic disorder would be a bigot. Wouldn't the various skin colors merely define a person's heritage and what environments their ancestors lived in?
I would never compare skin pigmentation to Down Syndrome. I suppose a disorder is anything that would be atypical neurologically, or those that suffer some sort of difficulty from the genetic mutation. I think the actual term was "fault" and not "disorder" to begin with.
I think it is appropriate in the right context. I was never suggesting that homosexuals or anyone of any skin pigmentation was somehow suffering from a disorder. Again, I was merely replying that there are classifications for certain conditions and they fall under the term "disorder".
Blixa wrote:I admire your recent thoughtful posts here and elsewhere, abman. Your patience and restraint is much better than my own. While I do restrain myself from comments on egregious misspelling, after all typos happen to all of us, "What is Joshua's Beliefs" told me nearly all I need to know.
I suppose I need to look at that thread. Apparently I missed the bigoted remarks. I'm totally outta the loop. Must-pay-better-attention-to-this-board!
Blixa wrote:I admire your recent thoughtful posts here and elsewhere, abman. Your patience and restraint is much better than my own. While I do restrain myself from comments on egregious misspelling, after all typos happen to all of us, "What is Joshua's Beliefs" told me nearly all I need to know.
I suppose I need to look at that thread. Apparently I missed the bigoted remarks. I'm totally outta the loop. Must-pay-better-attention-to-this-board!
I was refering to the ungrammatical title.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Asbestosman, since jskains brought up Asperger's Syndrome I have some thoughts as it relates to labeling. Perhaps, it's just the labeling of certain conditions and the reaction we have to them as the people are somehow flawed or all are without individuality. There are many that have been diagnosed with AS that do not desire to be neuro-typical and are quite proud that they have unique abilities. They would never say they suffered from AS and they are quite outspoken against terms such as "high" and "low" functioning Autism because of the stereotypes those labels carry. I understand your point (if it is indeed your point) that labels can often times (such as jskains mentioning nerds and AS) not allow us to see the persons behind the labels. I hope I am getting it. If not, try again s-l-o-w-l-y. ;)
Blixa wrote:I admire your recent thoughtful posts here and elsewhere, abman. Your patience and restraint is much better than my own. While I do restrain myself from comments on egregious misspelling, after all typos happen to all of us, "What is Joshua's Beliefs" told me nearly all I need to know.
I suppose I need to look at that thread. Apparently I missed the bigoted remarks. I'm totally outta the loop. Must-pay-better-attention-to-this-board!
Moniker wrote:I don't understand the dispute, I suppose.
I was probably just trying to be difficult. Why we label Down's Syndome a genetic fault is uncertain to me. Genes are responsible for that difference, but then genes are responsible for skin pigmentation. What separates skin color form Down's Syndome is behavior rather than superficial appearances. However, just that fact that behavior is the difference wouldn't be sufficient. Down's Syndome is something which presents inherent trials in life either for caretakers or for the one with the syndrome. Skin pigmentation, by contrast, is only difficult according to human prejudice and stupidity. There is nothing inherently difficult about it--it is superficial.
Sexual orientation is a little different. It is a behavioral change sort of like Down's Syndrome, but unlike Down's Syndrome I have seen no evidence that it presents inherent difficulties in one's life. Rather the difficulties experienced may be explained by human prejudice--as with skin pigmentation.
Anyhow, that's why I think the situation is difficult.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
[quote="Moniker] Of course the questioning of another's ideas, propositions, policies, philosophies, etc... does not make one a bigot. It is the inability to question your own that may make one a bigot. :)[/quote]
But is it not true that if someone opens some questions and ideas that are counter to pro-homosexual ideology, they get automatically marked as a bigot?
I didn't label you a bigot, nor did I see where Gad accused you of bigotry. I can't speak as to whether you are or are not a bigot. I think good people can disagree and not be bigoted. Especially when it comes to policy issues.
I am not familiar with pro-homosexual ideology, sorry. Would that be the premise that all citizens of our republic share equal rights under the law and that the government should not give favored status to some groups over others? There are many different reasons one may wish to deny equality without necessarily being bigoted, I suppose. Although, I'm having a hard time coming up with one. For me, personally if I see someone showing disdain or hate toward an entire group of people I label that person a bigot.
[/quote]
There does not seem to me that there is an absolute definition for bigot . A person that one man may call a bigot, another man might call a Hero for telling it like it is. There is no final arbitator that will settle who's a bigot and who isn't. So the label bigot is only a personal "oppinion" and everyone has a right to an oppinion, even the dull and the ignorant. IMHO.