This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Mr. Psychologist
Pages: 1 ... 199200201 202203 ... 569
6001
« on: September 26, 2015, 07:20:55 PM »
My lack of support for their existence (That makes me sound like a monster, but that's how I'm gonna phrase it) is almost entirely the result of the impact that these people have on others, and the loss of quality of life to those who have to take care of them for their entire lives. I'm fully aware that the mentally retarded can live happily, but their primary caretakers, usually their families, were forced into that position of literal servitude without consent. It's a disservice to them.
Hmm, it's not an unreasonable stance to hold but not one that I share.
They are indeed a burden, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are a detriment. The saying goes to judge a society by how it treats it's prisoners and animals (I think) well that should also extend to the infirm and the mentally handicapped. By carrying the burden and helping them to enjoy life despite the expense and pain it might cost to do so to me is a better reflection of the good aspects of humanity than almost anything else on the planet.
So whether or not it is correct to prevent some sort of inconvenience, or downright loss of living quality, is determined by it's capacity to reflect the good nature of humanity? How far are you willing to go with this philosophy; where do you draw the line between a burden rightfully endured because it shows the good nature of man, versus a burden that we should not have to deal with to begin with?
I believe that it is wrong to present this inconvenience to the afflicted people from the start simply because forcing them to do so is more "Humanitarian." If the circumstance under question can be accurately predicted and, therefore, stopped, then we should do it.
It might have come across like that, but I didn't quite intend it to read like that if it did <.<
Carrying a burden for the sake of doing so isn't really all that special, it's just remarking upon the capacity of humans to look after one of their own even if that one is on paper a detriment to society (in a non-harmful way like an arsonist or serial killer would be obviously)
I cut out the rest of your argument because it isn't quite what I want to be talking about. Hypothetically, I would be in favor of a method of detection that allows for an understanding of the mental health of an unborn child. No such system yet exists (It likely will in the coming century). But in a world where such a scanning system did exist, I would leave it up to the parents to determine if they wished to birth the child. And there would be, to me, zero shame in saying "No, I can't bear this burden, let's abort it."
Yes, looking after our less-abled members of society is a nice gesture and a nod to our capacity to help, but as I said before, that hypothetical honor isn't outweighed by its price. A lifetime of care-taking, so many losses for opportunity, and the suffering enduring by the family members, primarily the parents, is wrong to me. There exist those who willingly work in careers that involve overseeing their care, but I would prefer that they not exist to begin with to prevent that system from needing to exist at all.
I'm not saying we should go ahead and euthanize the disabled. I'm saying that in the future, when we have the capabilities to predict these mental or physical defects more accurately, we should exercise the right to choose freely and without moral scrutiny.
Well I'm afraid the bit you cut out is the bit that is quite pertinent to your last paragraph there. There are some things in life that can be predicted and tested for and measured and an awful lot of things that cannot. As I pointed out and will do so again in a shorter manner, the severe LDs this thread refers to can't simply be screened for a lot of the time because the aetiology of the condition is not a purely genetic one. It's usually down to a mixture of predisposition and environmental stressors in the womb, but given that it covers a large range of conditions (because severe LD isn't just one specific ailment) it is pretty damn unlikely we will ever be able to reliably screen/test for them prenatally at all. If you want to run along the lines of a purely hypothetical world in which the future can be predicted perfectly with regards to a child's developmental cycle then the answers are a lot simpler and lose a lot of their value. So in short -> Yes, if a child is going to be a complete shell of a human being that does nothing but drain those around it there wouldn't likely be a problem or even a question over aborting the child-to-be. Except in the real world, none of that is ever going to come to pass so constructing moral arguments to defend it doesn't have much point beyond doing it for the sake of doing it.
6002
« on: September 26, 2015, 06:55:01 PM »
My lack of support for their existence (That makes me sound like a monster, but that's how I'm gonna phrase it) is almost entirely the result of the impact that these people have on others, and the loss of quality of life to those who have to take care of them for their entire lives. I'm fully aware that the mentally retarded can live happily, but their primary caretakers, usually their families, were forced into that position of literal servitude without consent. It's a disservice to them.
Hmm, it's not an unreasonable stance to hold but not one that I share.
They are indeed a burden, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are a detriment. The saying goes to judge a society by how it treats it's prisoners and animals (I think) well that should also extend to the infirm and the mentally handicapped. By carrying the burden and helping them to enjoy life despite the expense and pain it might cost to do so to me is a better reflection of the good aspects of humanity than almost anything else on the planet.
So whether or not it is correct to prevent some sort of inconvenience, or downright loss of living quality, is determined by it's capacity to reflect the good nature of humanity? How far are you willing to go with this philosophy; where do you draw the line between a burden rightfully endured because it shows the good nature of man, versus a burden that we should not have to deal with to begin with?
I believe that it is wrong to present this inconvenience to the afflicted people from the start simply because forcing them to do so is more "Humanitarian." If the circumstance under question can be accurately predicted and, therefore, stopped, then we should do it.
It might have come across like that, but I didn't quite intend it to read like that if it did <.< Carrying a burden for the sake of doing so isn't really all that special, it's just remarking upon the capacity of humans to look after one of their own even if that one is on paper a detriment to society (in a non-harmful way like an arsonist or serial killer would be obviously) I'm not opposed to abortion of people who would be born with an extreme mental disability, or ideally not even reaching conception via genetic screening/engineering but that doesn't really cover a whole lot of cases. The vast majority of people with some form of LD aren't at the extreme end of the spectrum and even the ones who are there generally aren't there as a result of a detectable prenatal predisposition. We can screen reliably for downs syndrome and for notable brain tissue defects, but we can't as of yet screen for severe autism and the like. I can't quite remember the aetiology of cerebral palsy so that might be possible but loosely there isn't a lot to be gained from pursuing a birth-prevention scheme because iirc a lot of LDs only present themselves by the time the child is a few years old and has not begun normal mental development. So unless we as a society/species are comfortable with euthanising toddlers, it's not really a feasible option. In the ideal hypothetical though, where you can with absolute certainty tell that a developing embryo will be born with severe LD and will endure a pretty short and shit life at the expense of those around them, then of course the more moral option is to prevent gestation in the first place.
6003
« on: September 26, 2015, 05:26:09 PM »
Does anyone know of a Hello Flour for Fo4?
Preferably with some semblance of credibility.
The guy I was following seems to have died so now I'm a bit stumped for over speculative hypetrain videos that make a 1 minute clip into a 30 minute discussion of freezeframes.
pls help I'm actually srs
6004
« on: September 26, 2015, 05:23:15 PM »
However, from my experience, I have yet to meet someone with a severe learning disability who has absolutely no enjoyment of life at all.
Kids with severe mental disabilities are some of the happiest people I've ever met.
Which is why happiness alone is a poor way to measure quality of life.
On it's own it is, but it's usually factored into a few other checkpoints to determine if the person in question is having a reasonable QoL. Off the top of my dodgy memory, things like promoting independence (a pretty wide umbrella), family contact (if appropriate) and safety from harm etc are the ones they use but I didn't get to see a checklist firsthand just the bits I heard from the staff discussing one <.< It's a subjective measure all the same though. Edit: Ninja'd by the edit.
6005
« on: September 26, 2015, 05:17:29 PM »
My lack of support for their existence (That makes me sound like a monster, but that's how I'm gonna phrase it) is almost entirely the result of the impact that these people have on others, and the loss of quality of life to those who have to take care of them for their entire lives. I'm fully aware that the mentally retarded can live happily, but their primary caretakers, usually their families, were forced into that position of literal servitude without consent. It's a disservice to them.
Hmm, it's not an unreasonable stance to hold but not one that I share. They are indeed a burden, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are a detriment. The saying goes to judge a society by how it treats it's prisoners and animals (I think) well that should also extend to the infirm and the mentally handicapped. By carrying the burden and helping them to enjoy life despite the expense and pain it might cost to do so to me is a better reflection of the good aspects of humanity than almost anything else on the planet. Here's the filthy commie socialist in me though, it is entirely unreasonable for any family to shoulder that burden alone. That is where the state should be helping to provide for it's citizens as they provide for it (taxes), and in the UK that's how it works. I was recently on a work placement with a learning disabilities team, so I got to see firsthand how they go about caring for some downright difficult people. The families of the people under the purview of the LDT were all under ridiculous strain, which is what the job of the LDT also involves - to help the family cope with it as well as providing primary care. Some families can't cope and nobody should hold that against them, the shame and guilt the parents hold involuntarily from giving birth to an 'imperfect' child is stigmatic enough. So those with LD who are not cared for by the family go into carehomes, residentials or assisted living depending on the severity. There they are (in theory) cared for 24/7 by people who are trained to manage any and all of the nastier sides to the problems they face and on the whole it works quite well. There are plenty of problems still, but I came away from it with a favourable impression of the whole system. A little bit rambly all that, but loosely the tl;dr is that the state should be providing primary and secondary care for people with severe LDT as a simple matter of principle. Which in the UK is written into law courtesy of Valuing People 1 and VP2 but as I understand it the states are uh.... not so keen on the whole safety net concept >_>
6006
« on: September 26, 2015, 02:48:03 PM »
Just a quick reply before a more detailed one later, I'm curious as to how many of those who think they have no quality of life whatsoever have ever actually met one face to face.
Even if you are full blown retarded, to the point of needing 24/7 care, that doesn't mean you can't enjoy life.
What about blind/deaf children? Apart from being born into literal hell (the void) people still manage to live satisfactory lives despite it being on the surface wholly unbelievable.
If there was no quality of life, no enjoyment and no smile - I can see the argument for it. However, from my experience, I have yet to meet someone with a severe learning disability who has absolutely no enjoyment of life at all.
If we are talking about human vegetables, then considering the mind is the person not the flesh - I don't have an issue with that.
Crude language of course, but I'm not going to mince words when I'm short on time. >_>
6007
« on: September 26, 2015, 02:23:20 PM »
Waitrose.
oooh
get a load of you
i bet you recycle and buy bags for life too
...
yes on both accounts
i bet you were that weird kid at school who read books too
Yeaaaaaah
I also totally don't have my own private library with more books than registered users on the website.
That would be silly.
man i bet you were so posh that you didn't even have free school dinners
Actually we were dirt fucking poor so my brothers and I were on them lol My dad just strangled a bunch of people with bootstraps in the american style and pulled us out of it.
6008
« on: September 26, 2015, 02:21:02 PM »
Mr Psychologist I resemble that remark. Although I do take exception to the assumption that I'd be helping people with an ulterior motive. It's perfectly possible for one to be completely batshit bloody insane and still help others for the sake of helping others. Mostly.
6009
« on: September 26, 2015, 02:12:04 PM »
Waitrose.
oooh
get a load of you
i bet you recycle and buy bags for life too
...
yes on both accounts
i bet you were that weird kid at school who read books too
Yeaaaaaah I also totally don't have my own private library with more books than registered users on the website. That would be silly.
6010
« on: September 26, 2015, 10:12:30 AM »
Waitrose.
oooh
get a load of you
i bet you recycle and buy bags for life too
... yes on both accounts
6011
« on: September 26, 2015, 10:08:46 AM »
Sainsburys/Waitrose.
6012
« on: September 26, 2015, 08:56:05 AM »
団子
You see this yutaka? 団子
餅
You see that yutaka? 餅
Guess which one says Mochi and which one says Dango.
And guess which one appears on the website announcement for the Gold -> Silver conversion
<:
Dango > Mochi
6013
« on: September 26, 2015, 08:42:59 AM »
Get a flip phone that's from 2005 or something
Hmm, that's actually what I'd really like if I could find one anywhere. If I can get a flip-phone for being an actual phone and then a fancy android thing for being more of a tablet that might not be too bad >_>
6014
« on: September 26, 2015, 04:37:59 AM »
I was a bit surprised by the 360 getting MGSV but then I saw it's Ground Zeroes and that makes a lot more sense.
So nothing special all round, eh.
6015
« on: September 25, 2015, 06:50:21 PM »
Did you just put money into Gook Order?
um no that would be silly Spoiler Thankfully I might be stupid, but I'm not that stupid. I was just weighing up whether to do a YOLOroll or not, the answer is almost always 'I'll do it anyway'
I did and I got a shitty CE from it.
But one day, it will be my waifu ;-;
6016
« on: September 25, 2015, 06:46:05 PM »
How could you unpin the most important thread in sep7agon
It's all a part of the master plan, you must have faith brother.
6017
« on: September 25, 2015, 06:45:33 PM »
Sleep posting?
Yes and No Let's just say that this thread is a prime example of why I will never allow myself to gamble real money because that appears to be my weakness <_<
6018
« on: September 25, 2015, 06:44:16 PM »
So I watched the perk trailer nice and freezeframey, it's quite a nice simple system they've opted for.
I already like it, even if it is a bit streamlined. The agony of scrolling through a list of 50 available perks trying to find one that you want is no more but it looks like they have fully ditched skills though.
So that's a bit of a bummer, but I guess we saw it coming from some of the previous trailers.
They've tied the old skill stuff into SPECIAL now, hence the SPECIAL trailers that have been slowly trickling out stating things to the effect of 'perception is important for energy weapons' so I'm guessing that'll be how it's done. Or it could just be a more fixed stat, so you change it by changing your special/adding perks but um. idk.
6019
« on: September 25, 2015, 06:38:21 PM »
6020
« on: September 25, 2015, 06:33:45 PM »
Fuck.
Ah well, it was worth a shot <_<
6021
« on: September 25, 2015, 06:32:50 PM »
Alright doing it.
6022
« on: September 25, 2015, 06:31:17 PM »
First reply determines if I do or not.
Yes or No.
Any answer that isn't one or the other means I do a coin toss with heads - yes tails - no.
gogogo
6023
« on: September 25, 2015, 06:10:10 PM »
ahm gunna go dahn nh tahn go''a crozza brihjuh ova sum war'er ta ge' dere nh boi sam chish n fips fer tha lads
Translation:
I'm going to go down the town, go across a brigde over some water to get there, and buy some fish and chips for the lads.
👌
i only see a soddin' square mate
oh
6024
« on: September 25, 2015, 05:58:11 PM »
ahm gunna go dahn nh tahn go''a crozza brihjuh ova sum war'er ta ge' dere nh boi sam chish n fips fer tha lads
Translation:
I'm going to go down the town, go across a brigde over some water to get there, and buy some fish and chips for the lads.
👌
6025
« on: September 25, 2015, 05:42:26 PM »
Galaxy S4 is a decent phone.
I got the mini version, but it's still fucking massive compared to my old phone and it does the job of... well, everything, nicely (including browsing here, looking at my Uni timetables/e-mails, and wasting a few minutes on Fallout Shelter).
Costs around £200 if you want a pay-as-you-go option (as if you're like me and barely text/call, it's cheaper in the long run).
Sounds good >.>
I send maybe 5 texts a month, 10 if it's a busy one.
Same if not less for calls lol.
Then I highly recommend getting a phone (if not S4) with EE. Not sure about other companies too well, but I pay £1 a week and get 10MB, 50 texts and 50mins' worth of calls, far cheaper paying £52 a year rather than £120 if you get a £10 a month plan or go contract-based.
That sounds pretty nice, my current contract is like 10 or 15 a month iirc but then I've had that since middle school which was quite a few years back now >_>
6026
« on: September 25, 2015, 05:41:07 PM »
I'd honestly be surprised if they are still being supported in 2016.
And if they are, I'd be mildly annoyed if it's hamstringing any games that I like the look of.
fifa 14 released on the ps2
Fifa is hardly a groundbreaking series though. Unless I missed the lelveloution patch where the pitch gets swarmed by mujahideen who promptly behead and blow up the spectators.
6027
« on: September 25, 2015, 05:39:49 PM »
Fanks chick
Waheey
Propa good one
Nice one mate
Good on yer lad
ayyyy go on son
ey up blud what a banga and of course, for those who can read this (even bongs may struggle) ahm gunna go dahn nh tahn go''a crozza brihjuh ova sum war'er ta ge' dere nh boi sam chish n fips fer tha lads
6028
« on: September 25, 2015, 05:37:03 PM »
Galaxy S4 is a decent phone.
I got the mini version, but it's still fucking massive compared to my old phone and it does the job of... well, everything, nicely (including browsing here, looking at my Uni timetables/e-mails, and wasting a few minutes on Fallout Shelter).
Costs around £200 if you want a pay-as-you-go option (as if you're like me and barely text/call, it's cheaper in the long run).
Sounds good >.> I think my dad has something like that for work and it's quite a nice one especially in comparison to my current one. I don't want to offend it's machine spirit, but it's a potato of a phone. I send maybe 5 texts a month, 10 if it's a busy one. Same if not less for calls lol. I've only got three apps/games I'd really give a monkey's about for it too. Fallout Shelter might be fun again in 6 months because I got pretty sick of that after the first month but there could be some experiments to run whilst I'm in the car and the like. The other is of course the companion app for fallout 4 and hopefully the phone would fit the pipboy >_> And Gook Order which is a bit more of a wildcard.
6029
« on: September 25, 2015, 05:33:58 PM »
yes
6030
« on: September 25, 2015, 05:33:17 PM »
ORAS sadly.
It had all the makings of a masterpiece of a remaster like Heartgold was, but they just got lazy around the edges and it really showed through. Pokemon Amie still being french in Hoenn, GG. No frontier? Alright, RS didn't have it. Oh a clone of the Battle Shitshow. Nice.
The utter stupidity of mirage spots, I can't actually be fucked to go after any of the legendaries on them.
Oh and no rematching gym leaders.
No VS seeker.
*sigh*
I've said it a few times now, if I hadn't put 500 hours into Pokemon X I'd have loved the shit out of ORAS. I'd just been playing the same damn game so much before it had even come out that it was an 80 hours and I'm done kind of deal.
And with Pokemon Z on the horizon? Blegh.
I might do what I did for the start of Gen 6 and just sit out a few years of it until something good comes along again.
Pages: 1 ... 199200201 202203 ... 569
|
Show Posts