Aspies For Freedom

Full Version: "Like pet monkeys"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

SheWhoCan'tThinkOfAUsername Wrote:

Louise18 Wrote:
Actually, I agree with the comment. Respect has to be earned. "Human" is just an arbitrary classification. Why should that earn you respect?


Why not? They still have feelings, and what we feel is essentially what makes us who we are, no matter what we accomplish. Even if someone does not accomplish anything, that person is still deserves to live just as much as others, and should not be considered inferior. In my opinion, that is what respect is - to not see something as equal or appreciate something for what it is.

Of course, that doesn't mean they should necesarily be regarded as superior in any given field either. But regarded as superior to onesself or worthy to do something... that doesn't seem like respect, it seems more like *honor*.


I disagree. Animals have feelings; what distinguishes humans is their accomplishments and their capacity to satisfy the needs of another and to self sacrifice for another.

All distinctions between an animal are arbitrary and quantitative: dolphin's have 3% different DNA, who decided where the line was drawn between 3% different and 0.001% different? Why is one a whole different species and another just a different individual? Chimpanzees have more in common than me than paralysed deaf mutes, and I don't see why *** people should be treated so much better than animals.

Respecting something for what it is: monkeys are respected as monkeys and retards are respected as what they are, but I don't see why there is an issue with equating the two.

anbuend Wrote:
Hmm... which view do I find more respectable?

#1

Quote:
Chimpanzees have more in common than me than paralysed deaf mutes, and I don't see why *** people should be treated so much better than animals.

Respecting something for what it is: monkeys are respected as monkeys and retards are respected as what they are, but I don't see why there is an issue with equating the two.


Or,

#2

Quote:
Being proud will help you in so many ways. It will insure that you 'land softly' every time someone treats you badly or calls you a name. You will hear them all, ***, Reject, Dummy. I've heard them and really don't care what people who use those words think. They may think I'm ***, but I know they are prejudiced.

...

I read in the paper (that part still surprises people) that you are a 'miracle baby,' that maybe God caught you and carried you safely down from that bridge to the earth.

I believe, Kaya, that God gave me an extra chromosome. It's an odd gift, but it's a gift. I believe that God does love you. And, I hope you realize, so do I.


Somehow, I have more respect for the woman who said #2.  (Astra Milberg, a woman with Down's syndrome, writing a letter to a baby whose mother threw her off a bridge.)


The view you find more respectable is simply down to which view is closer to your own. The person you find more respectable is down to the character traits displayed therein. My argument is solely an ideological one and it is based on logic. That doesn't mean that I never help people or satisfy human emotional needs, or help people get through the vicissitudes of life. I have spent hours holding someone trying to get them through panic attacks and listened to them tell me everything about their home circumstances and why they started to have them so that they could have a chance at showing 10% of what they can do in their first year exams at university. I have spent time comforting someone who didn't get into a medical degree despite enormous parental pressure, tried to talk someone out of cutting themselves. etc etc. I do have love and respect and compassion. I just tend to direct my limited resources at those who have more to contribute to the world.

Then that leaves accomplishments.

Natalie Wrote:
I can see where most people are coming from in this thread. I think the comment that started the discussion (that *** people "are like pet monkeys") is in an inappropriate remark because it implies that both forms of life, *** humans and non-human primates, are both inherently inferior to non-*** humans. In my head it would be no different than saying that *** people "are like pet black people" - it's a ridiculous comparison that serves no purpose other than to demean both groups and say that one form of life is superior and deserves more respect than another.


Thats because it is. Non *** humans can do everything *** humand do and then some. On what basis are you making life equal?

anbuend Wrote:

Louise18 Wrote:
The person you find more respectable is down to the character traits displayed therein.


Yes, I find bigotry to be a form of bad character.

Quote:
My argument is solely an ideological one and it is based on logic.


Ideology doesn't impress me that much, having little to do with reality most of the time.

As for logic... meh.  Asimov said it best:  "You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason -- if you pick the proper postulates... Postulates are based on assumption and adhered to by faith. Nothing in the Universe can shake them."


I am not intolerant of those who differ. I am simply unwilling to give the same respect to a *** person as I would do a colleague or tutor.

Ideology is based on idealism and I regard it as a higher form of thought. Looking at we are is pointless without looking at where we are aiming.

No, I do not believe in God. *** people have every right to enjoy whatever life they have with whatever money they earn or which others freely give them. They do not have a right to my respect.

No two individuals, except identical twins are made of exactly the same cells, they are all unique combinations of DNA and some combinations achieve more than others. At a basic level we're made of chemicals and so is a rock. We are made of chemicals and so are plants. I would not give the same respect to each. Could I ask are you vegetarian?
No I don't think that "abuse" is acceptable. But neither do I think anyone is born deserving anything from the world, or is entitled to be given everything. I have varying degrees of respect for things and people; admiration is something I only possess for people I think are better than me, what I would describe as respect is something I feel for those I consider to be my equals. Everything below that is just tolerance.

Pakrat Wrote:

Louise18 Wrote:
I don't see what the issue is with describing levels of thinking in relation to other levels. Some creatures and individuals are cleverer than others and this should be reflected in the sliding scale of respect that is given to them. People are not all made equal. Some people are just better than others overall.

That really is a very mistaken attitude you have there. That's exactly the kind of idea that would have fitted in perfectly when Hitler had his concentration camps and mass exterminations of anybody he thought inferior. I hope you're only saying these things because you're young and don't know any better yet.


Why is that a mistaken attitude? (1) I am basing valuations on abilities not on race. (2) I am not suggesting mass extermination, it is simply that some people deserve more respect than others so it is in fact nothing at all like Hitler. Nationalism simply reduces the pool of competition, a bad thing. And Hitler paid women to sit around at home looking after hundreds of babies...certainly not something I would condone either.

I am 19 and in one of the two best universities in the UK reading for a law degree. There is nothing naive about my views.

Some skills are simply more important than others. I'm sorry but I think the capacity to come up with cancer treating drugs, perform heart surgery or write award-winning novels makes you better than someone with a long arm to stick down a dolphin's neck and no other skills.

It doesn't matter why an individual is able to achieve things. My respect is based on what a person can do not on their biology.
It is their fault. Your intelligence level is your fault. It is part of you, therefore it is your fault. Its not as fixable as other issues (like laziness), which makes people who have it to start with even more valuable. Yes it is related to the brain, but this is irrelevant.
But it does have a rational basis. Where do you draw the line of what can be deemed to be someone's fault? Every characteristic a person has is a product of their genetics combined with their upbringing. Why should things that are the result of upbringing be someone's fault, and genetic things not? There is always a reason someone is the way they are, I dont think that should negate fault.
I am not going to respond to personal attacks. I believe in fault, and morality and that humans should be held responsible for what they are as well as what they do. The latter is just a product of the former. I fail to see the distinction. Every choice they make is a product of what they are, every thought they think is.

And being a student at distinguished universities is a mark of intellect. As a student of law shows the capacity for logical argument. Either respond to the discussion or don't respond at all. Random insults do nothing to increase your credibility.
Only age and maturity will modify Louise's attitude. I recall being equally certain in my belief that my personal philosophy/world view was the only correct one when I was young. Our brains seem to take a long time to realise the possibility that others may have different but equally valid philosophies. Or the possibility that our own philosophy might be just plain wrong. Rolleyes

Quote:
I tend to see philosophies more as tools if anything.  Because they're all wrong one way or another.


Well said, anbuend.

Our personal view is just that - personal. Just as everyone watching a rainbow sees a different rainbow (especially those who are colour blind Wink) our views are coloured by who we are, who brought us up, what we were taught by others and how we have internalised our experiences.

To get back on topic - it is NEVER acceptable to treat another as inferior in any way and for someone on a position of trust and power over others to propogate such opinions is reprehensible and they should lose their position immediately.

Louise18 Wrote:
LOL. You run out of ideas for arguments?


Not in the least. But there comes a time when so many pearls have been trodden beneath the mud by the swine that even the most dedicated pearl-caster has to admit that to cast more would be a waste.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Reference URL's