Mental Disabilities

[Nezaros]

What are your opinions on mental / learning disabilities and people who have them?

 

[Chad]

Personally, I believe that humanity should help support and take care of the mentally disabled. When someone has a learning disabilities that are not caused but extreme mental disabilities we should try and teach them how to be productive with the learning ability. Many learning disabled people are actually quite intelligent if given the right tool. Honestly, I believe there are few dumb people just a lot of people that are ignorant of there own potential. Learning disabilities can make some people fell inadequacy. Thus cuasing them to lose the will to learn more information. I believe this is one of the sadist things in all humanity.

However, I am aware that I am bias when it comes to knowledge seeking.

 

[Cherry Cola]

They differ a lot.. some of them are possibly more like personality variants that simply don't fit modern society which has grown a lot quicker than evolution has progressed.

Like ADD/ADHD, Autism (to a certain degree), and some others which I don't remember atm.

I mean society expects a certain kind of human, not all humans, thus many are unjustly deemed disabled in a way.

That being said they should be given help. Its just that you could as well say that society is disabled for being fucking stupid and not taking our biological origin into account.

 

[Double_V]

What are your opinions on mental / learning disabilities and people who have them?

My opinion is that it such a vast topic, with vastly different levels of disabilities within it it's hard for me to even begin to answer that broad of a question.

 

[crippli]

I think my opinion is to make knowledge more accessible, make it's constructs easier to understand, and train the population to synthesize information more efficiently. The learning disabilities wouldn't be such a global problem then. <-the idealist in me speaking. I do know though that it's a fools errand.

But my real answer is to take the devil by the horns, and amend to ones own ignorance first. If everyone really made an effort, it might make a difference.

 

[Adrift]

They differ a lot.. some of them are possibly more like personality variants that simply don't fit modern society which has grown a lot quicker than evolution has progressed.

Like ADD/ADHD, Autism (to a certain degree), and some others which I don't remember atm.

I mean society expects a certain kind of human, not all humans, thus many are unjustly deemed disabled in a way.

That being said they should be given help. Its just that you could as well say that society is disabled for being fucking stupid and not taking our biological origin into account.

I've thought this for quite some time now... I'm glad I'm not alone here.

 

[Hadoblado]

If they can't be made to pull their weight, they should be euthanised.

Pulling your weight can be interpreted as simply being liked enough for people to sustain you out of good will, but nobody should be forced to care for the weak they have no interest in.

 

[Chad]

If they can't be made to pull their weight, they should be euthanised.

Pulling your weight can be interpreted as simply being liked enough for people to sustain you out of good will, but nobody should be forced to care for the weak they have no interest in.

Hello Hitler.

 

[joal0503]

They differ a lot.. some of them are possibly more like personality variants that simply don't fit modern society which has grown a lot quicker than evolution has progressed.

Like ADD/ADHD, Autism (to a certain degree), and some others which I don't remember atm.

I mean society expects a certain kind of human, not all humans, thus many are unjustly deemed disabled in a way.

That being said they should be given help. Its just that you could as well say that society is disabled for being fucking stupid and not taking our biological origin into account.

^ ... the notion that if you have a 'disability' if you are unable to exist within the construct of this make believe world, seems a bit strange. especially with 'conditions' that are admittedly not that well understood.

schizophrenia, autism, bi polar, come to mind

if we were to follow evolution, couldnt there be an argument that these 'disabilities' played a key role in survival some how?

 

[Antediluvian]

More consideration is given to them than to the gifted, even though very impairing disabilities can be displayed in the latter as well.

 

[Cherry Cola]

if we were to follow evolution, couldnt there be an argument that these 'disabilities' played a key role in survival some how?

Indeed, there is the hunter gatherer theory, backed by the fact that there is some evidence showing that ADD and ADHD related genes are much more prevalent among nomadic people for one.

In fact if you look at the diversity in lifestyles among primitive people you'll get something of a glimpse at the fact that were forced to operate within narrow borders in the contemporary western world.

It isn't very hard to imagine ways in which other supposedly "disabled" people could've been very useful in many ways, I mean which caveman wouldn't want an aspie that knows fucking all the edible plants and a bunch of other loose but categorized information? Nowadays we've got books and stuff, but imagine if we just had people. I wouldnt mind having a person whos an encyclopedia if he's the only encyclopedia around. Nor would a caveman mind an overexited ADHD weirdo who can't sit still and doesn't follow rules well if he's fucking A at tracking and killing animals due to his ability to notice all the sensory input around him rather than pieces of it like normal people.

But regardless, society is the way it is, and even though semantically speaking it may be wrong to call aspies and the like disabled they are; nonetheless, effectively disabled to a certain degree in modern society and thus deserve help.

So if calling them "disabled" is what's necessary for the common man to feel that he's willing to lend them a helping hand then sure. Everyone wants to help people who are unfairly suffering under disabilities, no one wants to help misfits, everyone wants to conform misfits.

 

[Hadoblado]

Hello Hitler.

I am not Hitler. All I said was that if they are not capable of supporting themselves, and nobody else is willing to support them, then the humane thing to do is to euthanise them.

 

[Chad]

I am not Hitler. All I said was that if they are not capable of supporting themselves, and nobody else is willing to support them, then the humane thing to do is to euthanise them.

Maybe not Hitler is dead. However, you do share his theory on the mentally Disabled.

 

[Wolf18]

These days, anyone can get them diagnosed. So many kids these days are "on the spectrum" that the difference between the "mentally disabled/different" and the "normal" is very thin. That could be good, because it means that these labels do not hold as much significance as they used to, or it could be bad because people may not be getting the help they need.

@antediluvean, good point. The intellectually gifted are seen as being able to fend for themselves, but this usually means that they get less opportunities. Ironically, at my primary school I was put in a gifted program in which they took us out for certain classes so that we could play "smart" games and do puzzles. It was fun at the time, but now myself and the other kids who were in that class are way behind in certain subjects because they figured we didn't need to learn them. Sorry, but we don't go off on our own and learn maths because our school doesn't teach it to us. It's not fair.

SW

 

[Hadoblado]

Maybe not Hitler is dead. However, you do share his theory on the mentally Disabled.

I neither know nor care what Hitler believed about the mentally disabled. This is my understanding of what best to do with the mentally ill. Would you prefer we make people care for them at gun point?

 

[Chad]

I neither know nor care what Hitler believed about the mentally disabled. This is my understanding of what best to do with the mentally ill. Would you prefer we make people care for them at gun point?

No, We don't do that now. We just take care of them because its right.

 

[Mabuse]

I consider disabled and learning disordered people as "normal" people trapped in disabled minds.

Most importantly, it is not that they are incapable of thinking and acting the way that "normal" people do, but that it takes much longer or requires more effort to do so. I do not think at all that they are unable to understand their own disability or that they don't want to try to do better.

This is why I'm very sensitive to issues involving human rights, because certain groups, especially the disabled and children, are often overlooked because they are deemed unable to make informed decisions on their own. When they are able to understand their needs and are able to control their more erratic impulses, I believe they are more than capable of making their own decisions.

Though I believe in the positive capabilities of the disabled, I still have a difficult time interacting with them because I'm generally impatient with anyone who can't keep up with my subtle communication method. In this instance, I am extremely admirable of people who are able to and enjoy taking the time to understand and help these people. Though they may seem like hindrances to society, we have developed to the point that we can afford the time to better understand why these people are the way they are and why they must be supported.

 

[Hadoblado]

No, We don't do that now. We just take care of them because its right.

I have no problem with you caring for and supporting people with mental disabilities. I never said I did. Just don't force others to pay for the support of people that are only a burden on an already flailing society.

 

[Polaris]

What about people who are living on the dole....because they can; breeding more useless citizens like rabbits? Should they not get eradicated as well? We are paying for them just as much....if not more. Why does 'burden' only apply to disabled people? Because they are an easy target mayhaps?

 

[Minuend]

I have no problem with you caring for and supporting people with mental disabilities. I never said I did. Just don't force others to pay for the support of people that are only a burden on an already flailing society.

What about normal citizens having few or none friends become mentally damaged?

What about physical illness, comas etc?

What about people with depression/ anxiety who remain inside their houses unable to go out?

Where is the line drawn?

 

[Hadoblado]

@Polaris
I never implied any sort of support for people that sit on the dole and make zero effort to contribute to the society that supports them. For these people, the welfare itself is decreasing their production AND costing other people money.

@Minuend
The line is drawn precisely where it naturally lays. The people incapable of or unwilling to do what it takes should be left to die, or more humanely euthanised. If nobody in society is willing to directly support them then why on Earth should they be supported by society? I have people that would fall into the category of being unable to support themselves who I would gladly support because to me they have value. I have no problem with anyone else voluntarily doing the same for those that they care for.

 

[Hawkeye]

Eradicating the diseased and disabled is logically sound. Ethically, it causes al-sorts of issues.

Funnily enough, Hitler's régime will kick in again if an "End of the World" disaster were to fall upon us.

It always amuses me how people don't connect the two when in essence they are identical. The best and brightest will have guaranteed seats in whatever protection scheme is developed.

Justifed by "it's not bad, we're saving humanity". - lolz

 

[Hadoblado]

HITLER DID NOTHING WRONG

 

[Hawkeye]

HITLER DID NOTHING WRONG

Spoiler

His idea was warped somewhat along the way.

 

[Polaris]

@Hadoblado

I am aware you didn't imply that, but the point I was making was similar to Minu's: Where does one draw the line? Do we need to define 'useless' or 'burden' first? Would you then also euthanase dole-recipients and the mentally ill? Ex-soldiers suffering from PTSD?

Who is going to make these decisions? There would have to be a governing system for this sort of practice.

I'm not opposed to anarchy, but to actively eradicate people according to values set by a government of sorts sounds like organised fascism.

Also: do people who are being subjected to this humane euthanasia get to have a voice in the decision? Otherwise it would be execution, not euthanasia.

Besides, there will always be people who are willing to support a system where the less capable (as per modern societal definitions) are supported....I just don't think the idea is realistic, but of course I understand this is your personal view.

In any case, I believe humans are capable of anything, given the opportunity and appropriate level of desperation. Add the stupidity of the masses and you have another Reich.

Hitler was just a mad dude, the scary part were the masses of humans that supported him.

 

[Hawkeye]

Hitler was just a mad dude, the scary part were the masses of humans that supported him.

I wouldn't say mad. I'd just say unethical. His main objective makes perfect sense when attempting to better humanity from a physical (and mental) perspective.

His idea was by no means original.

 

[Minuend]

The line is drawn precisely where it naturally lays. The people incapable of or unwilling to do what it takes should be left to die, or more humanely euthanised. If nobody in society is willing to directly support them then why on Earth should they be supported by society? I have people that would fall into the category of being unable to support themselves who I would gladly support because to me they have value. I have no problem with anyone else voluntarily doing the same for those that they care for.

Because not everyone has drawn the chance card of being healthy and have people that care about them. The cards we are dealt are purely chance. It's purely chance that some can realize their potential, while others can not. And this situation can be reversed overnight. People can become mentally retarded after accidents.

In addition, if only people who cared about the diseased individual would support them, that would give another unfair disadvantage to those who cares. People who would otherwise give, for instance, their children a well paid education, wouldn't be able to afford it because they might have one or five people they cared about and would pay to keep off the death penalty.

You would have intelligent, talented people give up their lives entirely to support others. Imagine the most cynical who prioritized themselves, gaining advantage in leader positions because they were able to spend time and resources on education. (Perhaps having children would become a thing of status. And a child growing up in a family where it learned from a very young age that status was more of an important matter, creating generations of ignorant people.)

What you are suggesting have vast consequences that you are not taking into consideration. There are a lot of factors that can play out in different, disadvantageous ways.

Eradicating the diseased and disabled is logically sound. Ethically, it causes al-sorts of issues.

What's logically sound is just a matter of perspective, what you decide to prioritize. It's as logical sound to justify a society based on compassion as that of disgust. It's just a matter of what values you set, parameters and definitions. Logic is a human system. It does not exist intrinsically.

There is no natural line.

Besides, there will always be people who are willing to support a system where the less capable (as per modern societal definitions) are supported....I just don't think the idea is realistic, but of course I understand this is your personal view.

Money, status and luxury has less of a hold of me. I'd give it all up to support someone I cared deeply about.

I guess in myself and in certain others, it would become a part of the identity to work oneself to the bone to secure a good life for others. Since I was very young I've been a "protector", willing to fight for those I care about.

 

[Hawkeye]

What's logically sound is just a matter of perspective, what you decide to prioritize. It's as logical sound to justify a society based on compassion as that of disgust. It's just a matter of what values you set, parameters and definitions. Logic is a human system. It does not exist intrinsically.

There is no natural line.

Your point being?

because right and wrong are also subjective.

 

[Minuend]

My point is what I wrote

Eradicating the diseased and disabled is logically sound. Ethically, it causes al-sorts of issues.

This statement is not accurate

 

[Hawkeye]

My point is what I wrote



This statement is not accurate

Eradicating the diseased and disabled to prevent them from reproducing potentially diseased and disabled people makes sense. Especially when the diseases are hereditary.

The thing that rustles one's jimmies so to speak is when you bring morality into the mix.


My statement is accurate based on your post... It is why I asked for a point.

 

[Hawkeye]

I think you're trying to apply morality to my statement.

 

[Minuend]

If we were going to stop them from reproducing, wouldn't a law against it be better than skipping right to the death sentence?

It's not logical to kill off people with genetic diseases if you can prevent them from breeding.

-Some people with genetically diseases choose to refrain from having children.
-Not all that which is under the "diseased and disabled" is hereditary
-Why limit it to those who have the disease themselves and not those who are equally likely to pass them on to own offspring, but does not dispay symptoms themselves?

Other general questions:

-What percentage of risk is acceptable? What diseases are acceptable?

-And say a productive member become disabled for a period of time which it is uncertain if he will recover from. Is that acceptable?

The "logic" in this situation seems to be what's best for humanity as a whole. If so, then the issues I brought up earlier are of importance.

 

[Hawkeye]

That is my point though. I said Hitler's main objective made sense. By this I mean how he started, where he sterilized the diseased. Applying this to the whole world would eradicate the disease (technically speaking). He then cut corners to save medical costs by finishing them off.

And then... Hitler lost sight of his goal and warped it to something far more sinister.


My statement is still accurate. This does not mean there aren't other alternatives that could be considered more humane.

 

[Minuend]

You are suggesting that forced castration is a logical means to reduce sickness in society?

I just want to be clear

 

[Hawkeye]

You are suggesting that forced castration is a logical means to reduce sickness in society?

In a very, very crude way - yes

It will remove many known diseases.
However, this does not stop other diseases manifesting - but this will take time.

Also, it allows for a level of population control too.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Social Darwinism is the result of a lack of appreciation of the value of diversity and division of labor. Even the most useless individual serves the important purpose of being a bad example. It's important to have demonstrable evidence to 1) back up ideas of what should or shouldn't be valued 2) form a suite of case studies that can be used to address future problems.

The best and brightest will have guaranteed seats in whatever protection scheme is developed.

This isn't true. The best and brightest are the biggest threats to existing power structures. Aaron Swartz certainly wasn't THE best or brightest, but he is a recent applicable case study.

Your point being?

because right and wrong are also subjective.

^This. Evidence that a blanket solution on either side will fail. We need a little of both, really. A dose of eugenics here, a welfare program there...

Ultimately I believe such problems can be solved simply through communication and systemic social pressures.

 

[Hadoblado]

@Polaris
The line is drawn when one tries to force other people to support things they don't care for, in a way that is largely inefficient. There are SO FUCKING MANY people in this world that need help, many of which, with only the slightest opportunity provided, would be able to give back to the society that cared for them many fold. Defining who other people should care for by matter of proximity is not only immoral but sort of stupid.

The euthenasia I prescribe would be based either on willingness on the behalf of the recipient or their attorney, though I understand this is incredibly difficult to implement. I don't distinguish between dole recipients, the mentally ill, or vets with PTSD. The line draws itself, all I am saying is that we shouldn't be forced to interfere with what is none of our business.

@Minuend
It is purely chance who and what you are. It's both a tragedy and a saving grace, but it is the way things are. For every person on Earth, countless organisms have lived and died to bring about the eventuality of their being. That some were born human with the capacity to barely scrape by could be seen as a great hand dealt, if only the multitude of organisms beneath them had the capacity to envy. Being human is not enough.

I do like your point about a divide in society, between those that support the disabled to their own detriment, and those that do not. I will concede that point, though I do not feel it overly important. This world already systematically advantages those that look after themselves first, and while I would prefer that this were not the case, I would not bank on any eventuality that relied on the absence of this premise.

I'd like to mention that I am someone from a very low income background that is entirely reliant on Government handouts to put myself through the education system. I have no wealth to speak of, and care almost nothing for personal wealth. I am very grateful for the opportunity afforded me off the back of others, and hope to someday repay this debt to society. Essentially, I speak from the position of someone who does not practice what he preaches.

 

[Hawkeye]

This isn't true. The best and brightest are the biggest threats to existing power structures. Aaron Swartz certainly wasn't THE best or brightest, but he is a recent applicable case study.

Was - he is no longer around.

And the best could mean a number of things. Usually those that have made an impact on society/the world for better rather than worse.

My point being - your Average Joe would not be on that list. Only those with a stardom to the ones in power.

I can see the reasoning behind it. It still is a method of control very similar to Hitler's vision however.

 

[Wolf18]

I have no problem with you caring for and supporting people with mental disabilities. I never said I did. Just don't force others to pay for the support of people that are only a burden on an already flailing society.

Do you think we should kill Stephen Hawking?

 

[Hadoblado]

Do you think we should kill Stephen Hawking?

Not to sound rude, but did you read what I said? Stephen Hawking more than pulls his own weight, just not directly. He brings far more to the table than 99.9% of the population IMO, he already has, and will continue to, contribute despite enormous adversity.

That said, if his mind failed and his stocks crashed, then it would be up to those who care to keep him alive. I would not be one of them.

 

[Minuend]

Just a quick comment before I leave.

How long should we wait for a person to be able to contribute to society?

Their teens, twenties?

I see people being pressured into depression from a very young age.

 

[Hadoblado]

Once it becomes apparent that someone will not be repaying their debt to society.

Or when nobody will support them on a voluntary basis.

Or whenever. All I 'know' is that non-conditional support is more wrong than other options. The rest is details (of which I am less certain).

 

[Polaris]

@Hadoblado

My argument wasn't that we should force people to support someone they do not care for. My focus is on the methods of solution you are suggesting.

As @thehabitatdoctor suggested:

It's important to have demonstrable evidence to 1) back up ideas of what should or shouldn't be valued 2) form a suite of case studies that can be used to address future problems.

It gets complicated...I couldn't imagine 'willingness on the behalf of the recipients' to be something other than the result of pressure. Which would be equally immoral. From an ecological perspective they are just as much part of the system as the rest....what gives us the right to decide for them?

 

[Hawkeye]

what gives us the right to decide for them?

Indeed. This is why I can't believe euthanasia is illegal...

 

[Polaris]

Indeed. This is why I can't believe euthanasia is illegal...

I agree self-determined euthanasia should be legalised...but that is a slightly different issue.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

There are SO FUCKING MANY people in this world that need help, many of which, with only the slightest opportunity provided, would be able to give back to the society that cared for them many fold.

If true, wouldn't this magnified benefit provide sufficient flexibility to increase support for those proverbial crippled black sheep?

The line draws itself

^This sounds a lot like faith in an unknown mechanism; something along the lines of the "invisible hand." I mean I agree in the sense that I believe the whole mess is guided by natural processes. We know it's a complex system that hasn't been parsed out yet because we haven't figured out how, or at least we haven't been willing to put in the required amount of effort to do so. I suppose I'm mainly advocating withholding action until it's more understood, in line with the Leopold quote in my sig.

I do like your point about a divide in society, between those that support the disabled to their own detriment, and those that do not. I will concede that point, though I do not feel it overly important. *This world already systematically advantages those that look after themselves first, and while I would prefer that this were not the case, I would not bank on any eventuality that relied on the absence of this premise.

There's a theoretical happy place here as well. The NetLogo Altriusm model demonstrates this optimum in a simple multivariate model, though it could be expanded to a full blown iterated prisoner's dilemma for each variable. I wish I had more hard drive...

*But to demonstrate with a basic example, look at mutually beneficial behavior in animals. A single self-serving act can provide synergistic benefit.

The reason for this behavior: Male whales (and most non-human mammals, actually) have a penis bone called a baculum, which has a few functions including locking the penis in place during intercourse. Sometimes they get stuck.

The wingmanwhale is making sure the female doesn't drown if his buddy can't pull out, to ensure he gets the next shot.

Essentially, I speak from the position of someone who does not practice what he preaches.

Not necessarily true. It depends on one's definition of value and your status if you hadn't received the benefits. Perhaps they prevented you from having a negative impact on society (theoretically, no offense intended).

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

My point being - your Average Joe would not be on that list. Only those with a stardom to the ones in power.

I can see the reasoning behind it. It still is a method of control very similar to Hitler's vision however.

Perhaps Joe should be on the list. Consider the role of the worker ant. Which is more stable and effective, a group composed largely of sterile mindless workers or a group composed largely of queens who refuse to be subservient to one another? We tend to value people based on merit, but merit-based systems rely on a gradient of ability to form structure. Without it we see systemic collapse.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Or when nobody will support them on a voluntary basis.

Hmmm... Infanticide, euthanasia and the like historically occur as a conscious decision during periods of resource stress, but there are also evolutionary selective pressures at play that don't violate conventional ethics: https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/18007/1/TSpace0104.pdf


Ironically, agriculture, the oft championed "life saver" (I call it a false god...) that feeds starving populations has removed this selective pressure.

 

[Hadoblado]

@Polaris
My solution is not some drastic measure that has been devised by an architect, it is the extinction of a drastic measure devised by an architect.

@thehabitatdoctor
My 'faith in a mechanism' is a good line of thought. I would not consider it faith, as I would change my mind in the face of adequate evidence, but it is a valid criticism. I do believe that there are mechanisms that would better society if left unchecked.

The quote from Leopold is a good one. I am not proposing a solution on a global scale (at least initially). If I was given the ability to start my own society, I would do so as provided above, but not to the exclusion of the world around me. The experiment would be flawed, but also entirely reversible. It's not as if I'd force other Nation states to do the same, and I would not force people to stay if they did not want to.

I'm also a big fan of mutually beneficial 'altruism'. I do not, however, quite understand the relevance of this. I am not proposing people don't help people when they want to (aka it is in their best interest). I am proposing that people not force others to pretend to be altruistic, while pretending that the demonstration of this force in an altruistic act in itself.

The whale thing had me in stitches

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I'm also a big fan of mutually beneficial 'altruism'. I do not, however, quite understand the relevance of this. I am not proposing people don't help people when they want to (aka it is in their best interest). I am proposing that people not force others to pretend to be altruistic, while pretending that the demonstration of this force in an altruistic act in itself.

The whale thing had me in stitches

I'm basically saying that "mandatory" welfare can exist in a stable state in the context of mutualism. If you consider niche space the result of deterministic mechanisms, then the act of filling that space should be at worst neutral regardless of how it gets filled.

Acorn woodpeckers are interesting too. A dominant male gets breeding rights to a harem while his male offspring care for the young of subsequent years. After potentially a decade+ of service, the younger males inherit breeding rights. Mutualistic pimps ftw.