Have you not heard of the principle of the "human non-person"? Seriously, that's the basis of Roe v Wade. "Sure, they're humans; they're just not persons. Not until we say they are."
The following is off topic, but I don't want to respond to your response to me only to have Dan the lying coward delete my response and mark it as spam. So please forgive the off topic stuff. I'm going to copy/paste your comments (blending the two into one) for convenience and then respond. Your comments:
I’m not suggesting that everyone has equal value to an employer, clearly that’s not the case. Nor should it be. To use an extreme example, a doctor who has completed their entire course of study and internship has more value than a recent med school graduate in the eyes of an employer.
I’m simply suggesting that everyone has equal value as someone created in and bearing the image of God. I’m further suggesting that anyone who does anything that devalues those who bear God’s image is working against the purpose of God. I’m further suggesting that there are levels of devaluation in play, and that while name calling might be considered devaluation, there are other actions taken that much more seriously devalue people judged disabled.
The fact that some of those actions are praised and considered positive by various societies is beyond belief. Yet, it happens.
I’ll add that I do see employers who are attempting to give dignity and self respect to those who are (insert appropriate description here), by hiring them to fill jobs that they can perform or tailoring jobs to fit people’s abilities. Allowing as many people as possible the dignity of being able to provide for themselves is a good thing.
I don't know why it wasn't clear to either of you that I was not referring the disabled, physically or mentally, as being less than equal to all others as human beings. I'm pretty sure I even made the distinction when I said, "...there's a huge difference between value as a human being versus value to an employer." Thus, nothing I have said on the subject bears any hint that I regard the disabled in that manner. I defy anyone to find such a hint. I will challenge Dan to pick out any sentence in any comment of mine, including the deleted comment wherein I referred to his comment/notion/idea or comment as "retarded" and demonstrate how it indicates that I regard the disabled in that manner. (I haven't decided if I will throw down that gauntlet in a direct email to him, or in a blog post of my own. Likely some combination of both...we know he can't be trusted to accurately convey in public what is said in private given he doesn't do that regarding comments he deletes.)
In any case, I'm pretty sure I made statements more than once that should have deflected that suspicion.
"I’m further suggesting that there are levels of devaluation in play, and that while name calling might be considered devaluation, there are other actions taken that much more seriously devalue people judged disabled."
Not that you're accusing me (I hope), but I've also not engaged in name-calling with regard to the disabled. I have stated that I think the disabled wastes their time whining about name calling, but then I think that's true of everyone. It's childish and unnecessary given that even those who engage in it know it isn't appropriate. However, when I do engage in it on the blogs or even in person, I do it with explanation for why the appellation I chose is appropriate applied in my opinion. Both Dan and feo have provided much evidence to justify my use of various words in my opinion. Beyond those two worthy "men", I've only perpetrated that heinous crime against public figures.
"The fact that some of those actions are praised and considered positive by various societies is beyond belief. Yet, it happens."
That's true, but it also irrelevant to the discussion at hand, despite Dan's eagerness to portray me as among such people. I am not one of them simply because I choose words carefully and he pretends he's justified in punishing me for doing so. He is not. I don't believe he infers what he claims he does. He's just being Dan...and that's about the worst thing I can think of saying about anyone.
"I’ll add that I do see employers who are attempting to give dignity and self respect to those who are (insert appropriate description here), by hiring them to fill jobs that they can perform or tailoring jobs to fit people’s abilities. Allowing as many people as possible the dignity of being able to provide for themselves is a good thing."
Wonderful...for those who can afford to do so. I applaud such efforts as you do and as Dan does. I hope that's not shocking news to you, though it may be to Dan...being that he's Dan. But even those who do provide in that manner did so only after they got to a point where doing so wouldn't conflict with the prime directive: making money.
It’s possible I missed your clarification and if so I apologize.
I’m hesitant to go into detail here, but suffice it to say that I was mostly using your comments as a set up to make some other points, not so much to respond directly to you.
7 comments:
Oh, you know the answer to that question.
Have you not heard of the principle of the "human non-person"? Seriously, that's the basis of Roe v Wade. "Sure, they're humans; they're just not persons. Not until we say they are."
But lobsters, that’s another story. Their non person crustaceans.
Craig,
The following is off topic, but I don't want to respond to your response to me only to have Dan the lying coward delete my response and mark it as spam. So please forgive the off topic stuff. I'm going to copy/paste your comments (blending the two into one) for convenience and then respond. Your comments:
I’m not suggesting that everyone has equal value to an employer, clearly that’s not the case. Nor should it be. To use an extreme example, a doctor who has completed their entire course of study and internship has more value than a recent med school graduate in the eyes of an employer.
I’m simply suggesting that everyone has equal value as someone created in and bearing the image of God. I’m further suggesting that anyone who does anything that devalues those who bear God’s image is working against the purpose of God. I’m further suggesting that there are levels of devaluation in play, and that while name calling might be considered devaluation, there are other actions taken that much more seriously devalue people judged disabled.
The fact that some of those actions are praised and considered positive by various societies is beyond belief. Yet, it happens.
I’ll add that I do see employers who are attempting to give dignity and self respect to those who are (insert appropriate description here), by hiring them to fill jobs that they can perform or tailoring jobs to fit people’s abilities. Allowing as many people as possible the dignity of being able to provide for themselves is a good thing.
I don't know why it wasn't clear to either of you that I was not referring the disabled, physically or mentally, as being less than equal to all others as human beings. I'm pretty sure I even made the distinction when I said, "...there's a huge difference between value as a human being versus value to an employer." Thus, nothing I have said on the subject bears any hint that I regard the disabled in that manner. I defy anyone to find such a hint. I will challenge Dan to pick out any sentence in any comment of mine, including the deleted comment wherein I referred to his comment/notion/idea or comment as "retarded" and demonstrate how it indicates that I regard the disabled in that manner. (I haven't decided if I will throw down that gauntlet in a direct email to him, or in a blog post of my own. Likely some combination of both...we know he can't be trusted to accurately convey in public what is said in private given he doesn't do that regarding comments he deletes.)
In any case, I'm pretty sure I made statements more than once that should have deflected that suspicion.
"I’m further suggesting that there are levels of devaluation in play, and that while name calling might be considered devaluation, there are other actions taken that much more seriously devalue people judged disabled."
Not that you're accusing me (I hope), but I've also not engaged in name-calling with regard to the disabled. I have stated that I think the disabled wastes their time whining about name calling, but then I think that's true of everyone. It's childish and unnecessary given that even those who engage in it know it isn't appropriate. However, when I do engage in it on the blogs or even in person, I do it with explanation for why the appellation I chose is appropriate applied in my opinion. Both Dan and feo have provided much evidence to justify my use of various words in my opinion. Beyond those two worthy "men", I've only perpetrated that heinous crime against public figures.
"The fact that some of those actions are praised and considered positive by various societies is beyond belief. Yet, it happens."
That's true, but it also irrelevant to the discussion at hand, despite Dan's eagerness to portray me as among such people. I am not one of them simply because I choose words carefully and he pretends he's justified in punishing me for doing so. He is not. I don't believe he infers what he claims he does. He's just being Dan...and that's about the worst thing I can think of saying about anyone.
"I’ll add that I do see employers who are attempting to give dignity and self respect to those who are (insert appropriate description here), by hiring them to fill jobs that they can perform or tailoring jobs to fit people’s abilities. Allowing as many people as possible the dignity of being able to provide for themselves is a good thing."
Wonderful...for those who can afford to do so. I applaud such efforts as you do and as Dan does. I hope that's not shocking news to you, though it may be to Dan...being that he's Dan. But even those who do provide in that manner did so only after they got to a point where doing so wouldn't conflict with the prime directive: making money.
It’s possible I missed your clarification and if so I apologize.
I’m hesitant to go into detail here, but suffice it to say that I was mostly using your comments as a set up to make some other points, not so much to respond directly to you.
Just sent you an email
Post a Comment