Siding with several of the recent posters, this boy was in danger TO HIMSELF. If he had put his question to someone he thought he could trust, but in reality was a pedophile he could have been taken advantage of so easily. cheezit was just reflecting this view, as well as pointing out that his behavior might frighten customers away if they weren’t as compassionate and tolerant as Diane.
Oh, come on–I’m a danger to myself. Most people are the primary dangers to themselves. Would this kid be in less danger just walking to the store to pick up some gum? No. Should he be barred from walking to the store to pick up some gum? Heck no.
Every day that I go out, I do things that put my well-being in danger. I’ve walked through neighborhoods where I might happen to meet a pissed-off drug dealear with an itchy trigger-finger. He might happen to meet a pedophile. It’s a risk everybody lives with every day. Moreover, many store have two people outside at a time–as long as somebody’s around to keep an eye out, he’s not in any danger. I worked at one of these store myself for years, in the exact same job. I can assure you that were he at the store I worked at, he would have been in absolutely no danger.
As for the appropriateness (is that a word?) of his comment–of course it isn’t appropriate * coming from me. * As Diane showed most elegantly, people can and will overlook some slightly inappropriate comments if they know that the speaker is mentally handicapped. Granted, Diane handled it exceptionally well, but the point remains.
Not to mention, the kid is eighteen. I don’t think he’s pedophelia material.
Coming in late here, but cheezit’s comment was not the most offensive in that thread.
Although Louis B may not wish to discuss it - how true to type - I found his “they are here for us to be charitable” post one of the most repulsive things I have seen here.
picmr
I think he’s here just because he’s a human being.
Seriously, I don’t think he should be fired! However, bodily functions are not appropriate conversation for employees.
And here’s the thing-does he have to walk around all day with dirty diapers? If so, the poor kid! It’s unhealthy, and to a degree, probably unsanitary.
I mean, would it be appropriate for ANYONE to talk about their bathroom habits? No, not really. So that’s all. The kid doesn’t have to be fired.
I think Diane handled it beautifully.
I agree with the “there here for us to practice charity thing” as being more offensive. Moreover, cheezit’s comments were not all that bad. Which I suspect is why yojimbo (and I know for myself) asked for more of an explantion than went and flamed him. The point was, that he seemed to mean well, but have it come out badly. Add to that him being misquoted, and he starts to sound like an ass even when he wasn’t being one…
I do wish you people would read the definition of the word charity. I even went to the trouble of posting it for you.
It has to do with extending aid and comfort to those less fortunate than ourselves. I stand by what I said.
I do wish somebody would explain just what is so offensive in the use of the word “charity” as I used it in this thread.
Well, assuming we know what people mean is what landed yojimbo and cheezit in the pit, but here we go:
I think what people find offensive about “they are here for us to be charitable” is not the word charity. It’s the idea that mentally handicapped people are made so for the divine purpose of teaching others charity. It reminds me of my co-worker’s belief that the God caused her mother to have a stroke 10 years ago and be catatonic ever since was to teach her (co-worker, not mother) about hospitals and medicine. Or my sister’s belief that God killed our father to teach her to be humble. He-llo! Shit happens! People are just made the way they’re made. There doesn’t have to be a purpose or plan for every little event, and I’ve always found it offensive that a person is willing to assume that bad things happen to other people as a warning or lesson to their own self. “The world revolves around me! You were hit by a car? That’s a message straight from God to me to be nice to people who have been hit by cars!”
That may not be what you meant, but to some it could sound that way.
I second that. My aunt is * not * here for me to practice charity. The mentally handicapped kids I’ve known were sure as hell not just put here so that I can be a good person by helping them.
They’re here because their parents fucked, and something went a little wrong in meiosis in the bloody gametes (one of the most common causes), or because of an unlucky mutation somewhere along their DNA. Hell, when you look at the rates of people with one genetic disorder or another, it’s a wonder any of us turn out “normal” (notice I put that in quotes). That’s why it’s offensive. I wasn’t “put” here, and I wasn’t conceived for some particular function other than passing on the damn family genes. First person says otherwise gets it, got it?
My sentiments exactly. You have been able to describe it in a way that I couldn’t have at the time, emotions and all coming into play.
A couple of points I need to clarify:
–Shit happens for no other reason than that it happens. Nothing more to read into it. No divine message from above. Maybe a, ‘sheesh, we live in a unfair world sometimes’ and that’s about it. If you can learn from it, great. But saying things like ‘it was meant to be so I can be a better person’ is one of the stupidest things I’ve heard.
–People who have shit happen to them have as much of a right to lead a ‘normal’ life as myself and anyone else around. No pity needed. A chance is all I think they’re asking for.
–A fair chance and some understanding is enough for most people with Johns’ type of mental disorder to move onward and upward and lead a productive and fulfilling life. A life, I might add, that often means getting off public assistance, welfare, etc…
–John is just as likely as anyone else to be the victim of a crime. ANY kind of crime. In a normal enviroment he should do just fine. The guy doesn’t need 24/7 surveilance. Well maybe he does, and so do I.
Cheezit-- You took more heat than you deserved. However, after you enlightened us to your line of thinking, people have mellowed out. Maybe you could have responded sooner, and in that thread, and avoided the leaps to conclusions people were bound to eventually come to.
Well, I have discussed my use of the word “charity” with several people. All of those people know and understand the definition of charity; however they all agree that it is a word that is easily misconstrued.
I did not say, nor imply, nor do I believe that mentally/physically challenged people are created in order that we might feel better about ourselves by extending them charity. Indeed, if extending charity makes someone feel better about themselves, then that someone has not extended charity. Think about it.
Myrr21, why were you put here?
Picmr, fuck you.
LouisB: First off, I’m glad you’ve posted back in a reasonable manner (at least to me). With the mood I’m in, there would have been hell to pay if you hadn’t. However, you’re still gonna catch some:
Just for reference, here’s the quote I’m talking about:
Right now, get it straight that we ain’t talking about charity. Substitute damn near anything else for “charity” in that sentence, and I will still rip you a new one. I’ll tell you what offends me. What offends me is people who tell me that somebody else is here so that “we” can practice _______ (insert virtue, vice, whatever you want).
Do you have any idea how fucking dehumanizing that is? My life, your life, no single goddamn life on this planet is here to allow us to practice something. Charities are here to allow us to practice charity–or at least help us along the way. Objects are here to allow us to do things. Institutions are here to allow us to do things.
You have just told me that my aunt, one of the dearest people to me in the world, exists so that others can practice charity. Fuck that.
I seriously hope that you don’t think you could look me in the eye and repeat your aforementioned quote. Because if you did, I’d show you just how much lack of “charity” (definition 3, BTW) I extend to some asshole who puts my relatives on the level of an institution or object.
Now, on to me personally. To begin with, I wasn’t “put” here. My parents fucked–that’s how I got here. I came out ugly, slimy, and X pounds, Y ounces.
And you know what? I don’t have a single goddamn mutherfucking purpose on this earth. All I’m doing is taking up space, breathing the oxygen, eating the food, and hoping my genes are worth passing on.
Of course, you’ll probably see me as having been put here so you can practice not getting mad and the heathen.
Well fuck that too.
MYRR –
I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, but I find it interesting that you would simultaneously resent so fiercely the perceived “dehumanizing” of your aunt and so thoroughly dehumanize yourself. I mean, what of that description is particularly human? You’ve described yourself as a product, and a random one at that. Which, of course, you are free to do.
I think maybe Louis should get the slightst bit of a break. You yourself concede that “charities,” by which I take it you mean charitable organizations, are here for us to practice charity. You apparently don’t object to that general concept, so long as a non-human intermediary exsts between the giver and the recipient. But in both cases the motive – to practice charity – remains the same, so why the importance of an intermediary?
It seems like you object to any purpose being assigned to your aunt’s life, or your own, and that is perfectly legitimate, but so are the beliefs of others who might think that your life, like every other life, does have a purpose beyond procreation. You can hardly insist we all believe as you do.
I can see how you might find the way in which Louis made his point offensive, but I don’t think he intended it to be. Maybe we’re all here, in part, so that others can use our rough edges to practice forbearance, our mistakes to practice forgiveness, and our shortcomings to practice charity. I don’t think it’s all or nothing.
Well, I’m not really trying to pick a fight either–heck, I can be a lot meaner than that. It’s just something that hits rather close to home, so it’s kinda hard to stay nice and purty-mouthed.
To adress your points:
Again, I don’t object to charity. I don’t object to charity being offered from one person to another. What I do object to is one person assigning a purpose to another human’s existence. It you want to believe that you have a purpose on Earth, I have no objections to that. If you tell me that I have a purpose, we’re gonna have an issue. Same thing goes for you telling me that someone I care about has a purpose. If they find a purpose for themselves, that’s great. But don’t try to give them one.
As for dehumanizing myself, well, I’m one of the science-junkies. I don’t see much more than that (which is not to imply that this is the case for all science people–before I get jumped for that). This was to explain why I don’t like being told I was “put” here. That makes it sound too clean, pleasant, and sterilized. Life isn’t like that, and humans aren’t like that. Personally, I * prefer * humans to be dirty, sweaty and somewhat “flawed”. If they weren’t, I’d be kinda creeped out.
Hope that clarifies things some.
Bolding added by LouisB
I wish I had said that.
**Myrr21,**I honestly do not see the problem with the word “charity”, as I used it (last part of definition 1). Of course, my use of it presupposes the belief that we all have a purpose and are put here to fulfill that purpose. It seems very bleak to me to believe that we are just the random product of a random sexual act. I would bet that most of us have more meaning than that in the eyes of those who performed that act. But if that is your belief, I wish you joy of it.
So lets try this: Those special people, such as your aunt, are much more deserving of unconditional forebearance, care, kindness, love, and attention than those of us who are more able to thrive without forebearance, care, kindness, love, and attention. Is that more acceptable to you?
And I will say that if I am willing to “allow” you your belief that we are just the random results of a random sexual act, it seems only fair that you “allow” me my belief that we are all here for a purpose.
Will you * please * read my last three posts? They make it abundantly clear that I don’t give a flying fuck about the word “charity”. If you had said, “these people give us a chance to practice _________”, then there wouldn’t be a problem–granted, that statement could be taken the wrong way too, but certainly not the same.
What I object to–very strongly–is “those people ** are here to allow us to practice ** _________”
Note how you’ve just assigned their whole existence the purpose of the rest of us practicing ________.
See how this has nothing to do with “charity”?
I think we’re all here because God got bored and decided to create us and see what would happen.
So big experiment, or something like that.
HEhehe…
tongue firmly planted in cheek
“hey look–the funny-lookin one who doesn’t believe in Me keeps writing silly things to some message board the I created through me minions on earth. That sill bastard”
–God
Hey, wouldn’t surprise me!
