Finn, why are you denying this baby the chance to have a super-human sense of smell?
And it appears to me that you’re being a bit dense. Being born without an arm is not a ‘terrible, terrible thing’, but choosing to have someone be born without an arm is still maiming them.
I’ve already pointed out why your argument is bankrupt. If by ‘address it’ you mean ‘use your paradigms and assumptions’ then no, they’re blatantly wrong. Deafness is, objectively, a disability. No degree of personal experience will change that. As such, your entire argument is bankrupt. But I’ve already said that before.
A failure on your part to create a coherent logically compelling argument or to accept the objective facts of the case does not constitute a lack of addressing your argument on my part.
Yes, you are. You have, several times now, argued that they’re not disabled because they choose to say that they’re not disabled due to personal experiences.
Luckily I never claimed being born deaf was being maimed, but that intentionally causing a child to be born deaf was maiming them. You are deliberately ignoring the volitional dynamic in this situation. That makes the connotative difference between ‘maimed’ and ‘crippled’
And if people don’t consider the volitional permanent damage of a physical organ to be maiming, they’re simply wrong. I don’t care what they consider it to be.
Then you’re arguing against what the word actually means.
I won’t remember that, because it has nothing to do with what I’m arguing. Volitionaly causing a child to be born deaf is maiming them.
You are now attempting to distance yourself from your own words. Always a bad sign.
You have claimed, repeatedly, that deaf people are not ‘really’ disabled, even going so far as to say that many deaf people would consider its disadvantages to be no more objective than the societal disadvantages to being gay. That you want to deny this or dance away from it is folly. Your words are in this thread, and you can’t edit them.
Lie.
It’s not a strawman, you have, time and again, said that deaf people do not have a disability because their personal experiences lead them to deny that it’s a disability. Not being able to hear is, by definition and law, a disability. Your claim that it is not because of their personal beliefs means that you are claiming they do not have a disability because of their personal beliefs. Which means that due to their personal beliefs, they would have to not have their disability (eg. they’d have to be able to hear.)
All this is obvious, and is the reason why your argument is 100% intellectually bankrupt. And I’ve pointed it out several times.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’”
Your point, as I’ve said several times, is absurd. Lack of hearing is a disability. Dance around it all you want, you’ll still be wrong.
Do you honestly believe that ? Because it’s what your argument is, it’s not inconsistent? Your argument is inconsistent and absurd.
The only way for deafness to be rendered a non-disability via personal prefrence is if that prefrence could enable hearing. Obviously, it cannot. And just as obviously, you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Not an assumption. What the words mean. And I would point out that you are incorrectly using the words to boot. Purposefully crippling a child is maiming them.
Oh, that’s a fucking laugh. You don’t know what English words mean and you want to accuse me of having problems? Why don’t you look them up?
And learning the language you speak would be advantageous before you try to debate in it. There are dictionaries online, you should go use them.
I know, I’m using the English language, you want to maintain that lacking hearing is not a disability and that intentionally destroying a person’s hearing is not maiming them.
Sorry humpty dumpty, the words don’t mean whatever you want them to mean.
Whoosh?
Yes, they do. I’m trying to give respect to people’s desire to have their own biological child when they have that ability; that’s what most people want.
But the lesbians also had the option of chosing other donors; they still cherry-picked this one based on the deafness criterion. I don’t think you can get around that by comparing them to a straight deaf couple.
Hi. Uh, actually, no, this isn’t true.
For instance, did you know that if I choose to have a family, my partner and I couldn’t actually biologically conceive a child? Little known fact: two men, or two women, can’t have a child together! In fact, for a gay couple to have children, they have to resort to medical intervention (if they’re women) or adopt, or else one of them has to have sex with someone else.
Why do you hate America, Binarydrone?
The sad part about this whole thread is that I’ve always felt the concept of deaf culture was disturbing and flawed, and I would have loved to have a discussion about whether it’s truly legitimate to characterize “deaf” and “hearing” as equal as many deaf people do. But FinnAgain, per his habit of having psychotic meltdowns whenever anyone disagrees with him, has once again poisoned the discussion and made productive, relevant dialogue impossible.
I would be interested in hearing about that. I can conceive of the idea of a Deaf Culture, in that they do have a language and what seem to be a distinct set of values and such. Where things start to break down for me is in the failure to recognize that in spite of the richness of what they have created, at the end of the day not being able to hear puts them at a disadvantage in the world at large.
I would be interested, indeed, to get your take on it.
p.s. I hate America because I am a Filthy Liberal™®©
Article giving a better idea of what these women see as the benefits of Deaf culture.
To be fair, I would suggest that this phenomenon has more to do with being a numerical minority than anything inherent to Deaf Culture specifically. I know that in my personal experience that the times that I have lived or traveled in foreign countries that when I have encountered members of my own culture, or even folks that share my language that I have become much more intimate with them than I normally do in my day to day life.
I dunno. It’s something I’ve always distrusted, if you get my drift. It strikes me that there’s a deaf culture, and a deaf community, and it’s a perfectly valid community, but it’s only one formed around the fact that they can’t (simply due to the inability to communicate) with the larger society around them. Being a part of ‘deaf culture’ necessitates not being a part of the larger hearing culture - they are defined by their nonparticipation in larger society. That’s all they have in common.
I understand the emotional difficulty if you’re deaf and raising a hearing child that in many ways you’ll never be part of the same community. But I think that deaf culture is inherently smaller and - frankly - an alternative to the larger hearing society. And so I don’t think they’re equivalent. I don’t think that ‘deaf culture’ is just separate but equal from hearing society.
Wow, you’re either illiterate or a really bad liar. You know we’re talking about the same two people you’re frothing about ‘deliberately maiming’ the child, right? The male donor and the lesbian? The ones you’re so upset about conceiving a child together because it will probably not be hearing? Can you read and write at all, or do you just flail about and drool on your keyboard? Not all deaf people. These two specific deaf people who do have a very high probability of having a deaf child. Would it be okay for them to do so if they just happened to be together?
I know I’m not going to get an answer. You can’ t give me an answer that doesn’t contradict something else you’ve already said. But it’s kind of fun watching you go splodey all over the place. Were your parents two manic Tourette’s-afflicted morons who desperately wanted to produce a baby of their own culture by any chance?
Okay. So you do think that the desire to have one’s own biological child somehow does in fact erase the presumed culpability for having a child one knows will be disabled. It is not selfish, it’s just…natural. What if these lesbians desire to have a child as close to what they could have ‘naturally’?
See, I just don’t think there’s anything magical about the desire to have a bio-baby. How it could be so powerful that it erases adjectives like ‘abhorrent’, ‘disgusting’, ‘horrific’ and so on I really don’t understand.
I’m not trying to ‘get around’ the fact that they cherry-picked the donor. I’m trying to explain that the only way in which what they’re doing is different from what a straight couple who knows their child will almost certainly be disabled is doing is what’s in their heads, which makes no practical, functional difference at all. It is irrational to condemn one act - not attitude, act - and not the other. That is my point.
Cute little nitpick, but you’ll pardon me if I discount it as bullshit as you’re only looking to pick a fight. Quite obviously I wasn’t saying that gay people can magically conceive children without an opposite sex partner. But you knew that, and were just trying to start a fight.
Funny I was making a statement about equality and you’re such a fucking asshole that you need to disagree with me about it just so you can start a fight with me? The last time I posted anything to you, it was something along the lines of “hey, I don’t have anything against you, let’s just be chill” and you claimed that was me trying to ‘get you’. You’re out of your fucking gourd, and now you need to try to start a fight with me because I’m saying that gay people are equal to straight people?
Would you disagree if I said women were equal to men but didn’t mention they couldn’t pee on the ceiling?
You’re pathetic.
And you have a hardon for me and you’re a lying piece of shit. I disagree with folks all the time without getting angry. This thread happens to be about willful and delibate baby maiming. Sorry if that’s a little bit of a hot button issue asshole.
I’m the number one menace to the Dope! Watch out!
Aren’t you supposed to not be renewing or something? Why don’t you leave now?
Hey, pro intentional baby-maimer? I’ve already answered you several times, you’re a lying moron. I’ve told you that a couple having their own children is different than intentionally maximizing the risk. But you’re a willful idiot. ~shrugs~
And save me your victim spiel about how poor pro intentional baby-maiming you are so horribly put upon. You’re disgusting.
I think you call people liars so much because you lie so much. What the fuck are you talking about? Do you now love me so much you’re actually having imaginary conversations with me? That’s so sweet.
One couple conceiving a child they know will be deaf is magically different from the SAME two people conceiving a child they know will be deaf. Because you say - sorry - because you scream so. Okay then. I’ll just go ride my pink unicorn to Lollypop Island, so I can maybe get on the same page of fantasyland as you.
No, I’m calling you a damn liar because you’re a damn liar.Not only have I answerd you, but you read and responded to my answer. Which means that now as you deny I answered you, you are lying.
Fool, I can quote your posts. Why lie about what you said?
Moron? I’ve already told you that deaf parents can have hearing children. I linked you to a cite, but you’re a dishonest fool. The issue, yet a-fucking-gain, is intentionally maximizing the risk. But I’ve told you that many times, and you can’t get it through your pro-intentional-baby-maiming noggin.
Oh, I’m sorry, I should adopt some culturally relitivistic pc bullshit and talk about how intentional baby maiming isn’t anything wrong. :rolleyes: It is and should be abhorent. And as I’ve already shown you, the issue is deliberate maximization of risks. And I’ve also shown you, deaf parents don’t necessarily know they’ll have deaf children.
But simple English is too hard for you to comprehend because you’re a damn idealogue whose cause is intentional baby maiming. You are disgusting.
Oh, and Exy you irrational, obsessive, pugnacious schmuck? If you want to have a genteel thread on intentionally maiming one’s baby, take it to GD. This is the fucking Pit, and if the idea of purposefully trying to maim a baby upsets me, in the fucking Pit, I’ll certainly post on it. Take your whiney bitch self over to GD and open your desired thread.
The question, yet a-fucking-again, is this: The male donor. The one whose sperm. Will, when combined with the lesbian’s ova. Almost certainly make a deaf baby. Which is what you’re so upset about. Those two people. THOSE TWO SPECIFIC PEOPLE. Not all deaf people as I have clarified something like three times now. Those two people. No one else. Not your mother and a gutter dog. Just them.
The question about those two people is, if instead of being involved in an artificial insemination, they were just a couple, and they had a baby, would they be intentional baby maimers?
Please note: these are the same people. The very same exact people having the same baby. Are they baby maimers if they’re a straight couple intentionally having a deaf baby?
FinnAgain, I’m completely with you on this one, but just walk away. At least for the night or something, because your vitriol isn’t helping.
I said nothing of the kind.
That might be a good comparison to deaf parents who wanted a deaf child. I’m not sure why you’re begging for me to repeat myself when I’ve made none of the condemning statements that upset you so much.
But you’re claiming that what’s in their heads had no impact on the reality, which it obviously did.
No. I am claiming that what’s in their heads had no more of an impact on reality than what’s in the heads of two straight people who decide to have a baby they have reason to believe will be disabled.
And I’m sorry if I misunderstood you. You said you were trying to give respect to people’s desire to have “their own” baby, because most people want to. You think it is wrong for two people to have a baby they know will be disabled through means other than straight sex, but okay for them to have a baby they know will be disabled through straight sex. How does that not equate to mean that as long as they’re having their own bio-baby it’s okay to intentionally have a disabled child?
Nope, I was pointing out the logical argument in your statement. There are quite a few ways in which being gay is problematic quite apart from our cultural milieu. Gay people can’t easily have children. Hell, it’s harder just for gay people to get together - you obviously have a much smaller pool of people to choose from, so it’s odds are against you when it comes to finding the right person.
Despite your choice to argue this strictly on the basis of ad hominem attacks, there are rational reasons why a person wouldn’t necessarily want their child to be gay, quite apart from discrimination against gay people.
Sorry that you don’t like this, but my habit is to discuss issues on their merits, in contrast to your need to constantly attribute what everyone else says to your imagination of what they secretly think inside. I didn’t agree to “just be chill” with you because you were a complete asshole to me in the instance in question, and I didn’t feel like “just be[ing] chill” with you. If in the interim you had demonstrated that your behavior in that instance was not characteristic, and that you were generally able to have rational and productive discussions, I would have let it go. But obviously you haven’t given me much reason since then to want to have a positive relationship with you.
Women aren’t equal to men. For example, a woman is far more likely than a man to possess a uterus. Perhaps you’re looking for a different word than “equal”?
You didn’t in this thread. You had a meltdown and completely lost emotional control, becoming shrill and insulting with no provocation, simply because people disagreed with you.
And there’s a certain grandiosity in your insistence that I have a “hardon” for you. I’m not here to rehash an old argument the way you obviously are. I just popped in to point out that your argument was wrong; I thought that perhaps you’d be willing to trust the judgment of a gay person on what the ramifications are of being gay; apparently, though, it’s not worth trying to discuss anything with you.
I love how you resort to ridiculous hyperbole in your arguments; it shows just how ridiculous your statements are if you have to resort to a factually incorrect description of the matter in question - one that, were you not around, we would probably be having an interesting conversation about. One thing is quite clear - strictly on a factual basis, no babies are being maimed. “Baby maiming” would be an accurate description of deliberately destroying a baby’s ability to hear, but it simply clouds the discussion and makes a reasoned approach to the question impossible when you use the term here. This is exactly the type of false argument that the pro-life crowd frequently uses: “Oh, you’re pro-choice? You mean you support killing babies?” Quite obviously, false characterizations like that are an attempt to make discussion impossible.
Again, your assumption that my irritation at your shitting all over this thread is symbolic of some larger hatred of you is grandiose. I don’t spend much time thinking about you; obviously the converse is not true.
Many times, the most interesting discussions on the board happen in the pit. You are well within your rights to intentionally derail them by spewing nonsense and aggressively attacking everyone who disagrees with you; that is permitted in the pit. However, were you a better sort of person, you would not choose to prevent a rational discussion from taking place simply because not everyone present agreed with you.