A Cracked Pot story from (I believe) Chinese folklore...
A water bearer had two large pots, each hung on each end of a pole which he carried across his neck. One of the pots had a crack in it, and while the other pot was perfect and always delivered a full portion of water at the end of the long walk from the stream to the master’s house, the cracked pot arrived only half full.
For a full two years, this went on daily, with the bearer delivering only one and a half pots full of water in his master’s house. Of course, the perfect pot was proud of its accomplishments, perfect to the end for which it was made. But the poor cracked pot was ashamed of its own imperfection and miserable that it was able to accomplish only half of what it had been made to do.
After two years of what it perceived to be a bitter failure, it spoke to the water bearer one day by the stream. “I am ashamed of myself, and I want to apologize to you”. The bearer asked, “Why? What are you ashamed of?” The Pot replied, “For these past two years I am able to deliver only half of my load because this crack in my side causes water to leak out all the way back to your master’s house. Because of my flaws, you don’t get full value for your efforts”.
The water bearer felt sorry for the old cracked pot, and in his compassion, he said, “As we return to the master’s house, I want you to notice the beautiful flowers along the path.” As they went up the hill, the old cracked pot took notice of the sun warming the beautiful wild flowers on the side of the path, and this cheered it somewhat. But at the end of the trail, it still felt bad because it had leaked out half its load, and so again it apologized to the bearer for its failure.
The bearer said to the pot, “Did you notice that there were flowers only on your side of your path, but not on the other pot’s side? That’s because I have always known about your flaw, and I took advantage of it. I planted flower seeds on your side of the path, and every day while we walk back from the stream, you’ve watered them. For two years I have been able to pick these beautiful flowers to decorate my master’s table. Without you being just the way you are, he would not have this beauty to grace his house.”
72 comments:
I’m sure you’ll delete this, but I’ll do it anyway.
If you are really as open to questions as you claim, why not answer more of them? Perhaps the ones you’ve been dodging since November.
Craig, I answer your questions, over and over and over again. I restate them and strive to clarify when you don't understand the restatement.
I KNOW you don't see it, but I'm directly answering your questions, by and large. The very few I have not answered have been part of series of questions when, for instance, there are ten questions asked and I answer the first six and you don't understand any of THOSE answers, even after clarifications and corrections and, so, I abandon hope on answering the remaining four.
That you can't understand or see that I've answered questions is not an indication that I haven't answered them. Only that you have not understood the answer.
Good luck out there, but I can't devote any more time to you.
Now, I will ask you to keep your comments on the topic of a given post.
For instance, in THIS example, right here, right now, I answered your question.
For years and years, I've answered questions from you and friends like you. Most often, I've answered ALL questions asked of me. Quite often, multiple times, trying to get people to understand the answers.
Most often, those answers (and the subsequent clarifications) have gone misunderstood.
My liberal friends can read my answers and understand perfectly well what I've said and what I meant and, when you all mistake and misrepresent what I've said, they'll always say, "Where did THAT come from?! Since clearly, you didn't say it!"
On the other hand, I've had an extreme difficulty getting answers from our friends on the right. Direct, clear answers to the questions being asked (they'll often answer another, similar question, but not the one I asked).
It's a communication problem and I don't know how to fix it. If you honestly think that there are anything like a vast majority or even a sizable minority of questions asked of me that have gone unanswered, you are simply not understanding my answers.
When you keep asking in the VERY rare instances that I have not answered a question, even after I've explained why in those extremely rare instances WHY I didn't answer them (likely, "Because you didn't understand the first ten times I answered your other questions and I'm out of time to keep trying..."), that makes me wonder what you're failing to get.
If I have answered 500 questions from you, Craig (and without trying to count, I think that is EASILY a wild underestimate), and you have misunderstood ~400 of those answers, and you've actually asked 510 questions and the last ten questions were times I gave up... and you don't understand WHY I gave up and you ask in such a way as to imply that this is a regular occurrence, that is a serious communication problem that I don't know how to fix.
Peace.
If you'd like to ask one more question or so about this, I'll allow it, but seriously, I think we just have a communication gap that I've wearied of trying to bridge.
If your not going to answer the ones you haven’t, I see no reason to ask one more.
I’m just amazed that it’s always someone else’s fault with you.
Your behavior says so much more than the two comments of self justification.
3 questions you’ve dodged since November. Enough said.
Again, good luck to you in your life.
As to someone else's fault, I'm saying pretty clearly that WE are not communication. YOU are not understanding me, but WE are not communicating and I don't know how to fix it.
Now, if I were to ask my wife, my kids, my liberal/regular friends to read these interactions and they said repeatedly, "Dan, what you said IS confusing..." then I could blame me for that. But that is not the feedback I get. Rather, they are regularly and clearly just as confused as I am at your all's collective responses and the things you read into my words that simply aren't there.
I'm not making that up.
So, given the reality that conservatives on the internets routinely read my words and extract wrong meanings, or think that I haven't answered questions when I have, and that it's not a problem with everyone, just with conservatives on the internet, I'm writing it off to a communication problem that WE have, where you all misunderstand me routinely and I don't know how to help you understand.
What else should I do?
And before you answer, "If you'd ONLY answer those three questions (out of hundreds) that i asked back in November, THEN it would all be clear!" I'd ask you to think that through and see if you think it is a reasonable answer.
Peace.
I’m just posting this to make the point, and I’m doing it here because you’ve decreed that it must not be in the appropriate thread.
You claimed quite clearly that you had answered all of my questions in the previous thread. Yet, 30 seconds of searching and one copy/paste later we see the truth.
“But, to probe your example a little deeper, at what point does US property law begin? What makes US property law sovereign over Haitian law? In you no borders world does your hypothetical Haitian own the real estate (and with what rights is he endowed regarding that real estate) or does he just own the appurtenances? “
You always have self justifying excuses when you don’t answer and your made up “stats” get more egregious every time.
The communications problem just might have some to do with your inability to understand that if you don’t live up to the standards you demand of others, that they will follow your example not your demands.
3 questions,2+ months, 0 answers.
I’ll give you one thing. You did answer the “who is advocating for 100%”closed birders”, and your answer demonstrated that no one is doing what you claim.
Clearly answering the 3 questions you’ve been dodging would be a tiny show of good faith. But I can’t help but think that your intense desire to avoid answering, to dodge for months, indicates that you are concerned. I suspect that it’s possible that you realize that if you answer honestly it will undercut one of your narratives. It’s also possible that your too lazy or unmotivated to seek out the correct answers. Or it’s fear of losing face. I don’t know, but the amount of effort you’ve put in to dodging makes me wonder.
But, my expectations are low.
I'll play for a minute, Craig.
I've answered hundreds and hundreds of questions from conservatives over the years. I've answered, no doubt, hundreds of questions from you over the years. On what basis is it reasonable to say, "BUT, if you'd ONLY answer THESE THREE questions, THEN, it might be a tiny show of good faith..."? How is that reasonable?
I'm relatively confident that this is a question that you won't address or answer directly.
I've demonstrated good faith by answering hundreds of questions from you all ready.
But I will demonstrate this tiny bit of good faith by saying that if YOU show a tiny bit of good faith and copy and paste a question that you think I have not answered, right here, right now, I'll answer it. Even if I've already answered it a dozen times, I'll answer it again.
I already posted three, right here, right now that you didn’t answer from the previous thread. The fact that you ignored that, and tried this BS says plenty.
The fact that you’ve decided to misrepresent what I’ve been trying to do in pointing out the questions you’ve dodged since November, just adds to the barnyard smell.
Good faith, it seems, is not on your agenda.
Once again, my expectations for actual answers couldn’t be lower. This is so much more about pointing out your failure to live up to what you demand of others.
“How is that reasonable?“
What’s not reasonable is for you to try to suggest I’m asking for something I haven’t asked for.
My references to the questions you’ve dodged are merely to point out an incredibly obvious example of your lack of integrity.
You’ll note that the only time (after the first time I asked) where I asked for an answer was in my recent post where I pointed out that the answers to those questions might shed light on your actual grasp of the state of immigration law versus your narrative. I politely asked that you answer the questions before making any other comment. (Something you do frequently). Instead of showing the respect you could have, you chose to demand that I do whatever you wanted.
Since then, I’ve merely been pointing out the crappy example you set and your unwillingness to live by what you demand of others.
The fact that you needed to recast my words into something that I didn’t say in order to divert attention from your poor example, tells me enough.
BTW, what's your point in posting this crackpot story?
After six off topic screeds/spam (now deleted), Marshall asks a question on the topic of the post.
The point is, it's a good story. All of us have value. Our "flaws" aren't flaws, just differences and those differences can be celebrated, not loathed.
And Marshall, you should know that any time you post something that is off topic or otherwise inappropriate, I'm marking it as spam with blogger. I believe after a while, they will then block you, although I don't really know how that works. Should that happen and should you have an on topic comment that you'd like to offer, you can always email me and I can post it for you.
But spam will not stand. Continued off topic, cut and paste from elsewhere commentary will not stand. Attacks on people (other than me) will not stand. Epithets will not stand.
Those are the rules. Abide by them or get marked as spam and deleted.
So, you block comments on a post where they would be “on topic”, then threaten people with banishment when they post “off topic” on another thread.
Nice, your example of grace is inspiring.
Craig, on topic. You can't count on me continuing to allow you to make off topic comments. I may have to start marking your off topic rants as spam, too.
This is not an unreasonable request. Stay on topic.
If you'd like to take it up with me, this off topic nonsense, then you can email me.
Spam: disruptive online messages, especially commercial messages posted on a computer network or sent as email.
Spam will be blocked. This is a reasonable and necessary thing we have to do online, at times. If you don't want to be blocked as spam, all you have to do is post comments relative to the topic/post. Also, epithets will not be allowed. If you want to spew epithets at oppressed minority groups, you shouldn't, but can choose to do so at your own place.
If you do so here, you will be expected to apologize and that comment will be deleted and noted as spam.
As to the post, I didn't ask for the point of the story, which it seems you totally missed IMHO. I asked what was your point in posting it. Go back and read it again (who's misunderstanding who?). To be even more clear, what specifically compelled you to post it?
As to your interpretation of the story, our flaws are not to be celebrated. That's not the point, and that's a silly way to think. If I'm born with one leg, that's an absolute flaw by definition. It complicates my life tremendously in a host of ways. I can give you thousands of examples that supports this reality. How is my situation worthy of celebration specifically? Your response is patronizing and thus insulting (very much like your position in a very recent discussion) to one dealing with the ramifications of their flaw.
It is correct to say that a flawed person still possesses full value as a human being, a physical flaw having no bearing on one's value in that regard. But I see no such moral in the story.
No. The point is how we deal with our own flaws and our regard for ourselves and our own value as a human being because of them. The pot allowed its defect to dictate how it should feel about itself. It's about overcoming one's limitations, a goal toward which we seek to strive for the benefits to us inherent in doing so. It's what we teach our kids so that they don't use being short, near-sighted, not as attractive...yes,even one-legged and, dare I say it, mentally impaired...as an excuse to wallow in self pity rather than seeking self-improvement.
But to "celebrate" one's flaws (or even the flaws of others, like the cracked pot)? Not at all the point. Perhaps among your own flaws is a failure to select words most appropriate in promoting understanding by others, as well as difficulty in getting the point in what others hope to convey...neither of which is cause for celebration.
In any case, I never celebrate the flaws in others. I do celebrate when they overcome them.
WE are to be celebrated, whoever and however we are. That's the point of the story, as I read it.
Our flaws aren't flaws, just differences. And we can find the value in each of us as we are, whether we have what are perceived to be flaws by some small-minded people or not. Our diversity and differences make us great. That's another point of the story, as I read it.
And we can help one another if we are feeling "flawed," to recognize that we are more than our individual traits.
My work with people with differences tells me that we can celebrate our differences, even if some of our differences might be a challenge to us or to others. I think that we do better to recognize these differences as challenges, not flaws.
It is a flaw to be a bully, to be hypercritical, to oppress. But having a crack? Missing a limb? Being born without sight? These are just our circumstances, not our "flaws."
I think all of that is the point of the story.
I'd be wary in going around and suggesting that people are "flawed" if that's what you're suggesting. That only causes harm and oppression of others.
A PERCEIVED "flaw" is not a flaw if that's just how you are. "Flaws" are those things one might embrace which might cause harm to others.
Seems to me and those with whom I work in this field.
"Our flaws aren't flaws, just differences."
This is dishonest regardless of how well intended. Our flaws are flaws. That's a fact. There are none to be celebrated because they are indeed flaws. Flaws are not good things. They are flaws, defects...from Merriam-Webster"
"1 a : a defect in physical structure or form
a diamond with a flaw
b : an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness"
Here's an very relevant example MW gives as well:
"that crack has flawed the vase to the extent that its value in the antiques market is greatly reduced"
It does no good to ignore the reality of one's flaws or the flaws of others. You pretend there is some significant distinction between character flaws and physical flaws, rejecting one and "celebrating" the other. It's absurd. At least character flaws can be corrected by mere force of will. Physical flaws have a far more profound effect on the lives of the flawed regardless of sappy and meaningless platitudes about "celebration" and "diversity". I shudder at the thought that people like you exist in a field where fact, truth and reality is so important. One needn't lie about reality in order to help those with flaws of any kind.
And as to "going around and suggesting that people are "flawed"", it's not something I'm prone to doing. I will, however, continue to point out yours, as this habit of suggesting the worst about your opponents simply because they speak truthfully and with boldness (the only way to resolve ANY issue, including how to deal with flaws) is abhorrent and one more example of how "embracing grace" is just a bludgeon to you, not an actual "thing" you practice. A horrible flaw indeed.
Acknowledging flaws is not in any way akin to being "hypercritical". It is, as I've said, dealing in reality honestly. You're just perpetuating the current "flaw" in leftist character regarding "safe spaces" and "triggers". I much prefer the "give it to me straight...I can take it" attitude and celebrate that as a laudable trait flawed people would do well to adopt...as would everyone.
And clearly I'm not encouraging one should "embrace" flaws. Ignoring them results in far more harm that seeing them for what they are.
And indeed, even with your nonsensical, feel-good approach, you're not ignoring flaws at all. You're just dealing with them in a far less effective manner than accepting their existence and going from there.
Here's another flaw of yours: "Our diversity and differences make us great." Perpetuating this foolishness without supporting evidence that it is in any way true does far more harm by assuming all differences (particularly cultural) are of equal value and benefit. That's certainly not a lesson of the story in any way. (Still another flaw of yours: injecting meanings that please you into stories or teachings where such meanings are neither present or intended)
I think a better way to look at your base example, is that the crack in the vase means it can’t fulfill the purpose it was designed and intended for. It’s purpose was to hold flowers and water, not to be a valuable antique.
Of course, it’s not a good analogy to people (I know it wasn’t yours), because people’s flaws don’t necessarily preclude them from fulfilling the purpose for which we’re design and created. In fact (like the man born blind), our flaws may be the means to further the purpose for which we were designed and created.
Vase example. Doing this on a phone can be a pain.
it’s not a good analogy to people (I know it wasn’t yours), because people’s flaws don’t necessarily preclude them from fulfilling the purpose for which we’re design and created
THIS is pretty close to what I think the point of the story is.
Our "flaws" (i.e., that which some people say our are flaws, or that we may think of as our flaws) do not define us. Our disabilities are not who we are.
Marshall, I suspect that you're operating under a mistaken notion that I'm speaking of coddling those with disabling conditions. I'm not. That would be ridiculous.
Here's the thing:
People with disabilities are part of a historically oppressed, maligned and ignored group. They've been told by history, by society, by individuals, by circumstances, by the State and sometimes by themselves that they are "flawed," "sick," infirm, incapable, limited, broken and otherwise not worthy of jobs, lives, love, participation and/or inclusion with "normal" people.
They are normal. They are worthy. They are us.
All of us have "flaws," inabilities, disabilities. If not now, one day.
The point is, we are not defined by our inabilities.
In the disabled world, there is VAST majority who have not been able to get jobs, or who've gotten jobs and failed at them and were fired, reinforcing the Message that they are flawed and incapable.
My job is to help adults with disabling conditions to get jobs. Their struggle is only partially with their disabling conditions (they do that day in and day out and kill it, by and large, thank you very much). The larger problem is that those with disabilities have been socially devalued. They are flawed and incapable, that's the message they're told all the time and what they see all the time.
To overcome this actual disability (i.e., society and people and sometimes themselves seeing them as "flawed") we have to work to change the notion that they ARE flawed. Their disabilities do not define them.
They are fighters. They are social justice warriors. They are problem solvers. They are determined. They are brilliant in the areas where they are brilliant. They are strong. They are determined. And... they have a disability. But that is not what defines them.
This story, I think, points to the notion that we can be those who walk along side those who can benefit from someone walking alongside them, helping them to find their strengths, their contributions, that which they CAN do, rather than that which they can't do.
It's about empowering people and changing the world to make room for those whose great and tremendous gifts may not be apparent to everyone.
That's how I see it.
"Marshall, I suspect that you're operating under a mistaken notion that I'm speaking of coddling those with disabling conditions"
No, I'm pretty sure I'm saying that you're patronizing them with all this talk of celebrating their flaws, or that their flaws don't define them, or that flaws aren't flaws but just differences...as if a disabled person is just a dude with different color hair or a chick from Jersey. Patronizing is condescending and it is deceitful to suggest in any way that one's flaw is not a flaw. If it wasn't, then you wouldn't be needed to help the find jobs. The flaw is a serious and real impediment. It limits what jobs are available to a person. It limits them in many more ways than employment.
As far as "being defined" by it, that's a waste of time altogether for anyone regardless of whether or not one is whole or flawed. I can't even stand the expression. But when one's limitations prevents employment, the employer isn't "defining" them. He's stating the obvious: you won't be able to perform the tasks I require and therefore I have no job to offer you. People deal with this form of rejection all the time even without certified disability.
And all of this is completely separate from their worth/value as a human being. They aren't less of a human being because of their flaw(s). The disabled should not regard themselves as such and THAT'S what I believe the story is really saying.
Yet, they are indeed flawed and there's no point, no benefit in pretending otherwise. The task is to determine how one can still be useful in order to provide for one's self in spite of one's limitations. Part of that is accepting that, depending upon one's limitations, for many jobs out there the disabled applicant is indeed incapable. Again, that's absolutely NOT a disability on the part of the employer. It's reality.
I feel for such people. My own limitations may one day prevent me from holding certain jobs (be I so unfortunate as to still need one at that point). Simply getting older might be all that does it (thus I seek to stay in shape---not succeeding at present). I don't "define myself" as old. I merely accept that I am and move on from there. (Of course, I don't "define" myself)
As an aside, I would encourage you to consider suggesting to those you seek to help to use whatever free time they can to study the markets. One needn't have legs, eyes, ears or both lungs to make money in the markets. One can start small, even using paper money until confidence is built, and it won't have to interfere with whatever job one is able to find in the meantime. It's something I'm working toward as I get older so that I'm not a burden on my family when actually working for a living is more difficult. And of course, the younger the disabled, the more time the disabled has to make this work. There are tons of ways to get the info, including free things like libraries. Multiple streams of income is a worthy goal for anyone, but I would posit it is more the case for the disabled.
It does no good to ignore the reality of one's flaws or the flaws of others.
1. No one is suggesting ignoring the reality of disabilities. Least of all, those with disabilities and those who support them.
2. However, it does, in fact, do good to be astute and discerning about how we use words. People with disabling conditions have been historically devalued and dismissed. Telling them "you are flawed, you are sick, you are not working right" does not lead to conditions for success in their lives... and NOT because it hurts their feelings.
Research shows that devaluing people (and that can happen by way of actively dismissing them because they are "flawed" or disabled AND it can happen by treating them like children - "Oh, God bless him! He's just God's little angel!") contributes to this population being devalued in the larger population. Being devalued makes it more difficult - sometimes, nearly impossible, to get jobs or take meaningful part in society at large.
Taking actions like this person in the story is, i think (and research shows), the better approach. NOT ignoring the crack, the disability... NOT pretending like it isn't there... NOT dismissing it as "not able to use it for its purpose because it's flawed..." but rather, finding a way to show that they have real strengths and assets, and embracing the assets, NOT the "flaws..."
Using language like "flawed" is, it seems to me, a way of dismissing and keeping these folks down, rather than treating them like equals, ready for greatness.
The flaw is a serious and real impediment.
Research into this topic suggests that, while there certainly are challenges one faces with whatever weaknesses one may have, the greater impediment to people with disabilities is being devalued, treated as if they are flawed.
Research Social Role Valorization some, Marshall, then let's talk.
In the meantime, while you are free to think whatever you want to think, I know that the research shows that devaluing people is actually, physically and societally harmful. I believe that you calling them "flawed" is likely contributing to the problem, even if in a small way.
I will ask you not to use that term here ever again. I insist.
Dan, thank you so much for living up to my expectations. I appreciate it. It the one thing your consistent at.
The reality shows that you're teaching them to feel devalued because somebody used a word. I would teach them the truth...that they can choose how to feel.
Again, take it up with research. Or better yet, befriend some folks and start helping them integrate more naturally with society at large.
The reality is that many of our friends with disabilities already feel devalued and it is only worse because society actually devalues them and that leads in a vicious circle to them being devalued, making it more difficult to get plugged into jobs and mainstream life, which causes society to devalue them and them to feel devalued.
It's more about society, Marshall, than these men and women. They're plenty tough, by and large. No thanks to people who do things that devalue them in society's eyes.
They can and do choose how to feel all the time. But that doesn't pay the bills. That doesn't ease with making friends and joining in with society at large. How society deals with them is a very real factor in their lives that is out of their control and, thus, it behooves us to encourage society at large to do better.
Thanks for your thoughts, nonetheless.
By the way, Marshall, how many years (hours?) have you worked with disabled people? How much research have you done on the topic?
I'm fine with you having your own opinions, but it really does pay to consider the testimony of the people in question themselves, as well as experts in the field.
I don't need to work with them like a counselor, therapist or social justice warrior. Is it not enough to live and work along side them? Are you going to suggest that it isn't enough to get a handle on what works and what doesn't? Get over yourself.
Well you’re right about society devaluing people, for example with Down’s Syndrome, that’s a group of people who bear God’s image who are given virtually zero value by much of society.
That's true, Craig. Especially by the left who are known to support abortion "rights" for the purpose of killing them before they're born.
At the same time, there's a huge difference between value as a human being versus value to an employer. People are hired based on their value to the employer, not simply because they are human beings. This is true regardless of whether or not one is disabled. During my way too long years of unemployment after a layoff back in '08, I don't recall my self-image suffering due to the fact that the many companies to which I applied failed to see the value in hiring me over those they chose instead. I simply kept applying. For whatever reason one is able to perform to the satisfaction of an employer, that simply means the applicant provides insufficient value to that particular employer. That anyone, regardless of ability level, would take such rejection as a slight on their value as a human being suggests another issue altogether on the part of the rejected...not on society.
That should read: "for whatever reason one is UNable to perform to the satisfaction of an employer..." but you knew that.
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.
Marshall, at this point, I'm guessing you just don't realize how vile, loathsome, oppressive and disgusting your words are, how cowardly and cravenly you portray yourself when you attack people you don't even know, people with disabling conditions that you feel free to spit upon. I'm guessing maybe you've got some problems yourself, because adult rational people who are not monsters don't just attack complete strangers with the filth that you use on a regular basis.
I don't know how to explain your words. But at this point, I don't care. I'm just asking you to not comment on any more posts where the topic touches on people with disabilities or other historically oppressed minorities. You do not appear to be able to consistently talk on these topics without being offensive and oppressive in the most vile and excrement-filled manner. So, just don't comment on those sorts of topics.
Maybe, after a few months of you behaving, I could reconsider, but for now, just don't do it. Although, an apology for at least commenting in ways you didn't recognize you were doing might be a starting point.
I deleted the offending comment and will delete any further comments from you, Marshall. Short of a very sincere apology.
I will address your other comments, just because it might be helpful to someone.
Are you going to suggest that it isn't enough to get a handle on what works and what doesn't? Get over yourself.
I am a believer in expertise, Marshall. I'm a believer in research and data. Yeah, maybe if someone's having a heart attack, maybe I might have some ideas about cuts I could make in his chest and massaging the heart or shocking it with an electric current, but that would be insane to enter into such serious matters from a place of basic ignorance.
That I work with doctors does not make me qualified to be a doctor. That I work around sick people does not make me qualified to diagnose them or know what's best for them.
I believe in expert opinion. I think all reasonable people should agree.
I'm not talking about my opinion, so there's no "myself" to get over. I'm talking about the experts in the field of Social Role Valorization, who've researched how best to help those with disabling conditions. Dr Wolf Wolfensberger, Mark Gold, John O'Brien, etc, etc, have dedicated decades into research and examination of the actual data.
They're not just some guys who happen to know a guy in a wheelchair. They're experts.
Now, that's not to dismiss anyone's anecdotal experience as entirely irrelevant, it's just to keep things in balance.
For instance, your instincts that we ought not coddle those with disabilities is exactly right. I'm not talking about coddling. I'm talking about changing our practices so we're not participating in oppressing. There's a difference.
You wouldn't say to the wrongfully imprisoned person in a concentration camp, "Oh, just get over that torture! Toughen up, you wimp..." Not unless you're a great moral idiot.
Craig...
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.
Yes, that's what this is about, it's what I'm talking about. Tailoring jobs to fit people's abilities is smart (according to research) regardless of whether we have disabilities or not. It's beneficial to the company and the person and society. It's not charity, it's wisdom, it's justice.
Here's a place to start reading what the experts have to say about working for positive change in societies and on Social Role Valorization...
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=n14-2xhMz2cC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=social+role+valorization+conference+reading&ots=cjhxT7Oy0c&sig=YmL-Ynu8vRHqlHVEtPf2e6cDkOc#v=onepage&q=social%20role%20valorization%20conference%20reading&f=false
And Marshall, should you not understand, I'll repeat: No more commenting on any posts that touch on any historically oppressed minorities. Period. Not until you can at least apologize, as a starting place.
Comments ON topics that don't touch on oppressed minorities will be allowed if you behave. You are not allowed on this thread any more.
Any questions and you can email me. Any comments will be deleted and marked as spam. If you get enough of those, blogger will treat all comments from you as spam and they will be blocked, I believe.
Just to be clear, are you suggesting that any and all devaluation of those with any and all disabilities is wrong in any and all circumstances? Is all devaluation created equal, or are some types of devaluation more heinous than others?
I'm saying that devaluation of people who are already at risk of being devalued/oppressed is wrong and should be watched out for. It's also natural... it's natural in human nature to be wary of "the other," especially if "the other" is significantly different than us.
But, for instance, as a white middle class man who holds a job, has an education and a well-rounded family and communities of support, if someone devalues me or my "type" specifically, it's not nearly so impactful as if someone devalues a person of color, a poor person, a person with disabilities.
We might consider it "social capital..." Some people are societally starting off with more social capital and can afford to "spend" or have some "taken" from us. Others are starting with less and can ill afford a single loss.
In a more direct answer: Yes, it's always wrong and should be avoided, but it is especially heinous when directed towards those with less social capital/who are more at-risk/vulnerable.
Does that answer your question?
While I fail to see why you couldn’t have just given the simple direct answer without taking shots at Art, your assurance that you agree that any and all devaluation of human life in any and all circumstances is wrong.
This might be too much, but can I assume that you’d agree that such devaluation is objectively wrong no matter what the reason for that devaluation.
In other words, are you saying that there are zero circumstances where it less than objectivity wrong to devalue people.
There were no shots at Marshall. Not sure what you even perceived to be a shot.
To your question...
but can I assume that you’d agree that such devaluation is objectively wrong no matter what the reason for that devaluation.
It's wrong. I'm not sure how you'd prove it's objectively wrong, but it's reasonably wrong.
Now, having said that, if I disagree strongly with/fight/stand against and perhaps even occasionally mock those who oppress or cause harm to others, some might say that's devaluing. I'd say that's different, but even there, we ought be careful. The men and women who supported the Nazis/who were the Nazis, they weren't monsters. Just confused humans.
But in such cases, we have an obligation to be sure to stand on the side of the oppressed, and that wasn't the Nazis.
In other words, are you saying that there are zero circumstances where it less than objectivity wrong to devalue people.
Yes, to "devalue" them. But see above for my caveat: If we are fighting oppressors, we will likely sometimes use strong, condemning language towards the oppressive nature and acts of those people. In such cases, always land on the side of the oppressed.
Thanks. Sorry for additional questions, but I’m trying to understand.
To clarify, I’m using “devalue” in a way consistent with the context of this thread. I’m speaking specifically of those with disabilities, and no one else.
With that clarification, I assume that you would agree that there are zero circumstances where it is not wrong to devalue those with “disabilities”, am I correct?
I’ve been pretty clear why I believe in the intrinsic value of all humans, but I’m curious about your rationale. What specifically gives people with disabilities equal intrinsic value to people without disabilities.
Caveat: It could be argued on some level that we all have some level of disability or something similar. When I speak about disabilities I’m talking about physical or mental issues that prevent people from functioning “normally” regarding the tasks of life. I’m trying to navigate the terminology issue in good faith.
Yes it's wrong to devalue those with disabilities and if you're slowly trying to work your way to It's wrong to abort fetuses with Down Syndrome, let me save you some time and say, yes, I think that's a wrong or bad reason to choose to have an abortion. Period.
Dan
I’m curious about your rationale. What specifically gives people with disabilities equal intrinsic value to people without disabilities.
Because they're human beings, created in the image of God, I believe.
Because all humans are valid, wonderful, and to be valued (whether or not one believes in God) because I believe in the innate value of humanity, as I believe in the innate value of all the world.
Because history has shown the catastrophic results that comes from devaluing some segment of humanity - slavey, rape, women and children as chattel, the Holocaust, the oppression of black folk, of gay folk, of the disabled... and I believe such results create a more hellish world for us all, so it is only rational to support the innate value of humanity.
Does that answer your question?
It could be argued on some level that we all have some level of disability or something similar. When I speak about disabilities I’m talking about physical or mental issues that prevent people from functioning “normally” regarding the tasks of life.
This is part of the answer, I think, in why to value all people. We all will likely have some form of disability either now or eventually. My parents for instance, who were very healthy and able bodied all their lives, reached a time where they became increasingly troubled with disabilities. It is in our own interests, therefore, to value all people, because to devalue those with disabilities is to devalue our own selves, likely, at some point. Or, if not us, then almost certainly, someone we know and love.
The Golden Rule, and all that.
It does seem that killing unborn children who might have Down’s or some other disability is pretty much the ultimate form of devaluation.
But, I have to ask, is that aft “wrong” or is it just your opinion that it’s a “bad idea”?
Which raises the obvious question. Is abortion ever not “wrong” or not a “bad idea”?
Short of time I’ll addres the rest later.
This is not a post on abortion, I'll thank you to save that for another day.
But I will affirm that, in my opinion, to opt for abortion for reasons of devaluations (i.e., I don't want a girl, a don't want a kid with a disability, I don't want a gay kid... - if that were determinable), are not legitimate and, in my opinion, wrong.
I don't think that we can know that fetus = fully human, in the sense of rights and all, BUT, to opt for an abortion for reasons of devaluation (I don't want a kid with a disability) has impacts upon the rest of humanity. That is, to opt for an abortion of a fetus with Down Syndrome devalues existing people who happen to have Down Syndrome among their other qualities.
Make sense.
I'll allow one more response on this, if you wish Craig, but I don't want to go down the abortion road in this post.
Marshall respectfully wrote me an email where he raised some of his concerns in a rather respectful manner, so thanks to him for that. I'll like deal with some of his questions in that email soon.
I just realized something and would appreciate some clarity before I invest significantly more time here.
When describing the “devaluation” of the “disabled”, you’ve used the term “wrong” multiple times, you’ve referred to Art’s as being “vile, loathsome, oppressive, etc”, but it would help if you could clarify the following.
Are you claiming that it is “wrong” in a real, objective sense to “devalue” those with “disabilities”? Are you claiming that Art’s words are really, objectively “vile, loathsome, etc”?
Or, are you simply expressing your opinion, or your personal belief that those things are “wrong or vile or oppressive”?
You’ve given enough equivocal answeres to open the door, so I’d appreciate reasonably short, direct, unequivocal answers to the questions above.
Thanks.
You’re right, it’s not about abortion, it’s become about “devaluation”. Yet, what could be more devaluing than to abort a human being because there is a chance of a disability.
Your response really captures the reason for my last comment.
It is my opinion that it is wrong to use some words that Marshall used to describe those with disabilities. It is my opinion that it is wrong to devalue people.
However, that opinion is based upon solid data-based research on what happens when people are devalued, how it negatively affects lives, even shortens lives.
So, because of the real world measurable harmful results of devaluation, I hold the opinion that it is therefore, wrong to use words that devalue those with disabilities.
Do you agree that it is wrong to devalue the disabled?
Do you agree that using some words that have and are used to devalue those with disabilities is, therefore, wrong?
I think reasonable people can reach the same opinions, even if they're not objectively provable.
I'm confused, is it your opinion, or is it wrong?
I've been quite clear that it's wrong to devalue any human being, but in this case specifically the disabled.
It should follow, that if something is wrong, then it's wrong whatever the means are.
Yes, they can. But you appear to be claiming that one of two situations exist.
1. There is no objective right or wrong, it's all just consensus and opinion.
2. There is objective right or wrong, but in this particular instance you aren't willing to commit to actually arguing for anything but your opinion.
It is my opinion that it is wrong. I can't prove objectively that it is wrong - nor can you - but I think, given the data and common ground understanding of basic morality, that it is clearly reasonably wrong.
Do you disagree?
Do you agree that you can't prove that it's wrong, objectively? Or do you think you can?
Dan
Craig...
you appear to be claiming that one of two situations exist.
1. There is no objective right or wrong, it's all just consensus and opinion...
A third option, at least, exists...
3. Objective right and wrong DO exist, but unfortunately, none of us can prove it on any given point definitively, authoritatively...
and...
3a. NONETHELESS, right and wrong is NOT so difficult to assess and agree upon in rational circles, beginning with the notion that we not maliciously cause harm to others.
Which is to say that, while we can't objectively prove "right or wrong" on any given condition, we can agree well enough on some basic parameters of morality to be able to exist and co-exist on this planet.
======
I feel like we've gone down this road before, but let me try here (just a time or two, as we're off topic here) again:
A. Do you think that you can prove objectively what is and isn't moral on all topics?
B. Do you think you can prove objectively what is and isn't moral on some subset of topics?
C. If so, what is that subset and what is your reasoning that would cause you to make this claim?
~Dan
Ok, so since your just expressing opinions, you’ve set up your usual unassailable position.
A. I don’t believe that every topic can be divided into those two categories.
B. I have seen enough to believe that it is provable to any reasonable person.
C. I’m completely comfortable with the fact that there are plenty of philosophers who have made reasonable compelling cases.
I’m not going to make those cases here because this is a horrible place to make those sorts of arguments, and because you’ve never shown any interest in actually seriously considering any thing outside of your box.
The problem is, that you’re not being honest. Your claiming that something is “wrong”, when you mean “in my opinion this is wrong”.
Once, you clarify that your simply expressing your opinion, the conversation becomes pointless.
Re: "never shown any interest..." This wrong, of course. I would really love to be able to say "we know objectively that it is good and godly for gay people to get married, or to not participate in war..." or whatever the topic may be.
I'm very much interested in morality, and talk on morality all the time... I've just never seen anyone make a case for objectively demonstrably authoritative moral opinions. By all means, prove it! Please.
So, your answer on B is, Yes, on SOME subjects, we can objectively prove what is moral, as a point of fact... But... You're unwilling to do so OR to provide the List of Knowable Moral Points...
So, readers should just take your word for it?
And if you can't/won't here, why not do it on your own blog? Is the administrator there hostile to proof there, too?
Thank you for your opinions.
Dan
you clarify that your simply expressing your opinion, the conversation becomes pointless.
As you have done?
For myself, and many others, we think we can form REASONABLE opinions that ARE opinions but which reasonably make the case that you shouldn't harm others, you shouldn't oppress the disabled, etc. Thus, I don't think the conversation is pointless at all.
Perhaps only for those who insist that only that which can be proven is worthy of consideration, but then, when they can't prove anything, then TO THEM, their own opinions are, in your estimation, "pointless." Given the measure that you are advocating here, your points are pointless.
I (and many, maybe most others) don't measure things by your unproven opinions. And that's probably good.
Again, thanks for your (in your estimation, pointless) opinions. Come back if you have anything on topic to say or, should you do the reasonable and make your unproven case on your blog, be sure to let me know.
I’m not going to do it because it’s a waste of my time, I’d point you toward resources, but you’ve not ever looked seriously at one resource I’ve given you, so I’ll not waste any more time.
The problem with your construct, is that as long as morality is based on opinion and societal consensus or coercion, there is room for anyone to form the opposit opinion, and by your standards their opinion is just as valid.
You’ve moved from it’s “wrong”, to “in my opinion, it’s a bad choice”, and once you do that you don’t have any grounds to pass judgment on anyone else.
When confronted with the ultimate in devaluation of the disabled (killing them because they might possibly have some degree of disability) the other response you can muster is that in your “opinion” it’s s “bad choice”, you’re more worked up and angry because Art said “rxxxxd”, than you are about entire contrived eradicating those who might have disabilities. As far as I’m concerned the disparity of your response demonstrates a complete lack of ability to make moral judgments.
Of course, you can’t really say anything else because you have multiple countries whose people have agreed that it’s not only moral, it’s beneficial, to rid their societies of people with disabilities.
Art is “vile, loathsome, and oppressive” because he used the term “txxxxd”, but slaughtering those who might possibly be disabled is merely a “bad choice”. You can’t even demonstrate any actual harm caused by Art’s use of “rxxxxd”, but you’re going to get all bent about it.
Your spineless retreat behind subjective, opinion driven morality, while trying to impose your opinions on others is pathetic.
Here’s my response to your challenge. I’ll do a post on the objective nature of morality, right, and wrong if you do the following.
1. Pick one point from any of the resources I provided you on the origins issue and write a specific detailed response demonstrating what’s wrong with the point, article, or book.
2. Answer the three questions you’ve been dodging since November and the unanswered questions from this post and the last post.
That would convince me you are intetested in actually wanting to take anything I would post seriously and respond with more than “I’m not convinced”.
Your call, I’ve got quite a full plate and don’t want to waste time as I have in the past with you.
1. I have no idea on what you're talking about and no real interest in debating science with you, if that's what you're speaking about.
If you're speaking about science, I believe you're probably on the wrong side of science, as it is accepted by most experts.
You can always prove that all the experts are wrong on your blog, if you want.
2. I've answered your questions. You don't understand the answers.
You made a claim and didn't support it, because you almost certainly can't support it. That's on you.
Now, no more on this. I gave you the chance to make your case and you can't. That conversation is over.
On topic commentary, please. Other off topic comments will be deleted.
Craig, you now have one task: You made a ridiculous claim that you can't possibly prove and you are insisting that it is objective fact. Your one task, either here or on your own blog, is to support that claim. Before you comment off topic here further, that is your task.
All other comments will be deleted. Not because I'm "threatened" (threatened? By your inability to even try to support a claim that you can't?? Not even reasonable...). Not because I'm angry. It's simply because you've devolved down into little more than random attacks about things that aren't true and that you can't support, along with snide remarks, along with vague and unsupported claims, repeated over and over.
On the topic of the post, we appear to agree, it's wrong to devalue people (although your vague and indirect responses make it difficult to determine for sure), but agreeing is not enough. You still insist on repeated rather silly and ridiculous little attacks.
It's boring and boorish, Craig.
You have your task. Do it or not, I don't care, but you can't comment here on this thread until you support your claim or admit that you can't, ideally with a bit of humility and an apology.
You're done here.
In an email sent to me about Social Role Valorization methodology I've advocated (link to an article somewhere above), Marshall said...
" I had a hard time pinning down just what this theory thinks it is accomplishing, despite what it hopes to. It sounds very much like the old "society is to blame" crap that criminals used to say to rationalize their behavior (though I'm not saying it is an exact representation)."
What SRV is noting includes these realities:
1. For those with disabling conditions, especially conditions that are more severe or impactive in how they limit the person, life tends to be very limited. It tends to look like this:
1A. They attend school in some fashion, often in a self-contained room or a self-contained school of others with highly impactive disabilities.
1B. They too often don't tend to get a very strenuous or helpful education, and too often, it's just a holding place for them to safely hang out/congregate with others. This is not at all to blame the teachers (I was one of them, once upon a time), who are doing all they can with the limited resources and time they can... it's more of how things are structured.
1C. They complete high school, having mostly hung out with others with impactive disabilities, and oftentimes move to Adult Day Programs, where they are congregated again with others with very impactive disabilities. They tend to remain in these ADPs until they die, and they tend to die sadder, lonelier and earlier than they should have.
1D. Sometimes, these activities that take place are helpful and good - they receive Occupational and Physical Therapy, they receive some trainings and coaching. Sometimes, they go on "field trips" out into the "real world," but mostly, they stay at these programs.
1E. SRV says that they've been devalued to the point we (society) thinks, "well, this is good enough. At least they're not sitting home alone (which is right and good) and they're not institutionalized (which is right and good) and we don't really know what else to do. Besides, they might feel better being amongst 'others like them' and they can't really compete or get along out in the 'real world...'"
2. SRV notes that there are no bad guys in this scenario. The ADPs and their staff do not go into this work with anything but noble and good ideals and efforts and this ADP way IS an improvement over what happened prior to the 1950s.
3. SRV says, rather, that, just like we improved on the Institutionalization Model of treating those with highly impactive disabilities by moving to the ADP model, we can improve on that by going to the SRV model. This model asks, What would WE want if we were in that situation? Of course, one can make friends with others who also have disabilities, but isn't forcing that upon people a limitation that we would not want for ourselves?
4. What WE would want would typically be to be as active, included and engaged in the community as possible. And that is what SRV looks to accomplish and has a track record of accomplishing.
cont'd...
5. Instead of spending hours each week in a Day Program with coloring in some adult coloring books while waiting for your turn with bathroom assistance, then waiting for your turn for your ride back to the group home where you live with other adults with disabilities, you...
5a. Have your own home you live in, with assistance as needed.
5b. Get up in the morning (with assistance from a room mate, if needed - the roommate maybe getting reduced or free rent in trade for some assistance as needed), get ready for the day and then...
5c. You go to work (perhaps on the city transportation, or perhaps on your own vehicle, if you're making enough money)
5d. ...At a meaningful and valued job, at the library, for instance (and ideally, not merely emptying garbage cans, but a higher valued job that uses your better skills - maybe answering questions about where to find books or resources, or maybe reading books to kids...)
5e. and then you eat lunch with co-workers (maybe having someone temporarily give assistance, as needed, if needed), and working the rest of the day...
5f. and then going to a church meeting or a neighborhood association meeting, where you contribute your energy and ideas to this group of colleagues...
6. and, like that. In other words, live as normal a life for them as conditions allow.
SRV says that this is possible and do-able as an alternative model, even for those with very impactive disabilities.
For instance, (giving a composite fictional example, representative of people living with the SRV model) one person is in a wheelchair and not able to speak. They have limited use of their hands, and the most they can do is tilt their head to the right, allowing them to hit a button which can then be programmed (assuming that we help acquire and implement the technology, which they can't do themselves) to let them operate a computer.
In the past, this person (whose brain works much more typically than their body) would be sitting in a day program all day long, then returning home to the group home in the evening, then waking up and starting over.
But now, they live in their own home with a roommate. They hold regular gatherings for their neighborhood, hosting (with the assistance of paid staff) evening drinks and snacks on a monthly basis, giving them a chance to meet and get to know and be friends with their neighbors. This person might also work at the library, "reading" stories to kids by hitting the button next to their head so that a computer voice reads the next page in a book. The kids at the library LOVE having this person in a wheelchair who can't talk read to them these stories, they love the computer voice. It's a novelty. It's something that the person in the chair is bringing to the table.
And by doing that, the person in the chair is in a valued, not a devalued role, of Library Assistant, Neighbor, Reader, Child Care worker. The kids are benefiting because they are growing up unafraid of people in chairs who can't talk "normally," their world is expanded - as are their families' worlds - because this person in a chair is a valued part of the community.
That's what SRV is working for and accomplishing. And here's the thing: The person in this scenario who is going to the ADP is costing tax payer dollars. So is the person living a more normal life. BUT, the person who is living a more normal life is also contributing, working, paying their own way, at least partially (and yes, doing the SRV may cost more - SOMETIMES - than the ADP model, sometimes, it costs less, because these people are getting jobs and making their own money). So it's a good trade-off all the way around.
It makes the world a better place.
AND, as those kids grow up seeing the person in the chair as socially valued, rather than devalued, then the next generation is more and more likely to give chances to those with disabilities, to make room for those with differences. And that increasingly makes the world a better place.
Precisely because we are socially VALUING people as valued members of society, rather than devaluing them with terms of denigration and limitation.
If that doesn't answer your question or if you have follow up questions, Marshall, you can email me.
You two are saying you want to comment here.
I'm fine with you commenting here.
But, you've both crossed a line and I've put some conditions down for you.
Marshall, you've used words and terminology that I find to be oppressive. I've asked you to apologize and promise to refrain from using that language again here. You don't even have to agree, you just have to do it, if you want to comment here.
Apologize or not, I don't care, but it's a condition to comment here.
Craig, you've made an astounding claim - that there are those areas where you have perfect knowledge and can't be mistaken (or however you'd phrase it) on some vague and unidentified list of topics. I'm saying you need to support this claim or admit that you can't before you comment here.
This is important. This presumption of holding perfect knowledge is the problem with the fundamentalists of the world. They appear to be true believers in THEIR belief that they know God's will perfectly on some topics, objectively as a fact, when they can't support the claim and, for the most part, don't even try. This arrogance is what makes fundamentalists dangerous and it's why I'm insisting you support it (and you literally can't) or back down and admit you misspoke before you comment at least on this thread, where the claim was made.
Do it or not, I don't care, but you can't comment here until you admit your error (or prove you are correct).
And just to be clear, here is Craig's claim that he needs to support...
I had asked...
B. Do you think you can prove objectively what is and isn't moral on some subset of topics?
C. If so, what is that subset and what is your reasoning that would cause you to make this claim?
Craig answered...
B. I have seen enough to believe that it is provable to any reasonable person.
C. I’m completely comfortable with the fact that there are plenty of philosophers who have made reasonable compelling cases.
Craig believes that he can "prove" some vague and undefined list of moral arguments as objective fact to a reasonable person. And yet, he hasn't and won't do it. This is because he can't do it.
I am a reasonable person. The people I attend church with are reasonable people. He can't prove it to us.
What he's trying to do is what fundamentalists always try to do: Claim they have the facts on some vague unsupported and undefined list of "moral facts," and if you disagree with them, then you're either evil, deluded by the devil or not reasonable.
It's a safe way of self-affirming your position as fact (ie, "I can prove it to all who agree with me..."), but it's not rationally sound. It is, indeed, a fallacy.
What Craig needs to do, then, is provide his list of moral arguments he can prove to any and all reasonable people as objective facts, then prove them.
He can't.
How about you define what, in your opinion, would constitute an adequate level of proof.
I've done what I said could be done, I've offered a case for objective morality. I've chosen one not grounded in a theistic point of view, so that it denies you the ability to play the "the Bible isn't a rule book" card.
I'm eagerly awaiting your demonstration that the case is objectively wrong.
I assume I'll be waiting a long time.
FYI, what I’ve done is what I said I could do. It’s not your perversion of what I said I could do. I’m not sure I expect that you’ll grasp the distinction, but I’ve posted my actual words to help you navigate those waters.
Post a Comment