Cruelty
Offline ....Okay: Who can honestly claim that they did not laugh at the above video?
Perhaps not happily, I'll admit that had me in fits of laughter (...a few other ones too that came-up during a Skype conversation; I'll avoid posting them all as, while I don't mind damaging my character, completely obliterating it isn't something I'm game for just yet).
Why do we do this? Why do we laugh at such horrendous deformities? I'd like to think that there's more to it than the old mentality of 'putting someone down to make myself feel better', given that I have no contact with the girl in order to put her down yet still found the visage itself funny (for whatever morbid reason). Are certain shapes and distortions just 'funny' to humans, like the emotional evokations of certain sounds? Is there a specific advantage we used to glean from amusing ourselves with the ostracization of the deformed? Is it some combination of the two things?
Moreover... is there a strategy for defeating this kind of reaction? I'm not particularly proud of finding amusement in another's physical deformation (and the 'lulz' comments laid thereupon).
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
Then again, there's another side to this coin too.
...Someday I may found an organization called, 'Put them to sleep, you selfish fucks!'
In a modern civilization where the alleged goal of government is the minimization of personal suffering/injury and the enablement of personal security, we should most definately be humanely euthanizing (Nitrogen Asphyxiation is totally sensationless) these unfortunate souls. They will never lead a normal social life, most will endure constant pain and, frankly, say what you will - it's laughable that anyone would ever feel love for them. I'm not sure about anyone else, but a life devoid of any love other than the fleeting paternal love from my parents is not one I could imagine enjoying.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Anybody else think the mutant's mom is kinda hot?
Because deformity goes against what's "natural" and it scares us. Also, the first video looks like a Mac Photo Booth edit. Her "deformities" change as she moves her head. Hmmm.
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
Well, she does have a couple of other videos, like this one. I'm hardly the expert, though: you could be quite right.
DA: Uh, yeah, actually. You're quite right, you sick motherfucker!
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
The goal of the government or the goals of the individual? I feel really bad for her and her family, but I've seen videos of her and she's very cute. I think putting her down would be 10000000x harder for her parents. It's their CHILD. And she can breathe, walk and interact. Also, her parents will always love her and that won't go away whether or not she's alive.
On one hand I agree about retarded children and how their lives can be unfortunate, but on another hand it's like...fuck it. Why should we care so much about how other people react to us? Everyone's fucked up in their own way. Seriously, tons of people in this country have social anxiety, schizophrenia, OCD, depression, physical ailments...
My mother has epilepsy. In the middle ages she'd be killed because people would think she was controlled by Satan. I don't think putting down a baby is really going to fix the situation. Kids are still going to be born with these conditions and parents will still love them more than anything.
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
And who exactly would decide who dies?
Well, in the old days it would have been the midwife. Read accounts of the Puritans and you'll see that Anne Hutchison herself buried "monsters" under the watchful eye of John Cotton. The fact of the matter is that caring for severely deformed infants was impossible until the last couple of centuries. You can talk all you want about the callousness of the Greek and Roman practice of Exposure, but imagine the hardship of life in a pre-technological world when born with a perfectly healthy body (and good teeth); why wish that on an infant born with painfully clawed hands or a barely extant gag reflex?
I'm not a slave owner, but I'm not all that much better than my ancestors and I'm not going to pretend I am. I wouldn't expect my children or my parents to stand watch over my brain dead husk. Is the decision really that hard?
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
if this video had somebody crack into fits of laughter, then he has a mental deformity
Well... i can honestly say i wasnt laughing at her deformity.
I WAS however, laughing at
1. Her HORRENDOUS singing voice (and her voice in general) which... is probably brought on by the deformity itself... but *shrug*
2. The fact that humans, even sub-humans (giggle) feel the need to expose the rest of the world to such tripe... is... comical, sad, but comical.
What Would Kharn Do?
*poke poke* If you feel pity for her, your part of the problem
What Would Kharn Do?
i will say this. my wife is a social worker and she works with a lot of underpriveleged kids, mostly roma, and many of them have physical or mental handicaps, though none are so severely deformed as what we see here. still, we have very often discussed the "what-ifs" of having a hadicapped or deformed child, and, even before you have children (as yet, we have none), discussing such a topic with your spouse brings up a lot of emotions you never knew existed. i feel i can already safely say that nobody, NOBODY, can even approximate what it feels like to be a parent until they are one. to attribute disdainfully a parent's decision EITHER to allow their deformed child to live or to euthanize it to mere "selfishness" is pure arrogance. selfishness probably is at the root--it's at the root of most emotions, especially love--but selfishness is neither good nor bad in and of itself, and it's hardly homogeneous.
judging only from the fleeting but strong emotional intuitions i've had from discussing this so many times with my wife, i think, as a parent, if a doctor came to take my deformed baby away to euthanize it, he would probably get the business end of my pocket knife in his gut. in fact, even if he only came to tell me i was "selfish" for allowing my child to live, he would probably be in grave danger of getting the business end of my pocket knife in his gut. there's no theoretical framework behind that and no moralization: i just think that would be my reaction.
now, that would be my reaction in my situation with my child (as best i can tell at this point in my life). however, i would never insist on either the decision to allow or not allow a deformed child to live for another parent. there is no reliable textbook to tell you how you will feel when you look down in a face that you know is a part of you, and that's not me trying to be sentimental. that's my grave assessment, serious as a heart attack. to speak glibly about such matters is...the nicest word i can use is "unfortunate."
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I'm a pretty fucking morbid person but I strangely enough do find any humor whatsoever in this girl's physical imperfection. I think it's great that she feels comfortable enough with herself to expose her imperfections to the world. Again, I find no humor in her appearance and in fact she got quite an impressive rack under that shirt.
a) creepy
b) very sad.
But I wouldn't put to death such a child. These children are valuable in the sense, that their caretaker has a great opportunity to clean up a lot of bad karma, which could otherwise have a more tragical consequences for them, than just having a misshapen child. Both people involved probably did something bad in past lives and this is why they should help each other and all around them should help too, to earn a good karma, to strengthten the human society, or whatever your belief is.
I don't say I'm that good to keep with this creed always, but I can work on myself towards that ideal.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
ok, so it's the old "the parents did something bad so now god is gonna take it out on the kids" story. where have i seen that before...
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Same reaction as I had, although I do not know why my reaction is the way it is. I'm really curious as to why we have these different reactions.
Does anybody hear know where this reactions originate from?
"I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them."
- Galileo Galilei -
All the people involved needs to do something good for their own reasons, and so they got together.
This is how I mean it. I don't believe in a directly inherited karma, except for cases where it's collective, like national, as these are things the people involved are responsible for, to some degree, but it gets a bit complicated here, and the results affects the group as a whole, rather than individuals.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
I remember seeing this video when linked on chat in Skype. I don't recall my reaction in chat (more then likely a smart ass comment) but I watched the entire video because I was very curious!
Having worked with the public for so many years I have actually spoken with someone with a similar affliction.
Although physically not the same as the majority of people I came across day to day, she had all of her faculties and was a pleasure to speak with. I remember when she first walked up to me I was a bit shocked at her appearance and caught myself thinking "omg, my husband would have SO many jokes about this" Of course that made me feel bad so I engaged in conversation out of guilt... glad I did though, she came back to see me often
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
Sorry, but I didn't even crack a smile at this. Must be that nagging sense of morality and decency.
...Or that odd tendency of Christians to fail to tell the truth.
well, i found nothing funny about it either, but that's because, in the initial second, i was overcome with a strong sense of the macabre. i was disturbed by some (i suppose) instinctive sense that something's not right. then i recognized the teenage girl beneath my impression and i was fine, though i didn't find it funny then either.
my initial reaction, of course, was also socially or "morally" unacceptable, but i feel no shame for it, perhaps because i'm a very self-aware person and i don't beat myself up over involuntary reactions. i don't try to explain them away either. i call a spade a spade and life goes on.
oh, and i wish "morality" and "decency" and all their friends would take on some physical incarnations similar to the graces so i could anally rape them.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
...I wonder how shocking it is for a devout christian to realize they are just as human as the hindu, muslim or atheist?
OH another question, do Christians watch movies that have comedy in them? Or do they watch comedians that are rude/raunchy and dirty? Do they have to pray for forgiveness for laughing at those jokes, most of which are at the expense of some other human being or their traits?
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
Nope, it's definitely the morality and decency.
I don't think any Christian would ever deny being "just as human" as anyone else. Not really sure what you're trying to get at here.
Yes, I love many types of comedy. Some of it is very whimsical and naive, but some of it is "rude/raunchy and dirty". I don't, however, enjoy humor that is contingent on the suffering of someone else, particularly an innocent person.
I don't pray for forgiveness after I laugh.
I didn't laugh either.
However I freely admit to laughing at other people's expense while watching AFV do a slow motion bit on a football to some guy's tesiticles.
But I take to a positive point that the guy will soon recover.
Why do people laugh or find humor in another humans bad singing or awful dancing' the fact that this person has a physical affliction adds to the humor for me... And why? Because it was different. There are thousands of videos of people singing and dancing on YouTube, I was quite surprised by her looks as I don't see many people like her put out a video.
I wonder did you find her singing or dancing funny at all?
**edit** added- I didn't address your question about the 'human' factor. Kevin was commenting on you being a liar in regards to your lack of response to that video. My comment was simply a sarcastic addition to his comment implying that "OH NOES" If I laugh or crack a smile and so does the hindu or the muslim or the atheist, I lack morals.
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
At work, watched without sound so it wasnt something I laughed at... if maybe she has a funny singing voice. It did look like she was slipping around a bit when dancing though, thats kinda funny I guess. Gotta agree with Prozac though, shes not that bad looking.
I was having a hard time making out what that thing is around her neck though. Is that a pentagram? or a star of david? or is it one of those medical tags? cant tell
*Ahem* If I may deign to speak as a pleb:
I didn't laugh. I would guess that laughing at "horrendous deformities" has more to do with shock value than with rationally percieved humor. You laughed because you aren't accustomed to seeing things like the girl in the video (I am, however, as many of the children I work with suffer from physical deformities, among other handicaps). Why is "shock" humor such an effective means of making people laugh? Search me. I wouldn't say that laughing at such things is anything to be particularly ashamed of, though. After all, even I am forced to chuckle at some of "my kids" from time to time (usually about the things they say or do, and less about just how they look, though).
To alter your behavior? Well, if I am correct, and the amusement comes from the "shock" value of the situation, then familiarizing yourself with the situation should remove the laughter. So... expose yourself more to images of people with physical deformities? That might do it.
Also, what a god[sic]awful song. Girl needs better taste.
I didn't laugh either. What makes a life worth living is a serious question, and my answer as an outside observer would probably differ from that of a person having known only a life of disability. The Christian knee-jerk admiration for infirmity aside, there remains the possiblity for people to be happy -- or as happy as many can hope to be -- with imperfect circumstances. What's most disturbing about this thread is the undercurrent idealization of eugenics by certain persons with no apparent stake in the matter (unless they're volunteering themselves as isolated subjects for such a policy, in which case I approve). It reminds me of the neo-liberal technocrats, salivating over war and economic instability.
Come now, maggie. What's actually biting your ass is that I'm continuing to talk.
Pray tell: What are your objections to painless eugenics? Funny that you're happy to have people's rights, privacy and discourse stripped-away, but their pulse is apparently just one bridge too far.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Your submission to the proposed "solution" would solve both issues.
If I had a problem with your posts, I could always modify them without anyone knowing it was me, just to make you look stupid. But it would be less rewarding for me to do what a technocrat variation on Poe's Law does better.
For the record, given a framework where human life was no longer held sacred, I would have no problem submitting myself to euthanasia (with painless and comforting proceedings, of course - as I've suggested numerous times) if I became deformed to the point of general social ostracization or rapidly degenerative loss of functionality, or if I felt that I had nothing else to offer the world (not that you'd take my word for it, of course).
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Well first of all would this be foced? I'm pretty sure that some people with deformities or people that are not socially integrated will object. Lots of people aren't socially integrated, and aren't bothered by it.
Even if it wasn't forced, people may get 'caught up in the moment' and decide to go through with it without thinking it through and would have otherwise lived a decent life.
Where would we draw the line? Would somebody with say a speech impairment qualify?
You scare the living shit out of me.
On the old system that would have been true. Now, though, every moderator action can be tracked.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Below are 2 pictures. Above is a deformed human being and below is Brad Pitt. If all things were equal in regards to personality (kindness, compassion, selfless, etc..) who would you think women ( or male homosexuals) would marry in the end? Even if Brad Pitt was a jack-ass and the deformed guy was a saint, who do you think would most likely lead a life of painful solitude? Even if someone as handsome as Brad Pitt had epilepsy like your mom or had a psychiatric condition (eg. depression, OCD, etc..) even then he has a far greater chance of cohabitation and fecundity? Who will love this guy once his family is gone? Who will marry him? Would an attractive woman such as yourself marry him? Isn't abortion of such individuals the ultimate act of kindness?
You gotta give us apples and oranges, Ragdish. Does the mutant in picture one have nice abs?
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
Why are we gauging whether or not somebody should live on whether or not they can get laid and/or have other people like you?
If they want to live then let them live, if they want to die then let them die. Let them choose their own path.
ragdish do you have a wife or girlfriend?
Don't cha wish your girlfriend was hot like them?
Who would you go for if you had the choice? Your current squeeze or one of them?
Aborting a pregnancy that will produce a person who will likely be miserable for the extent of their life is humane - and far, far away from "killing the imperfect".
Of course, Ragdish's choice of Jose Mestre for his example doesn't fit well. Jose's facial tumor is probably not (at least currently) something that can be detected in utero. Jose can decide for himself if he has the quality of life necessary to go on living.
Then again, Jose is a Jehovah's Witness. He could have had the tumor removed well before it got so large, but he won't accept blood transfusions, wish would be necessary for the operation.
Ahh, how life never hands us a clear, black-n-white case to ponder.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Thanks I try.
Who said anything about abortion? I believe Kevin brought up the euthanasia , which is killing people after they're born.
And apparently attractivnes and social integration are what determines whether or not euthanasia should take place.
Now, if Kevin means that ugly folk with poor social skills should be culled - which I very much doubt he means - then he's got a lot of defending of his stance to do.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
What I got from him is that
As in aborting their life now, as opposed to a pregnancy abortion.
What if that person could potientally improve? What if they are just going through a phase and would 'get over it' and live a decent life?
I have no idea what goes on in Kevin's little hamster wheel and I would rather not imagine.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
You do remember that we're reproductive machines, Cap'n? That, by and large, we act in accordance to our genetic goal of propagation?
This how we developed emotions like love and depression. If we don't procreate, we don't feel loved, and we get depressed (unless we medicate ourselves against such conditions).
The double-standard and pretend morality here is astonishing to me. People like yourself will call me a sick, twisted and demented individual because I advocate the opening and full exploration / exploitation of another option for people (choosing to die rather than persist in lives of misery) - yet you will set on the sidelines, even as you loft your accusations, grimacing at the visages of the malformed and pushing them to the outer borders of your life at best.
Might they as well be dead, given the way that most of us treat them? Offering two-faced gestures of kindness while murmuring about their oddities and refusing them any form of intimate companionship? Your morals, values and standards are so much higher than mine, Pineapple, yet I'm dubious that you'd ever consider dating anyone with any of the deformities shown in this thread so far.
If a person is fine living in emotional seclusion for the entire span of their life, then fine. Evolutionary psychology would predict that most are not fine with it, however, as their genes slowly torment them for their inability to pass them onward.
Neither do I. I advocate most strongly for research and development that will phase-out such maladies. Unfortunately, such research tends to be actively blocked by the same people who block humane euthanasia, so we tend to get stuck between rocks and hard places.
...Oh, and Cap'n: what part about 'humane' is difficult for you to grasp? Is it the first syllable or the second? I would think it more or less immediately obvious that humane procedure demands mutual consent on some level.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
If you only had access to the VIP section, Pineapple, the lulz that would backdrop this statement.
Ah. We're just glorified janitors nowadays.
Well?
For the record, I was indeed referring to in utero abortion during pregnancy. And BTW, Pineapple I most certainly prefer my own squeeze to whom I've been married to for 10 years. I think you completely missed my point. With prenatal diagnostic testing we have the ability to detect genetic/chromosomal disorders which would render an individual physically deformed. More often than not it is parents who are deeply religious who allow those children to be born. The PTEN (phosphatase and tensin homolog) gene mutation has been linked to conditions such as the Proteus Syndrome and John Merrick (The Elephant Man) suffered from this condition. If you consider me and others cruel and inhuman to abort a fetus with this mutation, then so be it. My spouse and I would never allow an unborn child of ours with this horrid condition to be born into a life of a freak who would never marry or lead a normal life. And if I had the magical choice of the 2 genotypes of either Elephant Man or Brad Pitt, you bet I would choose the hunky life for my progeny. And I bet that if you had the choice.........I just know you'll end up eating crow.
...'Well' what, maggie?
Please, make the world a much more enlightened domain with yet more of your 10th-grader lulz snark.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
There's a point where you have to wonder how artificial a society can become without losing some dimension. One wonders how a Stephen Hawking would have looked as a prospect in the womb, given his genetic predispositions. Or whether we'd have Starry Night, or just another potentially tragic mental defect averted. Granted, I'm playing up the notable cases, not the hum-drum defects that surround us, but there's again the subjectivity of what makes a life worth living. And once it's decided that such is definable, how narrow the definition can get. Not being trained in the Christian inversions of values, I don't look at tragedy and defect as terribly inspiring; but merely unfortunate. I think people who elect to snuff it should be able to do so no matter what the circumstances, because the person has the choice. It gets foggier when I think of potentialities of micro-managing the worthiness of births, and similar areas where individial choice is impossible. I have similar issues with abortion, though I support it as a right because I think the negatives of not outweigh those of maintaining it. I do think this is a touchy subject, and one that deserves adequate thought, insight and sensitivity, and not the crass introduction it's received. As if it's some ballsy move for a pathetic loner with no attachments to take a glib stance on the worthiness of life.