thinkinginpictures wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
This thread gets more and more wierd.
I wrote about how being weak is no excuse of not being exposed to all sorts of evilness, being subject to smashing and bashing while laying down, according to some people.
I then wrote that it was all down to people's resentment of paying taxes, refering to the fact that I am not calling for people to wipe the butts of the old folks in nusery homes, only that
we should tax people to maintain a welfare society to avoid this evilness (smashing/bashing of those lying down).
Then the thread takes a turn in the direction of nusery homes versus family care, thus completely ignoring my original very obvious intend with my post...
Your point is not penetrating my thick head. Are you saying that the disabled are subject to more "evil" than neurotypicals? If so, I'm not sure I agree with this. Everybody faces evil in their lives.
Not neccessarily, that is not how I would put it. The disabled (physical as well as mental) as a group, is being shunned at for being costly to society.
That thing, being shunned at, is evil, because they are not in a position where they could do something else.
As you see earlier in my thread, a very good example came up from Raptor: "Ever tried NOT being weak?"
Well, if I could do otherwise, I would. My threads about the Conscription and Welfare (this thread) are all my attempts at being strong in terms of speaking out against this outrageous unfairness to people like me, but also people who suffers physical illnesses, as well as those who suffers only unemployment. But Raptor is not a lone. There is about 6-7 billion people like him.
Calm down. Willful ignoramuses have become very common in modern society and very very loud. They are motivated by, ironically, the former leftist postmodern ideals that no one is really right or wrong (i.e. correct or incorrect) and were taught from an early age to be as loud with their opinion as possible, without regard to validating their opinion. This has become common in the sciences, in medicine, and in many other areas. I think these people are basically broken beyond repair and will never learn, as they misinterpret the 1st Amendment as stating that everyone must accept their opinions as equally valid as all others. They may try to shut you down, by saying "think of the starving children in Africa," shaming you for even deigning to discuss issues that are important to you, accusing you of impeding discussion of more
important issues, a pernicious, false accusation.
I know it can be very frustrating. I've had conversations where I've presented piece of evidence after piece of evidence, where I've explained cogently how a rebuttal was fallacious, etc., while my opponents didn't bother with any of that (again showing their adherence to postmodern ideals). You have to remember something, though: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Most of your opponents are helpless. Just hope and pray that the decision-makers don't have to take the views of ignoramuses like them into your account.
What you want to do is to convince the people on the fence, who don't know much about the subject to begin with, but might read the evidence you presented. Those curious people who like to investigate claims are your target. As well, actual policy-makers and judges should be your targets, not willful ignoramuses on the Internet.
Basically, you want to convince that lurker who stumbled across this thread, or to give that lurker hope in persisting with their own efforts to argue your point of view; they're you're audience, not willful ignoramuses who will argue fruitlessly against evidence, providing none of their own, till Kingdom come.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
12 Jan 2014, 1:25 pm
