Page 2 of 3 [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,103

28 Jun 2021, 10:15 am

Fnord wrote:
Clearer definitions of "Discrimination Against Disabled People" must be made.  For instance, let us start with a few obvious situations:

• Is it discrimination to dance with everyone except for those in wheelchairs?

• Is it discrimination to hire only sighted people to watch video monitors in a security center?

• Is it discrimination to initiate conversations with everyone except for those who can only stim and grunt?

I think the answer to each of these questions should be "No".


That's not how I view discrimination against the disabled.

To me, Ableism is when you require/force disabled people doing the exact same jobs as able-bodied/able-minded people, and when the disabled people fail (because of their disabilities), you deprive them of their money/support/benefits or even infringe their rights such as limiting their right to vote because they receive unemployment benefits (in some countries, if you're on Unemployment Benefits, you're not guaranteed the right to vote, it is completely legal for the parliament to make a law which deprive them of their right to vote - ie. in the Danish Constitution).

This has actually happened before.

Not to mention, that many disabled people in Denmark still have no right to vote, if they have a guardian. We're not only talking about mentally retarded, but also people suffering from minor illnesses - like Gambling Addiction - they're not allowed to vote.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,608
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

28 Jun 2021, 10:35 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Yes. Was just gonna say that the op should at least give examples.

I have never been clear myself as to just what exactly "ableism" is, and is not.

I wouldnt hire a blind person to be a limo driver. But a blind person might make a good musician, deejay, or even sculpture.

Designing a building without wheelchair ramps or handicapped accessible restrooms might be examples of "ableism".

But then that would be the opposite of other kinds of descrimination (youre supposed to ignore skin color and gender etc), because then problem is not that you are prejudiced against the handicaps of the handicapped, but that you ignore the handicaps of the handicapped.

Ableism seems to me to be a much more gray area than other forms of descrimination, because handicapped folks are by definition can be assumed to handicapped in SOME things, even if not in others- in ways that are not true of folks by race, gender, etc.

Well...I mean...I think that we put too much stock in the idea of all people being created equal. We are all created in the sense that we all have the same natural rights. But we are not all created equal in the sense that some people have a greater predisposition to artistry, creativity, musicality, etc., and some people are better at math and engineering, some people have the stomach and fortitude for being janitors, others are excellent athletes, still others have a way with people and are excellent leaders, and so on. There’s no shame in that, but I feel that many folks develop an entitlement mentality that enables them to demand more democracy in things that they are ill-suited for.

For example, the GarageBand app on an iPad highly democratizes music creation such that people with no musical background or training can create something that sounds almost professional. ML models can create musical compositions that are convincingly human, and with some interaction with humans anyone can get custom musical creations without much if any technical background or experience. It yields the ILLUSION that anyone can be musician and composer, and I see this democratization of musical creativity as a good thing. But in order to actually work as a professional musician, one will always require in-depth knowledge beyond pushing a few buttons or answering questions on an app. If you don’t understand all the musical elements that ML models assimilate or what goes into producing loops from scratch—things like harmony, dynamics, blend and balance, timbre and texture, the Euclidean algorithm, the Fibonacci series, the harmonic series—and then there’s some 5 or 6 centuries of history you need to know, and then world music, and then digital music production, mixing, mastering, and we haven’t even touched artist development, marketing, distribution, legal aspects of the music industry, record labels... I can tell you this—I had and still have big dreams for my music career, and all I have is I can play the heck out of the clarinet, I get decent piano gigs, I went from one church staff job to another and was LUCKY/blessed to get this job, and I direct school bands. In other words, I work my butt off, and just being good at playing a couple of instruments just isn’t enough to make it in this business. The majority of musicians out there don’t have the stamina to make it as far as I’ve made it, and those who’ve done better are exceptional people as well as high caliber musicians AND have the people skills and the right connections. From my experience, I can tell you that pushing buttons in GB is not enough to make a life for yourself in my field. I can also tell you that recording and publishing executives who HAVE worked so much harder than I can ever imagine DO NOT CARE about you and do not feel they owe you ANYTHING. And they don’t owe you anything. Either you have what it takes to be a career musician or you don’t.

If you don’t have what it takes, you are not less of a human being. You are who you are and you define yourself. Focus on the abilities you DO have. If you can’t make it as a musician, that’s ok. Go ahead and buy that Fender Strat and the AC30 and take about 30 min to an hour every day figuring out how it works, watch some YouTube videos, and play for the sheer enjoyment of doing it. No pressure.

And consider applying these ideas to whatever it is you want to do. Maybe you suck and music but you’re an excellent bus driver. So just drive busses and take up a hobby for relaxation. I suck at math and data science. But in my spare time, I mess around with Python and experiment with making music based on mathematical procedures. It’s never going to be on a hit record, I just want t to see what I can do and have fun with it. If I manage to figure out something truly original and innovative, I’ll go back to college for 4 more years and look for professor gigs. Otherwise, I’m having fun playing at church, for weddings, and leading high school kids.

If you are totally disabled physically and can’t possibly do things, then there’s nothing to discuss. I have nothing on that one except that if you cannot move, you are a danger to yourself, to passengers, and to other motorists if you are entitled to a job driving buses.

All ableism is is a sense that people of lesser ability are inferior and people of high ability are superior in a transcendent sense. It’s not a matter of we owe incapable people whatever job they want despite what they really can or cannot do. It is that they are subhuman or beneath abled society, in the same sense that black people are intellectually inferior to white people according to racist thought, or that women are subhuman according to sexism, or that all men are scum and must die according to feminism. None of the “-isms” are crimes since they only exist in the mind. When you have a welfare program available and deny mentally disabled persons food because they are mentally disabled, then it becomes a civil rights issue. If you deny a person a job based on race alone, that is a civil rights issue. Casting a play or movie that specifically calls for someone of a specific race is a matter of art when it is crucial to the plot, and what happened in the film industry when blacks felt they were underrepresented in a predominantly white industry? They MADE THEIR OWN FILMS, and many of them are quite good. So you can’t cry civil rights and racism on something like that. Regarding sexism, you have the problem that there ARE women as CEOs, so...what glass ceiling? Studies have also shown that women who do become executives end up becoming highly protective of their position, often preventing younger women from moving up in the same company. So regarding sexism in the workplace, is it ultimately about sex or is it about competency? People with the greatest ability and highest work ethic will excel and either move up or move out in favor of more competitive work. Others will fall by the wayside, particularly the rule-followers and complainers. What about feminism? The problem is feminism unabashedly labels men as scum while depending on the same scum to get out of the way and elevate women on no other basis than that they are women.

And so the idea that people of lesser ability somehow deserve more power, responsibility, and reward on the basis that they LACK ability is mythic and contradictory. Why not just excel at what you ARE good at to whatever extent you can do anything? Why does it matter what someone else thinks of you? What real good does it accomplish to identify as a victim who has to wait for permission or a leg up to do ANYTHING? As a musician who has had nothing on pure talent or abilities I was born with, I can say from my own experience that if you want to go into music bad enough and earn a living at it, pretty much anybody CAN do it. Even if you are disabled, even if it takes decades more than the next guy, you can chip away at this thing until you’re better than the average undergrad. I’ve seen it happen. I’ve personally worked to comprehend some concepts that not even computer and math teachers can grasp. I’m not some genius. I just enjoy it. And knowing a few tricks doesn’t make me better than them. I’m actually ok with that. Anyone struggling with a lack of ability should never allow that or the opinions of others affect what they do or impact their happiness, nor should they waste their life on perpetual victimhood.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,608
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

28 Jun 2021, 10:49 am

thinkinginpictures wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Clearer definitions of "Discrimination Against Disabled People" must be made.  For instance, let us start with a few obvious situations:

• Is it discrimination to dance with everyone except for those in wheelchairs?

• Is it discrimination to hire only sighted people to watch video monitors in a security center?

• Is it discrimination to initiate conversations with everyone except for those who can only stim and grunt?

I think the answer to each of these questions should be "No".


That's not how I view discrimination against the disabled.

To me, Ableism is when you require/force disabled people doing the exact same jobs as able-bodied/able-minded people, and when the disabled people fail (because of their disabilities), you deprive them of their money/support/benefits or even infringe their rights such as limiting their right to vote because they receive unemployment benefits (in some countries, if you're on Unemployment Benefits, you're not guaranteed the right to vote, it is completely legal for the parliament to make a law which deprive them of their right to vote - ie. in the Danish Constitution).

This has actually happened before.

Not to mention, that many disabled people in Denmark still have no right to vote, if they have a guardian. We're not only talking about mentally retarded, but also people suffering from minor illnesses - like Gambling Addiction - they're not allowed to vote.

Hmmm...

I can’t really speak for Danish law or the justification for that. I’m not of the opinion that even in the USA that everyone who, say, uses a toilet in this country must necessarily be guaranteed political rights. For example, do people who have a vested interest in drug and human trafficking deserve to make decisions that affect everyone else? Would you be comfortable with interest groups working to get young people addicted to drugs, forced into prostitution, and all with the force of law behind it?

In the same way, I’m not sure that unreasonable and intellectually impaired individuals who either cannot reason what would be best for everyone in a country or who could be manipulated into voting against even their own best interests are really the kinds of people I want making decisions that ultimately affect me. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense that people who are intellectually competent and capable can empathize and understand what IS in the best interests of those who lack the ability to make their own decisions. If that constitutes ableism, then I don’t understand how it is ableism is necessarily a bad thing.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 50,507
Location: Stendec

28 Jun 2021, 11:51 am

Discrimination is the act of making unjustified distinctions between human beings based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they are perceived to belong.

Saying that people from Ratznestistan* are only smart enough for menial labor simply because they are from Ratznestistan is unjustified and discriminatory.

Not hiring a person from Ratznestistan because he or she does not have the necessary university degree is justifiable and not discriminatory.

*Ratznestistan is a fictional country that was featured in the Little Orphan Annie comic strip.


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,103

28 Jun 2021, 12:53 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Hmmm...

I can’t really speak for Danish law or the justification for that. I’m not of the opinion that even in the USA that everyone who, say, uses a toilet in this country must necessarily be guaranteed political rights. For example, do people who have a vested interest in drug and human trafficking deserve to make decisions that affect everyone else? Would you be comfortable with interest groups working to get young people addicted to drugs, forced into prostitution, and all with the force of law behind it?

In the same way, I’m not sure that unreasonable and intellectually impaired individuals who either cannot reason what would be best for everyone in a country or who could be manipulated into voting against even their own best interests are really the kinds of people I want making decisions that ultimately affect me. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense that people who are intellectually competent and capable can empathize and understand what IS in the best interests of those who lack the ability to make their own decisions. If that constitutes ableism, then I don’t understand how it is ableism is necessarily a bad thing.


The thing is, you don't have to be intellectually impaired to be denied the right to vote. If you have a guardian, for whatever reason (usually it's mental illness, but some mentally ill people can be perfectly good at intellectual stuff, like knowing right from wrong, which parties have which opinions on certain subjects etc.), but whom need a guardian for other reasons than the intellectual part, you're not allowed to vote, simply because our constitution say so. It's an outdated constitution, but nobody wants to change one bit of it.

Meanwhile, people jailed for murder, drug trafficking, violent crime etc. - are all being allowed to vote.



Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 28 Jun 2021, 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 26,078
Location: Pacific Northwest

28 Jun 2021, 1:10 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Yes. Was just gonna say that the op should at least give examples.

I have never been clear myself as to just what exactly "ableism" is, and is not.

I wouldnt hire a blind person to be a limo driver. But a blind person might make a good musician, deejay, or even sculpture.

Designing a building without wheelchair ramps or handicapped accessible restrooms might be examples of "ableism".

But then that would be the opposite of other kinds of descrimination (youre supposed to ignore skin color and gender etc), because then problem is not that you are prejudiced against the handicaps of the handicapped, but that you ignore the handicaps of the handicapped.

Ableism seems to me to be a much more gray area than other forms of descrimination, because handicapped folks are by definition can be assumed to handicapped in SOME things, even if not in others- in ways that are not true of folks by race, gender, etc.



Ableism also means ignorance of someone's disability. You can be an ableist and not realize it. Making an assumption based on someone's disability is in fact ableism. Saying someone isn't autistic or whatever is ableism just because they did a crime or you don't like them for some reason. Heck I have seen ableism on this forum as well. How many times have I seen comments on here saying someone isn't autistic because they committed a murder or a sex crime?

There was another one over ten years ago, I forget her name, but she was on some pagent show and she had Aspergers and people here were saying she didn't have it because she was too pretty. Thinking autistic people are supposed to be unattractive or not be in the spotlight is ableism.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,608
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

28 Jun 2021, 1:53 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Hmmm...

I can’t really speak for Danish law or the justification for that. I’m not of the opinion that even in the USA that everyone who, say, uses a toilet in this country must necessarily be guaranteed political rights. For example, do people who have a vested interest in drug and human trafficking deserve to make decisions that affect everyone else? Would you be comfortable with interest groups working to get young people addicted to drugs, forced into prostitution, and all with the force of law behind it?

In the same way, I’m not sure that unreasonable and intellectually impaired individuals who either cannot reason what would be best for everyone in a country or who could be manipulated into voting against even their own best interests are really the kinds of people I want making decisions that ultimately affect me. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense that people who are intellectually competent and capable can empathize and understand what IS in the best interests of those who lack the ability to make their own decisions. If that constitutes ableism, then I don’t understand how it is ableism is necessarily a bad thing.


The thing is, you don't have to be intellectually impaired to be deprived the right to vote. If you have a guardian, for whatever reason (usually it's mental illness, but some mentally ill people can be perfectly good at intellectual stuff, like knowing right from wrong, which parties have which opinions on certain subjects etc.), but whom need a guardian for other reasons than the intellectual part, you're not allowed to vote, simply because our constitution say so. It's an outdated constitution, but nobody wants to change one bit of it.

Meanwhile, people jailed for murder, drug trafficking, violent crime etc. - are all being allowed to vote.

That kinda sucks. In the US it varies by jurisdiction. They’ll let anybody vote in California, even dead people. In Mississippi, it depends on the crime.

Now...it’s more complicated, but I’d favor a head-of-household rule that only allowed free family representatives, and only one per household, doesn’t matter if it’s male or female, and be sufficiently mature enough to understand what’s being voted on and how it affects the family. My reasoning behind that is because husbands and fathers typically have an influence over family ideology and can expect a degree of agreement within one’s own family. That means larger families and the wealthy have disproportionate voting power to others who may not be as well served. But if you have one vote for every 2-5 people, then it balances out.

Let’s say that a husband is in prison and he leaves a wife and 5 children. Number of children is completely irrelevant, of course. If the wife believes that her husband was imprisoned because of unfair laws or that her family needs assistance because of her husband’s circumstances, she can both serve her own interests and campaign for fair laws and get her husband back home. That way, anyone in prison, anyone in a guardianship, whatever, there is fair representation for all and it “evens the score” between the wealthy and the disadvantaged.

The negatives are things like how someone would become a family rep. It’s just one family, one vote, so it would just require two people agreeing on how they vote and which one...or both, even...registering to record their single vote. How do you avoid having more than one person from a family register? What about single individuals who are old enough but can’t qualify? What about divorce, or what if someone dies? There are plenty kinks and complications to work out, but I think it would ultimately solve more problems.

The women’s suffrage movement was the response to a problem that basically had good intentions: why would wives and children contradict issues relevant to their family, and why would men vote in any other way than to protect their interests at home? It has never made sense to offer a household more than one vote. So it makes sense that people in Denmark to not allow people under a guardianship to vote. They are not independent, they cannot participate in politics properly, and they may dangerous when they vote in ways that impact independent individuals. In the USA, women’s suffrage came about as a reaction against the old British system and recognition of women as individuals with parity with men. Because of the emphasis on individual rights in America, it makes no sense to treat women differently. Together with the abolition of slavery, the conclusion of the Civil War, and progress under civil rights, withholding suffrage from any majority-aged individual doesn’t make sense. I don’t believe the lack of suffrage was originally due to women seen as objects or somehow less than men. Over time it BECAME about that, a sort of post hoc ergo propter hoc way of thinking, when restricted suffrage is actually NOT a bad thing.

Just going on your word alone re Danish law, it sounds inconsistent to me and should probably be fixed. But as I’m not a Danish citizen or familiar with your laws, I can’t really give a good opinion on this.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,608
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

28 Jun 2021, 2:26 pm

League_Girl wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Yes. Was just gonna say that the op should at least give examples.

I have never been clear myself as to just what exactly "ableism" is, and is not.

I wouldnt hire a blind person to be a limo driver. But a blind person might make a good musician, deejay, or even sculpture.

Designing a building without wheelchair ramps or handicapped accessible restrooms might be examples of "ableism".

But then that would be the opposite of other kinds of descrimination (youre supposed to ignore skin color and gender etc), because then problem is not that you are prejudiced against the handicaps of the handicapped, but that you ignore the handicaps of the handicapped.

Ableism seems to me to be a much more gray area than other forms of descrimination, because handicapped folks are by definition can be assumed to handicapped in SOME things, even if not in others- in ways that are not true of folks by race, gender, etc.



Ableism also means ignorance of someone's disability. You can be an ableist and not realize it. Making an assumption based on someone's disability is in fact ableism. Saying someone isn't autistic or whatever is ableism just because they did a crime or you don't like them for some reason. Heck I have seen ableism on this forum as well. How many times have I seen comments on here saying someone isn't autistic because they committed a murder or a sex crime?

There was another one over ten years ago, I forget her name, but she was on some pagent show and she had Aspergers and people here were saying she didn't have it because she was too pretty. Thinking autistic people are supposed to be unattractive or not be in the spotlight is ableism.

That’s bordering on the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, too.

Tangentially related, and we were discussing this in a diff thread, but CAN a mentally ill person commit murder? CAN an autistic person commit murder? I’m leaving these questions open because there’s not precisely a correct answer.

I prefer to keep it in black/white terms. How is murder defined? Simply, it is the willful, deliberate, purposeful, and UNJUSTIFIED killing of a person. If killing does not meet these criteria, it is not murder. It is something else. Are autistic or mentally ill persons capable of such acts? I believe they are. Are such persons ALWAYS capable of this? No. Someone with low functioning autism and sever mental debility CANNOT, as in lack both the physical and mental capacity, put together a realistic plan mentally and physically carry it out. What they COULD do is behave erratically and violently such that someone dies, but that hardly qualifies as murder. Negligent homicide at worst, unfortunate accident at best. The gold standard for criminal insanity is M’Naghten, which asks the questions of whether the defendant knew what he did would cause death (Was he aware of what he was doing?) and whether he knew what he was doing is wrong in the legal sense. Other questions that must be considered include what it means to be mentally ill or diseased. Strict liability is also a consideration, whether an act was the result of something like drunk driving. The defense rather than the prosecution also bears the burden of proof to determine that a person was mentally diseased at the time of the killing. When you examine cases when the insanity defense was actually successful, and it very rarely ever is, you’ll find these are people who were known to be mentally diseased before they committed a crime. In such a case, they are hardly guilty of murder because their crime lies beyond the definition of murder. But I also reject a condition such as autism as being a disease of the mind. Murders committed by autistics get a lot of media coverage, but in general autistics are not known for violent or criminal behavior.

So here are the conclusions we’re left with: 1. Some autistics are unable to mentally conceive and physically execute a violent crime such as murder; 2. Harm caused by some autistics are the result of accidents from stimming; 3. Some autistics cannot be accused of murder because mental disease prevents them from understanding the nature and quality of their behavior or they do not know what they did was wrong. The question I have now is this: Which part of any of that is harmful ableism?



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 32,523
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

28 Jun 2021, 2:59 pm

AngelRho wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Hmmm...

I can’t really speak for Danish law or the justification for that. I’m not of the opinion that even in the USA that everyone who, say, uses a toilet in this country must necessarily be guaranteed political rights. For example, do people who have a vested interest in drug and human trafficking deserve to make decisions that affect everyone else? Would you be comfortable with interest groups working to get young people addicted to drugs, forced into prostitution, and all with the force of law behind it?

In the same way, I’m not sure that unreasonable and intellectually impaired individuals who either cannot reason what would be best for everyone in a country or who could be manipulated into voting against even their own best interests are really the kinds of people I want making decisions that ultimately affect me. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense that people who are intellectually competent and capable can empathize and understand what IS in the best interests of those who lack the ability to make their own decisions. If that constitutes ableism, then I don’t understand how it is ableism is necessarily a bad thing.


The thing is, you don't have to be intellectually impaired to be deprived the right to vote. If you have a guardian, for whatever reason (usually it's mental illness, but some mentally ill people can be perfectly good at intellectual stuff, like knowing right from wrong, which parties have which opinions on certain subjects etc.), but whom need a guardian for other reasons than the intellectual part, you're not allowed to vote, simply because our constitution say so. It's an outdated constitution, but nobody wants to change one bit of it.

Meanwhile, people jailed for murder, drug trafficking, violent crime etc. - are all being allowed to vote.

That kinda sucks. In the US it varies by jurisdiction. They’ll let anybody vote in California, even dead people. In Mississippi, it depends on the crime.

Now...it’s more complicated, but I’d favor a head-of-household rule that only allowed free family representatives, and only one per household, doesn’t matter if it’s male or female, and be sufficiently mature enough to understand what’s being voted on and how it affects the family. My reasoning behind that is because husbands and fathers typically have an influence over family ideology and can expect a degree of agreement within one’s own family. That means larger families and the wealthy have disproportionate voting power to others who may not be as well served. But if you have one vote for every 2-5 people, then it balances out.

Let’s say that a husband is in prison and he leaves a wife and 5 children. Number of children is completely irrelevant, of course. If the wife believes that her husband was imprisoned because of unfair laws or that her family needs assistance because of her husband’s circumstances, she can both serve her own interests and campaign for fair laws and get her husband back home. That way, anyone in prison, anyone in a guardianship, whatever, there is fair representation for all and it “evens the score” between the wealthy and the disadvantaged.

The negatives are things like how someone would become a family rep. It’s just one family, one vote, so it would just require two people agreeing on how they vote and which one...or both, even...registering to record their single vote. How do you avoid having more than one person from a family register? What about single individuals who are old enough but can’t qualify? What about divorce, or what if someone dies? There are plenty kinks and complications to work out, but I think it would ultimately solve more problems.

The women’s suffrage movement was the response to a problem that basically had good intentions: why would wives and children contradict issues relevant to their family, and why would men vote in any other way than to protect their interests at home? It has never made sense to offer a household more than one vote. So it makes sense that people in Denmark to not allow people under a guardianship to vote. They are not independent, they cannot participate in politics properly, and they may dangerous when they vote in ways that impact independent individuals. In the USA, women’s suffrage came about as a reaction against the old British system and recognition of women as individuals with parity with men. Because of the emphasis on individual rights in America, it makes no sense to treat women differently. Together with the abolition of slavery, the conclusion of the Civil War, and progress under civil rights, withholding suffrage from any majority-aged individual doesn’t make sense. I don’t believe the lack of suffrage was originally due to women seen as objects or somehow less than men. Over time it BECAME about that, a sort of post hoc ergo propter hoc way of thinking, when restricted suffrage is actually NOT a bad thing.

Just going on your word alone re Danish law, it sounds inconsistent to me and should probably be fixed. But as I’m not a Danish citizen or familiar with your laws, I can’t really give a good opinion on this.


What....? Am I to understand you are actually suggesting individuals should not have the right to vote?

and that you are really so naive you really cannot fathom why a person might use their influence over another person to harm them or keep an unhealthy level of control over them? You really think back int he good ole days, when women couldn't vote all the men were treating their wives right? You really don't think any of them might have been abusive or neglectful? Also back in those days women were pressured pretty heavily to get in a relationship quickly so many did end up with husbands they were not on the same page as, hence why they did not want to share a vote with their husband.

I think a relationship is best if both people have some similar ideology and beliefs, but it certainly should not be forced by requiring households to have one representative per household.

Also well it is kind of ableist to say that disabled people who have care-takers shouldn't be able to vote, and that it's dangerous for them to vote. The only way I can kind of see that is if the person is like intellectually disabled and really doesn't comprehend voting and having them do so would just cause them undue stress, But not like a mentally ill/ autistic/physically disabled person who has a guardian or people helping take care of them but still is a aware of things and how they want to vote.


_________________
There's a magic spider on the wind
He spins a web for you
And if you wish upon a spider
All your wishes will all come true
-Nekrogoblikon


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,608
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

28 Jun 2021, 3:49 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Hmmm...

I can’t really speak for Danish law or the justification for that. I’m not of the opinion that even in the USA that everyone who, say, uses a toilet in this country must necessarily be guaranteed political rights. For example, do people who have a vested interest in drug and human trafficking deserve to make decisions that affect everyone else? Would you be comfortable with interest groups working to get young people addicted to drugs, forced into prostitution, and all with the force of law behind it?

In the same way, I’m not sure that unreasonable and intellectually impaired individuals who either cannot reason what would be best for everyone in a country or who could be manipulated into voting against even their own best interests are really the kinds of people I want making decisions that ultimately affect me. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense that people who are intellectually competent and capable can empathize and understand what IS in the best interests of those who lack the ability to make their own decisions. If that constitutes ableism, then I don’t understand how it is ableism is necessarily a bad thing.


The thing is, you don't have to be intellectually impaired to be deprived the right to vote. If you have a guardian, for whatever reason (usually it's mental illness, but some mentally ill people can be perfectly good at intellectual stuff, like knowing right from wrong, which parties have which opinions on certain subjects etc.), but whom need a guardian for other reasons than the intellectual part, you're not allowed to vote, simply because our constitution say so. It's an outdated constitution, but nobody wants to change one bit of it.

Meanwhile, people jailed for murder, drug trafficking, violent crime etc. - are all being allowed to vote.

That kinda sucks. In the US it varies by jurisdiction. They’ll let anybody vote in California, even dead people. In Mississippi, it depends on the crime.

Now...it’s more complicated, but I’d favor a head-of-household rule that only allowed free family representatives, and only one per household, doesn’t matter if it’s male or female, and be sufficiently mature enough to understand what’s being voted on and how it affects the family. My reasoning behind that is because husbands and fathers typically have an influence over family ideology and can expect a degree of agreement within one’s own family. That means larger families and the wealthy have disproportionate voting power to others who may not be as well served. But if you have one vote for every 2-5 people, then it balances out.

Let’s say that a husband is in prison and he leaves a wife and 5 children. Number of children is completely irrelevant, of course. If the wife believes that her husband was imprisoned because of unfair laws or that her family needs assistance because of her husband’s circumstances, she can both serve her own interests and campaign for fair laws and get her husband back home. That way, anyone in prison, anyone in a guardianship, whatever, there is fair representation for all and it “evens the score” between the wealthy and the disadvantaged.

The negatives are things like how someone would become a family rep. It’s just one family, one vote, so it would just require two people agreeing on how they vote and which one...or both, even...registering to record their single vote. How do you avoid having more than one person from a family register? What about single individuals who are old enough but can’t qualify? What about divorce, or what if someone dies? There are plenty kinks and complications to work out, but I think it would ultimately solve more problems.

The women’s suffrage movement was the response to a problem that basically had good intentions: why would wives and children contradict issues relevant to their family, and why would men vote in any other way than to protect their interests at home? It has never made sense to offer a household more than one vote. So it makes sense that people in Denmark to not allow people under a guardianship to vote. They are not independent, they cannot participate in politics properly, and they may dangerous when they vote in ways that impact independent individuals. In the USA, women’s suffrage came about as a reaction against the old British system and recognition of women as individuals with parity with men. Because of the emphasis on individual rights in America, it makes no sense to treat women differently. Together with the abolition of slavery, the conclusion of the Civil War, and progress under civil rights, withholding suffrage from any majority-aged individual doesn’t make sense. I don’t believe the lack of suffrage was originally due to women seen as objects or somehow less than men. Over time it BECAME about that, a sort of post hoc ergo propter hoc way of thinking, when restricted suffrage is actually NOT a bad thing.

Just going on your word alone re Danish law, it sounds inconsistent to me and should probably be fixed. But as I’m not a Danish citizen or familiar with your laws, I can’t really give a good opinion on this.


What....? Am I to understand you are actually suggesting individuals should not have the right to vote?

and that you are really so naive you really cannot fathom why a person might use their influence over another person to harm them or keep an unhealthy level of control over them?

Are you so naive that you believe the majority is always right? :lol:



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,077

28 Jun 2021, 9:58 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Yes. Was just gonna say that the op should at least give examples.
I have never been clear myself as to just what exactly "ableism" is, and is not.
I wouldnt hire a blind person to be a limo driver. But a blind person might make a good musician, deejay, or even sculpture.


In about 10 years driverless limos will mean people with two eyes won't be hired either.

In any case, the jobs of the future might be more flexible at giving new types of work for people with sensory or physical impairment.



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 26,078
Location: Pacific Northwest

29 Jun 2021, 12:57 am

AngelRho wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Yes. Was just gonna say that the op should at least give examples.

I have never been clear myself as to just what exactly "ableism" is, and is not.

I wouldnt hire a blind person to be a limo driver. But a blind person might make a good musician, deejay, or even sculpture.

Designing a building without wheelchair ramps or handicapped accessible restrooms might be examples of "ableism".

But then that would be the opposite of other kinds of descrimination (youre supposed to ignore skin color and gender etc), because then problem is not that you are prejudiced against the handicaps of the handicapped, but that you ignore the handicaps of the handicapped.

Ableism seems to me to be a much more gray area than other forms of descrimination, because handicapped folks are by definition can be assumed to handicapped in SOME things, even if not in others- in ways that are not true of folks by race, gender, etc.



Ableism also means ignorance of someone's disability. You can be an ableist and not realize it. Making an assumption based on someone's disability is in fact ableism. Saying someone isn't autistic or whatever is ableism just because they did a crime or you don't like them for some reason. Heck I have seen ableism on this forum as well. How many times have I seen comments on here saying someone isn't autistic because they committed a murder or a sex crime?

There was another one over ten years ago, I forget her name, but she was on some pagent show and she had Aspergers and people here were saying she didn't have it because she was too pretty. Thinking autistic people are supposed to be unattractive or not be in the spotlight is ableism.

That’s bordering on the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, too.

Tangentially related, and we were discussing this in a diff thread, but CAN a mentally ill person commit murder? CAN an autistic person commit murder? I’m leaving these questions open because there’s not precisely a correct answer.

I prefer to keep it in black/white terms. How is murder defined? Simply, it is the willful, deliberate, purposeful, and UNJUSTIFIED killing of a person. If killing does not meet these criteria, it is not murder. It is something else. Are autistic or mentally ill persons capable of such acts? I believe they are. Are such persons ALWAYS capable of this? No. Someone with low functioning autism and sever mental debility CANNOT, as in lack both the physical and mental capacity, put together a realistic plan mentally and physically carry it out. What they COULD do is behave erratically and violently such that someone dies, but that hardly qualifies as murder. Negligent homicide at worst, unfortunate accident at best. The gold standard for criminal insanity is M’Naghten, which asks the questions of whether the defendant knew what he did would cause death (Was he aware of what he was doing?) and whether he knew what he was doing is wrong in the legal sense. Other questions that must be considered include what it means to be mentally ill or diseased. Strict liability is also a consideration, whether an act was the result of something like drunk driving. The defense rather than the prosecution also bears the burden of proof to determine that a person was mentally diseased at the time of the killing. When you examine cases when the insanity defense was actually successful, and it very rarely ever is, you’ll find these are people who were known to be mentally diseased before they committed a crime. In such a case, they are hardly guilty of murder because their crime lies beyond the definition of murder. But I also reject a condition such as autism as being a disease of the mind. Murders committed by autistics get a lot of media coverage, but in general autistics are not known for violent or criminal behavior.

So here are the conclusions we’re left with: 1. Some autistics are unable to mentally conceive and physically execute a violent crime such as murder; 2. Harm caused by some autistics are the result of accidents from stimming; 3. Some autistics cannot be accused of murder because mental disease prevents them from understanding the nature and quality of their behavior or they do not know what they did was wrong. The question I have now is this: Which part of any of that is harmful ableism?


Look, if someone with a mental illness or a intellectual impairment commits a violent crime, they need a life sentence. Not death. If someone is so insane or their IQ is so low they can't be held accountable, well they get sent to a mental hospital.

They do not get off scot free for a crime. I look at it as they are kept away where they cannot harm another person because they were deemed dangerous to be out in public. That is why I see prisons has mental institutions now. More and more of them have been getting filled with people with mental illnesses compared to 100 years ago because mental institutions have been getting shut down over the last 50-40 years.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 50,507
Location: Stendec

29 Jun 2021, 8:36 am

As much as I want life-for-a-life vengeance against the man who murdered my cousin, I know that he is likely suffering far more and for much longer longer being kept in prison without parole.  Unfortunately, while capital punishment makes us all murderers by proxy, life imprisonment makes us all gay dungeon masters by proxy.


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,844
Location: temperate zone

29 Jun 2021, 9:14 am

cyberdad wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Yes. Was just gonna say that the op should at least give examples.
I have never been clear myself as to just what exactly "ableism" is, and is not.
I wouldnt hire a blind person to be a limo driver. But a blind person might make a good musician, deejay, or even sculpture.


In about 10 years driverless limos will mean people with two eyes won't be hired either.

In any case, the jobs of the future might be more flexible at giving new types of work for people with sensory or physical impairment.


Thats cute. Pointing out that sighted folks will soon no longer find employment as vehicle drivers. We all know that soon no one , even the able bodied, will be able to earn a living wage who isnt a billionaire. But exactly what point are you making?



thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,103

29 Jun 2021, 9:37 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
Also well it is kind of ableist to say that disabled people who have care-takers shouldn't be able to vote, and that it's dangerous for them to vote. The only way I can kind of see that is if the person is like intellectually disabled and really doesn't comprehend voting and having them do so would just cause them undue stress, But not like a mentally ill/ autistic/physically disabled person who has a guardian or people helping take care of them but still is a aware of things and how they want to vote.


I like that comment.

I just wanted to highlight it, for everyone to see how wrong AngelRho is.

Maybe we shouldn't have democracy/right to vote for everyone, but if we don't limit it to only the rule of experts, or voting as a privilege only for the well-educated, I think every citizen living in the country should have the right to vote.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 50,507
Location: Stendec

29 Jun 2021, 9:58 am

Every citizen in this country DOES have the right to vote, unless they are convicted felons (in most states).


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!