if someone has a condition that they don’t dislike, even if other people would commonly call that condition a disability, it’s actually not, if they’re happier being that way than otherwise. A condition is only a disability (or for that matter a disease) if it is unwanted. — Pfhorrest
Ergo, atheism has a common problem of ableism and is morally bankrupt, etc. — JohnRB
I pointed out that a wheelchair does not bind a person with a disability; it sets them free. — Banno
Your ableism was the presumption that a wheelchair is a bad thing.
First, you didn’t actually make this claim. You merely asserted that the post was “ableist shit”, illustrative of why religious thought is useless, and asked for the thread to be deleted and for me to be banned. — JohnRB
almost daily — ZzzoneiroCosm
pustulant thread — Banno
there is still
somewhere deep within you
a beast shouting that the earth
is exactly what it wanted — Mary Oliver
all in good friendly evil fun
pacing to the feast in the basement of the sun — The Minotaur
wear my condemnation with pride — Banno
Atheists commonly appeal to amputees as a case study in the problem of evil and the efficacy of prayer. In fact, if you use the search bar in the top right you'll find several threads where people engage in this very tactc.
The appeal to amputees in these scenarios is inherently casting them in a negative light: as if their differently abled bodies are an instance of "evil" or in need of being "healed".
Ergo, atheism has a common problem of ableism and is morally bankrupt, etc. — JohnRB
It was brought to my attention yesterday that using an analogy which involved a person who lost the ability to walk in an accident was guilty of ableism, evidence of the moral bankruptcy of religious thought, merited the deletion of my thread and, further, merited the the suggestion that I should be banned.
Let's grant that this is true for the sake of argument. This leads to the amputee problem, but probably not the one you're all expecting!
Atheists commonly appeal to amputees as a case study in the problem of evil and the efficacy of prayer. In fact, if you use the search bar in the top right you'll find several threads where people engage in this very tactc.
The appeal to amputees in these scenarios is inherently casting them in a negative light: as if their differently abled bodies are an instance of "evil" or in need of being "healed".
Ergo, atheism has a common problem of ableism and is morally bankrupt, etc. — JohnRB
The appeal to amputees in these scenarios is inherently casting them in a negative light: as if their differently abled bodies are an instance of "evil" or in need of being "healed".
Ergo, atheism has a common problem of ableism and is morally bankrupt, etc. — JohnRB
Regardless, how can there be bad when God is all good? That's a tough one.
In any case - coming at it as someone who was raised Jewish - I've never found appeals to the existence of evil in the world as contradicting God's existence particularly convincing. God is no pure, Christian saint. — BitconnectCarlos
"God did not create evil, rather God created good, and evil exists where good is absent (Guide for the Perplexed , 3:10).
To your greater thesis that Christianity worships a fundamentally different diety than the Jews. I'm hesitant to accept.
The basic tension I have is this: God is not evil, but seemingly according to the bible he does cause evil - or at the very least - misfortune (translational issues concerning "evil" are relevant here). In my discussion with yeshivists they were pretty adamant that God was ultimately behind everything in the universe, but that he is also perfect. Everybody agrees that he is perfect. — BitconnectCarlos
Of course, this line of thought creates serious problems because you are left with the idea of thanking God for the holocaust, hurricanes that kill tens of thousands, the 9/11 attacks and so on.
If I assume that most people... would prefer to have all their limbs and that they are fully functional... am I being ableist? — ZhouBoTong
Ableism is a set of beliefs or practices that devalue and discriminate against people with physical, intellectual, or psychiatric disabilities and often rests on the assumption that disabled people need to be ‘fixed’ in one form or the other.
Do you think this is saying the same thing as you said above? — Banno
What do you think? Tell me where you are in your own thinking. Feel free to be guided by the article. — Banno
If I am not wrong, then my point is that most scenarios that people might see as ableism, are actually just what I described. — ZhouBoTong
and what you asked:Ableism is a set of beliefs or practices that devalue and discriminate against people with physical, intellectual, or psychiatric disabilities and often rests on the assumption that disabled people need to be ‘fixed’ in one form or the other.
It seems to me that these are not the same. That a person would prefer to have all their limbs is not devaluing nor discriminating against an amputee.If I assume that most people (whether an amputee or not) would prefer to have all their limbs and that they are fully functional...am I being ableist?
That is, what you describe is not abelism. — Banno
Contrast two descriptions of using a wheelchair. An amputee finds that with a chair they are able to go to cafes, to shop, to attend concerts, to participate in society. But then someone describes them as being "confined" to their chair. That view is a media cliche, one that preferences the perspective of the able bodied to that of the disabled. — Banno
Why is wrong to preference the perspective that the majority of people have...? — ZhouBoTong
Contrast two descriptions of using a wheelchair. An amputee finds that with a chair they are able to go to cafes, to shop, to attend concerts, to participate in society. But then someone describes them as being "confined" to their chair. That view is a media cliche, one that preferences the perspective of the able bodied to that of the disabled.
Why is wrong to preference the perspective that the majority of people have...?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.