I don’t know about the drama behind this thread, but I think it does touch on an interesting philosophical topic. I think that the term “disability” inherently connotes negativity, undesirablility, and that 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.

Also important to keep clear are the differences between saying someone has an undesirable condition, and saying that that person is undesirable. Like, I wouldn’t want to have [inset any manner of misfortune], but that doesn’t mean that I have any criticism of the people that do, that means I have sympathy for their plight. And if they don’t consider their condition something undesirable, and my pity is misplaced, then my bad, more power to you if you’ve got that going on by choice.

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

Well I'm not sure about that. A disability is simply the lack of some ability. When you are unable to do what an able-bodied individual could, then you can aptly be called physically disabled. What your preferences are, are beside the point. If you have [some illness or injury here] that ailment doesn't cease to be an aliment because you like it.

I'll also add that there is no way for a disabled person to know whether they would prefer able-bodied life.

What a strange, backwards world we live in when we need to act like a disability is just a harmless difference rather than a detriment. I don’t know about this Thread drama either, but identifying the recognition of the obvious physical drawbacks of having a missing limb as some kinda “ableist” bigotry is ridiculous. We’ve only heard the one sided, most likely rose coloured glasses version but if its considered bigoted to suppose god allowing someone to be born with no legs is a moral failing on gods part because we’re all supposed to pretend disabilities are not disabilities then that is some grade A baloney. Im very skeptical the mods on this site would be so far succumbed to whatever far left extremist nonsense gave birth to the idea that they would threaten banning on that basis alone.

Ergo, atheism has a common problem of ableism and is morally bankrupt, etc. — JohnRB

I've been an Atheist for a while, and any time I have used amputees as an example against God's existence, it was never to demean the amputee. It was to show that God is either not all-powerful, or not all-loving. You cannot be both and sit back while people are born without limbs. If I had the power to grow someone's limbs back, I would do it. If I had the power to stop a child from being abducted, or abused, I would do it.

People would be angry with police if a policeman sat and watched a child get tortured and killed. They would probably say things like, "You're here to protect us! You're here to serve the public and help people in need! You should be fired! You're horrible for sitting there and watching this happen!" - Yet we hold God to a lower standard than a worldly policeman? It's ok for God to sit back and watch, but not ok for us worldly people to sit back and watch. Weird...

I didn't believe the thread was ableist, it wasn't saying "people who have a disease are evil", it was just using a metaphor comparing sin to a disease.

Actually, what you were held to account for in the now-deleted thread was your description of someone as being "bound" to their wheelchair. I pointed out that a wheelchair does not bind a person with a disability; it sets them free. Your ableism was the presumption that a wheelchair is a bad thing.

What was philosophically objectionable was your uncritical use of the term evil, which you have repeated. Have a look at this thread on one of Anscombe's papers for more on this issue.

I did the search you suggested; there were threads about amputating penises but nothing I could see that exemplifies your supposedly common argument. Thats not to say they are not there - could you provide a direct link to a few?

As a curtesy, one might link folk in to continuations of discussions that have involved them. Use the @ tool in the editing menu.

I pointed out that a wheelchair does not bind a person with a disability; it sets them free. — Banno

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. For future reference, let’s call these claims the Ableist Difficulty or AD.

Second, if you want to make that claim now, we’ll okay. We might have had a useful conversation had you actually tried to make these points to begin with. But these points aren’t really relevant to this thread per se.

In this thread I was simply arguing along the following lines. Take a belief like ‘B’ where B = “Becoming paralyzed counts as a disability and a bad/evil thing.”

Let’s say that if you have B then you are subject to the Ableist Difficulty. (The BAD conditional)

If B makes one subject to the ableist problem, then it would seem the prevalence of the amputee argument for atheism makes it subject to the ableist problem since it must be grounded in a belief very much like B.

Others in this thread have answered the argument by denying the conditional.

Now to make your comments relevant, let me assume that you also want to deny BAD and instead affirm some narrow premise like this: belief C = “Someone who has lost the ability to walk, and must use a wheelchair, might accurately be described as bound to their wheelchair.” And you want to say that C is subject to AD.

Well, okay. But it seems that C doesn’t have relevance to religious or non-religious thought per se. There is nothing in religious thought, so far as I know that would entail or make it make it more likely that they accept C.

So I guess I couldn’t say atheists have the CAD problem, but neither do religious people.

Setting that aside, we might draw the two threads together and ask whether I have a CAD problem.

I guess I would say that there is an ambiguity problem in your claim that “ a wheelchair does not bind a person with a disability; it sets them free.”

The description is relative. I agree that wheelchairs give a greater degree of freedom to some paralyzed people than they would otherwise have. But this freedom is clearly more limited and might be said to be unfree relative to their former ability to walk, dance, run, jump. Further their limited freedom is bound to the wheelchair chair. If you want to argue these claims are subject to AD, be my guest.

Your ableism was the presumption that a wheelchair is a bad thing.

No. The illustration had nothing to do with a wheelchair as a device... and it seems odd that you would think I was trying to make a statement on the morality wheelchairs in that way. The illustration was about what might be common language to describe someone who has suffered an accident, become paralyzed, and confined to a wheelchair. The person’s overall experience can be described in common lay as a privation, but the state of affairs might also be described in common language as a power (binding), with the wheelchair as a synecdoche.

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

Don't feel bad. Banno requests deletions and bannings almost daily. :joke:

I'd mention the narcissicoquickening pulsethrotte goosestep of the vacant kings if I thought there were such a thing.

almost daily — ZzzoneiroCosm

That's a tad exaggerated. But yes, wear my condemnation with pride. At the least, it will earn you another few dozen posts on this pustulant thread.

I did read this thread yesterday and it lingered with me - so I thought I thought I should answer the 3 questions it raised for me:

• On the question of ableism relation to atheism and moral. I do believe that you can raise an atheist argument that is filled with all different kinds of offences - some of them might be pertinent to the discussed subject (given the third point I will just link to this article). I believe the question asked is whether an offence can be avoided. Because we (at least me) don't want to exclude people from a discussion by offending them, or to offend when ever we can avoid it (I do believe passionately that avoiding a discussion altogether because it might or will cause offence is one of the worst arguments raised throughout the history of human culture). And about moral - well it is your opinion and your definition of moral that has to equate between ableism and moral. Taking the first definition of the Miriam Webster online dictionary:of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
  I will have to say - the context is the key. In a discussion forum which is open to every one - you should be as kind and open as you can be. Or at least you should be moderated to be as much. It is also the prerogative of a discussion forum to clearly outline what are the limits of the discussion taken within it (as long as there are other forum for such disscussions, but hey it's the internet).
• On the question of whether a post that does show 'ableism' is worthy of deletion. I do believe that it should first be moderated - if it can be changed to include as much people as possible without offending them, that should be suggested as a better way. If that is not possible and the offending subject itself was already discussed - it might better to place it in that context (and alerting readers that a subject discussed might be offending to them). If it is a new subject and it is one of the principles of the forum to keep that subject out of discussion - it should be explained with kindness and openness pre deletion (not with expletives which could show that the moderator itself being "guilty" of excluding people) with suggestion on forums that do allow such discussions.
• The post itself raised (to me) the question of whether I should censor myself and not take part in it - just to keep myself out of being possibly banned (as any other person who has used language to raise arguments - my arguments might and have offended other people). But I do believe that self censorship is the worst kind of censorship - not to be confused with not having common courtesy or being a deliberately offending person. And I also believe that just by stirring out of a discussion we don't allow ourself and the world around us to explain why this discussion is worth stirring out of, instead of just avoiding (like boring discussions).

pustulant thread — Banno

The only pustulant thread I smell here is the one your Ariadne is about to let go of. To feast on beast or to be feasted upon?!

there is still
somewhere deep within you
a beast shouting that the earth
is exactly what it wanted — Mary Oliver

A swift proposal to feed the famished fauxlings with wasted troves of amputatiana.

all in good friendly evil fun
pacing to the feast in the basement of the sun — The Minotaur

wear my condemnation with pride — Banno

Pride of the playful executioner: Now add my tickling tongue to the fires of the damned!

(Pasiphaë's ill-tempered moon makes for odd mazefellows!)

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

If this argument were ableist, which I'm not sure it is, but if it were, then that would be a problem with the individual atheists using the argument and not with atheism per se, because atheism does not require or necessarily invoke that argument.

That's right, but recall that the original claim was supposed to be that the ableism was suggestive of "religious thought" generally. The same would then follow for 'x' thought generally--in this case, atheism--unless we can think of reasons for why one instance of ableism must suggest something of religious thought generally but one instance of ableism wouldn't be suggestive for other atheist thought generally.

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

I can't post new forum topics on "non-religious" forums due to my chosen religion. If you want to post forum topics on "non-religious" forums you should pick a new religion or become non-religious. lol. I just comment on other peoples forum topics on forums such as this.

Who is to say there will be genitals in heaven, or four limbs, assuming monotheism? What is the perfect or normal human body?

I'd assume he meant that being "injured", such as losing one's leg in a car accident, was a bad thing, but if you wish to interpret it as an intended "attack" against people for using wheelchairs, nothing can stop you.

http://cdrnys.org/blog/uncategorized/ableism/

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

This is a strange thread to get all worked up about I think. We all suffer from disabilities of some sort, I suppose, with some weaker in some respects and some stronger than others when compared to one another.

Am I to understand the atheist's argument in its most abstract form is that there must not be a perfect God if there are imperfect people? That seems to be a logical argument in some regard and might really be just a restatement of the problem of evil, as in, how can there be something less than perfect (i.e. that which is to some degree bad) with an all perfect creator?

My guess is that the ableism objections arose due to those who lacked particular tact, due to those who had particular sensitives, or a combination of both. Regardless, how can there be bad when God is all good? That's a tough one.

Regardless, how can there be bad when God is all good? That's a tough one.

I think that according to Judaism God is essentially good, but make no mistake about it he is the source of bad things according to Judaism.

"I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. I am the LORD, that does all these things" (Isaiah 45,6-7)

It is worth noting that this is translated and "evil" in the original hebrew is maybe something more along the lines of "misfortune" or "badness" as opposed to our modern understanding of evil which is Christianized. Just something to think about.

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.

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

This strikes me as incorrect, but I'll defer to whatever cites you have to Judaic authority, as I recognize there might be variation in Jewish thought. See, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides for Maimonedes views on theodicy (the problem of evil): "God did not create evil, rather God created good, and evil exists where good is absent (Guide for the Perplexed , 3:10).

I also read the Lubavitcher Rebbe Schneerson as coming extremely close to denying evil exists in any form, including the Holocaust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_theology . This Wiki article does best address the theodicy question in Judaism in that the summaries of Jewish views it provides ach grapple with the very Jewish question of how an omnibenevolent God could allow for the Holocaust. The Jewish view is not, as you suggest, because God is evil.

To your greater thesis that Christianity worships a fundamentally different diety than the Jews. I'm hesitant to accept. The. New Testament obviously alters the OT theology, but I don't think so radically that Christians will claim their God is not the God of Abraham. The Fundamentalsts believe in fact the OT to be the literal word of God.

Here's a pretty neutral source on what Jews believe about God.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-nature-of-g-d

You'll notice that "omni-benevolent" is missing. Benevolence is defined by Merriam-Webster as a "disposition to do good." Someone could still be a good being - at least I think - without an innately benevolent nature. Think about a fair judge, maybe.

"God did not create evil, rather God created good, and evil exists where good is absent (Guide for the Perplexed , 3:10).

I understand what Maimonedes is saying here and I hold him in high regard but I just don't know how to square what he's saying here with:

"I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. I am the LORD, that does all these things" (Isaiah 45,6-7)

If I gotta choose one I'm going with the bible.

To your greater thesis that Christianity worships a fundamentally different diety than the Jews. I'm hesitant to accept.

Just to give some context I'm bouncing this idea off you. I literally had this same discussion with a yeshivist maybe 6 months ago where I argued your position. I have zero personal emotional stake in this argument and I'm hoping we can work together to reach a more reasonable conclusion and resolve some tension.

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.

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

And I also was having this very discussion with a Chasidic rabbi down at my local Chabad center and his position was unequivocal that God was all good and that those things we think are evil are only due to our inability to understand. The analogy was how a child might think the medicine is bad, but it serves a higher good he could not understand. 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.

The problem of evil is a real challenge to religion and I don't think there is a good way out. I'm not terribly worried about it personally because I view religious writings as culminations of historical and cultural wisdom, full of value and meaning, just not of literal meaning.

I'm not fully convinced the Torah even speaks of the same God throughout, with references to El and Yahweh, so I'd have to get past that first before I even attempted to attribute all sorts of specific attributes to him. And, speaking of attributes, Rambam has an entire line of thought that claims that if you itemize attributes of God, you violate his monotheistic nature and are therefore polytheistic, guilty of the highest sin.

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.

Yep, and honestly you don't even need to go this far to pull these kind of examples. Just look at the first 6 plagues on the Egyptians: He gave boils to the entire Egyptian population and killed off their livestock. The Egyptian people didn't really do anything. It was their leader. Obviously we could go on here. I guess goodness just doesn't really relate to reducing suffering?

The Jewish God is definitely, definitely not omni-benevolent. He might still be all good. I think it's important to draw a distinction here because we typically think of good broadly speaking as benevolence; in other words, a kind of positive, loving attitude towards humanity that just kind of radiates out. Don't get me wrong, it would be lovely if God were like this but I just don't see it as a reality. I think if he is "all good" that goodness is not quite what we intuitively think of. I hate to say it, but for all we know the holocaust victims are up in heaven having a party where nobody ever gets bored or tired.

One thing that's very interesting is that Christians divide up the good and the evil and they attribute to Satan. I feel like this belief in a Satan who must be fought leads to a more Manichaean, black-and-white version of the world than a lot of Jews tend to traditionally have. If little demon-like figures were to pop up on Earth tomorrow and start killing people it would be a holy war against Satan for the Christians and "God's work" for the Jews.

I'd like to shed some insight on EI and Yahweh but I just don't know.

http://cdrnys.org/blog/uncategorized/ableism/ — Banno

A question or two as I try to work through my ableist tendencies :grimace: And feel free to take me to task, but please do so specifically...I obviously do not understand the general point being made in that link.

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? Isn't that all that is happening in most of these cases of ableism? I get that what is true for 90% of people says nothing about any one individual. But on average, it just seems accurate (true)?? Most humans would also prefer to be smarter, better looking, and more talented. Is this in some way discriminatory to those that are uglier, dumber, or less talented??

This is not coming from a place of "they need to be cured" but rather "I would not want to be in that position". I could be trained to not SAY THINGS that imply I would not want to be in that position, but this does nothing for the FACT that I prefer not being disabled.

A sick person is not "worse" than a healthy person. However, most of us prefer to be healthy. Isn't this the same for disabled people?

The way ableism is described it seems like any condition preferred by a super-majority is somehow discriminatory to those that prefer something else??

If someone tells me my behavior is offensive to them, I will make an effort to change my behavior that relates to them. It does not mean I have any reason to apply that changed behavior to the rest of the world.

If I assume that most people... would prefer to have all their limbs and that they are fully functional... am I being ableist? — ZhouBoTong

What do you think? Tell me where you are in your own thinking. Feel free to be guided by the article.

SO

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?

Do you think this is saying the same thing as you said above? — Banno

I don't think so...am I wrong?

If I am not wrong, then my point is that most scenarios that people might see as ableism, are actually just what I described.

What do you think? Tell me where you are in your own thinking. Feel free to be guided by the article. — Banno

I thought I did in my previous post...let me know if you were looking for something more specific.

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

Hm. Compare again the quote:

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.

and what you asked:

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?

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.

That is, what you describe is not abelism.

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.

Wheelchair users are not confined by their chair, but by stairs.

That is, what you describe is not abelism. — Banno

And yet a third party watching my behavior would not be able to tell the difference? So the disabled person would still be offended and ask that I change my behavior...?

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...? I get this is very loaded and all sorts of racism/sexism etc actions occur as we prioritize a particular perspective...but in any other arena it is just accepted that people prefer what they prefer.

I am not pretty and I am also very socially awkward. Should I be demanding that all the pretty and charming people start communicating from my perspective? Isn't this where this sort of reasoning is headed? (please do not say this is slippery slope nonsense - I may be wrong, but that is not why) Should all the low IQ people demand that the rest of us communicate from their perspective?

Is there some simple categorization I am missing that makes it obviously OK to discriminate in situation X, but it is a huge problem in situation Y? Wouldn't it be easier to just tell people to stop being dicks?

Why is wrong to preference the perspective that the majority of people have...? — ZhouBoTong

Justice.

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.

What's interesting here - and I think is true across the disability rights movement - is that it's those in the disability community basically get the priority in terms of setting the discourse in terms of the true nature of their disability and how it ought to be treated. Just for reference, I am a disabled person and part of a disability community although my disability isn't a physical one. I love discussions on ableism so I had to jump in here. I feel like gender and race get discussed often but disability isn't quite on that level yet.

You offered some good insight onto the physical disability side of things, are you by any chance physically disabled or was that just an example? A lot of able-bodied people would generally think of a wheelchair user as confined, and to be honest the topic hadn't really crossed my mind but now that you brought it up what said makes sense. I've never had to deal with challenge. If I was to find myself in that position I would go the community.

Why is wrong to preference the perspective that the majority of people have...?

The majority doesn't have the disability. They have no idea what's going on. If I want to understand blindness would I just go to some random person who can see and tell them to explain it to me or should I actually go within the blind community?