Is this making fun of the disabled or is it pandering to them?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Arakasi:

thaluikhain:

Arakasi:

Why is that the case?
When you really consider that everyone's actions are a result of either their upbringing or their genetics, how can you say they are truly responsible for their actions?

Getting onto philosophy there. Generally we attribute some measure of free will to people, or all sorts of weird things happen.

I find that playing with those weird things tend to reveal the most interesting results.
So if you weren't to apply free will to people would you consider it okay or not to mock them based upon their decisions?

If I wasn't to apply free will to people, then presumably I couldn't to myself. I'd mock or not, and right or wrong wouldn't come into it.

thaluikhain:

Arakasi:

thaluikhain:

Getting onto philosophy there. Generally we attribute some measure of free will to people, or all sorts of weird things happen.

I find that playing with those weird things tend to reveal the most interesting results.
So if you weren't to apply free will to people would you consider it okay or not to mock them based upon their decisions?

If I wasn't to apply free will to people, then presumably I couldn't to myself. I'd mock or not, and right or wrong wouldn't come into it.

Just because someone doesn't have free will doesn't mean they don't have to have morality, whatever that morality may be.
What I am asking is that if you didn't apply free will to people, whether or not you would consider it moral to mock them based upon their actions, if you don't think it's fine to mock them based upon their attributes.

FreedomofInformation:
is it now offensive to babies or people with bodies of men,heads of babies.

I generally don't worry too much about whether I'm going to offend people who have the bodies of fully grown men and the heads of babies. Maybe that's my problem.

The picture really shouldn't have expanded beyond the thread it originated in. This wasn't from a newspost. It wasn't in a FOX or CNN blog. It was a meme that some kid put together using a picture and an app. Is it offensive? Kinda, but that's the whole point. Drawing more attention to it is not going to make it any better. The post was deleted, any offense it created was mitigated. move on.

Remus:
The picture really shouldn't have expanded beyond the thread it originated in. This wasn't from a newspost. It wasn't in a FOX or CNN blog. It was a meme that some kid put together using a picture and an app. Is it offensive? Kinda, but that's the whole point. Drawing more attention to it is not going to make it any better. The post was deleted, any offense it created was mitigated. move on.

The discussion is not "what should we do about this offensive thing" but "is this offensive?" Just because you have your answer doesn't mean no one else wants to talk about it.

Arakasi:

thaluikhain:

Arakasi:

I find that playing with those weird things tend to reveal the most interesting results.
So if you weren't to apply free will to people would you consider it okay or not to mock them based upon their decisions?

If I wasn't to apply free will to people, then presumably I couldn't to myself. I'd mock or not, and right or wrong wouldn't come into it.

Just because someone doesn't have free will doesn't mean they don't have to have morality, whatever that morality may be.
What I am asking is that if you didn't apply free will to people, whether or not you would consider it moral to mock them based upon their actions, if you don't think it's fine to mock them based upon their attributes.

Didn't we have this talk? Without Free Will, then morality as we know it would break down. It wold probably be replaced by something else, yeah, but we can't talk about our morality as it is now without Free Will, as there can curretly be no notion of blame or praise without it.

Skeleon:
.. but also because it diminishes the responsibility that healthy idiots carry for their decisions.

Haha, zing.

OT: I don't find it offensive. But then again, I don't find any humor offensive. Or none that I can think of. I'm in favor of all jokes, just as I am in favor of freedom of speech. Now, it might not be very FUNNY jokes (and this one wasn't), but It's not offensive.

Arakasi:
So if you weren't to apply free will to people would you consider it okay or not to mock them based upon their decisions?

On their decisions? Yes. On things outside of their control? No.

On the subject of free will, I don't think it matters if a hard determinism stance is correct or not. If there is no free will, then I have as much free will to not judge some for an action just as much as I have freewill to judge them, which in this case, is none.

This next part is just some musings I've had while reading some laymens books on neurobiology, but wouldn't the reality of quantum mechanics leave some room for debate on determinism, as it just shows the probability of several possible states (The future is always in motion! /nerd) before the wavefunction collapse? Input from some actual physicists would be appreciated.

Jux:

Arakasi:
So if you weren't to apply free will to people would you consider it okay or not to mock them based upon their decisions?

On their decisions? Yes. On things outside of their control? No.

On the subject of free will, I don't think it matters if a hard determinism stance is correct or not. If there is no free will, then I have as much free will to not judge some for an action just as much as I have freewill to judge them, which in this case, is none.

This next part is just some musings I've had while reading some laymens books on neurobiology, but wouldn't the reality of quantum mechanics leave some room for debate on determinism, as it just shows the probability of several possible states (The future is always in motion! /nerd) before the wavefunction collapse? Input from some actual physicists would be appreciated.

That leaves room for indeterminism versus determinism, but no room for free will.

Realitycrash:

Arakasi:

thaluikhain:

If I wasn't to apply free will to people, then presumably I couldn't to myself. I'd mock or not, and right or wrong wouldn't come into it.

Just because someone doesn't have free will doesn't mean they don't have to have morality, whatever that morality may be.
What I am asking is that if you didn't apply free will to people, whether or not you would consider it moral to mock them based upon their actions, if you don't think it's fine to mock them based upon their attributes.

Didn't we have this talk? Without Free Will, then morality as we know it would break down. It wold probably be replaced by something else, yeah, but we can't talk about our morality as it is now without Free Will, as there can curretly be no notion of blame or praise without it.

Yes, we did, and I disagree with morality as we know it breaking down, The good rules for punishment still apply. One would be punished based upon harm with the goal of rehabilitation, protection (from and for society) and deterence. There would be no blame, only the methods involved in stopping it from happening again.

Arakasi:

Jux:

Arakasi:
So if you weren't to apply free will to people would you consider it okay or not to mock them based upon their decisions?

On their decisions? Yes. On things outside of their control? No.

On the subject of free will, I don't think it matters if a hard determinism stance is correct or not. If there is no free will, then I have as much free will to not judge some for an action just as much as I have freewill to judge them, which in this case, is none.

This next part is just some musings I've had while reading some laymens books on neurobiology, but wouldn't the reality of quantum mechanics leave some room for debate on determinism, as it just shows the probability of several possible states (The future is always in motion! /nerd) before the wavefunction collapse? Input from some actual physicists would be appreciated.

That leaves room for indeterminism versus determinism, but no room for free will.

Realitycrash:

Arakasi:

Just because someone doesn't have free will doesn't mean they don't have to have morality, whatever that morality may be.
What I am asking is that if you didn't apply free will to people, whether or not you would consider it moral to mock them based upon their actions, if you don't think it's fine to mock them based upon their attributes.

Didn't we have this talk? Without Free Will, then morality as we know it would break down. It wold probably be replaced by something else, yeah, but we can't talk about our morality as it is now without Free Will, as there can curretly be no notion of blame or praise without it.

Yes, we did, and I disagree with morality as we know it breaking down, The good rules for punishment still apply. One would be punished based upon harm with the goal of rehabilitation, protection (from and for society) and deterence. There would be no blame, only the methods involved in stopping it from happening again.

Which really isn't morality as we know it, as with morality as we know it, one can not be punished for something one did not freely commit (Aristotle already settled this way, way back).

Arakasi:

Jux:

Arakasi:
So if you weren't to apply free will to people would you consider it okay or not to mock them based upon their decisions?

On their decisions? Yes. On things outside of their control? No.

On the subject of free will, I don't think it matters if a hard determinism stance is correct or not. If there is no free will, then I have as much free will to not judge some for an action just as much as I have freewill to judge them, which in this case, is none.

This next part is just some musings I've had while reading some laymens books on neurobiology, but wouldn't the reality of quantum mechanics leave some room for debate on determinism, as it just shows the probability of several possible states (The future is always in motion! /nerd) before the wavefunction collapse? Input from some actual physicists would be appreciated.

That leaves room for indeterminism versus determinism, but no room for free will.

It doesn't? Please explain.

Realitycrash:

Arakasi:

Jux:

On their decisions? Yes. On things outside of their control? No.

On the subject of free will, I don't think it matters if a hard determinism stance is correct or not. If there is no free will, then I have as much free will to not judge some for an action just as much as I have freewill to judge them, which in this case, is none.

This next part is just some musings I've had while reading some laymens books on neurobiology, but wouldn't the reality of quantum mechanics leave some room for debate on determinism, as it just shows the probability of several possible states (The future is always in motion! /nerd) before the wavefunction collapse? Input from some actual physicists would be appreciated.

That leaves room for indeterminism versus determinism, but no room for free will.

Realitycrash:

Didn't we have this talk? Without Free Will, then morality as we know it would break down. It wold probably be replaced by something else, yeah, but we can't talk about our morality as it is now without Free Will, as there can curretly be no notion of blame or praise without it.

Yes, we did, and I disagree with morality as we know it breaking down, The good rules for punishment still apply. One would be punished based upon harm with the goal of rehabilitation, protection (from and for society) and deterence. There would be no blame, only the methods involved in stopping it from happening again.

Which really isn't morality as we know it, as with morality as we know it, one can not be punished for something one did not freely commit (Aristotle already settled this way, way back).

There's still a thing called 'freedom'.
Freedom is the chance to make another choice, for example if you were to come across a path with a fork, you can do one of 4 things, either stay where you are and starve, pick path a, pick path b or go back down the path you came from (and starve). If, however path b is blocked by a wall, then you cannot be blamed for picking path a, because there was no option avaliable that still allowed you to live. Whereas if both paths were open, you could be blamed for picking path a because path b was still open to you. Sure, you aren't ultimately responsible for that decision, but if you make the wrong choice you can be either rehabilitated, and/or kept away from society for their (and your) protection. Blame still works.

Jux:

Arakasi:

Jux:

On their decisions? Yes. On things outside of their control? No.

On the subject of free will, I don't think it matters if a hard determinism stance is correct or not. If there is no free will, then I have as much free will to not judge some for an action just as much as I have freewill to judge them, which in this case, is none.

This next part is just some musings I've had while reading some laymens books on neurobiology, but wouldn't the reality of quantum mechanics leave some room for debate on determinism, as it just shows the probability of several possible states (The future is always in motion! /nerd) before the wavefunction collapse? Input from some actual physicists would be appreciated.

That leaves room for indeterminism versus determinism, but no room for free will.

It doesn't? Please explain.

All indeterminism leaves room for is other possible outcomes.
By what standard is having an element of randomness free? You can't control the outcome.

Sam Harris:
Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them.

Arakasi:

Jux:

Arakasi:

That leaves room for indeterminism versus determinism, but no room for free will.

It doesn't? Please explain.

All indeterminism leaves room for is other possible outcomes.
By what standard is having an element of randomness free? You can't control the outcome.

Sam Harris:
Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them.

By what measure are you determining though that the outcome is random? Platitudes are nice, but hardly evidence.

"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".
- Arthur Schopenhauer

editted to fix forum quotes

Jux:

Arakasi:

Jux:

It doesn't? Please explain.

All indeterminism leaves room for is other possible outcomes.
By what standard is having an element of randomness free? You can't control the outcome.

Sam Harris:
Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them.

By what measure are you determining though that the outcome is random? Platitudes are nice, but hardly evidence.

Well either it's random (to some extent, within boundaries) or determined, if you can think of a third option that has some evidence towards it go ahead.

Arthur Schopenhauer:
"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".

That is one of my favorite quotes.

Arakasi:

Realitycrash:

Arakasi:

That leaves room for indeterminism versus determinism, but no room for free will.

Yes, we did, and I disagree with morality as we know it breaking down, The good rules for punishment still apply. One would be punished based upon harm with the goal of rehabilitation, protection (from and for society) and deterence. There would be no blame, only the methods involved in stopping it from happening again.

Which really isn't morality as we know it, as with morality as we know it, one can not be punished for something one did not freely commit (Aristotle already settled this way, way back).

There's still a thing called 'freedom'.
Freedom is the chance to make another choice, for example if you were to come across a path with a fork, you can do one of 4 things, either stay where you are and starve, pick path a, pick path b or go back down the path you came from (and starve). If, however path b is blocked by a wall, then you cannot be blamed for picking path a, because there was no option avaliable that still allowed you to live. Whereas if both paths were open, you could be blamed for picking path a because path b was still open to you. Sure, you aren't ultimately responsible for that decision, but if you make the wrong choice you can be either rehabilitated, and/or kept away from society for their (and your) protection. Blame still works.

It wouldn't be freedom. It would be a an agent acting out a pre-set pattern. Granted, it might be possible to change said pattern, but we can't put any blame on him, as blame today is fully intertwined with the concept of free will. We would have to redefine the concept of 'blame'.

Arakasi:
-snip-

At what point do you think the illusion of free will becomes indeterminable from the actual thing?

Arakasi:

Arthur Schopenhauer:
"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".

That is one of my favorite quotes.

So, if you agree with this, in what way is action random? Even if you were to subscribe to the idea what what we will is not of our control, we still have the choice to act or not act on what we will. That doesn't seem very random to me.

Realitycrash:

Arakasi:

Realitycrash:

Which really isn't morality as we know it, as with morality as we know it, one can not be punished for something one did not freely commit (Aristotle already settled this way, way back).

There's still a thing called 'freedom'.
Freedom is the chance to make another choice, for example if you were to come across a path with a fork, you can do one of 4 things, either stay where you are and starve, pick path a, pick path b or go back down the path you came from (and starve). If, however path b is blocked by a wall, then you cannot be blamed for picking path a, because there was no option avaliable that still allowed you to live. Whereas if both paths were open, you could be blamed for picking path a because path b was still open to you. Sure, you aren't ultimately responsible for that decision, but if you make the wrong choice you can be either rehabilitated, and/or kept away from society for their (and your) protection. Blame still works.

It wouldn't be freedom. It would be a an agent acting out a pre-set pattern. Granted, it might be possible to change said pattern, but we can't put any blame on him, as blame today is fully intertwined with the concept of free will. We would have to redefine the concept of 'blame'.

I beg to differ. Very little changes, and what does, changes for the better.

Jux:

Arakasi:
-snip-

At what point do you think the illusion of free will becomes indeterminable from the actual thing?

At the point of reality? Sure the illusion of free will exists, that's currently how society works, but there is actually no free will, so perhaps something needs changing.

Jux:

Arakasi:

Arthur Schopenhauer:
"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".

That is one of my favorite quotes.

So, if you agree with this, in what way is action random? Even if you were to subscribe to the idea what what we will is not of our control, we still have the choice to act or not act on what we will. That doesn't seem very random to me.

I didn't say action is random? I said action can be influenced by random entities if indeterminism were the case, but there'd still be no room for free will as both the random influence and everything that was determined up until that point are still outside of an individual's control. This 'choice' to act on what we will, is no choice, it was either predetermined or partly predetermined and part random.

Arakasi:
At the point of reality? Sure the illusion of free will exists, that's currently how society works, but there is actually no free will, so perhaps something needs changing.

What do you think needs changing, and to what purpose?

Arakasi:
-snip-

Will try to get back to this later. Just ate, stuffed. Too much tres leches parfait to think right now. You may want to fix the quotes though, as you were quoting me, not Blahb.

Arakasi:

Jux:

Arakasi:

All indeterminism leaves room for is other possible outcomes.
By what standard is having an element of randomness free? You can't control the outcome.

By what measure are you determining though that the outcome is random? Platitudes are nice, but hardly evidence.

Well either it's random (to some extent, within boundaries) or determined, if you can think of a third option

An immaterial consciousness which, unlike anything ever encountered, does not operate according to natural laws but instead allows individual agents to make decisions without the process of coming to a decision depending on any physical or chemical interaction--

that has some evidence towards it

Oh.

You're no fun. :P

(Though some assert that the illusion of free will itself is evidence of such agent causation.)

Jux:

Arakasi:
At the point of reality? Sure the illusion of free will exists, that's currently how society works, but there is actually no free will, so perhaps something needs changing.

What do you think needs changing, and to what purpose?

The justice system. The purpose should not be punishment, there are 3 purposes to the justice system and they are as follows:
-Rehabilitation
-Protection (to and from the rest of society)
-Deterrence

Jux:

Arakasi:
-snip-

Will try to get back to this later. Just ate, stuffed. Too much tres leches parfait to think right now. You may want to fix the quotes though, as you were quoting me, not Blahb.

Crap. Must have dragged that in from another argument.

Seanchaidh:

Arakasi:

Jux:

By what measure are you determining though that the outcome is random? Platitudes are nice, but hardly evidence.

Well either it's random (to some extent, within boundaries) or determined, if you can think of a third option

An immaterial consciousness which, unlike anything ever encountered, does not operate according to natural laws but instead allows individual agents to make decisions without the process of coming to a decision depending on any physical or chemical interaction--

that has some evidence towards it

Oh.

You're no fun. :P

(Though some assert that the illusion of free will itself is evidence of such agent causation.)

And some are stupid.
People have more of a basis to argue for god than they do 'free will'.
At least god has clear cut definition.

Arakasi:
The justice system. The purpose should not be punishment, there are 3 purposes to the justice system and they are as follows:
-Rehabilitation
-Protection (to and from the rest of society)
-Deterrence

Well this I can very much agree with. Looking at recidivism rates of countries that focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment, it should seem obvious they're doing something right. I'm just hesistant to be changing the whole concept of blame, as there would be some far reaching social implacations.

Jux:

Arakasi:
The justice system. The purpose should not be punishment, there are 3 purposes to the justice system and they are as follows:
-Rehabilitation
-Protection (to and from the rest of society)
-Deterrence

Well this I can very much agree with. Looking at recidivism rates of countries that focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment, it should seem obvious they're doing something right. I'm just hesistant to be changing the whole concept of blame, as there would be some far reaching social implacations.

Tell me what could go wrong?
I can't see anything that would be problematic.

Arakasi:
Tell me what could go wrong?
I can't see anything that would be problematic.

People mistaking the lack of blame for a lack of responsibility for an action. In general I think turning a thing commonly accepted, something that could be considered the core of many peoples psyches, on its head, could be a problem in and of itself.

Unless science is pretty definitive that free will isn't a thing, the empiricist in me would put the breaks on pushing it for that reason alone.

What is the point of pushing it? Why can the ideas behind it, like the changing of the justice system, not be implemented independently of also pushing this idea?

Jux:

Arakasi:
Tell me what could go wrong?
I can't see anything that would be problematic.

People mistaking the lack of blame for a lack of responsibility for an action. In general I think turning a thing commonly accepted, something that could be considered the core of many peoples psyches, on its head, could be a problem in and of itself.

Only idiots would misinterpret it. And as such that is not a problem with the idea, but a problem with people.
The kind of people who would misinterpret it are far more likely to simply deny it anyway.

Jux:

Unless science is pretty definitive that free will isn't a thing, the empiricist in me would put the breaks on pushing it for that reason alone.

To the same extent that god doesn't exist, free will does not exist.

Jux:

What is the point of pushing it? Why can the ideas behind it, like the changing of the justice system, not be implemented independently of also pushing this idea?

I'm not saying they can't, this just provides a good justification for it, and would also change the way we think about justice, instead of just changing the rules.

Arakasi:
Only idiots would misinterpret it. And as such that is not a problem with the idea, but a problem with people.
The kind of people who would misinterpret it are far more likely to simply deny it anyway.

Can you show that only 'idiots' would misinterpret it? I personally think it is something that could be easily misinterptreted if you don't have a decent grouding in philosophy and neurobiology.

Arakasi:
To the same extent that god doesn't exist, free will does not exist.

So in your eyes the existence of free will carries the same extraordinary claim that the existence of a god, or fairies or unicorns does?

Jux:

Arakasi:
Only idiots would misinterpret it. And as such that is not a problem with the idea, but a problem with people.
The kind of people who would misinterpret it are far more likely to simply deny it anyway.

Can you show that only 'idiots' would misinterpret it? I personally think it is something that could be easily misinterptreted if you don't have a decent grouding in philosophy and neurobiology.

Idiots and/or stubborn people who use that as an attack against the idea. It doesn't matter whether it is harmful or not, the fact is that it's right. I mean come on, I understood this at age 15 with no grounding in philosophy or neruobiology.

Jux:

Arakasi:
To the same extent that god doesn't exist, free will does not exist.

So in your eyes the existence of free will carries the same extraordinary claim that the existence of a god, or fairies or unicorns does?

Absolutely.
To quote you when you tried to explain the only means by which it could exist:

An immaterial consciousness which, unlike anything ever encountered, does not operate according to natural laws but instead allows individual agents to make decisions without the process of coming to a decision depending on any physical or chemical interaction--

How and why would a being evolve such a thing? We know we are the products of evolution, so there would have to be a way that something material created this immaterial thing, despite it not being able to be interacted with physical processes.
It's basically just an appeal to the supernatural.

Captcha: agree to disagree
Something I'll never do in the free will argument.

From what I understand, you're wondering if hiring diabled employees without the necessary skills but giving credit because they're disabled is something an accepting society should do or not?

In which case I say if they can't do the job properly they shouldn't have applied and shouldn't be hired, regardless of the reason. In even more controversial territory, I'm learning that university lecturers are not selected based on their ability to speak English understandably. In a country where English is the national language, I don't think stigma of racism is a good enough reason to degrade education. Same thing with disabled people. But that said, I don't think nearly there is nearly as much stigma around not hiring a disabled person because they're unable to do the job, and that's how it should be.

Or...I'm reading far too much into this, because I simply cannot see how the picture panders in any way to disabled people. It is making fun of them, obviously, and no, I don't think it should be banned in the same way I don't think any other type of humour should be banned, at all.

Arakasi:

Jux:

Arakasi:
Only idiots would misinterpret it. And as such that is not a problem with the idea, but a problem with people.
The kind of people who would misinterpret it are far more likely to simply deny it anyway.

Can you show that only 'idiots' would misinterpret it? I personally think it is something that could be easily misinterptreted if you don't have a decent grouding in philosophy and neurobiology.

Idiots and/or stubborn people who use that as an attack against the idea. It doesn't matter whether it is harmful or not, the fact is that it's right. I mean come on, I understood this at age 15 with no grounding in philosophy or neruobiology.

So because you arrived at that conclusion at a young age, it follows that everyone should be able to?

Arakasi:

Jux:

Arakasi:
To the same extent that god doesn't exist, free will does not exist.

So in your eyes the existence of free will carries the same extraordinary claim that the existence of a god, or fairies or unicorns does?

Absolutely.
To quote you when you tried to explain the only means by which it could exist:

An immaterial consciousness which, unlike anything ever encountered, does not operate according to natural laws but instead allows individual agents to make decisions without the process of coming to a decision depending on any physical or chemical interaction--

May want to look back and see who you are quoting. That was Seanchaidh, not me.

I'm not even arguing for or against your position, right now I'm just asking questions.

Jux:

Arakasi:

Jux:

Can you show that only 'idiots' would misinterpret it? I personally think it is something that could be easily misinterptreted if you don't have a decent grouding in philosophy and neurobiology.

Idiots and/or stubborn people who use that as an attack against the idea. It doesn't matter whether it is harmful or not, the fact is that it's right. I mean come on, I understood this at age 15 with no grounding in philosophy or neruobiology.

So because you arrived at that conclusion at a young age, it follows that everyone should be able to?

No, I'm saying that because I arrived at it from a young age others should be able to at least get it eventually, or as adults if they go into fields such as law where knowledge of it would be nessecary for understanding the philosophies involved in the creation of those laws.

Jux:

Arakasi:

Jux:

So in your eyes the existence of free will carries the same extraordinary claim that the existence of a god, or fairies or unicorns does?

Absolutely.
To quote you when you tried to explain the only means by which it could exist:

An immaterial consciousness which, unlike anything ever encountered, does not operate according to natural laws but instead allows individual agents to make decisions without the process of coming to a decision depending on any physical or chemical interaction--

May want to look back and see who you are quoting. That was Seanchaidh, not me.

I'm not even arguing for or against your position, right now I'm just asking questions.

Damn it, anyhow it still helps prove my point. That's about the only way you can assert free will exists, and it is up there with trying to prove god exists. Hell, it may even be able to be disproven by neurobiology.

MeChaNiZ3D:
In even more controversial territory, I'm learning that university lecturers are not selected based on their ability to speak English understandably. In a country where English is the national language, I don't think stigma of racism is a good enough reason to degrade education.

You're not kidding. I used to have a Russian university lecturer who was utterly incomprehensible. It also didn't help that his handwriting was the sloppiest scrawl I'd seen since leaving primary school. Apparently the guy was a genius and did brilliant research, but he couldn't teach worth a damn, and his language (in)ability played a big part in that.

As for the OP question - is it making fun of the disabled? Well, yeah, clearly. Is it hateful? I wouldn't go that far, but let's not resort to patronising and self-deceiving linguistic gymnastics here, mentally disabled people are usually lower in intelligence than the rest of the population, and that was the aspect being alluded to. It's an uncomfortable truth and bluntly put, but not exactly slanderous or defaming. What's next, making "stupid" and "idiot" hatespeech because they're terms that discriminate against the cognitively challenged?

MeChaNiZ3D:
In even more controversial territory, I'm learning that university lecturers are not selected based on their ability to speak English understandably.

Well, what they have to tell and their ability to teach should be more important than that.

If someone's difficult to comprehend, that would be a different story, but a bit of an accent shouldn't be a problem.

Blablahb:

MeChaNiZ3D:
In even more controversial territory, I'm learning that university lecturers are not selected based on their ability to speak English understandably.

Well, what they have to tell and their ability to teach should be more important than that.

If someone's difficult to comprehend, that would be a different story, but a bit of an accent shouldn't be a problem.

No, I'm talking about lecturers that have to avoid even saying certain words (like 'components') because they know no-one in the room will understand what they're saying. The sort of accent that actually degrades teaching ability. I'm not against a 'bit of an accent'.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here