dear MN HQ could you please be so kind as to explain to me publicaly why you allow thread like the super race one

Yes, amber, but the whole point of MN i that everyone is here on an equal footing. No-one knows anything about anyone else's circumstances unless they choose to share that. As such I would be very doubtful that the DDA would be applicable. And I doubt that anyone would want people's right to self-expression limited because they may unintentionally have said something that offends someone else, without having any clear idea of whom they are offending.

Some people are just not that good at arguing without going on the defensive. That doesn't mean they are "harassing".

Incidentally, does anyone knows Godwin's Law on internet forums? I find it amusing that the other thread descended to Godwin's law just before the cutoff- clearly 1000 is a good number to end a thread at...

Disability Discrimination Act:

"... harassment of someone for a reason relating to the person's disability is unlawful. It is defined as conduct that violates the disabled person's dignity, or which creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. Once again, this sits well with the positive duty to promote disability equality, because it is about how we can create a positive environment, even when it is not known whether there are any disabled people present"

The Duty applies to the owners of websites who declare that they are based in the UK for legal purposes or who can be safely construed as being so.

It especially applies when someone on their website has a learning disability/cognitive disability such as Asperger syndrome, where the level of bullying is proven to be 4 times higher than for other disabilities, and we cannot defend ourselves adequately when an attack gets personal, nor work out the dynamics of it quickly enough to make a good argument. (It doesn't help when we have people mocking their argument on this thread, for example). Therefore the law is now looking for a high level of responsible behaviour from service providers.

The current maximum penalty under the DDA is £500,000, or if a criminal harassment case against a particular individual with a disability because of that disability, it counts as an aggravated offence and can earn some time in prison.

Healthy debate, fine. But in disability issues we all now have to tread very, very carefully indeed to ensure that the debate remains healthy rather than intimidating, humiliating, hostile or belittling.

I think you'll find that thread is peppered with hostile and humiliating comments to those with a disability or about those whose children have a disability. I certainly find it so. I'm rather sad.

PlainOldPeachy what a good post.

If you read the enttire thread OP didn't change her mind: indeed at one point she said the majority of posts were meaningless to her or something like that.

And you know what- we could read such thread titles and think 'oh look the Tosser brigade is out tonight' because in many ways it seems thats what we are expected to do: to think that 'it is obvious that the vast majority don't think like that' and be done. Yet..... whenever the SN threads are raised we are lauded for our power to educate; there have even been instances where posters have admitted they didn't realise we loved our kids! So if we do as the show-the-tolerance crowd would ask we miss that chance.

The chance to educate about the negative sides of such a phrase, such a concept.

And you know what? I can actually see why a person never exposed to difference would see disability not as a difference but as pain and suffering: I really can. But that is the very same lack of education that allowed racism to breed, or homophobia. The not like me so not quite right mentality in many ways, I guess.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I'm pretty used to debate as are you I know, with philosophy as a major part of my degree, and can accept diversity of opinion quite merrilly. However ,this is becoming a no win subject for the SN group: if we disagree with such terrible statements (and I bet that if there were a post saying AIBU to think my DH is right to beat me if I burn dinner? you'd be right in there wouldn't you? because it matters to you (and i'd be in there too btw)) we are piling in; if we ignored it we'd be failing to educate or somesuch.

Anyway this has become an incomprehensible stream of consciousness post now (maybe people will get so deeply mired they'll never extricate themselves to post further? Hmm, tactical.... ) but I guess what we need you to understand (you being all posters) is that the children often referred to as 'these children' 'the suffering' 'the disabled' or just by the name of their diagnoses are real people to us. OUR children, our adored precious little babies. For whom we have had to fight just to get the most basic things imaginable, whom we lay awake worrying about and whom we are aware we will ultimately not be able to give us much as they need us to simply by reason of our very mortality.

BTW the I worked with the disabled really doesn't equate to having your own loved one disabled; I probably thought it did when I was nursing in an ASD unit 15 years ago and I certainly cared about my clinets but 2 asd kids on I have learned better!

Sorry, that was to you about 'super race' Peachy.

People are alwsys going to make culural faux pas with language, arenlt they. You can say, 'ahem, what do you mean 'super race' - as in Nietzsche and Hitler and all that, or are you just taking the piss a bit?' give them a chace to answer and go on from there.

But we know that is impossible on MN? Just maybe it might be better before people jump to the worst conclusion about a post, they count to 10 and ask the poster to clarify. Unworkable, again. Probably.

One things for sure, once the bottle of outage is uncorked thought it's like MN is channeling Mary Whitehouse with a sweat on.

I wouldn't. But, to be honest, I thought it was just a tactic to get the thread noticed, as with tabloid headlines. Maybe we think in tabloid headlines now? Where is the OP anyway? Maybe we can ask her if she really meant 'super race' or was just appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Don;t leave cos of me Pagwatch. I;d hoped my cigar waggle would have signalled that I was quite relaxed actually and wasn't taking it personally. I was going to put a wink after the genius pun, but I got wrong for being facicious of Ms last time, so I didn't. That'll learn me

God, I have no beef with any of you, ever. I just like arguing the toss. (And yes, that does make me a wanker, I know).

(You are all very good practive though and have helped me develop mo end of hypoitheses - I'm not taking the piss - but who gives a shit) blurgh

MT
OK - not an 8 year old boy then as you are obviously not a genius - and clearly have no sense of irony or humour at all.

You seem to feel under attack here so I shall assume that anything I post will be treated aggressively and leave.

'Can someone please tell me the problems with my opinion that, "I happen to think the ability to remove disease causing genes from the gene pool is a good thing.'

Nothing at all MT but then I can't imagine you wold ever use the word superrace as a positive thing in a thread title

so we goa round and around in curcles as to what upset people do we not?

Only read half of the other thread and I am a parent to a disabled child and another who has special needs

I don't see screening embryos for certain illness/disease as being against the disabled person. No one is saying it would need to be compulsory and all disabled people are worthless. They would be screening for conditions not disability.

It is an extension of the antenatal screening women are offered today. Some famillies would not continue the pregnancy and some will go ahead with absolute joy.

There will always be disability in this world as many aren't brought about by illness or disease, most are brain injuries at birth or later in life, spinal injuries or learning difficulties I doubt anyone could ever screen for as the brain is such a complex organ

Yes, we need to become more disability aware in the country, we need better services and understanding. We need to educate others, but there are ways of doing that, brushing it under the carpet because some peoples views are ignorant or downright rude won't help the disabled. Talking about it will give action, even if it only makes one person today think differently

as i say, i haven't read the thread as i know it will cause me to become emotional...you wouldn't like me when im angry

i would suggest that having the opinion you do anout "cleansing" the gene pool would make total sense to most people who have not been touched by someone who has one of the disabilitties that are being mentioned.

by saying that it would be much better if we got rid of these diseases/imperfections we are essentially saying that it would have been better if those who have already contracted these dieseases, been born with these "imperfections" are somehow not worthy. that they shouuld have been dealt with to save us all teh time and bother.

I know that that isn't what you mean MT. (or at least i bloody well hope its not) but this is a very emotional subject, partciualry for those arguing from the experience side.
Its all very easy to see it as black and white until you have to look into the eyes of a child you love and realise that had the boffins had their way that child may never have existed.

I wish someone would actually say what they are on about, instead of accusing everuone else of not knowing what they are on about.

I'm dizzy.

Mamazon - its not about killing disabled people or thinking them invalid.

Can someone please tell me the problems with my opinion that, "I happen to think the ability to remove disease causing genes from the gene pool is a good thing.

That does not mean I think all fetus' with genetic conditions should be terminated, or that I think disabled people are a drain on society. It's just a technological advance that could help a lot of people live longer and enjoy a better quality of life - if they choose it."

Just sticking to these issues and not loading me in with other peoples opinions or slipperly slope catastrophic thinking?

This has been my point all along though. We have to keep talking and have the right to talk.

Just because you find something distasteful it doesn't mean others can't hold that view AND they have a right to express that view AND by talking to someone who holds the opposite view they MIGHT change their initial thoughts.

I totally agree duchesse.
You ill find me on most of the debates spouting whatever my view is and enjoying the fact that on at least a few occasions my opinion has been altered by some of the intellectual comments from people on here.

but at the same time, when a subject is so close to your heart and tehre are people who really do not have the first idea of what they are talking about trying to tell you, someone who lives that life daily, that your wrong...it all gets a tad difficult to swallow.

It's a flipping debate!

You know, people talking about their beliefs and opinions, swapping information, seeking a mutual understanding and consensus around an issue. We are not living in Soviet Russia and as such have a right to free speech and debate.

If people hold odd or slightly extreme views, they may have their minds changed by such a thread and the contributions from people who actually know what they're talking about. Thank god political correctness does not yet rule the world- that way lie censorship and curtailment of free speech.

good [point mamazon and tbh now I have read MN HQ'S views I have given up.

I saw taht thread's Op and haven't been back.

I decided a long time ago that i will never be able to cure all ignorance so there was no point wasting my time and energy getting insanely angry trying to.

[didn't ask you anything MT if you were replying to me, merely clarifying your statement ]

no idea what the point is tbh, Justine has answered my question, so is there a point?
or shall we just stay on the round a bout?

Lol Ms. Scroll down though

"It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it."

Anyway, can we get back to the point?..What is the point?

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."

see I said you were an expert and still you are not happy.

oh stop with the long words

Ohh, adhominem MS. Very classy

pmsl