DS writes about the left making a religion out of pitying the inadequate.instead of according full due to those naturally vigorous and endowed.These are the legatees of natural selection and giving them the pittance that is given to the Children of Lesser Gods ensures the progress of mankind.
It is difficult to find a single point through which to focus on such mutterings.We can cite Stephen Hawkins who is almost entirely cut off from interaction save for the computer but whose genius is indisputable even if his singularity theorem is wrong by his own admission and doesn’t prove the existence of God.(He’s selling Jags proving he’s a good capitalist)The legions of the disabled include Da Vinci,Julius Caesar,Oscar Wilde,Alexander the Great,Beethoven,Bach,Chopin,Archimedes,Socrates,Alan Turing,Michelangelo etc etc.I am including homosexuality and Lesbianism,transgenderism,socially maladroit and unacceptable to the Nietzchean elite.Not insignificantly many of these geniuses produced no children.
SB may be sad for DS,I am not.I can only see absurdity in elderly folk like ourselves embracing a philosophy that denies the ultimate embrace of disability.Have you picked your ice Floe Don?or do you enjoy Medicare and Social Security? I know, you’ve earned those central government benefits and the rest of us have not!!
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
The Octogenarians 
Asking questions are really nice thing if you are not understanding anything fully, except this paragraph offers fastidious understanding yet.|
van cleef arpels alhambra knock off necklace http://www.topvcabijoux.cn/en/replica-van-cleef-necklace-c3_87.html
Awesome post, you have stated some great points , I additionally think this a very superb website.
copy cartier pendant price http://www.brandjewelryreviews.net/category/cartier-jewelry-replica
Thank you, I have recently been looking for info approximately this topic for ages and yours is the best I’ve discovered till now. But, what in regards to the conclusion? Are you positive concerning the source?
bague imitation love http://www.gioiellipopolare.ru/fr/cartier-ring-replica-c7_16
Asking questions are actually good thing iif youu are not understanding anything entirely, however this paragraph provides good understanding yet.
fake rolex daytona price http://www.rolexladiewatch.org/
I am sorry that Daedal2207 considers my comments as no more than “such mutterings”. For some reason Daedal2207 SEEMS to be ignoring what I had actually written and is arguing against a position I had not taken. There are lessons here. The following is exactly what I had originally included as a summary:
“If we WORSHIP the poor and downtrodden we run the danger of neglecting (extreme – demonize) the contributive values of ability. If we WORSHIP those of ability we run the dangers of neglecting (extreme – demonize) the contributive potential of those with less ability. The cure to the ills of “worship” is to get real, literally. (That is – use well the objective tools of the scientific method.)”
Note that I acknowledged that “contributive potential” exists in both those of ability and those with less ability. It should be clear that I was declaring that we do not want to deny to the good of our future any level of aptitude NO MATTER WHERE IT IS FOUND. I don’t know why Daedal2207 thought (or was predisposed to believe) that the ideas presented would somehow deny to society the great talents of individuals with disabilities.
But, maybe Daedal2207 is truly insisting that we “worship” “disability”. He wrote: “I can only see absurdity in elderly folk like ourselves embracing a philosophy that denies the ultimate embrace of disability.”
“Ultimate embrace of disability” is definitive – it sounds morally righteous – even religious – thereby illustrating my main point. Maybe we need to think more deeply about the FULL meaning of “disability”. Logically, if unable to perform a task, one possesses RELATIVE TO THAT TASK a disability. Logically then, Daedal2207 is saying that we must “embrace” those who are unable to perform (certain) task/s. Let me present a statement that should be self-evidently true: Sometimes in order to survive we need to “embrace” those who CAN DO needed tasks, and AVOID, EVEN TURN AWAY those who will fail. Now ask what MINDSET could consider this statement controversial or offensive? If a given mindset in effect believes that it is a bad thing to turn away those who are thusly disabled, how do we ignore the logic that dictates that relative to our survival this mindset is itself a disability? Interestingly, we are seeing direct evidence in the form of sentiment that the Progressive philosophy “worships” disability – and yes, it is logical then to call the infliction of Progressivism a “disability” that is harmful to our survival.
Does Daedal2207, or any reader, still insist that we should “embrace disability”? If so – on what LOGICAL basis?
Reblogged this on daedal2207's Blog.