Open Forum Discussions and Debate

Ian: there are many human conditions that we laugh about or poke fun at, I feel sure there are certain types of cancer that are pilloried in some way (leukemia, prostate I have heard from the people themselves who suffer it...is that different?), I guess it's one way of the ways that we learn to deal with the suffering and grief rather than become helpless with the great sadness that any illness brings with it. It's our capacity to laugh death in the face I suppose. However, it is each person's own personal level/threshold at what point humour becomes distasteful or offensive, as with most things moral/legal/ethical...i'm in my lunch break and haven't had much time to collect my thoughts on this subject. Again, I do understand where you're coming from.

I had a brilliant response to your previous post, Ian, including a recipe challenge but got a database error upon submitting.
Jokes about Alzheimer's: Jokes about afflictions, potty humor and traveling salesmen were great when I was 12 or 14 with a bunch of buddies on a campout. Remember 'wooden eye, wooden eye' and 'He's a cripple, you know.'? To say what I think of those jokes now and how I feel about adults who continue to tell them would come off as sounding arrogant. But I can share a great irony. One of the old guys who was a regular at morning coffee always told those types of joke with that peculiar, hushed, conspiritorial tone of voice. He always told the same 3 or 4 lame jokes and always thought they were hilarious. He's in his 90's now, began showing signs of Parkenson's a vew years ago. Now he is in nearly full blown Alzheimer's on top of that. Make a joke out of that.

Hollandaise every time...

sorry Ian - think i misunderstood your question...that why is it there are no cancer jokes posted on comments? too many 'touched' by cancer and not so many by Alzeimers perhaps? who knows...

billy: I don't think that's it. I suspect it's the same reason we make fun of retardation...there is something cruel and ugly in all of us that gets away with it, when we can.

jeb: Not arrogance, it's just being past the sixth grade. Ever seen the parodies on South Park about Penn and Teller and fart jokes? Applies here.

Ian - just googled this site and it did warn 'Macabre jokes are not to everyone's taste.'

http://www.learningplaceonline.com/illness/humor/ jokes/01-archive.htm

I was trying to gauge my feelings when i was reading them, and my feelings were ambivalent to some of the humour...

Ian - there is a british show called 'Extras' that crosses every boundary where bad taste is concerned, however, they get away with it: jokes on Cerebral Palsy, dwarfism, brain tumours etc, namely because the people who are sending it up are the ones playing the roles in reality. Does this make it ok? The show has become a huge hit and actors are queueing up to be in it, everyone of them showing an ugly side to our nature...we watch and squirm as they deal with issues that we would not normally talk about except in whispers/joke form. You either love it or you hate it...

Billy:
Mamacita's comment on page one deals with that very thing only the context is skin colour. If I were to smash my thumb with a hammer, I could probably find some humor in it - later. If I were faced with terminal cancer, I don't know how I'd deal with that now but I don't think I'd find it very funny. The thing is, that's me. How you or anyone else sees that is entirely different. There are also people who jump out of perfectly good airplanes and they allowed to vote, go figure. The bottom line here is, that there is something for everybody and those who choose to seek the lowest common denominator are free to do so.

And mores the pity.

Ian, thanks for the warnings about Alzheimers jokes. I'm catching up on archives, but with your forewarning, will skip a couple of days...too close for comfort

Here is something that my daughter is researching for her platform for a scholarship, any thoughts are appreciated:

What is the difference between a 'disability' and a 'handicap'?

Thanks in advance.

LK: Many thanks. I just had a fine time with the dictionary. Before going to the etymology, I would have simply said that a disability means that an action is impossible (dis-ability), while a handicap means that an action is more difficult, but still possible. And that's pretty much true.

But ''Handicap'' has an intriguing origin.

It comes from ''hand in cap,'' describing a very old practice wherein two people would offer to exchange items in a trade or barter, and each would put up a cash bond as well.

At that point, a referee upon whom the two would agree had the job of judging how much money would be reasonably added to one party's item to make it a fair trade.

It's also, by usage, one of those words, like sanction and oversight, that has acquired opposite meaning to itself. In golf, a handicap is an advantage, not a disadvantage.

Hi Ian, glad to see you are stll around, miss you in chatroom. I always look forward to your viewpoint on things. Later I will post what initially started this discussion and our thoughts on it. You are very close to the same thoughts we had.

I am very interested to see what others think.

Linda:
Handicap and disability need to be defined in context. Every person born has a handicap of some sort and most learn to compensate for it. The severity of the handicap may require extraordinary allowances to be taken. Disability as seen by the insurance industry and the law, is looked at as a happenstance caused inability to perform at pre-disability levels.
As Ian mentioned, handicap has other contextual meanings; horse racing, three legged racing, pin the tail, presbyopia.

Not entirely true, Ian. A golfing handicap is merely a way to level the playing field. It gives niether advantage nor disadvantage. A scratch player, in competition against an 8 handicapper gives the opponent 8 strokes per round starting with the highest handicap hole and moving through the course in that manner. Each hole is given a handicap rating, 1 thru 18, as to level of difficulty with the the hardest hole given a No. 1 either on the front or back 9. The second hardest hole would be on the opposite 9 and so forth. A 19 handicap player would get 2 strokes on the 1 hndcp hole. So, if the scratch player make par on that hole and the opponent makes a birdie, the opponent wins that hole by one stroke in match play or takes 1 under par in stroke play. If you want to know how handicaps are calculated, that's another whole volume. I think triggernometry, sophistry and casting of spells is involved.

While I was growing up, a neighbor had(has) muscular distrophy. He did not go to school, just spent his time at home. I would go up and play with him. I then began to teach him the alphabet, numbers, reading, whatever I was learning at the time. Schools at that time did not mainstream. When I went to college, he enrolled in a program set up for people in his situation. He learned a skill and was very proud that he had a job.

I now have a neighbor who's son is a few years younger than my husband and myself. He has cerebal palsy. He was mainstreamed and was involved with different programs while he was growing up. He sits everyday in front of a tv or computer. He has no job, does not read, and does not know any current events.

Now which one is handicapped and which is disabled?

I view my old neighbor as being handicapped and my current neighbor as being disabled. My definition is a handicap can be overcome, a disability won't or can't be overcome.

Becky:
Spot on.
Never knew anyone with MD, but the head librarian at my alma mater had cerebral palsy. He was a little difficult to understand and you had to be patient for an answer. Just saying 'hi' was good for at least a minute's stand off. But the guy was brilliant. After getting to know him, his handicap disappeared and you only saw the scholar.

I have a friend with cerebral palsy who is very 'political' and he says 'you HAVE a handicap'-as does everyone of some kind ,but 'you ARE disabled'. In Becky's situation her neighbour had a handicap which he surmounted to some extent but the young one, by not being in the world to the best of his ability, is disabling himself.

Total agreement with the last three posts. A colleague of mine has Cerebral Palsy, and you get used to the ''language'' pretty quickly. He is also the host for the too-rare poker games.

And maybe technology has converted a lot of disabilities to handicaps...some actions are no longer impossible, just harder than 'normal.'

Good thread, LK.

Thank you Ian.

The question that comes to mind at this point. Is the handicapped truly handicapped if physical or mental defincies are sufficiently overcome by hard work that 'normal' activities are no longer un-achievable?

deficiencies

Good question, LK - I am pondering my answer.

The term ``handicap'' is sometimes now avoided,and is an inability that leaves one at a comparative disadvantage. So conceived, a handicap is a special case of an inability. The connection between handicap and disability is much looser
Handicap is a function of the relationship between disabled persons and their environment.
and jeb,i think a wheelchair user has virtually no mobility handicap in a building with accessible doorways, elevators, and work areas.And a visually challenged person who can have a better vision after an implant of lens is no more handicapped i think..it can be logically extended to any physical deficiency i presume..

A disability is an inability to execute some class of movements , or perform some cognitive function, that typical unimpaired humans are able to execute.when in no way a person with the disability can accomplish a particular task in question,a handicap may perform the same where the right tools and structures to support them are available.

hey...Becky has put the same view in much better form with an example..sorry didnt read the more section..

An old college professor and I used to engage in a continuing debate over the existance of 'human nature'. This was back in the 70's, he had been a judge in Cuba and had come to the US as a refugee from the Castro régime. His world view was dazzling. He once made a comment about something that had occured and I commented that that was just human nature and I got flattened. The debate went on for years until he retired to Florida. His contention is that there is no such thing as human nature. Everything that people do for what ever reason is caused by a learned response. I argued religion, music, languange and any number of other human characteristics. He always won. Even after he had me convinced, I continued to seek exceptions. Anyone interested in picking that up and running with it?

You both were, and still are, right. Society develops learned responses that become part of the individual's 'nature' in succeeding generations.

''The entire history of civilization is but a chronicle of man's struggle against nature.''

Ian:
The pitfall that Alfredo saved me from is the very one you fell into. Society is the bait for the trap. Sociocentric thinking fails the litmus test of human nature when simple comparisons are made. Remote societies have practiced ritual canabalism or leaving the sick and aging on the ice pack to die. One society finds those practices abhorrant while another sees them as normal behavior. Social change belies human nature. In Loco parentis, a concept that was broadly accepted as normal not only in colleges and universites but even governmnet was torn down during the 60's revelution. What could have been called human nature was rebelled against and replaced with something entirely different. So, was it human nature or a widely accepted control mechanism as perceived by a group of revelutioneries? The desire to be free: When a totalitariean system was thrown down and democratic freedom was offered in exchange, that particular society fell into near anarchy. The concept of human nature runs up against the solid brick wall of the exception. The universality of human nature cannot exist in the same space with the forces of social mores regardless of the size of that society. This also addresses the dialogue between nurture and nature, fodder for another discussion.

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts re: disability vs. handicap. My daughter has been involved in helping with our local Special Olympics so it is something near and dear to her heart all of the special people that she works with.

Jeb: Very interesting thought. I think I will have to ponder that one for a bit.

Linda: Which one? I had two this month. And the month's not even over yet.

Needless to say, Jeb, I disgree. There is a universality of human nature, and different societies have progressed at different paces in dealing with it...see the quote about civilization.

I'm hungry...I see a kid with a hamburger...maybe I could just take it. At one point in society's evolution, I would have done so (using the hamburger as metaphor for land, wealth, whatever), but now I don't.

Nevertheless, the thought still crosses my mind, and some individuals would act on that impulse. We call those people criminals and lock them up.

Social change, far from belieing human nature, actually confirms it. The proof (or at least demonstration) is that, over time, society moves human nature in only one direction...toward less violence, more equity, even more kindness. Social Security, equal opportunity, animal rights, laws against drunk driving, sexual harassment...the list goes on. Other than in some brief time of upheaval, all societies are moving in one direction. [Aside: that is, as an ideal, what we are supposedly nudging in Iraq.]

Ian:
Disagreement is the best part of this whole process. Anybody who disagrees with that is just plain stubborn.
The great debate between epistemology and empiricism. Is mankind enherently good or bad? How is the hypothesis tested and is the accumulated knowledge at hand sufficient to the task? By narrowing the scope of study, the world view is limited. A particular society examined in a slice of time is inadequate. The hamburger analogy falls under moral relativism. In one society it's perfectly acceptable to help yourself to what another has. In another, it's a shootin' offense. The warning I took from Alfredo is not to limit my perspective. It can still lead you astray, but you have a wider view and can percieve more of what you least understand. The question of human nature is such a beast. It makes me feel like one of the blind fellows examining an elephant.

But all societies began by taking the hamburger. All are moving toward not taking it. By extension, I say that bestiality, violence and everything that goes with it were the starting point (human nature), and we are all moving away from it...very, very slowly in historic terms, pretty fast in any Darwinian perspective. After all, we're only a few thousand years out of the trees.

are we moving away,really??i doubt..bombing and killing the innocents,practising terrorism and massacring the mass under the name of religion, is it human nature??what kinda nature is it??or learned response??as long as man killing man exist ,and millions are spent in developing arms to destroy the mankind for ones own benefit,i wonder if can call ourself to be civilized at all!!

Fascinating subject..
Is mankind inherently good or bad? We cannot really define good/bad because who decides on what is good or bad? An eye for an eye sort of scenario, you murdered the man with the hamburger therefore we will take your life, for we know better, morality again, it really is a never ending question isn't it? We can only hope to gain small insights into mankind and try to understand the differences in cultures and live side by side with compassion, respect and understanding for others, even then it is a very fine thread that holds 'society' together.

'Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man' was the backdrop for a series called Seven Up made by Granada Studios in 1964, it was intended to be a insight into class structure in Britain. The series followed several children chosen from different backgrounds and was updated every 7 years. A fascinating series 'nature or nurture' can we decide?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Up! This gives a brief rundown on the programme. Perhaps off the main thread of the discussion but..

I have wondered if some people can be born inherently 'evil' or if it is a learned response or a loose wire in the brain.

I was about to draw this to a close because of apparent lack of participation from a larger crowd. And now ap and andré contribute their voices, so we can follow along with them.
Ian: I've left a few clues along the way in this thread. 1st clue, I was a young college student, Alfredo was a learned scholar with a vastly broader world view. 2nd clue: World view. An ability to see beyond the end of one's nose, constantly examining the bigger picture.
3rd clue: This very debate went on for several years, three academic years and about eight years beyond that when he retired and moved to Florida. The point: Alfredo led me around the mulberry bush until I finally awoke and saw where he was guiding me. Then, we could finally enjoy a rousing debate over a cup of coffee. The point is not 'human nature' as such, but an ability to see the dynamics of the world around us. I was more interested in getting a desired response from him that looking deeper into what he was saying. Focusing on one or two points of anecdotal evidence entirely misses the point, leading to what he termed, intellectual myopia.

C. S. Lewis has a lot to say about the existence of, and the nature of, evil.

Jeb: Will there come a time when the practice of leaving the elderly in an old age home will be regarded as a slightly-updated version of the ice floe?

And billy, who just showed up. The good vs. bad debate has gone on for mellenia. One could say 'inherently good' in respect to the survival of the species and the constant attempt to improve civilization. On the other hand 'inherently bad' in respect to; where could civilization be now if 'bad' didn't exist. Do the struggles of mankind demonstrate one characteristic in conflict over the other or a trend of one or the other being the guiding force? In my opinion, the most important thing a person can do is to examine their society in relation to the rest of the world and make a decision as to how that life will be led. You can either be a part of the problem or a part of the solution.