Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by T A A on May 23, 2011 at 3:32am

Agreed. There is a definite social obsession going on for 2000 years or so with reducing suffering, as if it was some evil concept that needed getting rid of. Sentiments such as suffering can only be defined relatively speaking. Suffering levels are different depending on previous experience. A needle prick can be considered suffering to someone not familiar with them, but once you're used to it, needle pricks are nearly painless. Nonetheless, the other day, in order to draw blood for a routine test, the nurse went too deep (my veins are shifty) and she hit a nerve which caused my thumb to suddenly go completely numb. She withdrew! They had to call in 2 additional nurses to prick me a total of 6 times before they were able to succeed. We giggled and chatted about ornithology during the whole affair. There is a law here which states that no nurse may prick you more than three times. I encouraged them to continue on as I was not stressed about it.

 

My stance on non-birthing is only minimally related to suffering, but mostly to planetary costs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Orpharion Oroborus Bestheneme on May 23, 2011 at 3:35am

The social obsession for avoiding suffering has been going on since the dawn of life. It is one of the most fundamental things to all organisms, and absolutely requisite as a behavioural tool in natural selection. We can choose to suffer when it is beneficial if we understand that it avoids future suffering (as per your blood test).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jennifer Becker on May 23, 2011 at 3:43am

And yet, there is much suffering to be had which is not a choice. I am who I am because of my own suffering. Because, I have chosen to become a better person despite it (and because of the disposition with which I was born), I am a happy and productive person. Would I put someone through it to achieve the same result? Nope, nor would I expect the same outcome. You cannot measure the value or inherent harm in suffering. That said, I am not, through my words, advocating preventing harm to others. I am a firm believer in sensible parenting, civil rights, and generally being nice to others.

 

In any case, none of this subject is easy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Orpharion Oroborus Bestheneme on May 23, 2011 at 3:50am

I think though, there is a great difference between types of suffering. I have not suffered any great physical problems, but I have suffered abuse by others and abuse by myself. I believe this kind of suffering is far more important in defining my character

Permalink Reply by Arcus on May 23, 2011 at 8:19am

Needless suffering is the point.

6-9 months after Ramadan there is an explosion of birth defects among muslim women, which could be avoided if the mothers weren't fasting during the very early time of their pregnancy. That's needless suffering for stupid reasons. Mothers refusing their children vaccines cause needless suffering. I can go on by needless suffering caused due to lack of education for a while.

If we develop a genetic in-utero cure for Parkinson, Alzheimers, MS, CP, and these types of diseases, why withhold it?

And if we find a genetic cure for fatal childhood diseases, why let children die in hopes of finding a cure while they suffer needlessly?

"Even with advancements in medical technology and science, many diseases still have fatal outcomes, and are yet to be fully studied. Some of these diseases affect infants and young children. Diseases like Mitochondrial Encephalopathy, Glioblastoma multiforme, Cystic fibrosis or Alexander disease have no cure, and are all classified as fatal diseases."

Permalink Reply by T A A on May 23, 2011 at 3:50am

Our view of what is suffering and how much we ought to combat suffering has completely changed in the past couple of thousand years. But if you disagree with that premise... the whole point of the bible and the 10 commandments, the golden rule, theoretically, is "institutionalised" reduction of suffering, whereas before, you had disorganised and personal reduction of suffering. Once something is institutionalised, it is changed, for as the French proverb goes: Le malheur des uns fait le bonheur des autres (the unhappiness of one causes the happiness of another). Anti-suffering has become a central player in our social structure, and I think that is an error. It is a relative and an emotional condition and varies for everyone through space and time. Trying to standardise it is futile.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Orpharion Oroborus Bestheneme on May 23, 2011 at 3:57am

Understood. I see evidence of this in governmental interference with parenting, and proposed laws preventing parents from modes of discipline, and so on.

Permalink Reply by Jennifer Becker on May 23, 2011 at 3:58am

Agreed. I have suffered serious physical illnesses (try migraines that last 3 days-2 weeks every month throughout a month and various other problems) and abuse at the hands of people for the first 36 years of my life. I could go on. The point is, I am who I am in part because of it and because of the person I was born. I would not take back any of it and yet I excuse none of it. It just is and I just am. You cannot measure the human condition by what illnesses or abuses a person might have to endure. There are ways to enhance life and I am all for having a happy life without my particular sufferings, but it isn't something to systematically control.

Permalink Reply by Arcus on May 23, 2011 at 9:13am

@Jennifer: As a sufferer of migraines my whole life (but regularly only the last 10 years) I have a certain understanding of how that particular facet of existence is less than pleasurable. I also refuse to let it interfere with my life and happiness.

However, if my migraines had been treatable in my mothers womb, and she had actively not chosen to disable that particular trait of my existence, I would have blamed her a couple times a week instead of myself the times I willfully engage in activity I know will cause a migraine.

Permalink Reply by Jean Clelland-Morin on May 23, 2011 at 3:03am

Hi Jennifer. Are you and I bleeding-heart-liberals or just rational thinkers?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jennifer Becker on May 23, 2011 at 3:11am

Well...it's a trick question really. In my view, a bleeding heart signifies a non-thinker who follows their heart instead of thinking things through while having a conscience. I'd like to say I fall in the category of serious liberal...maybe even radical...ok, definitely radical.  I make a serious attempt to think things through. I speak from my heart and I use logic to do so. When logic fails me, I am patient...I know I will find it if I keep looking. There is always some semblance of truth through science and discovery. ;)
)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jean Clelland-Morin on May 23, 2011 at 3:39am

Having trouble accessing the posting of cjmackay01 on schizophrenia. I recall the movie, A Beautiful Mind. There may be those who are dangerous to themselves or others BUT we need to accept the differences of those who dare step out of that tiny box of acceptable comportment. We make them monsters rather than allowing them to find their productive niche and listening to them. A favorite book is The Myth of Mental Illness by Thomas Szasz. It was written about 50 years ago but started an idea to which we should pay attention.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 16
• 17
• 18
• 19
• 20
• Next ›
• Page