Things we do for money (2303 hits)
Category: Humor -> Dumb JobsRating: 0.49 on 94 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Redskieslookfake (View user info) at 2005-11-14 08:04:33 EST
I was recently employed as a student support worker. This normally consists of writing notes for a dyslexic student, or keeping a student with attention deficit disorder on track. Occasionally you're assigned to an ESOL (english as a second language) - which consists of repeating things and drying to work out how to describe 'clown' without waving your hands around and looking retarded. It's boring work generally, but the pay is ok, and there was nothing better going at the time.
So one Tuesday I walked along to my line manager and asked where I was going to be today - horticulture was the response. I was given the names of the students and told to go read up on them in the file. So I sat and carefully read through the files on one recovering drug addict, and a student with 'concentration issues.' Fair enough I thought - I'll dub them James and Bob in the interests of anonymity.
I got into my car and drove along to the other site where some of the more practical subjects are taught. A quick check of the site map and I'm standing outside a classroom filled with the disaffected and green fingered.
I introduce myself to the quietly despairing lecturer and sit myself between my two charges. They're both mid to late -twenties and seem fairly bored already.
The lesson begins, and the lecturer is talking about measuring out your site using a 'boning rod' - I try not to giggle but am partially unsuccessful. The pictures of men crouched over looking at each other's boning rods does not help matter. Nor does the revelation that they're made of wood. Hey hum, Tuesday at 9am without coffee is the place where immature comedy is at its best.
I began taking notes, while James and Bob do the same. All is going fairly well, though I note that Bob is looking increasingly bored by talk of angles and the 3,4,5 triangle.
Out of the corner of my eye I see Bob looking down at his desk and paper. His head moves a little downwards as his neck muscles fight gravity before jerking back upright. I refocus on the lecturer, who is talking about 'hard points' - still amusing.
Bob's head moves downwards again, again to be returned to the upright position mere fractions of a second. He is twitching a little. I turn to look at him and smile uncertainly 'alright Bob?' I whisper.
'Yeah,' Bob replies, smiling a little.
O-kay - perhaps he is messing with me? I shall continue to take notes and try and ignore his head bobbing.
A few more minutes pass and Bob again looks down, his eyelids flickering. 30 seconds pass and Bob's eyelids are now only half open. He has given up making notes.
James keeps writing, unconcerned about his unresponsive fellow student.
Bob falls asleep while sitting up, there and then, his chin rests of his chest and a faint snore can be heard. I turn to look at him, convinced he is winding me up. I scrape my chair loudly, drawing looks, but waking Bob from his slumber.
Bob looks at me sleepily, smiles and half heartedly refocuses on the board. I go back to making my notes.
5 minutes pass, and I hear the faint 'bop' of a head hitting a desk.
The lecturer stops his lesson briefly, his rhythm lost, and stares at Bob. "Off again eh Bob?" he asks.
Bob answers with nothing more than a faint snore.
Again a chair movement and a gentle shove against his table re-awakens Bob. That half smile, and unfocused eyes. This is beginning to descend into the status of farce! I think back to his notes - "concentration issues." Those words mean to me some minor problems in keeping on track.
The bell rings for break, and Bob leaps to his feet and is out of the door before anyone else. I am still sat there, slightly bewildered at this turn of events when James turns to me - "King of nod eh? The prince of snooze.' I stand up, heading for the canteen, and my coffee.
"Is he always like that?" I ask. A nod, "yeah, he's always late or not attending. He falls asleep on buses, in the canteen, anywhere."
I go to the canteen and see Bob sitting there, talking animatedly about his weekend.
The rest of the day passes peacefully, a big of digging in the afternoon, some identification of plants, discussions on fertilizer. Lovely. Bob nods off again in the discussion on fertilizer, I give him a gentle shake to re-awaken him - worried about that story about arms dropping off people who are asleep? Urban myth, but it just seems more likely somehow.
I leave at the end of the day after a brief chat with the lecturer - What he tells me keeps me laughing to myself for a good 5 minutes. Narcoleptics are inherently funny, and it is only a vague sense of professionalism that stops me taking a couple of pictures with my phone during his dozing sessions.
I drive back towards the main campus, and the motorway home.
Next week, chainsaws!
User Reviews
Submitted by branimal_08 (user info) at 2008-10-14 16:37:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2008-10-11 18:58:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Linus (user info) at 2008-10-11 18:51:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Fight the... whatever the hell is going on here.
Submitted by aquagirl (user info) at 2008-09-08 16:15:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Naplander (user info) at 2008-08-30 17:10:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Daniel_b (user info) at 2008-08-25 17:40:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Spreadsheets are the hawt.
Submitted by bricekrispy (user info) at 2008-08-24 16:53:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by stewie_GO_SAINTS (user info) at 2008-08-21 04:01:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by WantageJamie (user info) at 2008-07-29 09:08:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
poor show old egg
Submitted by psychodude98 (user info) at 2006-05-27 13:48:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
haha
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-05-27 12:22:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
New ambition
I am going to learn all of the hand gestures etc for Jay Z's 99 Problems.
I already find myself doing some of them already, so why not make it an achievement?
Submitted by CRazyTALk (user info) at 2006-05-14 06:59:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This wasn't something that tickled my fancy but it wasn't complete shit, so good on you mate.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-05-14 06:44:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ghola (user info) at 2006-05-13 15:08:41 (#)
Ranking: -1
i got bored reading this and fell asleep.
now there's drool on my keyboard. damnit
---
That's not drool, you dirty pervert.
Submitted by ghola (user info) at 2006-05-13 15:08:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
i got bored reading this and fell asleep.
now there's drool on my keyboard. damnit.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-05-07 18:57:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ESOL = English as a Second Language to Overseas Learners
Submitted by matnotharry (user info) at 2006-05-07 18:56:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Fine, just crap over out banter
Submitted by ConorJS (user info) at 2006-05-07 18:48:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
ESOL = English as a second language?
Where'd the "O" come from?
Submitted by matnotharry (user info) at 2006-05-07 18:44:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
But the lion taming made up for it
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-05-07 18:43:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The tightrope walking demonstration they put on was a bit of a mare too.
Submitted by matnotharry (user info) at 2006-05-07 18:23:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Not to mention the Teach Yourself Sword Swallowing course
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-05-07 18:20:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The parachuting trip ended in disaster as well.
Submitted by matnotharry (user info) at 2006-05-07 18:17:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-05-07 18:11:24 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by matnotharry (user info) at 2006-05-07 18:02:59 (#)
Ranking: 2
I saw a program on Narcolepsy once and it focused on one point on the Narcoleptic society...which was run by Narcolepsy suffers, which resulted in half of them nodding off at any one point. It was ridiculous
---
The annual coach trip must have been fun too if one of them had volunteered to drive.
------
As would the scuba diving holiday
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-05-07 18:11:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by matnotharry (user info) at 2006-05-07 18:02:59 (#)
Ranking: 2
I saw a program on Narcolepsy once and it focused on one point on the Narcoleptic society...which was run by Narcolepsy suffers, which resulted in half of them nodding off at any one point. It was ridiculous
---
The annual coach trip must have been fun too if one of them had volunteered to drive.
Submitted by matnotharry (user info) at 2006-05-07 18:02:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I saw a program on Narcolepsy once and it focused on one point on the Narcoleptic society...which was run by Narcolepsy suffers, which resulted in half of them nodding off at any one point. It was ridiculous
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-05-07 17:38:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Uber stalking! How delightful to be on the receiving end for once!
Submitted by MandaPanda (user info) at 2006-05-06 23:15:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
...K...
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2006-03-20 08:00:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-16 06:40:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
*musing*
Unless you had two helpers. Or perhaps if you were strapped to the back of someone like in that Alien Resurrection film. The shit one. With the baby alien at the end.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-16 06:35:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You once asked me to imagine you as a black, emo, jew in a wheelchair. I now call shenanigans on the wheelchair.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-16 06:30:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-16 06:26:49 (#)
Ranking: 2
We must never speak of this again because it would be a betrayel of my friends consequence. I may email you some day though regarding the appaling Durham fascination for Chesney Hawks.
That said, Durham will forever hold a soft spot in my heart for introducing me to the Turbo Diesel.
---
Fair enough. I can tell you've been scarred by Klute. I'm very sorry for your pain. It's always like that, except some nights the floor is stickier. It has marginally improved over the years though. Not Klute though - that's an abomination. The last time I went in there I had a drunken temper tantrum about them charging me for the pleasure of drinking there.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-16 06:27:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Obviously I meant confidence.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-16 06:26:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
We must never speak of this again because it would be a betrayel of my friends consequence. I may email you some day though regarding the appaling Durham fascination for Chesney Hawks.
That said, Durham will forever hold a soft spot in my heart for introducing me to the Turbo Diesel.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-16 06:19:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-16 06:10:22 (#)
Ranking: 0
Red, that friend I mentioned who was sexually assaulted was from Durham.
DUN DUN DUUHHHHH!
---
When I said the nightlife was shite, I didn't realise it was bad enough that people go on bumhunting safari.
redskieslookfake.at.hotmail.co.uk
How old are they? I'm 24, so I perhaps know them.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-16 06:10:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Red, that friend I mentioned who was sexually assaulted was from Durham.
DUN DUN DUUHHHHH!
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-16 05:42:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Newcastle upon Tyne.
But I'm actually from the north of Durham. Worst. Nightlife. Ever. I don't really have a Newcastle accent, but if I'm ever in the South then I'm apparently 'the geordie lad' - in Durham, I keep getting mistaken for a Durham student. Which is slanderous.
Where are you from? I thought Birmingham.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-16 05:24:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't understand what Novacastrian is.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-15 12:45:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-15 12:23:31 (#)
Ranking: 2
I had no idea that there was such a profound difference between communism and these ideals.
MINE EYES HAVE BEEN OPENED UND TEH SUN EST BOOTIFUL!
Red, where are you actually from? I thought you mentioned Canada but you mentioned GCSE's and you have the wit and manners of an Englishman.
---
I thank you sir for the compliment. I am indeed an Englishman, a Novacastrian to be accurate. And no, I won't say Byker fucking Grove.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-15 12:23:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I had no idea that there was such a profound difference between communism and these ideals.
MINE EYES HAVE BEEN OPENED UND TEH SUN EST BOOTIFUL!
Red, where are you actually from? I thought you mentioned Canada but you mentioned GCSE's and you have the wit and manners of an Englishman.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-15 10:03:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Thanks - I quite like the idea of Communism actually - it's sorta Democracy to the nth degree. Mass debates (ho ho) - like the Swiss Cantons, and your Russian Island here are really interesting.
Good luck with the Phd - I hope that you walk around introducing yourself as the Doctor. I gotta get me some more letters after my name.
Berty - proof positive that Mrs Doyle is the finest persuading tactic of all time.
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-11-15 09:59:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Argh... do I have to?
Basically, Kronstadt is a naval battallion on an island protecting St. Petersburg (Petrograd/Leningrad, whatever) which rebelled several times over the past decade - usually poor conditions etc. During the February revolution Kronstadt immediately set up a Soviet and pretty much refused to have anything to do with the Provisional Government - it took it's lead from the Petrograd Soviet. Essentially completely democratic (and completely inclusive, with mass debates being held in public), it had representatives from all parties and even a studiously non-partisan group. The Kronstadt sailors were the principle fighting force of the October Revolution - Trotsky called them them 'pride and glory of the Revolution.' Unlike the Petrograd Soviet, the Kronstadt Soviet took a long time to be officially Bolshevised and even then it was more a result of a growing Bolshevik majority there than any official process. And it works - the Soviet takes care of everything, from rations to municipal works and even to protecting the Officers that had been imprisoned during February from punitive treatment by their former sailors.
In March 1921, however, the sailors of at least two battleships had had enough of what they thought were flagrant misuses of power and acts contrary to the spirit of February and October and they issued a multipoint declaration which can basically be summarised by the slogan 'All power to the Soviets, and not to Parties' - basically they wanted an end to Bolshevik dominance and a return to free democratic elections to all Soviets regardless of political affiliations - as long as that affiliation was to the 'left,' of course. In addition it called for economic changes as well as various other demands. The lasted two weeks and showed signs of provoking turmoil in Petrograd before Trotsky ordered troops and delegates from the 10th Party Congress across the ice of the Gulf of Finland to attack - he succeeded in crushing the rebellion but most of the ringleaders escaped to Finland. Many were executed for treason. It's interesting that Lenin keeps pretty much quiet over the whole affair - one short book and a few articles and parts of speeches. The official reason was that it was a mutiny fostered by the French and exiled White Russian forces in Europe designed to spark a counter-revolution - there may be some validity to that, but you'll have to wait until I've been to the archives to tell you. The traditional view is that this was just an excuse - that both Lenin and Trotsky were aware of the real danger of the revolt and needed an excuse to destroy the Kronstadters. Much of the economic content of the original declaration was granted only a few weeks later as part of the New Economic Policy - it's been suggested Kronstadt was the catalyst for this; I'm not so sure. I think it was coming anyway, and it's coincidence.
It's a particular favourite of Trotskyites - who defend his actions - and Anarchists and Mensheviks - who see it as a tragic failure of the true revolution - and the failure of the modern world's only true democracy. The history of Kronstadt between 1917 & 1921 will give you plenty of arguments in favour of the validity of Soviet/Communist democracy. It'll also give you plenty of arguments against, but we can't have everything.
It's also the subject of my PhD... surprised?
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-15 09:44:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2005-11-15 09:40:00 (#)
Ranking: 2
<comment wah wah wah>
---
Actually, it *was* chainsaws the week after. Long handled ones, petrol powered and helluva cool. I started looking for an appropriate picture, but our college firewall logged me as a potential psycho, so I had to apologise to IT Services and promise I wasn't looking to chop a student in half.
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2005-11-15 09:40:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
<comment wah wah wah>
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-11-15 09:36:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
One day I might read these reviews.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-15 09:29:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Go look at the history of Kronstadt - that'll give you the answer you need.
-----------------
Can't you just boil it down into a couple of paragraphs? I'm a busy man (C&C Generals won't complete itself).
---
Seconded - though I like to think it's the embodiment of the economic concept of least work for the most reward.
Aww go on, go on, go on, go on. Mrs Doyle style.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-15 09:18:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-11-15 09:04:21 (#)
Ranking: 2
On the plus side you've got me thinking as to whether it's feasable to have a democratic communist parliament.
---------------
Go look at the history of Kronstadt - that'll give you the answer you need.
-----------------
Can't you just boil it down into a couple of paragraphs? I'm a busy man (C&C Generals won't complete itself).
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-11-15 09:04:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
On the plus side you've got me thinking as to whether it's feasable to have a democratic communist parliament.
---------------
Go look at the history of Kronstadt - that'll give you the answer you need.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-15 08:28:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm not just talking about the people who died in the heat of the moment, I'm talking about throughout his reign.
The point is that he did kill lots and lots of people, purely for the purposes of his political agenda which makes him a rat bastard. That he was not as big a rat bastard as Stalin still doesn't change the fact that he is a rat bastard.
On the plus side you've got me thinking as to whether it's feasable to have a democratic communist parliament.
Parliaments kick ass.
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-11-15 08:15:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-15 06:39:25 (#)
Ranking: 2
Adereterial
Extensive knowledge there - is that Personal interest, school/college or a degree?
Consider me enlightened as a result of your comment. Thank you.
------------
Bit of both - 2 degrees on the subject and I've just started a PhD. And you're welcome.
Berty - How do you stop hundreds of soldiers in revolutionary fervour killing their commanding officers in the heat of the moment? How do you stop hundreds of landowners being tortured and slaughtered by the peasantry who worked their land or owed them money? You've got four years of turmoil, war, and utter lawlessness - he did appeal for calm to for the officers and landowners to be submitted for trial but it didn't work - the Bolsheviks only controlled a minority of the country - the important bit nonetheless, but still only a tiny bit of the landmass AND the population. Most, if not all of these, acted in his name, many were aided by Bolshevik party members or Cheka operatives. They also destroyed a lot of Russia's cultural history, archives etc. Yes, he did order the deaths of many many people but he's a pussycat compared to Stalin, and a lot of the deaths of that period were out of his control. And we'll never know how many people who were 'murdered' would have died through famine, disease, or at the hands of the allies, Whites and Greens in any case.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-15 06:51:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
And there's also the argument that there is something in the Russian psyche that requires totalitarian government - they don't seem to be able to cope without it.
--------
My mate said this too. He said that's why you can't kill a Russian because they're so used to being oppressed and shat on that they just don't break. Hence why they fought to the burger during WW2.
"Killed without his authorisation"? That's a little careless isn't it? What did he do to stop it from happening?
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-15 06:43:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-15 06:37:50 (#)
Ranking: 2
Canada only has 30 million people living there, there aren't enough of you to have real problems.
---
Have been to Canada - seemed a uninteresting place (sorry Canadians). Half the population of Britain, but multiple times the land area makes for too much space to spread out. It's only when people are rubbing against each other that it gets interesting.
My city in the north of England has a reasonable crime rate, and there was an incident recently where someone had their kneecaps blown off for drug dealing, but I don't see it as being as violent as say New York. Perhaps that's media image only though.
Toronto seemed of an approximately similar size, and I'd imagine Seattle isn't too far off, wonder what the respective crime rates per capita are?
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-15 06:39:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Adereterial
Extensive knowledge there - is that Personal interest, school/college or a degree?
Consider me enlightened as a result of your comment. Thank you.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-15 06:37:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Canada only has 30 million people living there, there aren't enough of you to have real problems.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-15 06:29:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-15 06:23:26 (#)
Ranking: 2
<<1806 (I think) - Sidmouth's Six Acts in England made Agent Provocateurs legal. Don't see too much of a difference there. And what of Oliver Cromwell's actions after the civil war?>>
----
A very good point. I think the primary difference was that Cromwell turned down the crown and ultimatly gave power to the fragmented parliament. I've always been confused by that, he always struck me as a bit of a righteous dickhead who would have seen himself in that light, but I guess he just really loved winning battles or something.
Anyway, we got lucky there. Bang to rights we should have been stuck with Cromwell the Prick ruining everyone's shit but we got away with it.
You know what as well? I agree wholeheartedly with your comment about the US constitution (apart from that wacky shit about guns which is just poor health and safety). It's a minted document full of all sorts of quality shit. On the basis of such freedoms man has made such humungous leaps socially and technologically. Stuff like that and the declaration of human rights fill me with pride, not just because they are inherantly 'good' documents but because in creating and adhearing to these ideals we have, as a species, come so far in so short a space of time.
---
Yay humanity re. human rights - yeah, gun laws in america are hopelessly outdated- but they have virtually the same laws in Canada (right?) - and a much lower gun crime rate - perhaps less poverty in Canada? Lesser concentrations of it anyway.
Cromwell had a problem with the divine right of kings, as a protestant - he couldn't really be king without stepping back on that. You also have to accept that he was a fair prick. Warts and all.
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-11-15 06:25:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-15 05:54:53 (#)
Ranking: 2
Anna, the point of the matter is that Lenin had lots of people made dead to further his political agenda. I accept that he did not do it for personal reasons but it's true that because the administrative machine focussed too much power in too few people's hands that Stalin was able to do the truly horrible shit that he did.
In other words, Lenin made it acceptable to kill people who dissagreed with the government. He gave the government absoloubt power. This is the essential failiure of his government, it's what changed Russia from being a communist state to being a totalitarian police state. That he felt it neccesary to have 'secret police' who where able to act without authorisation or transparency was a dangerous mistake.
A mistake that the Americans should take note of before it's to late, if indeed it is not already.
-------------------
Yes, a lot of people were killed to further his political agenda - but most of them were killed in his name without his authorisation. His administrative system was actually far more open than you would think - it's POST-Lenin that you see the concentration of massive amounts of power in individuals hands, though it did begin before. Lenin himself was unsure why he was held in such awe by the party as a whole. Had he not been incapacitated before he died there would have been no Stalin, as he would have removed him from his position into something less damaging.
And he's definitely NOT the first to make it acceptable to kill dissidents - nor was his government the first to set up a secret police in Russia - that's existed since at least the time of Ivan Grozny (Ivan the Terrible) and was in full operation under Nicholas II in the form of the Okhrana - indeed, some actually go as far as to give the Okrana partial credit for causing the February revolution.
I do feel that the Cheka were necessary in the circumstances - you have a party with a tenuous hold on power (purely by location - had they not held Petrograd and Moscow the 'Whites' would have won,' at war both internationally (WW1 and foreign intervention in the Civil War) and domestically and your staunch supporters are turning against you - viz. Kronstadt and Tambov in 1921. A level of undercover policing was required and as you've already indicated, most of the Cheka atrocities were perpetrated in Lenin's name without his approval. Cheka activities were scaled back with the inception of NEP in 1921, it was renamed and reassigned, and it's only after Lenin dies that you see a resurgence.
And there's also the argument that there is something in the Russian psyche that requires totalitarian government - they don't seem to be able to cope without it.
You're going to have to trust me on this one - he was no monster, and he definitely didn't lead inevitably to Stalin.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-15 06:23:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
<<1806 (I think) - Sidmouth's Six Acts in England made Agent Provocateurs legal. Don't see too much of a difference there. And what of Oliver Cromwell's actions after the civil war?>>
----
A very good point. I think the primary difference was that Cromwell turned down the crown and ultimatly gave power to the fragmented parliament. I've always been confused by that, he always struck me as a bit of a righteous dickhead who would have seen himself in that light, but I guess he just really loved winning battles or something.
Anyway, we got lucky there. Bang to rights we should have been stuck with Cromwell the Prick ruining everyone's shit but we got away with it.
You know what as well? I agree wholeheartedly with your comment about the US constitution (apart from that wacky shit about guns which is just poor health and safety). It's a minted document full of all sorts of quality shit. On the basis of such freedoms man has made such humungous leaps socially and technologically. Stuff like that and the declaration of human rights fill me with pride, not just because they are inherantly 'good' documents but because in creating and adhearing to these ideals we have, as a species, come so far in so short a space of time.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-15 06:09:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-15 05:54:53 (#)
Ranking: 2
Anna, the point of the matter is that Lenin had lots of people made dead to further his political agenda. I accept that he did not do it for personal reasons but it's true that because the administrative machine focussed too much power in too few people's hands that Stalin was able to do the truly horrible shit that he did.
In other words, Lenin made it acceptable to kill people who dissagreed with the government.
<<wouldn't say Lenin was the first instance of this. He was perhaps the first who used it as a process. But then living with the industrialisation process must have made this obvious. Like Henry Ford's assembly line being inspired by a slaughterhouse line.>>
He gave the government absoloubt power. This is the essential failiure of his government, it's what changed Russia from being a communist state to being a totalitarian police state. That he felt it neccesary to have 'secret police' who where able to act without authorisation or transparency was a dangerous mistake.
<<1806 (I think) - Sidmouth's Six Acts in England made Agent Provocateurs legal. Don't see too much of a difference there. And what of Oliver Cromwell's actions after the civil war?>>
A mistake that the Americans should take note of before it's to late, if indeed it is not already.
<<I actually have a hell of a lot of respect for much of the American Constitution, and its protection of the people. Britain passed the holding for 28 days without recourse act recently to deal with 'terrorists' - from the country who created Habeas Corpus, this is a terrible development.>>
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-15 05:54:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Anna, the point of the matter is that Lenin had lots of people made dead to further his political agenda. I accept that he did not do it for personal reasons but it's true that because the administrative machine focussed too much power in too few people's hands that Stalin was able to do the truly horrible shit that he did.
In other words, Lenin made it acceptable to kill people who dissagreed with the government. He gave the government absoloubt power. This is the essential failiure of his government, it's what changed Russia from being a communist state to being a totalitarian police state. That he felt it neccesary to have 'secret police' who where able to act without authorisation or transparency was a dangerous mistake.
A mistake that the Americans should take note of before it's to late, if indeed it is not already.
Submitted by Despiadado (user info) at 2005-11-15 04:15:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You ruined the perfect 2.
Just go somewhere and die.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-11-15 03:39:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
i am so fucking tired
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-11-14 19:19:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh - and one more thing.
Lenin was desperate for a revolution in Germany, to 'save' the Russian one. I think Marx favoured a revolution in Germany, though I might be wrong on that.
Read something on the early period of the USSR though - it's interesting reading; all that idealism and fervour, such belief in the Revolution as something sacred and life changing (the topic of my Master's dissertation, no less). There's some good biographies of Lenin out there too.
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-11-14 19:12:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Red - you're welcome.
You're right, Marxism never fitted with the USSR, hence it's been renamed Marxist/Leninist to account for Lenin's belief that nations - particularly Russia - could 'skip' the historical steps of development to Communism as prescribed by Marx. When you get to the Stalinist period you'll see a massive effort to catch up with the west, the Five Year Plans, to account for the differences in ability - it did work, though not without massive waste, effort and loss of life, and there is some argument that the alternative - continuing with NEP, more Socialist than Communist, with the nationalisation of major industrial concerns like metalurgy, mining, electrical production, transport and communication and banking etc, with everything else remaining in private hands - would have brought the same result without the waste.
I firmly believe the Russian Revolution only happened because of Lenin - without his drive it wouldn't have happened in 1917, and if Russian constitutionalism had survived, probably wouldn't happen at all. I also believe he knew he would die young so forced a revolution whilst he was still alive.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-14 17:41:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Adereterial - that is very enlightening, thank you. I've read a bit of Marx and Engels in my time, and some more modern Marxists like Illich, but have not really looked at the early history of the Soviet Union. TBH, I don't really think that the USSR fitted in with Marx's dialectical model, and communism in China/USSR always seemed like a false dawn for Communists.
Communism was supposed to take off in countries where the difference between rich and poor was most evident, with the rise of the middle classes as leaders for the revolution. i.e. Britain or the USA. Russia was just too damn backward and poor to move to Marx's Communism.
Interesting how much personalities matter in such a state isn't it?
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-11-14 17:25:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 12:17:39 (#)
Ranking: 2
Lenin was the very worst kind of monster, the one with no doubt at all. As a direct result of his brutality and his method of government Stalin got to power and ruined everyone's shit (including Hitlers interestingly). The man was a monster.
-----------------------------
Be careful with that argument - it's definitely not fashionable and most (including me) don't subscribe to it. I don't believe Stalin was an inevitable consequence of Lenin's form of government - he even tried to get his successors to get rid of him (from his testament - 'Comrade Stalin, having become general secretary has immeasurable power concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure that he always knows how to use that power with sufficient control.' and later 'Stalin is too rude, and this fault, entirely acceptable in relations between communists, becomes completely unacceptable in the office of General Secretary. Therefore I propose to the comrades that a way be found to remove Stalin from that post and replace him with someone else who differs from Stalin in all respects, someone more patient, more loyal, more polite, more considerate.') The fact that Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev et al chose to suppress that document (probably because it was critical of all of them, but mostly Stalin) and leave Stalin as General Secretary, the post that allowed him to place cronies in helpful positions is far more responsible for Stalin than anything else. It was a post Lenin never held, incidentally.
Also, if you look at the post Civil War period of the Soviet Union - especially before Lenin died - you'll see what I believe to be the form of government Lenin always intended before the Civil War forced War Communism and the creation of the Cheka, which, in anycase, was only the natural evolution of the Okhrana, the Tsarist Secret police. This period (NEP) is what many would now consider to be the form of government Lenin intended from the very outset - slow evolution, with private ownership of small enterprise, peasant ownership of the land, and state ownership of the 'commanding heights' - massive industry and banking. Indeed, the peasants were even encouraged to 'grow fat,' a typical Russian indicator of wealth and prosperity.
And again on the point of mass murder, if you read Lenin's writings, there is nothing really there to indicate that he favoured mass murder in the nature of Hitler or Stalin - yes, he authorised the execution of large numbers of people but there was never any concerted and deliberate effort to slaughter mass numbers of people. Also, you have to take into account the damage to his mind by a series of strokes, which damaged his mental as well as physical abilities and as some have suggested, left him with a desire to see his work completed, or even, as I've also read, gave him the drive to bypass Marxist levels of development (bypassing capitalism) because he knew he wouldn't live very long.
Lenin was a very, very sick man, but he was not a monster. He definitely did have doubt in what he was doing and in what he did.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-14 14:00:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
<<policing is by consent. The police act as a moral force (hear me out) - in that they punish visibly, and this visible act is at both a deterrent and a reinforcer for the man in the street. A way of reaffirming that they were right to not steal something. Look at the karmic retribution! In truth the police could not even attempt to stop all 'crime'. Look at France as evidence of that.>>
That the laws are there as a consequence to their action and not as a preventative measure.
<<I'd disagree - see above.>>
I don't get it. As far as I can tell you've repeated what I've said and then told me you disagree with me.
----
The police force act as a reassuring presence, reducing crime by being visible. They do not stop it occurring, or indeed act as truly effective way of stopping it happening. The police can't maintain law and order. The people maintain law and order, and the police are the embodiment of this. They are the badge that transforms man into police man. Interestingly, police comes from the greek word 'polis' or city. The police men are the men of the city, as we all are. The laws are the embodiment of moral thought, not as an actual force in itself.
What I'm getting at is that the police are really an avatar of the people's will. They are not a truly efficacious form of punishment. We consent to be policed.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 12:17:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Or so I've heard.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 12:17:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Lenin was the very worst kind of monster, the one with no doubt at all. As a direct result of his brutality and his method of government Stalin got to power and ruined everyone's shit (including Hitlers interestingly). The man was a monster.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 12:15:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Anna, I must admit I never studied Lenin. I know a man who did though, all my knowledge is second hand.
HOWEVER, it is true that Lenin stated something along the lines of 'terrorising the beurjosis (I hate that word)' and then later decided that the proleteriat had become 'contaminated' by the bourjousis. So he terrorised them as well.
I seem to recall that there where these dock workers that formed Lenins initial support when he was advancing to power but that later, when the took issue with what he was doing, he had them all killed. Thousands of people.
I think he also set up the Checkers, the secret police. Indeed I remember a story about one of Lenins first ever cabinet. I forget the name of the man, he was head of the checkers at the time, handing Lenin a document with some 150 names of political prisoners on it. Lenin glanced at the document and put a little cross on it, then handed it back.
During the week the head of the checkers had all 150 people executed.
Next week the head of the Checkers approaches Lenin and says "Oh, I've killed all the people on that list."
Lenin says "What list?"
HOTC says "Well, I passed you a list of a 150 political prisoners and you put a cross on it so I had them all killed"
Lenin replies "but I put a cross on every piece of paper I look at so I know that I've read it, that way I don't read it again."
HOTC says "oh..."
Lenin shrugs and says "'s alright."
Lenin was not a warm fuzzy man, he had lots and lots and lots of people killed. He was so utterly convinced that he was right he was willing to do more or less anything to achieve his ends. He was the greatest example of why the ends not justifying the means. God knows he wrote volumes of very careful arguments justifying his actions but the fact of the matter is that he killed and tortured an awful lot of people.
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-11-14 11:58:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 10:59:54 (#)
Ranking: 2
Before I read the rest of your statements I have to point out that Utilitarianism is a bullshit philosophy that's only use has been for the likes of Hitler and Lenin to justify mass murder.
------------------
Berty - steer clear of equating Hitler with Lenin - there's no real comparison to be made and it offends me greatly. Equate Stalin and Hitler if you like, but leave my dear Lenin alone. As far as I know Lenin never justifed mass murder - terror yes, but mass murder, no. Lenin deplored wholescale pogroms of the 'former classes' perpetrated in some areas by Bolsheviks and even the decision to have the Tsar and his family executed was one he appears to have taken only as a last resort, and possibly regretted later.
And if you're talking about mental illness - Hitler had testicle envy, Stalin was probably clinically paranoid. Lenin on the other hand, had a brain genetically guaranteed to implode, and indeed it did.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 11:50:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
<<policing is by consent. The police act as a moral force (hear me out) - in that they punish visibly, and this visible act is at both a deterrent and a reinforcer for the man in the street. A way of reaffirming that they were right to not steal something. Look at the karmic retribution! In truth the police could not even attempt to stop all 'crime'. Look at France as evidence of that.>>
That the laws are there as a consequence to their action and not as a preventative measure.
<<I'd disagree - see above.>>
I don't get it. As far as I can tell you've repeated what I've said and then told me you disagree with me.
That, however, is another story. I'll leave you to go home.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 11:48:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Stepping back for just a moment, my desire to make people happy is tying my hands here. I cannot declare the maxim of good taste and draw a line across all mentally handicapped people. I am unsure how to continue at this moment.
-----
I reckon that the way is to proceed has all ready been shown to us through modern societies approach to legislation.
You make it illegal to exploit people for the purposes of financial gain (stops you pimping out autistic chicks) but you allow for the consensual relations betwixt invalid and adult. If an invalid is so incapable as to require a legal gaurdian then they are to have the right to deny or grant social contact with persons and their charge. If said persons have a greivance with the legal gaurdians decision then the matter can be reffered to a psychiatric specialist to determine the justification of the Gaurdians ruling. One would imagine that the specialist will agree with the gaurdian in most cases, and to discourage against timewasting there should be mandatory referral period of, say, 6 or 12 months and/or a fee.
If such a liason is granted then for all intents and purposes the title of legal gaurdian is switched to the invalid's partner. I believe it would be beneficial to maintain a support structure to assist in the invalids needs and to educate the new legal gaurdian in caring for his/her partner.
What do you reckon to that? It does rather inhibit the relations by effectivly meaning potential partners would have to woo the gaurdian as well as the invalid but it's the only fair way that can be enforced.
In established cases where the invalid is deemed responsible enough to conduct their own affairs then we leave them to fuck and frolic as much as regular people.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-14 11:44:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I believe the answer is yes and whilst the laws should be specific in the instance it has to be understood that people will break the laws.
<<policing is by consent. The police act as a moral force (hear me out) - in that they punish visibly, and this visible act is at both a deterrent and a reinforcer for the man in the street. A way of reaffirming that they were right to not steal something. Look at the karmic retribution! In truth the police could not even attempt to stop all 'crime'. Look at France as evidence of that.>>
That the laws are there as a consequence to their action and not as a preventative measure.
<<I'd disagree - see above.>>
Government in a modern democracy is about providing structure to the world. It's the equivilant of moderators running a massivly multiplayer online game. If a person really wants to do something then there's really not a lot you can do unless you start playing the game for people. Pardon the metaphore.
<<and there we have it. Moderate. That is my 'tend to agree.' Extreme cases are weeded out, but we tend to accept a set of rules as being 'fair' - though we may grumble about them.
The idea that we should dictate to people whom they may and may not love is more meddling than I like to see. Unlike children, the mentally ill will rarely be 'cured' and most will lead solitary lives alone and unhappy whatever we say here today.
<<children are cured. I love the idea of that!>>
To take away even the possibility of happiness from these people steps outside of the powers our society should have over its members.
<<some problems with this - 'society' is no thing. It is an abstractification. It does not judge or wield power. Democracy - Demos Kratis (if my greek holds up) People - Power. The power resides in the people, who give a mandate to a section to make judgements on their behalf. I will however, still raise questionmarks about the use of 'love' as a universal solvent, in which all other factors are secondary.
I would say that on this merit alone is justification.
I will continue this discussion later if that is ok Berty.
Regards
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 11:34:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Yet we tend, with the odd disagreement, to be able to cope with things. We all tend to agree that murder is wrong, and that a sunset is beautiful.
-------
Not so. Listen to people rant about the 'insurgents' and the 'racial profiling'. It's never as clear cut as we would like it. Never. It just doesn't happen. The only reason that democracy works so well is that the government is weak. The leadership is a splintered thing, bound by the buearocratic (sp?) process.
The fact is that people can seldom be expected to agree on much at all. One man's meat is anothers poison and all that. I know I'm speaking in cliches but its true. It's not a sad thing as such, it's a fact of life. It's something you have to take into account when looking at social questions like the one we've been discussing. The final ultimate question is, can it be worked in society?
I believe the answer is yes and whilst the laws should be specific in the instance it has to be understood that people will break the laws. That the laws are there as a consequence to their action and not as a preventative measure. Government in a modern democracy is about providing structure to the world. It's the equivilant of moderators running a massivly multiplayer online game. If a person really wants to do something then there's really not a lot you can do unless you start playing the game for people. Pardon the metaphore.
The idea that we should dictate to people whom they may and may not love is more meddling than I like to see. Unlike children, the mentally ill will rarely be 'cured' and most will lead solitary lives alone and unhappy whatever we say here today. To take away even the possibility of happiness from these people steps outside of the powers our society should have over its members.
I would say that on this merit alone is justification.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-14 11:28:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Uber is an interesting sandbox. You can have discussions about philosophy right next to discussions on how come Kim Deal put on so much weight. All culture is of the same value? Seems too post modern for my taste.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-14 11:20:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
It is better than 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent is imprisoned. However, in this case I would invert this relationship, and say it is better for 10 innocent relations to be prevented in the name of that 1 shameful relationship, where an unscrupulous person rapes (in one form or another - grooming is the same) the innocent.
It's one or the other mate. You can't say "justice and liberty for all! Well, except Romanians whom we shall hunt down and gas." It just doesn't work like that. You've got to either say 'yes we shall allow these people to have the oppurtunity of full lives' or you've got to say, 'no, in the interests of protecting the vulnerable we shall place restrictions on their lives'.
<<In both cases I am tending towards caution I think, in the name of perhaps liberalism.
I think I would say that in the interests of protecting the vulnerable, we shall place restrictions on their lives is a mantra I can ascribe too. I do feel a certain pity towards my fellow man, and a wish, (and belief) that they can do better.
Going back to 'gut feelings' though (I know what I said but hear me out) doesn't it seem a little monstrous to prevent people from loving because you think it's wrong? I just worry that there may be a deeper social message being broadcast here.
<<yes it does. I do need to spend some time digesting this. I tend to be of the opinion to let people have as much freedom as possible within some agreed limits, and to rely on the basic good of people to make the best decision in the end. The problem is how to ensure that people don't get hurt.
Fuck. It does seem monstrous to sit in judgement of this, of all acts. Can you ensure that people won't be injured by your opening this Pandora's box? (apologies for that pun) - I'd say you can't - but we must balance the good and the evil. If 1 person is sexually abused as a result of this decision, and they can do or say nothing about it - and the perpertrator is not punished, I am not sure if I can currently put my name to that.
Stepping back for just a moment, my desire to make people happy is tying my hands here. I cannot declare the maxim of good taste and draw a line across all mentally handicapped people. I am unsure how to continue at this moment.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-14 11:12:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 10:59:54 (#)
Ranking: 2
Before I read the rest of your statements I have to point out that Utilitarianism is a bullshit philosophy that's only use has been for the likes of Hitler and Lenin to justify mass murder.
It doesn't work because no one person can agree on what 'value' to give everything. Sadly it's not as simple as '3 dead babies + 5 saved people with failing organs = happy happy joy joy'. It just doesn't work.
And Plato was a fascist. The very mentioning of his name offends my humanist sensibilities. The smug, smarmy, ass-fucking bastard that he is. He tried to put his principles to work with some prince named Alexander. Didn't fucking work. I spit on you Plato, you ass munching failiure!
---
Utilitarianism is the concept on which democracy is based however. The majority decide. I do however concede the point of the tyranny of the majority. Furthermore, people imperfectly agree on a set of shared 'values.' "Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?" Looking at our shared values and norms, we all have slightly different takes on things. Even the idea of 'red' is a form of encoding. The word brings a colour to mind, but that colour may be subtly - or radically different from the next person's perception of it. Yet we tend, with the odd disagreement, to be able to cope with things. We all tend to agree that murder is wrong, and that a sunset is beautiful. How can we look at a tree and identify it, when each tree looks so very different from the next one? I think there is room for negotiation within any value, and that it is the role of debate to define, and redefine this boundaries.
Have you read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance by Robert Pirsig? He places the worth of rhetoric, the persuading of another to share your values, on a similar level to me.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 11:05:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
It is better than 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent is imprisoned. However, in this case I would invert this relationship, and say it is better for 10 innocent relations to be prevented in the name of that 1 shameful relationship, where an unscrupulous person rapes (in one form or another - grooming is the same) the innocent.
It's one or the other mate. You can't say "justice and liberty for all! Well, except Romanians whom we shall hunt down and gas." It just doesn't work like that. You've got to either say 'yes we shall allow these people to have the oppurtunity of full lives' or you've got to say, 'no, in the interests of protecting the vulnerable we shall place restrictions on their lives'.
Going back to 'gut feelings' though (I know what I said but hear me out) doesn't it seem a little monstrous to prevent people from loving because you think it's wrong? I just worry that there may be a deeper social message being broadcast here.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 10:59:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Before I read the rest of your statements I have to point out that Utilitarianism is a bullshit philosophy that's only use has been for the likes of Hitler and Lenin to justify mass murder.
It doesn't work because no one person can agree on what 'value' to give everything. Sadly it's not as simple as '3 dead babies + 5 saved people with failing organs = happy happy joy joy'. It just doesn't work.
And Plato was a fascist. The very mentioning of his name offends my humanist sensibilities. The smug, smarmy, ass-fucking bastard that he is. He tried to put his principles to work with some prince named Alexander. Didn't fucking work. I spit on you Plato, you ass munching failiure!
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-14 10:44:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
<<prisoners, the poor, the underclasses, the mentally ill are all barred from this>>
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
<<the music industry shall receive a rollocking from me in the nearish future. Overall however, I agree with these statements of intent>>
I would move that a social life is a fundamental part of any culture or society and that exclusion from such persuits under the basis of mental health is a form of discrimination.
I would state that apart from where the individual poses a distinct threat to the freedoms and security of other persons (as alluded to in Article 30) that a mentally ill person has a basic right to persue social relations.
<<I would advance the concept of anomie relating from city living (germeinschaft?) - That the more people who surround you, in fact the more alone you feel. What this brings into question however is whether social life can have an impact on others. I may enjoy smoking, that does not entitle me to smoke in a public place where others are. If our mentally handicapped person is a danger to others, than we must look at the greatest good for the greatest number (Plato if i'm any judge). I would concur that should this condition be met, then they are entitled to the same opportunity as any other person to be shunned or sociable>>
Assuming that you agree that a person of handicapped status has a right to persue social endeavours then we end up at our initial starting point of 'protection from exploitation'. I would more than understand your not agreeing with my statement on the basis that a mentally ill person is a special case and that to extend the full extent of freedom is dangerous to the individual, akin to allowing a child a credit card.
<<an apt metaphor, the smart exploit the stupid on a regular basis. The law acts as a rebalancer in more extreme cases, as when Microsoft are stung for being incredibly successful. A mentally handicapped person should indeed have the right to a full social life, within the confines that we all face, that of non-endangerment of others. I shouldn't be allowed to get drunk and to vomit on your step. The problem is what range of freedom can they have? They may be treated with respect, and act accordingly much of the time, but then be taken advantage of by another. How do we guarantee that the only people they meet are safe? There is the case for the institution, either walls, or the presence of an appropriate 'minder' - or perhaps warden. >>
If that is the case we are essentially saying that a mentally ill person does not have the right to participate in the social and cultural life of the community for reasons of incapability.
Red, what are your thoughts?
<<The inability to trust all others with the responsibility of treating mentally handicapped people appropriately means that we must have laws and restrictions to punish those who do overstep the bounds of responsibility. Yes they may have wanted it, but the laws are there to err on the side of caution. Note the word 'err.'
It is better than 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent is imprisoned. However, in this case I would invert this relationship, and say it is better for 10 innocent relations to be prevented in the name of that 1 shameful relationship, where an unscrupulous person rapes (in one form or another - grooming is the same) the innocent.>>
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 10:28:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I would look at a more general definition - one who controls their actions, and understands the rammifications of their acts. One who can feel sorrow and regret, or happiness and joy.
---------
They can all feel Red, even a semi vegetable can get excited over being fed ice cream. I wanted to nail it down as tightly as possible and as a consequence it's best to not try and be too specific over feelings.
Anyway, we're in agreement so lets carry on.
We all know that there are many different relationships people can persue, a child may persue a relationship with another child and it is seen that on this level the involved parties have little or limited capacity for exploitation. Also it is worth pointing out that adults with altered mental states have freely chosen to put themselves in that situation, so getting a girl hammered and sticking it in her is allowed, with the courts reflecting this in the many rape cases that are thrown out of the magistrates court every month.
The activities of drunken folly aside, it is a fact that mentally ill persons are not seen as fully responsible people whithing the eyes of the law or of society. You wouldn't give a schizophrenic a gun and you wouldn't allow a Downs Syndrome sufferer with a habit of rape to roam unsupervised.
Article 27 of the Declaration of human rights which reads thusly:
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
I would move that a social life is a fundamental part of any culture or society and that exclusion from such persuits under the basis of mental health is a form of discrimination. I would state that apart from where the individual poses a distinct threat to the freedoms and security of other persons (as alluded to in Article 30) that a mentally ill person has a basic right to persue social relations.
Assuming that you agree that a person of handicapped status has a right to persue social endeavours then we end up at our initial starting point of 'protection from exploitation'. I would more than understand your not agreeing with my statement on the basis that a mentally ill person is a special case and that to extend the full extent of freedom is dangerous to the individual, akin to allowing a child a credit card.
If that is the case we are essentially saying that a mentally ill person does not have the right to participate in the social and cultural life of the community for reasons of incapability.
Red, what are your thoughts?
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-14 09:44:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 09:37:46 (#)
Ranking: 2
Well lets break all this down a little. Lets start by focusing on the mentally ill.
Firstly is it conceivable that a person could love, genuinly, another person if that person where of said mental illness.
<<< I swear Berty - I love your writing - but that where/were thing is now approaching the 'farce' level.>>>
Given such true (real true, not Berty's tall tales) stories as the Dying Irish Poet and the dominatrix, it does seem conceivable that a person could feel genuine affection for a person of such status.
----
Also must consider when a person declines in mental ability - i.e. alzeihmers etc - though I personally think I'd feel fairly wrong about doing that. If my partner was no longer 'all there.'
Secondly our motivation for blocking such a union is our intention to protect the vulnerable from exploitation. ergo we must first define what is vulnerable in this instance. I think we can both agree that that would constitute 'a person incapable of a balanced and reasoned judgement based on the real facts of reality or unable to understand, in a social sense, the meaning of another's feelings or actions'. Please correct me if I am wrong.
----
I like your definition - but I know people who do not correspond to that at all - bigotted people, kneejerk reactions, over emotional - I wouldn't call them mentally ill (well...)
I would look at a more general definition - one who controls their actions, and understands the rammifications of their acts. One who can feel sorrow and regret, or happiness and joy.
Whilst I am tempted to consider a great many people falling into this category, not just persons with diagnosable personality disorders, we shall ignore the semantics of who is or isn't in this category of 'vulnerable persons' and accept the sterotypical 'mentally ill person' as our subject in this discussion, purely for the sake of argument and brevity. (oh the irony)
--
fair 'nuff
Before we go any further it is essential that we establish some agreed parameters so that we can move forward in a structured manner and arrive at something resembling a meaningful outcome.
Would you agree to the above statements?
---
If we're dealing with the stereotypical mentally ill person - then yes. Though I shall again raise Goffman and Big Joe Stalin at some point I think with regard to definitions of mental illness
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 09:37:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Well lets break all this down a little. Lets start by focusing on the mentally ill.
Firstly is it conceivable that a person could love, genuinly, another person if that person where of said mental illness. Given such true (real true, not Berty's tall tales) stories as the Dying Irish Poet and the dominatrix, it does seem conceivable that a person could feel genuine affection for a person of such status.
Secondly our motivation for blocking such a union is our intention to protect the vulnerable from exploitation. ergo we must first define what is vulnerable in this instance. I think we can both agree that that would constitute 'a person incapable of a balanced and reasoned judgement based on the real facts of reality or unable to understand, in a social sense, the meaning of another's feelings or actions'. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Whilst I am tempted to consider a great many people falling into this category, not just persons with diagnosable personality disorders, we shall ignore the semantics of who is or isn't in this category of 'vulnerable persons' and accept the sterotypical 'mentally ill person' as our subject in this discussion, purely for the sake of argument and brevity. (oh the irony)
Before we go any further it is essential that we establish some agreed parameters so that we can move forward in a structured manner and arrive at something resembling a meaningful outcome.
Would you agree to the above statements?
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-14 09:26:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by MandaPanda (user info) at 2005-11-14 09:23:48 (#)
Ranking: 2
You used too many big words, and quite frankly, it made me sleepy. I didn't finish this, though I'm sure it's plenty funny. It's not you, it's me.
----
Bob? Is that you Bob? Don't make me kick you under the table again.
Submitted by MandaPanda (user info) at 2005-11-14 09:23:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You used too many big words, and quite frankly, it made me sleepy. I didn't finish this, though I'm sure it's plenty funny. It's not you, it's me.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-14 09:11:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Hmm - perhaps statutory rape? If she didn't really know what she was doing? Like if you have sex with a nympho?
----------
So based on this do you think it is unfair for mentally handicapped people to have relationships?
----
Hehe keep thinking about that joke about the blind lesbians in a fish mongers.
ok - after some thought - we have the idea here of people taking advantage of another's disability - if both people have the same ability to reason/act responsibly - then no foul.
Although if two 15 year olds have sex, that's statutory rape - technically. Even if they both love each other etc.
I know someone who is married to a woman with some level of mental retardation. They're a nice couple etc, but there is a bit of me that looks at it a little cynically.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-14 09:02:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 08:32:12 (#)
Ranking: 2
By the way Red, can I call you Red? By the way Red, I'm not picking on you or anything I just reckon I've finally found an argument to pwn those motherfuckers that say relations with children is wrong and keeps us all growing up emptionally stunted.
---
The lecturer chopped someone's fingers off in the not too distant past - which he is not sheepish about at all. Also, do you know what turf welding is? Gardeners are all con artists man.
With regard to the toddler diddling - I'm not so sure if the retards = children argument carries much weight.
Though having seen some of our students - hmmm.
I reckon it depends if they're hot and mentally handicapped or not. How politically incorrect is this? Marvellous.
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2005-11-14 08:32:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No comment
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 08:32:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
By the way Red, can I call you Red? By the way Red, I'm not picking on you or anything I just reckon I've finally found an argument to pwn those motherfuckers that say relations with children is wrong and keeps us all growing up emptionally stunted.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 08:30:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-14 08:17:05 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 08:14:59 (#)
Ranking: 2
If you have sex with a mentally ill woman is that considered rape or sexual abuse?
----
Hmm - perhaps statutory rape? If she didn't really know what she was doing? Like if you have sex with a nympho?
----------
So based on this do you think it is unfair for mentally handicapped people to have relationships?
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 08:29:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-11-14 08:22:45 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 08:20:54 (#)
Ranking: 2
You see, we are not ninjas.
------------------------
Speak for your goddamn self.
---------
Fine, don't believe.
But don't come crying to me when you think it's a great idea to scare Williamson by waving a chainsaw in front of his face and tear out his eyes and nose with the teeth.
You'll be lucky of you don't swing it into your legs and smash your kneecaps.
That happened to a guy you know. Oh yeah. Guy thought he was a ninja, he'd watched every single bruce lee movie and he even managed to do the thing with the nunchucks for a full 20 seconds before cracking himself in the elbow.
Now he's got spasticated flid arms and a ghey wheelchair. Do you know how I know that story THorpy? Do you? huh? That guy was my brother. And he's dead now.
Check and mate mothafukka.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-11-14 08:22:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 08:20:54 (#)
Ranking: 2
You see, we are not ninjas.
------------------------
Speak for your goddamn self.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 08:20:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
My sister works with chainsaws and they are dangerous. Seriously, it's really easy to fuck up with a chainsaw and ruin your shit. You see, we are not ninjas. We are not movie action hero's. We do not always operate with precision and poise, we are not graceful. We are clumsy and oafish. If you fuck about with a chainsaw no possible good will come from it.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-14 08:17:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 08:14:59 (#)
Ranking: 2
If you have sex with a mentally ill woman is that considered rape or sexual abuse?
----
Hmm - perhaps statutory rape? If she didn't really know what she was doing? Like if you have sex with a nympho?
On an unrelated note - I actually witnessed the chainsaw lesson as well and my conclusion is - I really want a chainsaw. They are cool. I'd probably just wander around saying 'hey, got anything needs chopping?'
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-11-14 08:14:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
If you have sex with a mentally ill woman is that considered rape or sexual abuse?
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-14 08:06:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
and drying to work out how to describe 'clown'
---
and trying to work out how to describe 'clown'