Friendly mentally challenged people.

[new guy1]

Relax. Back to my kid's school. Part of the reason the skills kids are collecting the recycling is to help them get "Skills".

If they don't want to participate they will be give the option to do something else. Many of the enjoy it. Though at the elementary school level the rest of the school is not looking down on it yet. Regular kids get to collect the recycling also as a reward for good behavior.

Well I have not looked much into the program, although I have participated in what they call lunch buddies (which is where we go eat with the life styles students and talk to them and eat lunch and all that), but if that is the way the program works at my school then I apologize for any misunderstanding. Also, I stated that I understood they were learning how to do it themselves, but I agree with that statement .

[BigBallinStalin]

Well I dont know if you guys are still telling stories, but at my high school, we have a life skills class and as part of it, all the mentally challenged kids go and get the recycle from the class rooms, which I find a little demeaning, but back to the story, there was one who every time he walked into a classroom of mine and saw me, he would wave to me and I'd wave back. Thought I'd share that.

I generally find your post agreeable, but regarding the underlined:

Why is it demeaning?

What if the mentally challenged individuals were not mentally challenged, but instead were black? Is that demeaning?

Let's also assume that (a) these kids are not being coerced into that job, and (b) they get paid or receive compensation which they value more than doing something else at that time (i.e. wage > opportunity cost).

Then, it's not demeaning. Sure, we live in a world of constraints, so earning income is necessary for many individuals. But what's demeaning about this job?

(I'm speculating, but why do some people feel some sort of guilt about it? Those who view that work as demeaning seem to exhibit "the white's man burden"--It's as if the 'demeaners' are saying, "these kids should not have these jobs! Let me lay the stones for their proper path for I know best").

[2dimes]

Not to mention it's only cleaning bathrooms. It's not like some bigot said they were running a restaurant called "Trevor's house of goat."

[BigBallinStalin]

Well I dont know if you guys are still telling stories, but at my high school, we have a life skills class and as part of it, all the mentally challenged kids go and get the recycle from the class rooms, which I find a little demeaning, but back to the story, there was one who every time he walked into a classroom of mine and saw me, he would wave to me and I'd wave back. Thought I'd share that.

I generally find your post agreeable, but regarding the underlined:

Why is it demeaning?

Not only do they make them do the recycling thing, they also have to clean the bathrooms and such as if they were janitors. I realize that it is teaching them how to do these things themselves, but I feel as though they are taken advantage of so that the school does not need to higher as many janitors. I guess its just an opinion thing, but I just feel like they are taken advantage of.

fastposted- Gotcha, and I did not mean for the word demeaning to start anything. Its just my opinion.

Well, I'm not offended; just curious.

It's like 2dimes implies: Since the employers expect that such kids (unfortunately) lack the capabilities to do advanced or more productive/useful jobs (e.g. air traffic control or whatever), then the very least they can do is provide work which they expect best matches the kids' current and future capabilities. This is a mutually beneficial exchange; both parties gain, so I don't view it as demeaning, but great. I'm proud that someone is benefiting from an exchange which in turn contributes positively to the general interest.*

*Hey, it could be the case that instead of recycling some of those kids would be better served as interns in some art program, but we live in a world of constraints. Mistakes can be made. There is uncertainty, so employers and employees do not possess perfect information. Profitable opportunities may be lurking yet unseen for both parties; however, no one is being taken advantage of---unless those kids are coerced into those jobs. Otherwise, it's a mutually beneficial exchange, and is not demeaning.

[new guy1]

Well I dont know if you guys are still telling stories, but at my high school, we have a life skills class and as part of it, all the mentally challenged kids go and get the recycle from the class rooms, which I find a little demeaning, but back to the story, there was one who every time he walked into a classroom of mine and saw me, he would wave to me and I'd wave back. Thought I'd share that.

I generally find your post agreeable, but regarding the underlined:

Why is it demeaning?

What if the mentally challenged individuals were not mentally challenged, but instead were black? Is that demeaning?

Let's also assume that (a) these kids are not being coerced into that job, and (b) they get paid or receive compensation which they value more than doing something else at that time (i.e. wage > opportunity cost).

Then, it's not demeaning. Sure, we live in a world of constraints, so earning income is necessary for many individuals. But what's demeaning about this job?

(I'm speculating, but why do some people feel some sort of guilt about it? Those who view that work as demeaning seem to exhibit "the white's man burden"--It's as if the 'demeaners' are saying, "these kids should not have these jobs! Let me lay the stones for their proper path for I know best").

But see, that would not be demeaning, that would be getting paid for the job and stuff. I was looking at it as they had to take the class or something, but that was me being stupid and assuming thats how it worked, I didnt realize that there were other options. I was saying demeaning because of a lack of better words to describe the situation, thats why I added on that I felt they were taken advantage of to try and make the definition I was trying to convey clearer.

fastposted- I dont know, I would find it odd if I had to clean my school's bathroom. The only reason why I know they did this is cause I went into the bathroom while one of the students was cleaning it, and I just feel like if a fellow classmate (being anywhere from 14-18) saw me then it might make them feel awkward (Again, no offense to a janitor because I am speaking about the high school years where reputation is everything to people, Im sure you can remember this). God, this is annoying. I was not trying to say it in the way that you guys are taking it. And dont ask what I was trying to say because I already posted that I tried to convey it in the way I knew best with the vocabulary I had in mind.

fastposted again. Thats a long message, Ill read and respond in another post.

[new guy1]

Well I dont know if you guys are still telling stories, but at my high school, we have a life skills class and as part of it, all the mentally challenged kids go and get the recycle from the class rooms, which I find a little demeaning, but back to the story, there was one who every time he walked into a classroom of mine and saw me, he would wave to me and I'd wave back. Thought I'd share that.

I generally find your post agreeable, but regarding the underlined:

Why is it demeaning?

Not only do they make them do the recycling thing, they also have to clean the bathrooms and such as if they were janitors. I realize that it is teaching them how to do these things themselves, but I feel as though they are taken advantage of so that the school does not need to higher as many janitors. I guess its just an opinion thing, but I just feel like they are taken advantage of.

fastposted- Gotcha, and I did not mean for the word demeaning to start anything. Its just my opinion.

Well, I'm not offended; just curious.

It's like 2dimes implies: Since the employers expect that such kids (unfortunately) lack the capabilities to do advanced or more productive/useful jobs (e.g. air traffic control or whatever), then the very least they can do is provide work which they expect best matches the kids' current and future capabilities. This is a mutually beneficial exchange; both parties gain, so I don't view it as demeaning, but great. I'm proud that someone is benefiting from an exchange which in turn contributes positively to the general interest.*

*Hey, it could be the case that instead of recycling some of those kids would be better served as interns in some art program, but we live in a world of constraints. Mistakes can be made. There is uncertainty, so employers and employees do not possess perfect information. Profitable opportunities may be lurking yet unseen for both parties; however, no one is being taken advantage of---unless those kids are coerced into those jobs. Otherwise, it's a mutually beneficial exchange, and is not demeaning.

The last paragraph is what Im going to focus on. I said that it was fine as long as they werent coerced into it. If they knew what they were doing and had full choice (not parent's choice, not school's choice) then it is fine. I was under the impression that they had to take these classes because they were not qualified for the other ones and people (At least in my state) have to go to school till they are 18 (legally) and they had to fill their schedule with something. If however they choose to do it, then I am in the wrong, and I admit it, and it is a great opportunity for them.

[2dimes]

I don't know if the word "unfortunately" fits in there. I know it's qualified with brackets but let's discuss.

This guy I interacted with tonight seemed genuinely happy. It really was inspirational. There are some who though perhaps note I'm insane also correctly note I posses above average intelligence.

I'm not happy most of the time.

Let me tell you most of the airline pilots I corrispond with on another forum make me sound like the carefree happy guy.

Who is unfortunate?

[saxitoxin]

Let me tell you most of the airline pilots I corrispond with on another forum make me sound like the carefree happy guy.

2dimes is the one in the blue skirt

[BigBallinStalin]

who is to say that the act is improper? 2dimes raised a good point- you may be able to generate more happiness by stealing the wealth from him. which is not to say that "no stealing" shouldn't be a rule of thumb in our culture.

Sure, with utilitarianism, such acts can be justified! WOOO!!!

With virtue ethics (Aristotle's)* and Kant's categorical imperative, then nah. Even the "amoral" economist, Lootifer, would find your position Pareto inefficient. For shame!


*(Virtue ethics might justify that, but that requires a lengthy off-topic case).

so you think that it's never right to do such a thing?

I'm a moral consequentalist, so here's my answer: it depends on the consequences and the constraints (information, uncertainty, time, search costs, etc.).

1. It is not certain that more happiness would be generated by stealing another's wealth.
1a. Who do you give the stolen property to?
1b. Will that stolen property create happiness? And for how long?
1c. How do you know that you allotted the optimal amount of stolen property to the optimal amount of humans in order to maximize happiness?

2. There are unintended consequences which could follow such behavior.
2a. Over time, I'd expect the standard for making other people happy with stolen property would decrease over time. Justifications would be ramped up as theft becomes more frequent and significant (e.g. rising taxation in the US from 1700s to 2012).

3. Private property rights are the basis upon which voluntary exchanges are made, thus enabling the creation of wealth through peaceful means.
3a. Arbitrary utilitarian justifications hamper this institution (private property rights), thus undermining the potential for humans to become wealthier and happier through nonviolent means.


There's more but that's enough to cause you to doubt the superiority of utilitarianism (or of the underlined position). In short, you're presuming too much, and utilitarianism is insufficient.

or have you just dealt with too many selfish fuckwits who use some bastardized version of utilitarianism to justify their actions, and are therefore closed-minded to any possibility that the philosophy might hold merit?

I'm just having another grand ol time at pointing out the problems of utilitarianism---i.e. your underlined position.

[new guy1]

I don't know if the word "unfortunately" fits in there. I know it's qualified with brackets but let's discuss.

This guy I interacted with tonight seemed genuinely happy. It really was inspirational. There are some who though perhaps note I'm insane also correctly note I posses above average intelligence.

I'm not happy most of the time.

Let me tell you most of the airline pilots I corrispond with on another forum make me sound like the carefree happy guy.

Who is unfortunate?

I feel as though he was saying that the fact that employers just assume they lack proper capabilities for the job is unfortunate, not that they actually do or might. I would agree that most people think I am weird but it is not because I am intelligent, but because I take interests in different things. Most of the people in my class that I have the privilege of taking (I take a class at another school which not many people at my school can take) are dull and lack a sense of humor, and so me being the person who makes jokes and such but is not usually the cheeriest person in the room is all of a sudden the only person with a smile on their face. I can honestly say that most mentally challenged people seem very happy. The student I spoke of earlier seemed very happy when I knew him, and was always happy about little things, always seemed to have a smile on his face. I can say that if I could be as happy as he seemed, then I would be a very satisfied person in general. Sorry if the message sounds hasty, I have to get off now, so Ill respond to any comments tomorrow.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well I dont know if you guys are still telling stories, but at my high school, we have a life skills class and as part of it, all the mentally challenged kids go and get the recycle from the class rooms, which I find a little demeaning, but back to the story, there was one who every time he walked into a classroom of mine and saw me, he would wave to me and I'd wave back. Thought I'd share that.

I generally find your post agreeable, but regarding the underlined:

Why is it demeaning?

Not only do they make them do the recycling thing, they also have to clean the bathrooms and such as if they were janitors. I realize that it is teaching them how to do these things themselves, but I feel as though they are taken advantage of so that the school does not need to higher as many janitors. I guess its just an opinion thing, but I just feel like they are taken advantage of.

fastposted- Gotcha, and I did not mean for the word demeaning to start anything. Its just my opinion.

Well, I'm not offended; just curious.

It's like 2dimes implies: Since the employers expect that such kids (unfortunately) lack the capabilities to do advanced or more productive/useful jobs (e.g. air traffic control or whatever), then the very least they can do is provide work which they expect best matches the kids' current and future capabilities. This is a mutually beneficial exchange; both parties gain, so I don't view it as demeaning, but great. I'm proud that someone is benefiting from an exchange which in turn contributes positively to the general interest.*

*Hey, it could be the case that instead of recycling some of those kids would be better served as interns in some art program, but we live in a world of constraints. Mistakes can be made. There is uncertainty, so employers and employees do not possess perfect information. Profitable opportunities may be lurking yet unseen for both parties; however, no one is being taken advantage of---unless those kids are coerced into those jobs. Otherwise, it's a mutually beneficial exchange, and is not demeaning.

The last paragraph is what Im going to focus on. I said that it was fine as long as they werent coerced into it. If they knew what they were doing and had full choice (not parent's choice, not school's choice) then it is fine. I was under the impression that they had to take these classes because they were not qualified for the other ones and people (At least in my state) have to go to school till they are 18 (legally) and they had to fill their schedule with something. If however they choose to do it, then I am in the wrong, and I admit it, and it is a great opportunity for them.

I agree to. Thanks for talking!

(there is the issue of whether their parents/guardians know what is best for the child, but <shrugs> who knows, that argument can cut both ways).

[2dimes]

See new guy, part of the issue I hope you see is that sometimes the task seems demeaning because someone either told you it was or made fun of it.

Kind of like being mentally challenged. It's something people make fun of so suddenly it's something to be ashamed of.

Yet it's cool to be a scum bag and cut off other drivers with a BMW.

[2dimes]

Let me tell you most of the airline pilots I corrispond with on another forum make me sound like the carefree happy guy.

2dimes is the one in the blue skirt

If you get the chance to fly again post 1978. The "Flight attendants." Are 40% gay dudes, 58% crotchety old ladies. Since upwards of 30% of the pilots are heterosexual guys. Your picture shows evidence of part of their grievance.

[BigBallinStalin]

See new guy, part of the issue I hope you see is that sometimes the task seems demeaning because someone either told you it was or made fun of it.

Kind of like being mentally challenged. It's something people make fun of so suddenly it's something to be ashamed of.

Yet it's cool to be a scum bag and cut off other drivers with a BMW.

Wait, what is wrong with the alleged scum bag who cuts off other drivers with a BMW?

lololol, jkjkjkjk

[2dimes]

Ah a perfect chance to use your word from earlier.

UNFORTUNATELY, there's nothing wrong with being that guy. He's better than you hence the need to get in front. Make way you pleab.

[BigBallinStalin]

And since the happiness of the BMW driver has significantly offset the unhappiness of the pleab, then happiness has been maximized. Hurray for utilitarianism!

[jonesthecurl]

You guys can't spell "pleb".

[2dimes]

You guys can't spell "pleb".

Fonetiklee.

[2dimes]

And since the happiness of the BMW driver has significantly offset the unhappiness of the pleab, then happiness has been maximized. Hurray for utilitarianism!

I'll have time to be happy later at work cleaning his bathroom.

[BigBallinStalin]

You guys can't spell "pleb".

Fonetiklee.

Oh, pleabe.

[ManBungalow]

To help illustrate some of the themes in this thread by example:

There was this one time when I was about 14, sat in a class at school.

One of the girls in said class expressed an interest in becoming a doctor in later life - I forget the context, if any - and everything stopped. The teacher tried to explain, in the nicest way he could, that she wasn't cut out to be a doctor.

The girl started crying and promptly left the room.

Was the teacher in the wrong?

For some reason, a teacher having that sort of input is frowned upon (he was quite traditional, I should add) - "anyone with a goal can achieve it yadayadayada", but I think it's valuable.

I suppose that teacher has seen hundreds of students pass through the school, and knows which, ultimately, ended up in medicine. Or towards medicine. So it's possible to identify trends in the characteristics of such people. And therefore grouping individual students/people into a sort of algorithm.

[AAFitz]

I am still at the point in my life where I know, no matter what he won, Id have insured that he got his proper winnings, and I hope that never changes.

it's very easy to say this hypothetically on an anonymous online forum. but i think everyone has their breaking point, a certain amount of money where they would try to scam the guy out of his tickets just so they could get it instead.

Well, some of us hold our Christian Values higher than others I guess. Its sad to see an actual believer, that doesn't even trust himself.

[AAFitz]

I am still at the point in my life where I know, no matter what he won, Id have insured that he got his proper winnings, and I hope that never changes.

it's very easy to say this hypothetically on an anonymous online forum. but i think everyone has their breaking point, a certain amount of money where they would try to scam the guy out of his tickets just so they could get it instead.

What is the price of morally good action?


Is there a price at which anyone would commit an improper act (e.g. AAFitz's example)?

Well, no doubt, but I don't think its the number that is the biggest determinant but the combination of factors.

I would love a million dollars, but if I took it from that kid, I know I could never, ever have any respect for myself, so while Im sure there would be a moment of wtf do I do, one that absolutely could turn out unexpectedly, I have been running my own business with ample opportunities to take advantage of people, and simply don't do it. Thats not to say that every decision is made with a halo, but when it comes to individuals, whats fair is whats fair, and if you break that code, there's really no way to have any self respect, and if you lose that, whats the point of anything.

In any case, I know right now I am in that place, but I think it was clear, I fully accept that in the future, you never know.

[AAFitz]

To help illustrate some of the themes in this thread by example:

There was this one time when I was about 14, sat in a class at school.

One of the girls in said class expressed an interest in becoming a doctor in later life - I forget the context, if any - and everything stopped. The teacher tried to explain, in the nicest way he could, that she wasn't cut out to be a doctor.

The girl started crying and promptly left the room.

Was the teacher in the wrong?

For some reason, a teacher having that sort of input is frowned upon (he was quite traditional, I should add) - "anyone with a goal can achieve it yadayadayada", but I think it's valuable.

I suppose that teacher has seen hundreds of students pass through the school, and knows which, ultimately, ended up in medicine. Or towards medicine. So it's possible to identify trends in the characteristics of such people. And therefore grouping individual students/people into a sort of algorithm.

The problem is success is a difficult thing to predict. While some seem destined for success from birth, its the really successful ones that tend to surprise everyone, and exceed all expectations.

Being realistic is important, and anyone, with an unobtainable goal cannot achieve it, but its impossible to know who will achieve what. If the girl went to the guidance councilor and asked what field she should consider pursuing, obviously such concerns should be brought up, but honestly, that teacher saying that was probably more prompted by jealousy of the girls ambition, and possibly contempt, than it was out of trying to help, but you never know.

[thegreekdog]

Well I dont know if you guys are still telling stories, but at my high school, we have a life skills class and as part of it, all the mentally challenged kids go and get the recycle from the class rooms, which I find a little demeaning, but back to the story, there was one who every time he walked into a classroom of mine and saw me, he would wave to me and I'd wave back. Thought I'd share that.

I generally find your post agreeable, but regarding the underlined:

Why is it demeaning?

What if the mentally challenged individuals were not mentally challenged, but instead were black? Is that demeaning?

Let's also assume that (a) these kids are not being coerced into that job, and (b) they get paid or receive compensation which they value more than doing something else at that time (i.e. wage > opportunity cost).

Then, it's not demeaning. Sure, we live in a world of constraints, so earning income is necessary for many individuals. But what's demeaning about this job?

(I'm speculating, but why do some people feel some sort of guilt about it? Those who view that work as demeaning seem to exhibit "the white's man burden"--It's as if the 'demeaners' are saying, "these kids should not have these jobs! Let me lay the stones for their proper path for I know best").

I agree with everything you said if your assumption is correct. But I got the impression that these students were not paid and it was "part of the learning experience" or some such nonsense. It's highly offensive in that context. If the students are paid, then I retract my statement.