noname_ever
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 26, 2011
Posts: 500
Location: Indiana
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 6:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| What makes it part of our nature to help the sick and disabled? Sick and disabled animals tend to die off and benefit the rest of the pack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
aghogday
KATiE MiA
Joined: Nov 26, 2010
Posts: 4752
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Verdandi wrote: | | aghogday wrote: |
There is no evidence in the discussion on specific murders of disabled individuals, of anyone defending the actual murder of any disabled person, as a justified action on this site that I have seen. Yes, an expression of sympathy and empathy for the tragic circumstances of the incidences, and factors associated with the crime, but no, not a defense or an endorsement of the murderer or the crime. I challenge you to quote it, if it exists. |
On this page, The Walrus' post: https://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3800818.html
He defends the killing of Tracy Latimer as a mercy killing. He retracted and apologized in the thread about the Autism speaks video, however, so I am not trying to accuse him, but to answer your challenge:
| The_Walrus wrote: | So do you think a life of constant unbearable pain and paralysis is as worth living as the life of an able bodied, pain free person?
In the case of Tracy Latimer, I'm not making any assumptions at all, her needs were well known and her doctor testified at her father's trial as to what they were and what sort of pain she appeared to be in.
There are hundreds of cases of terminally ill people going to Dignitas in Switzerland in order to have help committing suicide because they don't consider the remainder of their lives worth living. There are probably many more cases of people in similar situations killing themselves. Don't you respect people's right to die?
It has nothing to do with their neurological makeup, it has everything to do with the amount of pain they are visibly in and are going to be in in the future. It's probably easier to justify it with an NT or someone high functioning who can get across that they want to die, but I don't think we should force someone who cannot express that to stay alive if their parents (who know them better than anyone else and probably love them more than anyone else) think it is unfair to continue their suffering. |
I don't believe you're endorsing the crimes, however. What your posts seem to me to do is focus on giving the murderers excuses such as mental illness, stress, and exhaustion, and advocating sympathy and compassion for them as if they too were victims. I don't think there's any value in such discussion. Every time the topic of parents murdering disabled children comes up, you minimize the crimes as rare or infrequent and participate in exactly the sort of culture that the author of the article linked in the OP criticizes. Which is why I knew you'd be in here to discredit her statements and suggested as much in my first post in this thread prior to your arrival (although I did not name any names). There is no shortage of people expressing sympathy and compassion for carers who murder disabled people, nor any shortage of people who assume that a disabled life is less valuable and thus the murder of a disabled person is not viewed as being as terrible (if terrible at all) as the murder of an abled person (other factors play a role as well - disability is not the only factor that devalues lives).
I found a sympathetic story about a PTSD Iraq vet who murdered his girlfriend: Actually, I find the way the story frames the murderer as a victim, and how much pain he's in for having killed a 19 year old woman rather reprehensible and indefensible.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18559_162-57323277/war-damaged-vet-kills-girlfriend-ptsd-to-blame/
You're right that the sympathy expressed toward veterans who murder is similar to the sympathy expressed toward parents who murder their disabled children. It creates a narrative in which PTSD causes a level of "acceptable" violence in which the murderer is the true victim, just as the murder of disabled children brings about the narrative of the parent who was depressed, and exhausted, and didn't have sufficient support even though often these are simply not true outside of the parent as victim narrative that is so popular. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Latimer
The Walrus was arguing a point on Mercy Killing and unbearable pain, per the trial of Robert Latimer. In that thread you were suggesting that the killing of a disabled person brings a more lenient sentence than that of a non-disabled person. That trial wasn't an issue focused on disability, it was an issue focused on unbearable unrelenting pain and mercy killing as opposed to murder.
The court systems do not allow Mercy Killing. Dr Jack Kervorkian went to prison for this, and so did Robert Latimer. Humans will not allow animals to suffer unbearable pain, so they are euthanized, but it's the cultural norm to allow a human to suffer with unrelenting pain, because they are considered more valuable and important than animals.
At least proper access to health care can mitigate this circumstance for those that exist in unrelenting pain, but as stated earlier in the thread, there are some that do not concern themselves with the pain of others in society, beyond their internal groups of contact, at all, per the lack of concern for those in society that push to repeal healthcare coverage for those that rely on these accommodation to escape pain every minute of every day.
73% of the Canadian population not only sympathized with what many perceived as Robert Latimer's horrific tragic circumstances. They also sympathized with what they perceived as the pain and suffering of his daughter in what they perceived as a tragic human circumstance. Not surprising that the citizens of Canada have enough sympathy for all their fellow citizens to support Universal health care.
Your argument with the Walrus in that thread was whether or not there was disparity in the sentences of those individuals whom were disabled as compared to those that weren't. Per the issue specific to disability associated with Tracy Latimer, beyond the pain and suffering issue that was the focus of the trial, that example contradicts the point that you were making that killers of disabled children are more likely to receive lenient sentences than killers of children that aren't disabled, as he was convicted of 2nd degree murder.
Perhaps you don't feel there is any value in discussing the tragic circumstances of the human condition, associated with these tragic incidences, but much of humanity is evidenced as seeing value in it
Rarely are circumstances in life reliably understood or judged by anyone that does not walk in the shoes of another person. Most people do understand this, along with trying to make some kind of sense out of the world. It can result in empathy and sympathy for tragic circumstances in life. That's part of human nature, and it does bring value to the discussion to discuss the different viewpoints associated with tragic circumstances specific to the human condition.
No one expects you as an individual to feel any sympathy for these circumstances surrounding these tragic incidences or those that commit the crimes; I certainly don't.
However you have presented no evidence that I or anyone else defends the murder of the disabled or that I am providing any excuses, or attempting to minimize any of these crimes on a personal level. I am reporting the evidence as it exists.
Mercy killing, the topic specifically related to the Latimer case, is one of the most controversial issues there are in society, and there are definitely valid points of concern on both ends of that controversy.
Fortunately there are alternatives such as living wills that provide sentient human beings the ability to make those choices for themselves.
When it is an individual that does not have that ability to make that communication known, there is the potential for a living hell on earth. There aren't many good answers for that kind of situation, but there are certainly different points of view that have a solid basis per what is and what is not humane per the human condition.
I noted, the Walrus' statement in the Autism Speaks video thread, in his report that he did not have a full accounting of the facts associated with the Latimer case at the time of his discussion with you that influenced his point of view on whether or not it may have been associated with mercy killing over the unbearable pain of a human being. I saw no retraction or apology, just clarification of the specific issue per the Latimer case that he did not have access to all the facts, per the previous discussion.
They are listed in the link above, that indicate that a broader view of Tracy Latimer's life that was not one of unrelenting pain. Viewpoints can be determined by partial facts or all the facts. But, that is not evidence that the Walrus was defending the murder of an individual specific to the fact that the individual was disabled. There are some very caring, empathetic, sympathetic people in society have the viewpoint, that per the issue of mercy killing for those that truly are evidenced as suffering in unbearable pain, they deserve mercy as a humane action for a human being, not unlike a cat or a dog suffering the same in life, that cannot communicate their wishes. That is one of the most controversial issues in society, where debate continues. Religious ideology plays a part in the opinion of some. It is at times the selfish that insist on maintaining the life of another person or animal, regardless of the personal wishes, or the suffering of another being.
The Tracy Latimer case was an issue of Mercy killing vs Murder, based in part on whether or not there was unbearable unrelenting pain as far as what the sentence would be; while disability played a role in that circumstance, not all disabled individuals experience unbearable unrelenting pain.
The Walrus wasn't defending the murder of the disabled, he was defending what he considered a potential humane action, in the broader circumstances of the human condition, per assisted euthanasia, when an individual cannot adequately communicate their wishes.
That is probably the most horrifying potential of living, and there certainly are no black and white answers for what is morally right and wrong, although the legal system, does not allow people to draw the line on their own, without approval of the medical system.
I have no idea what Mr. Latimer's true intentions were, per whether or not they were completely based on love and compassion as he stated they were for his daughter's suffering from unrelenting pain, but neither does anyone else, other than Mr. Latimer, including the individual that authored the article that would suggest he is a psychopath, based on her general opinion in that article
The courts determined that the killing of his daughter was 2nd degree murder, so he suffers the consequences of his actions, per the laws of Canada.
73% of Canada did not agree with the sentencing, but the empathy and sympathy expressed is not one just for the tragic circumstances, it is also for the perceived pain and suffering, for those in the general population that do not believe that it should be a requirement that a human being live a life of unbearable unrelenting pain.
But, again from a reading from the full facts made available per Wiki, it does not appear that this was the full story of the young girls life. The court made a legal decision per the sentencing based on all the evidence they had access to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Oodain
big chief wulla bamboom alakaway
Joined: Jan 31, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 5022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| noname_ever wrote: | | What makes it part of our nature to help the sick and disabled? Sick and disabled animals tend to die off and benefit the rest of the pack. |
the very fact that we have found ample amounts of skulls showing treatment and improvement is enough to discount the notion of it being unnatural, as said by the very fact of their existence.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
aghogday
KATiE MiA
Joined: Nov 26, 2010
Posts: 4752
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| noname_ever wrote: | | What makes it part of our nature to help the sick and disabled? Sick and disabled animals tend to die off and benefit the rest of the pack. |
Society and technology provides accommodations for many sick and disabled humans to survive. If it was not for modern society and technology, there wouldn't be nearly as many people walking the streets.
That's reality; there is no way to get around it. Average lifespans for human beings were in the 30's a few centuries ago. People were still living into their 80's, but those that succumbed to illness and disability, did not have the same accommodations provided by society and technology in modern society.
Humans do rely on cooperation, empathy and sympathy for survival; defenseless infants depended on the village for survival well before technology brought many advantages to reduce the time and effort needed to raise a child.
However, the fact of the matter is, the sick and the disabled depend on the whims of society for survival. The same empathy and sympathy evidenced in small groups can become distant and non-existent when people lose touch with the larger society, and do not see others as part of their group. It's much harder to say no to someone that is sick or disabled in one's household than to say no to another who is sick or disabled in another state that one never sees.
This is why the sick and the disabled have much more to fear from this much larger element of society than what is evidenced in the handfuls of murders of the disabled reported in a year in the United States, regardless of the full circumstances of those incidences.
The largest problem is not evil intent, it is lack of concern and limited access to facts as they exist per the full scope of the issue, in the needs of the disabled and disadvantaged.
The facts can be shared, but concern is difficult to administer to those at large in society.
My point in criticism of the article per the wolf-pack mentality of society, and the concerns of the disabled, is that it is family that most depend on, and larger society and the policies of politics that are more likely to bring them harm in life, than the potential of psychopathic family member or psychopathic individual in society at large. The author's concern is real per extremely limited circumstances, but she does not adequately discuss the full scope of the concerns of the disabled, per survival in life.
The problems in society for all minorities in need, is mostly a lack of concern and/or awareness, and has little to do with the mental disorder of psychopathy. Which itself can be disabling for some, that never commit a crime with that mental disorder, that in large is evidenced as a result of genetics. But many would suggest that those born with that sometimes socially disabling disorder don't deserve to live either.
Fortunately for the Author, it appears she wasn't born with psychopathic genetics, although there has been plenty of research that suggests the genetics associated with psychopathy are associated with individuals that work in law enforcement as well as the individuals they look after in prison. I suppose she might not have much empathy for those that succumb to crime, but she has likely come across her share of fellow employees, with some similar genetics.
It's always a matter of perspective and life experience. Her next target could be Aspergers, another sometimes disabling condition associated with genetics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
vermontsavant
My father 1934 to 2010
Joined: Dec 08, 2010
Age: 37
Posts: 1779
Location: Bellows Falls,Vermont USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i would agree with aghogday in that it was not a matter of trivializing the homicide of a disabled person.but that if the killer believed they were releaving a persons suffering that that does not qualify for pre meditated murder.mercy killings are not legal in most states and i dont think they should be but a mercy killing simply does not rise to a murder charge.
_________________
Abstract concepts are for those who dont know there facts.Liaison for the political forum.Please contact if you have any questions or problems |
|
| Back to top |
|
XFilesGeek
Pretentiousness personified.
Joined: Jul 25, 2010
Posts: 1792
Location: The Oort Cloud
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| noname_ever wrote: | | What makes it part of our nature to help the sick and disabled? Sick and disabled animals tend to die off and benefit the rest of the pack. |
No.
Please do some research on social animals.
Thanks.
_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced." |
|
| Back to top |
|
aghogday
KATiE MiA
Joined: Nov 26, 2010
Posts: 4752
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| XFilesGeek wrote: | | noname_ever wrote: | | What makes it part of our nature to help the sick and disabled? Sick and disabled animals tend to die off and benefit the rest of the pack. |
No.
Please do some research on social animals.
Thanks. |
I suspect, in some respects that humans are becoming less social than more social, per the influences of modern life, and there is actual evidence that suggests that overall human beings, per longitudinal studies of young college adults, are evidenced with a significant reduction of capacity for empathy, particularly in the last few decades, which isn't likely because of genetics alone.
The good thing is, it doesn't apparently impact crime too much, because those rates continue to fall, in the last couple of decades.
Pain and suffering though, are not measured by crime statistics, alone. There are likely impacts in other demographics.
People tend to joke around about the recent "zombie/cannibal" attacks as long as they are not one of the handful of victims. One rarely hears empathy or sympathy for that tragic circumstance, but it's something that most people can't relate to beyond the movie screen.
Very likely attitudes might change if the demographic increased and moved away from the homeless and disadvantaged.
Any time there is evidence in the media of human beings caring about each other and trying to understand each others circumstances, that is a good news story, regardless of differences in opinion.
If we get to the point where there are no comments at all on controversial internet articles, there would be a much greater evidence of non-concern.
I suppose that is one of the biggest advantages of the internet, gaining some personal perspective into the lives of others, well beyond the backyards of society, providing an avenue to strengthen the capacity of concern and interest for the circumstances of others, if it is only through the telling of a story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
noname_ever
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 26, 2011
Posts: 500
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aghogday wrote: |
The largest problem is not evil intent, it is lack of concern and limited access to facts as they exist per the full scope of the issue, in the needs of the disabled and disadvantaged.
|
The part in bold is a real danger. Why do you think there is a lack of concern? People usually show concern when the disabled member is close (family, friend, etc...), but not otherwise. Wouldn't this be closer to the pack mentality observed in animals? |
|
| Back to top |
|
aghogday
KATiE MiA
Joined: Nov 26, 2010
Posts: 4752
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| noname_ever wrote: | | aghogday wrote: |
The largest problem is not evil intent, it is lack of concern and limited access to facts as they exist per the full scope of the issue, in the needs of the disabled and disadvantaged.
|
The part in bold is a real danger. Why do you think there is a lack of concern? People usually show concern when the disabled member is close (family, friend, etc...), but not otherwise. Wouldn't this be closer to the pack mentality observed in animals? |
The Pack mentality equivalent in human beings, in my opinion, is closer to the analogy of a small hunting group in society. One species against other species.
I'm not even sure I would equate gangs with it. They seek subsistence through a common group activity, but it is generally against the same species.
The author uses the analogy of one for the thinking of large elements of society, but the pack mentality is really only specific to small groups of social animals, whether they are humans, dogs, or wolves.
The only time in my memory of a real cohesive element in the US, was 9/11, that brought a country as large as the US, focused on a single concern. Even the most popular TV show, is watched by only a tiny minority of the population, except for major events like the Olympics.
Unfortunately in some ways, large populations evidenced with great levels of heterogeneity, no longer address the needs of those that are hidden from the group, if one even has a group that they identify with, per the me attitudes of modern society.
This isn't something that humans were evolved for, for millions of years.
It's not likely that thousands of primates other than humans, could survive well in a small area. Human society is an experiment of necessity, but not necessarily the experiment that works the best. I came across an interesting website of the 25 most peaceful societies in the world. Low density populations with few technological advantages are common to all of them. With the only society rated as such, in the US, as the Amish.
The key is that people share and cooperate in these small societies, that are usually homogenous in nature. It is in alignment with what humans are evolved for, so it's no surprise that overall, it works out better for the entire group of individuals that comprise these small societies, than what we see as a lack of concern for others in large heterogeneous societies.
The issues in smaller Scandinavian countries that have much greater levels health measured per western developed countries, in the safety net that exists for all citizens, sick, disabled or just those have come across misfortune in life, are fears of multiculturalism for some, now that the societies are losing their homogenous cultures through immigration of those with much different cultures. It will be interesting to see if that measure of health of those societies continues, per basic human nature of group identity.
The good thing about society is that it has provided the technology and advances that allow the sick and disabled to survive that were not available before. The bad thing is in much larger societies like the US, group identity is complex, and humans don't appear to be evolved to well for that level of social complexity when it comes to wrapping one's mind around the welfare of a group of hundreds of millions of heterogeneous human primates.
That's a long winded discussion, but the simple answer I think, is out of sight out of mind. Humans can only focus on a limited number of things in one day, regardless of how much information they have collected in a lifetime. And for some, what once moved from small groups to larger groups, has moved to a group so large and varied, that it can be extremely hard for some to determine a group identity and even have an opportunity to find out what the full concerns are of any group.
I think it is part of the reality of the focus on smaller issues, that get one's attention. In a society full of stimulation, that requires extreme issues, to gain attention and focus. A parent killing a child is extremely rare, regardless of circumstance and happens 200 to 300 times in a population of over 300 million in the course of a year.
There is an obvious human aversion to that rare crime, so it does rise to the level of concern required to gain attention, if one comes across it on TV or other media article. It is extremely unlikely that one will come across it, in there own circle of face to face contacts in a life time.
If 20 or 30 million people don't have their medications and are suffering because of that, and the general lack of health care, it is too big of an issue, and too overwhelming for most people to concern themselves with, unless they are part of that demographic.
In a cohesive homogeneous Amish society of 300, the needs of 30 people would be the focus, but 20 to 30 million people are well beyond anyone's ability to wrap their minds around.
The great depression provided that cohesive concern, because enough of the demographic was effected to understand and support the need for action. That's a big part of the reason we have the programs we have.
Perhaps a much larger issue, is that most people are not aware just how dependent they are on social welfare programs for their existence, ranging from roads to schools, to electricity, that social programs provide the infrastructure for. That would be impossible without roads. Those are the more observable elements but there are many more that impact almost everyone, everyday of their life.
But again, out of sight, out of mind. Society and culture has become so large and complex, that it is hard to fault anyone for their lack of cognition or concern, for many factors that don't cross their radar in a given day. We depend on snippets of information to gain a full story that cannot possibly be provided with what the human attention span has become; almost at the level of a blink of an eye, to form an opinion on any one given issue, from what we are spoon fed in teaspoon measures.
I always wonder how in the world an entire society could allow what the author alludes to in her article that happened in Germany earlier in the century. Life was relatively complex then, and information was limited.
There was an element of Out of sight out of mind, along with limited information.
We have a much larger view of that situation now with our advancements of technology. That society in large at that time, per that country, was still limited to, per their backyards, with what information was fed to them in snippets.
We have all the information now we can imagine, but that makes common focus of the population that much more difficult for the concerns of all, that only get snippets of those concerns.
We can't really expect anything else from people, all of which have limited human capacity for information and focus.
Society is a continuing experiment that humans continue to adapt to.
It's not like the Amish where there are common concerns and goals, per limited information and life circumstances, per entire units of their identified societies.
It's not just that there is a lack of concern, the even greater danger, is that it is beyond human capacity for many to entertain another concern in the course of one day.
Killing a child by a parent is an issue that can be focused on and discussed, but how does one focus on 20 to 30 million people or greater that no one can ever hope to see, or imagine the pain and suffering they endure in a day.
Lack of human concern, I think, is more of an issue of size and complexity, than a society of humans that might otherwise care and express verbal concern, if the society was much smaller, less complex, and the issues of concern were in range of sight nearly everyday.
I think that is pretty much what humans are evolved for, and continue to respond to. There seems to be a fairly significant body of research that supports it.
And in the context of the conversation, when there are those that talk about the specific concerns of individuals in online autistic communities composed of several thousand individuals of what is expected from the society at large consisting of well over 300 million individuals, just in the US, the issue is put into a relative context of 20 to 30 million individuals without their needed prescriptions or health care; an issue that can be resolved for many by the legislation that is in place, but many of those people, and a significant portion those that are currently served by existing healthcare reform, are for all practical intents and purposes invisible to many that support repealing that legislation.
Even with the PR effort that Autism Speaks is capable of putting out, with their tens of millions of dollars, it can't hope to reach but a minority of the population for basic awareness that anything associated with autism exists.
People are still getting their information from snippets like 1 in 88, that one can form an opinion with, in a blink of an eye. Yes, it's a problem, hope someone can solve it, now lets move on to the next attention grabbing headline.
People have wondered why Autism Speaks has put so much effort into gaining people's attention through emotional advertisements of concern for the issues associated with Autism. Every organization, and every person is working against incredible odds to get anyone's attention, for longer than a blink of an eye. There are just too many things to focus on, in the course of an average American Day.
The beauty of a lengthy monologue like this: at least one person is listening, and there is a high likely-hood that only one person is listening. 
It goes beyond the modern standard of a blink of the eye. Much more than a paragraph constitutes TL;DR.
I suppose I could have just left it as Out of Sight Out of Mind.
But I guess that comes with my territory of existence.
Now 1 in 88, that will grab some attention. 1 out 5 might start panic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ialdabaoth
Snowy Owl
Joined: Aug 21, 2011
Age: 38
Posts: 148
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh, NOW we're ready to talk about this? Cool. |
|
| Back to top |
|
noname_ever
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 26, 2011
Posts: 500
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aghogday wrote: |
The Pack mentality equivalent in human beings, in my opinion, is closer to the analogy of a small hunting group in society. One species against other species.
I'm not even sure I would equate gangs with it. They seek subsistence through a common group activity, but it is generally against the same species.
|
I disagree with this. Animals don't fight with others of the same species?
| aghogday wrote: |
The author uses the analogy of one for the thinking of large elements of society, but the pack mentality is really only specific to small groups of social animals, whether they are humans, dogs, or wolves.
The only time in my memory of a real cohesive element in the US, was 9/11, that brought a country as large as the US, focused on a single concern. Even the most popular TV show, is watched by only a tiny minority of the population, except for major events like the Olympics.
|
We were more unified after 9/11 but in no way completely unified. There were still dissenters who did not like the path the country was headed down and those that were annoyed at the sudden cowardice of most of the USA after the towers crashed.(Many people became very frightened and it lead to controls being put in place that annoyed those of us who weren't phased by the attack.)
| aghogday wrote: |
Unfortunately in some ways, large populations evidenced with great levels of heterogeneity, no longer address the needs of those that are hidden from the group, if one even has a group that they identify with, per the me attitudes of modern society.
This isn't something that humans were evolved for, for millions of years.
It's not likely that thousands of primates other than humans, could survive well in a small area. Human society is an experiment of necessity, but not necessarily the experiment that works the best. I came across an interesting website of the 25 most peaceful societies in the world. Low density populations with few technological advantages are common to all of them. With the only society rated as such, in the US, as the Amish.
The key is that people share and cooperate in these small societies, that are usually homogenous in nature. It is in alignment with what humans are evolved for, so it's no surprise that overall, it works out better for the entire group of individuals that comprise these small societies, than what we see as a lack of concern for others in large heterogeneous societies.
|
People work well in small packs with people they are closer to. The individuals in the group feel responsible for others in the pack. The problem I have with this pack analogy is that it wants to treat an entire population as a pack. Would the entire population of wolves or domesticated dogs within the USA be considered a pack as well?
<snip>
| aghogday wrote: |
Perhaps a much larger issue, is that most people are not aware just how dependent they are on social welfare programs for their existence, ranging from roads to schools, to electricity, that social programs provide the infrastructure for. That would be impossible without roads. Those are the more observable elements but there are many more that impact almost everyone, everyday of their life.
|
I think people generally know that they have to work together to accomplish large tasks. However, I think many people are resentful for having to carry people who can't or won't carry their own weight or contribute what they can. There is also a tendency for the disabled to believe that they are entitled to be carried completely and not have to or even want to contribute what they can back to society. I don't care if that means someone needs to work a hellish suck-ass job that they don't like. Consider multi-generation families living in the same house. The younger generations work, provide room/board to the older generation (consider them the non-disabled). The older generation (consider them the disabled) used to work by doing chores or baby sitting for the workers' children. The older generation did carry at least part of their weight.
I don't see that same give and take in society at large. I see people getting resentful when a relatively large portion of their assets are taken to care for others. I see those receiving the money not caring about the burden they place on the producers. Neither group cares about the plight of the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
vermontsavant
My father 1934 to 2010
Joined: Dec 08, 2010
Age: 37
Posts: 1779
Location: Bellows Falls,Vermont USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aghogday wrote: | | noname_ever wrote: | | aghogday wrote: |
The largest problem is not evil intent, it is lack of concern and limited access to facts as they exist per the full scope of the issue, in the needs of the disabled and disadvantaged.
|
The part in bold is a real danger. Why do you think there is a lack of concern? People usually show concern when the disabled member is close (family, friend, etc...), but not otherwise. Wouldn't this be closer to the pack mentality observed in animals? |
The Pack mentality equivalent in human beings, in my opinion, is closer to the analogy of a small hunting group in society. One species against other species.
I'm not even sure I would equate gangs with it. They seek subsistence through a common group activity, but it is generally against the same species.
The author uses the analogy of one for the thinking of large elements of society, but the pack mentality is really only specific to small groups of social animals, whether they are humans, dogs, or wolves.
The only time in my memory of a real cohesive element in the US, was 9/11, that brought a country as large as the US, focused on a single concern. Even the most popular TV show, is watched by only a tiny minority of the population, except for major events like the Olympics.
Unfortunately in some ways, large populations evidenced with great levels of heterogeneity, no longer address the needs of those that are hidden from the group, if one even has a group that they identify with, per the me attitudes of modern society.
This isn't something that humans were evolved for, for millions of years.
It's not likely that thousands of primates other than humans, could survive well in a small area. Human society is an experiment of necessity, but not necessarily the experiment that works the best. I came across an interesting website of the 25 most peaceful societies in the world. Low density populations with few technological advantages are common to all of them. With the only society rated as such, in the US, as the Amish.
The key is that people share and cooperate in these small societies, that are usually homogenous in nature. It is in alignment with what humans are evolved for, so it's no surprise that overall, it works out better for the entire group of individuals that comprise these small societies, than what we see as a lack of concern for others in large heterogeneous societies.
The issues in smaller Scandinavian countries that have much greater levels health measured per western developed countries, in the safety net that exists for all citizens, sick, disabled or just those have come across misfortune in life, are fears of multiculturalism for some, now that the societies are losing their homogenous cultures through immigration of those with much different cultures. It will be interesting to see if that measure of health of those societies continues, per basic human nature of group identity.
The good thing about society is that it has provided the technology and advances that allow the sick and disabled to survive that were not available before. The bad thing is in much larger societies like the US, group identity is complex, and humans don't appear to be evolved to well for that level of social complexity when it comes to wrapping one's mind around the welfare of a group of hundreds of millions of heterogeneous human primates.
That's a long winded discussion, but the simple answer I think, is out of sight out of mind. Humans can only focus on a limited number of things in one day, regardless of how much information they have collected in a lifetime. And for some, what once moved from small groups to larger groups, has moved to a group so large and varied, that it can be extremely hard for some to determine a group identity and even have an opportunity to find out what the full concerns are of any group.
I think it is part of the reality of the focus on smaller issues, that get one's attention. In a society full of stimulation, that requires extreme issues, to gain attention and focus. A parent killing a child is extremely rare, regardless of circumstance and happens 200 to 300 times in a population of over 300 million in the course of a year.
There is an obvious human aversion to that rare crime, so it does rise to the level of concern required to gain attention, if one comes across it on TV or other media article. It is extremely unlikely that one will come across it, in there own circle of face to face contacts in a life time.
If 20 or 30 million people don't have their medications and are suffering because of that, and the general lack of health care, it is too big of an issue, and too overwhelming for most people to concern themselves with, unless they are part of that demographic.
In a cohesive homogeneous Amish society of 300, the needs of 30 people would be the focus, but 20 to 30 million people are well beyond anyone's ability to wrap their minds around.
The great depression provided that cohesive concern, because enough of the demographic was effected to understand and support the need for action. That's a big part of the reason we have the programs we have.
Perhaps a much larger issue, is that most people are not aware just how dependent they are on social welfare programs for their existence, ranging from roads to schools, to electricity, that social programs provide the infrastructure for. That would be impossible without roads. Those are the more observable elements but there are many more that impact almost everyone, everyday of their life.
But again, out of sight, out of mind. Society and culture has become so large and complex, that it is hard to fault anyone for their lack of cognition or concern, for many factors that don't cross their radar in a given day. We depend on snippets of information to gain a full story that cannot possibly be provided with what the human attention span has become; almost at the level of a blink of an eye, to form an opinion on any one given issue, from what we are spoon fed in teaspoon measures.
I always wonder how in the world an entire society could allow what the author alludes to in her article that happened in Germany earlier in the century. Life was relatively complex then, and information was limited.
There was an element of Out of sight out of mind, along with limited information.
We have a much larger view of that situation now with our advancements of technology. That society in large at that time, per that country, was still limited to, per their backyards, with what information was fed to them in snippets.
We have all the information now we can imagine, but that makes common focus of the population that much more difficult for the concerns of all, that only get snippets of those concerns.
We can't really expect anything else from people, all of which have limited human capacity for information and focus.
Society is a continuing experiment that humans continue to adapt to.
It's not like the Amish where there are common concerns and goals, per limited information and life circumstances, per entire units of their identified societies.
It's not just that there is a lack of concern, the even greater danger, is that it is beyond human capacity for many to entertain another concern in the course of one day.
Killing a child by a parent is an issue that can be focused on and discussed, but how does one focus on 20 to 30 million people or greater that no one can ever hope to see, or imagine the pain and suffering they endure in a day.
Lack of human concern, I think, is more of an issue of size and complexity, than a society of humans that might otherwise care and express verbal concern, if the society was much smaller, less complex, and the issues of concern were in range of sight nearly everyday.
I think that is pretty much what humans are evolved for, and continue to respond to. There seems to be a fairly significant body of research that supports it.
And in the context of the conversation, when there are those that talk about the specific concerns of individuals in online autistic communities composed of several thousand individuals of what is expected from the society at large consisting of well over 300 million individuals, just in the US, the issue is put into a relative context of 20 to 30 million individuals without their needed prescriptions or health care; an issue that can be resolved for many by the legislation that is in place, but many of those people, and a significant portion those that are currently served by existing healthcare reform, are for all practical intents and purposes invisible to many that support repealing that legislation.
Even with the PR effort that Autism Speaks is capable of putting out, with their tens of millions of dollars, it can't hope to reach but a minority of the population for basic awareness that anything associated with autism exists.
People are still getting their information from snippets like 1 in 88, that one can form an opinion with, in a blink of an eye. Yes, it's a problem, hope someone can solve it, now lets move on to the next attention grabbing headline.
People have wondered why Autism Speaks has put so much effort into gaining people's attention through emotional advertisements of concern for the issues associated with Autism. Every organization, and every person is working against incredible odds to get anyone's attention, for longer than a blink of an eye. There are just too many things to focus on, in the course of an average American Day.
The beauty of a lengthy monologue like this: at least one person is listening, and there is a high likely-hood that only one person is listening.
It goes beyond the modern standard of a blink of the eye. Much more than a paragraph constitutes TL;DR.
I suppose I could have just left it as Out of Sight Out of Mind.
But I guess that comes with my territory of existence.
Now 1 in 88, that will grab some attention. 1 out 5 might start panic. |
many animals do gight with there own kind
animals fight with others in there group for breeding rights and to establish who gets to eat first.
for instance the alfa dog in a wolf pack gets to eat first and gets the heart and liver which is a wolfs favorite part.
many snakes eat other snakes and some even there own subspecies
_________________
Abstract concepts are for those who dont know there facts.Liaison for the political forum.Please contact if you have any questions or problems |
|
| Back to top |
|
aghogday
KATiE MiA
Joined: Nov 26, 2010
Posts: 4752
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| noname_ever wrote: | | aghogday wrote: |
The Pack mentality equivalent in human beings, in my opinion, is closer to the analogy of a small hunting group in society. One species against other species.
I'm not even sure I would equate gangs with it. They seek subsistence through a common group activity, but it is generally against the same species.
|
I disagree with this. Animals don't fight with others of the same species?
| aghogday wrote: |
The author uses the analogy of one for the thinking of large elements of society, but the pack mentality is really only specific to small groups of social animals, whether they are humans, dogs, or wolves.
The only time in my memory of a real cohesive element in the US, was 9/11, that brought a country as large as the US, focused on a single concern. Even the most popular TV show, is watched by only a tiny minority of the population, except for major events like the Olympics.
|
We were more unified after 9/11 but in no way completely unified. There were still dissenters who did not like the path the country was headed down and those that were annoyed at the sudden cowardice of most of the USA after the towers crashed.(Many people became very frightened and it lead to controls being put in place that annoyed those of us who weren't phased by the attack.)
| aghogday wrote: |
Unfortunately in some ways, large populations evidenced with great levels of heterogeneity, no longer address the needs of those that are hidden from the group, if one even has a group that they identify with, per the me attitudes of modern society.
This isn't something that humans were evolved for, for millions of years.
It's not likely that thousands of primates other than humans, could survive well in a small area. Human society is an experiment of necessity, but not necessarily the experiment that works the best. I came across an interesting website of the 25 most peaceful societies in the world. Low density populations with few technological advantages are common to all of them. With the only society rated as such, in the US, as the Amish.
The key is that people share and cooperate in these small societies, that are usually homogenous in nature. It is in alignment with what humans are evolved for, so it's no surprise that overall, it works out better for the entire group of individuals that comprise these small societies, than what we see as a lack of concern for others in large heterogeneous societies.
|
People work well in small packs with people they are closer to. The individuals in the group feel responsible for others in the pack. The problem I have with this pack analogy is that it wants to treat an entire population as a pack. Would the entire population of wolves or domesticated dogs within the USA be considered a pack as well?
<snip>
| aghogday wrote: |
Perhaps a much larger issue, is that most people are not aware just how dependent they are on social welfare programs for their existence, ranging from roads to schools, to electricity, that social programs provide the infrastructure for. That would be impossible without roads. Those are the more observable elements but there are many more that impact almost everyone, everyday of their life.
|
I think people generally know that they have to work together to accomplish large tasks. However, I think many people are resentful for having to carry people who can't or won't carry their own weight or contribute what they can. There is also a tendency for the disabled to believe that they are entitled to be carried completely and not have to or even want to contribute what they can back to society. I don't care if that means someone needs to work a hellish suck-ass job that they don't like. Consider multi-generation families living in the same house. The younger generations work, provide room/board to the older generation (consider them the non-disabled). The older generation (consider them the disabled) used to work by doing chores or baby sitting for the workers' children. The older generation did carry at least part of their weight.
I don't see that same give and take in society at large. I see people getting resentful when a relatively large portion of their assets are taken to care for others. I see those receiving the money not caring about the burden they place on the producers. Neither group cares about the plight of the other. |
I'm not suggesting that animals don't fight each other within the same species, or kill each other at times, but it is exception, not the rule among those that live in wolf packs in the wild. Wolf packs are commonly demonized as a stereotype by human beings. The wolf pack myth continues, but it has been debunked for over ten years now, by scientists that have actually studied wolf packs in nature, rather than captivity.
Unfortunately the author of the article not only potentially starts an internet myth about a defining factor of psychopathy and the killing of the disabled since she hasn't provided significant evidence to back up the opinion, she also uses an analogy that is a myth itself, per wolf-pack mentality, and how those of that same species of Wolf interact as a pack in nature. It appears to be closer to the tribal nature of non-domesticated human beings, than modern human culture, where status is related to needs that go well beyond basic survival.
Wolves in the wild do not display the same type of behavior that has been studied in captivity. The Hierarchy and dominance seen among captive unrelated wolves, is not the same seen in the wild.
Captive wolf pack behavior has been influenced, in part, by association with human culture through human captivity. Wolf pack mentality in nature is associated with a nuclear family of wolves that mate for life, and live with their offspring.
The wolves do target the weak among others species for subsistence, if they didn't they would likely starve to death, because success of killing the strong among other species is much lower, and injury to the pack as a whole is much greater.
If humans had no weapons it's not likely any small group of humans would be able to chase down a much faster, stronger, larger species of animal, they would do there best to kill smaller weaker prey, if they could find anyway to accomplish the feat.
Prehistoric man likely exhibited the same behavior in bringing down targets per the weak for subsistence, with rudimentary weapons, working as a group to bring down larger stronger species of animals.
Targeting the weak of another species for subsistence, is a natural phenomenon seen among all predators, certainly not a behavior specific to wolf packs, or excluded among humans without weapons, when survival is at stake. Anyway, that's a hunting issue, specific to members of others species, not a non-cannibal issue related to members within the same species.
Modern man with advanced weapons kills for sport, to bring down the healthiest strongest animals, at times, simply for the opportunity to display the head of the fallen animal in their den, for a culturally derived sense of self-esteem. Subsistence is not an issue at all for some.
Unfortunately humans have attributed human characteristics, associated with human culture to wolves.
The studied wolf pack nature in the wild, is a docile group of animals that are averse to aggression within the pack.
Wolf packs will fight other wolves for encroachment into territory for competition to subsistence, and the danger for the lone wolf that leaves the pack is greater in these circumstances. These wolves are at times run off and not killed by other wolves, however wolf packs will often kill weaker species of Canis in competition for territory and subsistence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf
| Quote: | | In popular literature, wolf packs are often portrayed as strictly hierarchical social structures with a breeding "alpha" pair which climbs the social ladder through fighting, followed by subordinate "beta" wolves and a low ranking "omega" which bears the brunt of the pack's aggression. This terminology is based heavily on the behaviour of captive wolf packs composed of unrelated animals, which will fight and compete against each other for status. Also, as dispersal is impossible in captive situations, fights become more frequent than in natural settings. In the wild, wolf packs are little more than nuclear families whose basic social unit consists of a mated pair, followed by its offspring.[66] Northern wolf packs tend not to be as compact or unified as those of African wild dogs and spotted hyenas,[67] though they are not as unstable as those of coyotes.[68] Southern wolves are more similar in social behaviour to coyotes and dingoes, living largely alone or in pairs.[69] The average pack consists of 5–11 animals; 1–2 adults, 3–6 juveniles and 1–3 yearlings,[70] though exceptionally large packs consisting of 42 wolves are known. Wolf packs rarely adopt other wolves into their fold, and typically kill them. In the rare cases where strange wolves are adopted, the adoptee is almost invariably a young animal of 1–3 years of age, while killed wolves are mostly fully grown.[71] The adoption of a new member can be a lengthy process, and can consist of weeks of exploratory, non-fatal attacks in order to establish whether or not the newcomer is trustworthy.[72] During times of ungulate abundance (migration, calving etc.), different wolf packs may temporarily join forces.[73] Wolves as young as five months and as old as five years have been recorded to leave their packs to start their own families, though the average age is 11–24 months. Triggers for dispersal include the onset of sexual maturity and competition within the pack for food and breeding.[74] |
There was obviously a significant portion of the US that dissented against the policies after 9/11, but overall it was a unified moment for the culture on the day the event occurred, and there were many in powerful positions that kept dissent for the policies that were enacted after the event much quieter, than would have likely been the case, under circumstances other than an overall cultural reaction to a foreign attack of significant scale on the soil of the US.
It is long gone and forgotten per US culture, at this point by most, until another unifying attack of that scale happens in the future on American Soil, or natural disaster, that impacts everyone in the nation. Hurricane Katrina was not significant enough to rise to that occasion, regardless of damage to a region in the US.
Perhaps human nature is somewhat similar to the nature of the wolf pack confined to captivity, in what we see among domesticated human beings living with each other in high density populations, per highly complex cultural rules and practices, opposed to those human beings that still live in primitive societies, historically observed by anthropologists and sociologists, as very cooperative and peaceful compared to human beings in developed countries.
Many social animals in the world do show empathy for animals that have been injured, and disabled when there is a social bond between animals, that in effect is associated with some of the same hormonal bonds per oxytocin that exist in human beings. But the reality of nature is that when animals are born disabled they are often killed as part of instinct, in part a result of environmental pressures and evolution. And when it comes down to survival and limited resources sick and disabled animals are often left behind.
Society and technological innovation, provides the ability for human animals that are sick and disabled to survive that has never been possible at any before in human history, or animal history.
Whether or not human beings have concern for something in their environment is highly influenced by cultural conditioning, and much more complex than what any animal that does not live within the boundaries of human culture has to deal with.
Some people want other people to have the same viewpoints on these issues, and some have difficulty understanding how others could possibly hold some of the opinions that they do, but it is almost impossible in some cases to influence those different viewpoints, because others may potentially have a lifetime of cultural conditioning that leads them to a completely different viewpoint.
In part, this seems to be the case for the author that wrote the article that has a strongly influenced world view per psychopathy/crime and apparently the stereotyped world view of wolf-pack mentality, that is based on information, that has been debunked for over a decade, per scientific studies of wolf packs in the wild.
But as wolves are more likely to kill another species, in competition for resources, the same applies to human beings. The continued myths that demonize wolves, in part, endanger the extinction of some wolf species, through government policies and human behavior to hunt the wolves into extinction.
But reality is, it's another species, and there isn't the type of overall within species bond of empathy for most to stand up to others, and criticize the demonic portrayal of another species of animal, or even the demonic portrayal of psychopathy, in the same species that is in part a genetic human trait that is rare, and perhaps the one mental disorder that one would rarely hear anyone seriously defend among potentially socially disabling conditions.
It is a genetically influenced mental disorder historically identified for the most part in individuals that commit crimes, rather those evidenced with the traits that take part in enforcing the criminal justice system, the defense of the country, and now fairly recently in CEO's, Politicians, Stock brokers, and other professions.
The difference is the traits are evidenced as an advantage in these various professions as well as in crime; these various professions are part of a human construct per acceptable social norms, as opposed to unacceptable social norms per crime. Unless one is part of a sub-culture centered around crime, where the behavior can be seen as acceptable within the boundaries of that sub-culture. Seen in serial killing, and mass murders, it is rarely accepted by anyone in any identified sub-cultural group.
In Autism a similar psycho/social phenomenon has been described per Jeffrey Dahmer and Anders Breivik and the lack of empathy described as associated with Aspergers in the media per these cases, as opposed to others diagnosed with Aspergers that have made positive contributions to their societies.
Human Reality rarely fully supports socially derived stereotypes either positive or negative; there is usually a mix, per any condition, per factors of the complexity of the nature of human beings and human constructs associated with culture.
There is no greater evidenced crimes of serial killing or mass-murders among those on the Autism Spectrum as opposed to the general population; some people will take the highly notable ones, and extrapolate the few noted cases into populations of hundreds of thousands of people.
A similar phenomenon has happened among some in the autistic community that point to a stereotype of parents of children with autism, that as a whole are more likely to murder children with autism, because there are several cases a year, that receive a great deal of media exposure, as rare cases of filicide in the media. Even extended to one acknowledged irrational thought by one individual, provided for public review, several years ago.
Stereotypes can be dangerous and present themselves everywhere where human beings can make an association in their limited world views, often weighted strongly by personal experience, rather than third party evidence.
The third party evidence is worthwhile as a measure against potential prejudiced opinions, of which are an evidenced inherent part of the nature of all human beings, and almost impossible to escape, at times, without some type of third party evidence that refutes the prejudice.
This may be one of the most compelling reasons for an endorsement of science, and the scientific method. Science has the potential to save lives by debunking stereotypes, even the ones of culturally demonized wolves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Inventor
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 16, 2007
Posts: 5111
Location: New Orleans
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Psychology is not a Science. If it was it would seek to merge with Cultural Anthropology, and not blame other species for human behavior.
While this article condems some behavior, and blames wolves, those truly holding the view that the disabled among us, even in our disconnected excess population, deserve to be treated well, would be addressing that issue.
The greatest predicter of future behavior is education. People like the writer call for sending first offenders away for life. School to jail programs are popular, where a list of dropouts is not sent to the Trueant Officer, but to the Police. Those who survive form gangs, and crime is their only means of support.
Those who are educated, learn a trade, do not form gangs and live by crime, which reduces the need for government.
Rome gave people bread, because otherwise they would steal it. Meeting basic social needs is cheaper.
Egypt gave people bread and onions and more for working stone, and building useless but impressive structures.
That those who kill themselves are guilty of murder is a recent religious view. In Rome a father had a right, and sometimes an obligation to kill his children, just as the State has a right to send armies to their death, kill those who abandon their posts, flee from the enemy, and feed ordinary criminals to lions, for public education.
Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, and many later cultures had a good part of the population making brick, carving stone, in return for being fed.
Roman roads, bridges, aquaducts, are still in use, and they built great sewers.
Unity of culture, economic well being, are the main functions of a State.
When it fails, loots the public purse, it seeks to blame Psychopaths, other than themselves, and Terrorists, everyone who objects.
The numbers are in, counting face eaters, psychopaths not employed by government number thousands, as do worldwide terrorists.
This did not cause our lack of education, lack of employment for all who want to work, and it is not the fault of those living longer and collecting Social Security. These are known needs, and were paid for by the people.
All governments have had the rich and poor. From that they did reach a unity of culture. Capital and Labor did the same. Only our recent version of Rich Democrats and Rich Republicans have lead to a Rich/Rich world, where the poor are being blamed for the poor.
The Mentality in the article is people taking charge of their own situation, and the disabled are a cover for hanging the Facists by their heels from a lamp post, the usual result of Government by and for the rich.
The population has no right to get rid of usless drains on their lives.
Who are the useless leaches? Who would the people turn on?
Psychology is a government sponsored program of Psych Warfare, and the manipulation of Public Opinion.
When the French chopped off heads, it was not murder, it was disposing of a government that failed in their obligations to the people.
Election years bring out these kinds of articles, deflecting blame on those who are too few to defend.
The government gave trillions of our money to their rich banker and broker friends, they did not spend it on Health, Education, Welfare, and full employment. They did not support the families who are caring for a disabled person. They did buy a lot of weapons. They did abolish the Constitution.
A Government by and for the rich, supported by arms, against the people.
Now they claim they are protecting the rights of the disabled, and preventing the murder of minorities.
It was not the disabled, Jews, Gypsies, who said, "Let them eat cake." |
|
| Back to top |
|
edgewaters
hibernating
Joined: Aug 17, 2006
Age: 40
Posts: 2426
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:29 am Post subject: Re: Psychology Today on The Danger of the Wolf Pack Mentalit |
|
|
| thewhitrbbit wrote: | | Umm...I hate to point out but if your worked about aborting autistic people and such, might want to keep in mind that it's LIBERALS who are pushing for more access to abortion. Might also want to mention that the great eugenics of the 20th century in Germany was under the banner of National Socialism, a LIBERAL political view. |
The Nazis were liberal, oh my. How warped American propaganda has become. Water is dry and the sun gives off darkness, now.
The Nazis were a populist, conservative movement. Yes, there were elements of socialism (which is a very different thing from liberalism, and in no respect could the Nazis ever be termed liberal), but they occurred in a conservative context - the Nazi political experiment was to wed socialism to right-wing attitudes and desires, so that instead of having a system to benefit the population, it was a system to benefit the conservative population and exterminate everyone else, as seems to be the secret lust of radical conservatives in all times and places. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
