|
|
Post by birdseye on Nov 27, 2022 15:12:45 GMT
Aontaichte. Beachd gràin-cinnidh àbhaisteach troll aineolach. Gwerthfawrogi'r gefnogaeth Pure curiosity but do either of you understand any words from each others obsolete language ie are there common roots or are the languages totally different. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,457
|
Post by Danny on Nov 27, 2022 16:22:04 GMT
A- Having had family experience of something similar, B- for such diseases. C- Theres a pretty good chance that denying an abortion means another person in the future just lost their right to life. A. So do I B-Down Syndrome isn't a "disease". Its a a condition in which a person has an extra chromosome. Some quickly googled definitions off the internet, hereditary disease-noun- a disease or disorder that is inherited genetically disease-noun- An abnormal condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, inflammation, environmental factors, or genetic defect, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs, symptoms, or both. A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful. Lack of ease; trouble.
wikipedia: Down syndrome or Down's syndrome, also known as trisomy 21, is a genetic disorder caused by the presence of all or part of a third copy of chromosome 21. It is usually associated with physical growth delays, mild to moderate intellectual disability, and characteristic facial features.Wikipedia
Symptoms:Delayed physical growth, characteristic facial features, mild to moderate intellectual disability
I understand why its considered impolite to refer to this as a disease, but it plainly is according to normal definitions. Unfortunately not. Having a disabled child eats up family resources sothat people cannot then have more children. Especially if we consider that someone who intended to have a child but aborted when they discovered a genetic disease, will still want to have a child which however will never be born if the first pregnancy proceeds. This is exactly the same argument being made by groups complaining that people like them are being aborted. If they are not aborted, someone else will never be born. They have no more right to life than those others they would deny life to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Nov 27, 2022 19:44:52 GMT
1. I've got no idea where you got that from. 2. I have merely pointed out something that should not be happening. 3. Not only that, I have also made it clear that there would be no sanction whatsoever, let alone a ban as there wasn't a current board rule in place. 4. Furthermore, I made clear that my admin post was aimed at everyone, not just you. I'll keep this chat on what is now an old thread. You can of course contact me direct using the message function (and I'm guessing 'others' have been contacting you that way). I've quoted you in full above but if it is acceptable then I've added numbers to highlight the different points you make. 1. Your two interventions in recent days were quite clearly due to things I had done (a/ change my moniker/avatar, b/ instead of reposting a whole tweet I did a 'precis' mentioning the tweet). Yet you were letting use of c*** word go with no comment until that was drawn to your attention 2. Can you clarify that. What is supposed to have not happened? If you want people to quote verbatim, including the full content of tweets, etc then the board is going to be very full of unnecessarily repeated comment. Your site so up to you. I'll abide to changes to the rules if/when you make them. Might I suggest you ask some people to be a little less hyper sensitive with their 'outrage', especially when one of the 'usual suspects' from UKPR makes up some nonsense about "falsification" and gets a few other of the 'usual suspects' all rile up with faux outrage as well. 3. Indeed, as no rules were broken. Yet, see #1. I should perhaps be flattered by the attention you give me?  4. Indeed, as no rules were broken. Yet, see #1. I should perhaps be flattered by the attention you give me? 1. While, yes, my two interventions were indeed in response to things you had done, it is not because they had been done by you, simply that they had been done. The first intervention, regarding changing your username, was something that had been raised by a number of members and I wanted to give out clarity. I made clear that what you had done (change your username), while discouraged (to avoid confusion) was not against any rules and could be done with impunity. The second, the issue of misquoting another member, was something I felt needed an addition to the rules, not because you had done it, but, just as several members had accused you of delibarately misquoting another member, there could possibly be a time in the future when this could lead to an issue between members. Likewise, when the issue of the 'c' word was raised, I sought to issue clarity to members (IE that it was unnaceptable). Regarding sanctioning, r not, of other members, this is done behind the scenes. Anythng from a gentle reminder to a slap on the wrist to anything short of a ban is kept between myself and the member concerned - up to the point of a temporary or permenant ban, which is relayed to members so that there won't be speculation as to why a certain member has disappeared. The only other time a sanction short of a ban is revealed publicly is when the member decides to reveal it, or when a member publicly questions it. 2. I have answered your questions on this in the 'what the board should look like' thread. With regards to members being hyper sensitive about falsifications, this is exacly what the new ruling is seeking to prevent. 3&4. Once again, it is nothing to do with the fact that the actions were performed by you - and note that you you have not been sanctioned at all for eithor, but simply that said actions led to the need for clarity. |
|
