I can't say if anyone in particular should decide what we should be born with, but I am going along with what makes sense to me, which is that we're meant to hear, see, smell, feel and taste. In that, it would make sense to me that anyone born without these abilities is defective. It may not be someone one wants to feel about him- or herself, but if it's true, it's true. I don't believe we should define things to make ourselves feel good or to make everybody happy. I believe the truth is the truth, and that's what we should follow.

Now, what is the truth, of course, can be defined by anyone, since no one can say for sure what the truth is. We can only say what we believe. If there's a God and any specific religious text is accurate, then that's the truth, but nobody knows for sure. The truth is what it is, yet it's also perception.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
No. But you do think that there is something *wrong* with them in the sense of their failing to meet some standard where you take that standard to be universally applicable.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Right. I'm not putting down someone; I'm stating what I believe to be fact, yet remain open to being wrong. If a person is defective by not having these qualities, then s/he is defective, like it or not.

Your philosophy of what we call "disorders" and "disease" as evolution is interesting, but I don't think it's right. I think people can be born with a predisposition towards something, but may not become what they're predisposed towards, or it may take another form. I believe things that happen to us, whether by people or events, help form who we become. A child who receives great love, discipline and a healthy environment is more likely to grow up a healthy, well-rounded adult. Likewise, a child who is abused and neglected, is more likely to grow up with problems. However, there are always exceptions.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
. IMHO the legal system should be about prevention of future reoffending (by removing the person from society) and rehabilitation (to do with prevention of reoffending). Whether people are mentally disordered or not the aim should be the same: Namedly to prevent the person from harming society.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I agree that prevention is important, and so is rehabilitation, when possible and effective. I also think punishment is justified in many cases. For instance, if someone steals from someone, they should have to return or repay the item(s) in question, and receive some kind of sentence to make up for what they did.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Yes. Though... Pity can be a bit more insideous. 'Poor them, life must be hard' is equally dehumanising.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

True. I don't believe that, because someone is in a wheelchair, they deserve special treatment. They shouldn't get to be put ahead in line, and they shouldn't get better seating (in general; there may be exceptions). That's not to say a disabled person shouldn't have equipment to help him or her have a normal life. That's not special treatment; that's equality.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
I'm still getting the notion that things are a little like 'oh little Johhny yes you are defective my son but don't worry you can screw lids on screw-top jars just fine and you will be an asset to any factory!'

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I believe attitudes can and should be changed. Doing that, though, isn't easy. My statements, though, weren't about the attitude you mention above. As I said, they're about "what they want in life." But it's funny you mentioned this. When I was a young adult, around 18-21, my mom tricked me and took me to an Easter Seals building (that was dirty to my OCD, so I ended up losing my purse and stuff in it that day...I'm very bitter about these kinds of tricks that my parents played on me, but that's another topic), where, had I been stronger as I am today, I wouldn't have cooperated with the testing they did of me. They determined I qualified to work in this building with other mentally ill and mentally challenged persons, removing the labels off of glass bottles and preparing them to be recycled. This was in no way tolerable for my OCD, and I refused to do it. But it wasn't just because of my OCD. I found it wrong that they only paid $2-something an hour, not even minimum wage, and I had skills enough to get a simple secretarial job, because I could type. I didn't know everything for a major job, but I knew enough to get a job, if I were able at the time. I'm not putting down those who needed to do that work (except I think they should be paid minimum wage--a job is a job), but I could do better for myself if I could have worked then, so I believed I should. So, yes, I see your point about pity and thinking mentally ill persons have to settle for jobs basically created for "special" people.