Those cartoons of Muhammad were social satire in the vein of every political cartoonist. The Slate article is an op ed piece. And The Onion... are you friggin' serious?
I'm quite sure the suits of corporate media don't think that far ahead. More likely, they saw this as an awesome opportunity for giving their ratings a shot in the arm. And I bet it did.
I'm down. If you include the Bible in that. And Mein Kampf. And The Anarchist's Cookbook. Sun Tzu?
Now, stupid ol' me figured that the difference was that these were people actively doing a thing, not a book advocating doing a thing. Shows what I know.
The buzz phrase "Political Correctness" has replaced reasoned dialog AND debate in in this country. We've become a nation of fanatics.
If I have a restaurant, brainiac, and someone wants to shout about their religion and bigotry, they have every right to do so on public property. They will get a boot in the ass if they try it on my property. I don't have to support bigots because, and I quote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I'm not Congress and I'm making no law. Perhaps a state law would do it. City ordinance? And I find it interesting that people defend the free speech of bigots from... the free speech of those against bigotry. Hypocrite.
In conclusion, as I there is no legal imperative for me, as a non-elected official, to respect your freedom of speech, I will exercise my own and tell you to shut the hell up.
I'm assuming you've never gotten shit or been in danger because of your sexuality. If you have, were you uptight about it? Or, as you suggest here, you pacifically accepted it and refused to stand up for yourself.
So are they uptight, do you completely lack empathy, or are you a coward?
I'm pansexual, but even I notice that not only do the transgendered find prejudice among straight people, but they also experience it, sadly, from the LGB section of LGBT, as well. Perhaps you're among them? For what it's worth, I liked Carlin's wordplay and see it as innocent, but I can see their side of it, too.
No, it accuses you of dismissing the concerns of another by calling them a douche. In return, I will dismiss your views by snarkily calling them political correctness.
And there are FtM transsexuals, who are so rare that they find each other isolated as well as degraded.
I am a member of the LGBT community and I love my queens. I also loved George Carlin. I can certainly understand the sensitivity that comes with constant experiences of prejudice. And I'm not going to tell you that you don't have a right to feel that way. However, as a Carlin fan, I can tell you that he was a very liberal and progressive and considered himself an enemy to the establishment.
If you're not familiar with him, he came across to many people as offensive and he kind of prided himself in it. But his rudeness wasn't merely for the sake of shock, but for subversive social commentary and biting satire. His targets were those in power and the stupidity among majorities. I can guarantee you, having followed him from the time I was a kid, listening to him on my headphones because it wasn't exactly something I'd want my parents to hear, that his pun that caused this mess wasn't meant in offense. When he meant offense, it was much more blatant and undeniable.
FUCK Mickey Mouse. Fuck him up the asshole with a big, rubber dick, then break it off and beat him to death with the rest of it!
No, it gives you the opportunity to be a douche and dismiss someone's concerns by calling them a douche. Well, I will diminish your view by snarkily calling it political correctness.
And there are immigrants from cultures where it is completely common to have a hyphen or an apostrophe in their surname, or more than one word.
In the US, you don't even need to look to immigrants for names with more than one word. In fact, it's fairly common among the people for whom the word "immigrant" is least applicable.
I guess this is another case where demographics are important. I don't imagine that someone programming for the Aryan Brotherhood is going to worry about "Red Feather" in a single field. If your pool of consumers isn't so narrowly defined, however, take shortcuts at your own risk. My given name is Constantinos. To this day, some name entry fields feel that name is two characters too long. Really? It's only twelve characters! And I'll be honest with you, if a business can't keep my full first name in their database, I'll keep an eye out for something else or skip them entirely if it's not vital. It's no big deal to them, maybe, but it is to me.
Is no one else reminded of the Texas politician who last year told Asian Americans that they should change their names so that "American poll workers" wouldn't make so many mistakes with them? I'm sure you catch the irony in that. It's the same with my own name. My name is American. I am American and that is my name. If that's not important to you, then apparently neither is my business.
I'm kind of surprised to see how many people in these comments dismiss the ideas in the article, though. I'd have thought that after all this time, some of that attitude would have been adjusted, especially when people have had to deal with complaints (for instance, from people like me).
Yes, yes. You're either with us or against us. I'm a pinko. Careful consideration is for pussies.
The term "ideologue" has negative connotations, but all it means is "an advocate of some ideology". There is nothing about ignoring how everyone else looks at things. Therefore, I am an ideologue, as well as a patriotic American. However, excuse me if I don't take patriotism to the point of nationalism (defined as "the doctrine that your national culture and interests are superior to any other").
To be fair, you can compare the two because they're both dictated by ideology.
Perhaps in some very broad sense, it is a free-market/speech ideology against a totalitarian ideology.
A "broad sense"? It seems to be exactly that to me.
But cultural relativism is itself an ideology, not a "fact". If you believe that the PRC govt can oppress it's people because it belongs to a different culture, then you must also allow that the US has a culture of activism across borders in the name of "human rights". Why should China's relative claims be more valid than the US?
Moral relativism (to which I will assume from this point on you were referring) is not an ideology, it's a position, one that may be part of one's ideology. Actually, there's not just one version of moral relativism. And it's interesting that you should accuse me of it when I gave no evidence of being a moral relativist. I am, but that won't make sense to you as you don't know what moral relativism is.
Keep in mind that Relativism as a concept was invented by 60's academics who felt guilty thinking of developing nations as backwards.
Could I have a reference, please? Wikipedia tells me a different story, but I'll allow that this is no guarantee of accuracy.
They knew that they couldn't claim that stoning women accused of adultery was "acceptable" by any modern human standards, but they also couldn't condemn it out of the seemingly legitimate desire to be "objective". As a result, they invented this concept of "we don't understand because we're not one of them". Bullshit. Relativism is an artifact of a particular point of view. It is not applicable to all points of view simultaneously, especially when the thing you're looking at is shared among them - namely, the Internet.
I don't quite understand some of the above, but I'll take a crack at what I do understand.
Going back to the Wikipedia article, I read the entire history section. There is no mention of academics from the 60's who wanted a sneaky way of calling the act of stoning adulterers "acceptable". In fact, the latest date mentioned in that section is 1958, the year of death for an advocate of something called "ethical intuition" (something you might want to look into, though it might be simpler to stick to ethnocentrism). According to that history section, "[m]oral relativism encompasses views and arguments that people in various cultures have held over several thousand years."
And here are the three types of moral relativism, jacked, code and all, from Wikipedia:
Descriptive relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts obtain and the same consequences seem likely to arise.
Meta-ethical relativism, on the other hand, is the semantic and epistemic position that all moral judgments have their origins either in societal or in individual standards, and that no single objective standard exists by which one can assess the truth of a moral proposition.
Normative relativism, further still, is the prescriptive or normative position that as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral stand
In any event, if anyone feels the need to make any jokes about ink cost, cartridge DRM, or other wildly hilarious topics, please just use a reference to the older comments. Thanks.
Isn't Xinhua correct in this though? There's no lies - Google tried to change Chinese society and bring American values in it, just like is done in Iraq but only with military.
Google did no such thing. Google provides a service and China wants to restrict it. Furthermore, it wants Google to take on the responsibility of restricting what China wants restricted. Even if the people at Google were comfortable with the restrictions, which they have a right not to be, the cost to them of trying to enforce the Chinese government's rules is prohibitive. Makes it overall a bit stupid for Google to agree to anything.
And you're saying there are no lies. So you say that Google has ties to the government? Even if you're a conspiracy nut, look at recent history with regards to how the US government handles China. What will you see? We've kissed their asses. US politicians always stand strong on American principles... except when power is involved. This is why we don't recognize the Turkish genocide of Armenians and it's why the Chinese can trample whatever human rights it wants to even outside of their own country.
This is nothing new, the same has been done with Hollywood and other mass culture for long time. Just play Civilization - you can spread your culture and slowly your enemies cities will want to join you.
You make it difficult for me to defend the effects of computer and video games to people who say that they stunt people's critical thinking skills.
China tries to control it's own Internet. USA tries to control the whole Internet. Which one is worse?
First of all, the US is not trying to "control the internet".
Dude, a spade's a spade. Our government is absolutely trying to control the Internet. Everyone is. Microsoft is. Apple is. EFF is. The RIAA and ThePirateBay both are. I am. You are.
The difference is the power to do so. The only reason the US government doesn't completely control the Internet at this stage and doesn't even attempt is that not all of the resources that go into making the Internet are in areas that the government can control. At the same time, the person you are replying to is also wrong. China can't control "[its] own Internet" because it doesn't have it's own Internet. Therefore, it's trying to control the Internet, period.
The only logical way that China can have what it wants is to completely separate itself from the international network. That'd be expensive and create a really neat hacker subculture as a side effect, but that's not my problem. And in general, oppressing the Chinese for the good of the Chinese isn't Google's problem, either, however much they extremely want it and deserve the respect to have it. (I'm sure I don't need to explain the sarcasm in that previous statement, but I'll mention that it's there just in case.)
All it is doing (albeit with a heavy hand at the expense of consumers), is to control certain commercial transactions that, arguably, skirt the law. Stopping someone from downloading copies of a U2 album that they in no way paid for is in no way the same thing as trying to stop someone from reading about the Tienanmen Square protests or sending emails about democracy. How can you compare the two?
To be fair, you can compare the two because they're both dictated by ideology. You find one reasonable and the other unreasonable because you prescribe to one ideology and reject the other. That's the nature of the beast, though. Nothing the size of the Internet can exist with ideological struggles.
And even if your point is that control of any kind is bad, are you suggesting that selling poached Ivory or distributing kiddie porn should be allowed as long as the transaction is completed online? Sounds like a principle without the application of common sense.
Yes, in general, common sense says that there are two shades: black and white. Wiser people say that there are a bunch of shades of grey that people miss. Nuts like me look around confusedly and say things like, "what about blue?"
As far as ivory, it can't be transmitted across the Internet, so it has no place in the discussion. As far as I know, it is perfectly legal for you and I to discuss an exchange wherein I give you poached ivory in person. It's once we meet that we're in trouble. For child pornography, it's against a common cultural more. I don't know of any established culture that would approve of it.
Your analogy presupposes too narrow a definition of 'preexisting condition'.
A woman who is denied insurance for several years after she is raped because it's considered a preexisting condition is merely high risk and not necessarily in current treatment.
My case more accurately fits your semantic objection, however even then your burning house analogy doesn't fit. The fire very literally and completely destroys the house or a part of it. If my mental illness destroys me, say, if I commit suicide or am mistaken in the madness of an episode as being violent and killed or some such, then it would fit. But it's much more likely that I'll survive until the episode is over. The house doesn't recover from its symptoms on its own, I do, with whatever collateral damage usually also being temporary. At the same time, I could argue that this will indeed be insurance for me. I'll explain.
With regular medical treatment, I've been able to avoid any serious episode that would cause me to use emergency services or cause any noticeable personal damage for over a year. Without medical treatment, this would have been nearly impossible for various reasons. This part would fit Wikipedia's definition. At the same time, current studies suggest that continued use of medications such as antipsychotics reduce or prevent the worsening of certain mental conditions over time. This as well fits the definition you quoted.
I am currently on Medicaid, but looking for work. My biggest worry has been finding myself unable to continue treatment and therefore being unable to continue working once I went downhill. This would land me (in my hopes, at least) back on Medicaid and SSI. I'll be paying no taxes and no copay. So even if you define the "loss" stated in the Wikipedia definition as being economic loss, the situation fits again. With some form of insurance, I can work, pay taxes, as well as pay some premium for my coverage.
This is where I lament the loss of the public option. I suppose I don't mind paying one and a half times what someone with no condition pays, but I'm dreading whatever ways the private insurance companies will find to weasel out of actually covering me while I pay it. Ah well. Now I just need to make it to 2014.
It's not just the educational system, it's our society.
There is a large contingent of Americans who fear what they might call, if they're honest, over-education. Institutions of higher learning are often believed to be indoctrinating (or "brainwashing", as they put it) students to be unpatriotic, often citing the teaching of evolution as being anathema to the morals of society. The term "educated fools" is common among the poorer population. Human rights are generally only important in regards to "people like you", while the extension of it especially to minority groups is seen as some sort of infringement. Combine this with fear of said minority groups and anyone else considered an "outsider", and it's only natural that this extends to the public schools.
This is what makes our educational system an overall failure.
Thank you for providing that link. The following is the message I sent with that form.
I'm sure you're getting a lot of these right now from other Slashdotters. But this is in a slightly different tone.
I would like to show you my sincerest gratitude. This is what people need to see. The more incidents like this, the better.
Every time I meet a parent of a particularly bright child in the public school system, I tell them about how their schools are failing the student. I'm collecting a growing body of evidence to support my claim, as my own story is purely anecdotal and questionable because of that. This is one of the best stories I've yet come across.
Our public school system is designed for the mediocre. Bright students are discouraged and not challenged enough while the poor students aren't given the attention they need. For the average student, this system of education is sufficient and will prepare them for the place in the workforce that's suitable for them. People are led to believe that magnet schools are the solution, but magnet schools are staffed with the same caliber of educators that other public schools are. Even the knowledgeable, above average teachers are stifled by reactionary administration and the growing prison-like atmosphere of schools designed to leave the teaching of critical thinking skills mostly to the students, their caretakers, universities, and extracurricular, outside groups.
While public schools will continue to regularly give examples of this, there are few so extreme as to get media attention. This is why I must applaud your actions. I do regret the trauma given to the boy and his family, but hopefully they will eventually realize their importance in the education about education that the general populace needs.
I will continue to watch for stories about your school. I am certain that you will continue to provide the evidence I need.
Slashdot Mirror
Transgendered covers both vestite and sexual, but yes, I know what you're saying. It's just that I know more queens than TS.
Those cartoons of Muhammad were social satire in the vein of every political cartoonist. The Slate article is an op ed piece. And The Onion... are you friggin' serious?
I'm quite sure the suits of corporate media don't think that far ahead. More likely, they saw this as an awesome opportunity for giving their ratings a shot in the arm. And I bet it did.
I'm down. If you include the Bible in that. And Mein Kampf. And The Anarchist's Cookbook. Sun Tzu?
Now, stupid ol' me figured that the difference was that these were people actively doing a thing, not a book advocating doing a thing. Shows what I know.
The buzz phrase "Political Correctness" has replaced reasoned dialog AND debate in in this country. We've become a nation of fanatics.
If I have a restaurant, brainiac, and someone wants to shout about their religion and bigotry, they have every right to do so on public property. They will get a boot in the ass if they try it on my property. I don't have to support bigots because, and I quote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I'm not Congress and I'm making no law. Perhaps a state law would do it. City ordinance? And I find it interesting that people defend the free speech of bigots from... the free speech of those against bigotry. Hypocrite.
In conclusion, as I there is no legal imperative for me, as a non-elected official, to respect your freedom of speech, I will exercise my own and tell you to shut the hell up.
I'm assuming you've never gotten shit or been in danger because of your sexuality. If you have, were you uptight about it? Or, as you suggest here, you pacifically accepted it and refused to stand up for yourself.
So are they uptight, do you completely lack empathy, or are you a coward?
I'm pansexual, but even I notice that not only do the transgendered find prejudice among straight people, but they also experience it, sadly, from the LGB section of LGBT, as well. Perhaps you're among them? For what it's worth, I liked Carlin's wordplay and see it as innocent, but I can see their side of it, too.
The great thing about the Internet is that it allows idiots and bigots to immortalize their ignorance without having to spray paint it on a wall.
And if affords the opportunity me of mistyping my thoughts by typing "it accuses you of" rather than "it gives you the opportunity to" And I bow.
No, it accuses you of dismissing the concerns of another by calling them a douche. In return, I will dismiss your views by snarkily calling them political correctness.
In conclusion, you're a Nazi.
I am a member of the LGBT community and I love my queens. I also loved George Carlin. I can certainly understand the sensitivity that comes with constant experiences of prejudice. And I'm not going to tell you that you don't have a right to feel that way. However, as a Carlin fan, I can tell you that he was a very liberal and progressive and considered himself an enemy to the establishment.
If you're not familiar with him, he came across to many people as offensive and he kind of prided himself in it. But his rudeness wasn't merely for the sake of shock, but for subversive social commentary and biting satire. His targets were those in power and the stupidity among majorities. I can guarantee you, having followed him from the time I was a kid, listening to him on my headphones because it wasn't exactly something I'd want my parents to hear, that his pun that caused this mess wasn't meant in offense. When he meant offense, it was much more blatant and undeniable.
FUCK Mickey Mouse. Fuck him up the asshole with a big, rubber dick, then break it off and beat him to death with the rest of it!
No, it gives you the opportunity to be a douche and dismiss someone's concerns by calling them a douche. Well, I will diminish your view by snarkily calling it political correctness.
In conclusion, you're a Nazi.
I'm not a man to let himself be fooled any more than 17 times, but I know this time it's for real!
...since live women are hard to reproduce at home by those that seek them.
Keep trying, my son. You'll get there. Don't give up.
...should send Lucas a cease and desist order to stop selling lightsabre-like merchandise, claiming unlawful use of likeness.
Just sayin'.
57:68:61:74:20:74:68:65:20:68:65:6c:6c:20:69:73:20:68:65:20:74:61:6c:6b:69:6e:67:20:61:62:6f:75:74:3f
And there are immigrants from cultures where it is completely common to have a hyphen or an apostrophe in their surname, or more than one word.
In the US, you don't even need to look to immigrants for names with more than one word. In fact, it's fairly common among the people for whom the word "immigrant" is least applicable.
I guess this is another case where demographics are important. I don't imagine that someone programming for the Aryan Brotherhood is going to worry about "Red Feather" in a single field. If your pool of consumers isn't so narrowly defined, however, take shortcuts at your own risk. My given name is Constantinos. To this day, some name entry fields feel that name is two characters too long. Really? It's only twelve characters! And I'll be honest with you, if a business can't keep my full first name in their database, I'll keep an eye out for something else or skip them entirely if it's not vital. It's no big deal to them, maybe, but it is to me.
Is no one else reminded of the Texas politician who last year told Asian Americans that they should change their names so that "American poll workers" wouldn't make so many mistakes with them? I'm sure you catch the irony in that. It's the same with my own name. My name is American. I am American and that is my name. If that's not important to you, then apparently neither is my business.
I'm kind of surprised to see how many people in these comments dismiss the ideas in the article, though. I'd have thought that after all this time, some of that attitude would have been adjusted, especially when people have had to deal with complaints (for instance, from people like me).
Yes, yes. You're either with us or against us. I'm a pinko. Careful consideration is for pussies.
The term "ideologue" has negative connotations, but all it means is "an advocate of some ideology". There is nothing about ignoring how everyone else looks at things. Therefore, I am an ideologue, as well as a patriotic American. However, excuse me if I don't take patriotism to the point of nationalism (defined as "the doctrine that your national culture and interests are superior to any other").
To be fair, you can compare the two because they're both dictated by ideology.
Perhaps in some very broad sense, it is a free-market/speech ideology against a totalitarian ideology.
A "broad sense"? It seems to be exactly that to me.
But cultural relativism is itself an ideology, not a "fact". If you believe that the PRC govt can oppress it's people because it belongs to a different culture, then you must also allow that the US has a culture of activism across borders in the name of "human rights". Why should China's relative claims be more valid than the US?
Moral relativism (to which I will assume from this point on you were referring) is not an ideology, it's a position, one that may be part of one's ideology. Actually, there's not just one version of moral relativism. And it's interesting that you should accuse me of it when I gave no evidence of being a moral relativist. I am, but that won't make sense to you as you don't know what moral relativism is.
Keep in mind that Relativism as a concept was invented by 60's academics who felt guilty thinking of developing nations as backwards.
Could I have a reference, please? Wikipedia tells me a different story, but I'll allow that this is no guarantee of accuracy.
They knew that they couldn't claim that stoning women accused of adultery was "acceptable" by any modern human standards, but they also couldn't condemn it out of the seemingly legitimate desire to be "objective". As a result, they invented this concept of "we don't understand because we're not one of them". Bullshit. Relativism is an artifact of a particular point of view. It is not applicable to all points of view simultaneously, especially when the thing you're looking at is shared among them - namely, the Internet.
I don't quite understand some of the above, but I'll take a crack at what I do understand.
Going back to the Wikipedia article, I read the entire history section. There is no mention of academics from the 60's who wanted a sneaky way of calling the act of stoning adulterers "acceptable". In fact, the latest date mentioned in that section is 1958, the year of death for an advocate of something called "ethical intuition" (something you might want to look into, though it might be simpler to stick to ethnocentrism). According to that history section, "[m]oral relativism encompasses views and arguments that people in various cultures have held over several thousand years."
And here are the three types of moral relativism, jacked, code and all, from Wikipedia:
The Computer is infallible, citizens. Now maybe a good round of our fight song will cheer us up!
Sing with me:
Mine eyes have seen the coming of another commie horde...
In any event, if anyone feels the need to make any jokes about ink cost, cartridge DRM, or other wildly hilarious topics, please just use a reference to the older comments. Thanks.
Thanks for that. I have a puppy. Want to kick it?
Isn't Xinhua correct in this though? There's no lies - Google tried to change Chinese society and bring American values in it, just like is done in Iraq but only with military.
Google did no such thing. Google provides a service and China wants to restrict it. Furthermore, it wants Google to take on the responsibility of restricting what China wants restricted. Even if the people at Google were comfortable with the restrictions, which they have a right not to be, the cost to them of trying to enforce the Chinese government's rules is prohibitive. Makes it overall a bit stupid for Google to agree to anything.
And you're saying there are no lies. So you say that Google has ties to the government? Even if you're a conspiracy nut, look at recent history with regards to how the US government handles China. What will you see? We've kissed their asses. US politicians always stand strong on American principles... except when power is involved. This is why we don't recognize the Turkish genocide of Armenians and it's why the Chinese can trample whatever human rights it wants to even outside of their own country.
This is nothing new, the same has been done with Hollywood and other mass culture for long time. Just play Civilization - you can spread your culture and slowly your enemies cities will want to join you.
You make it difficult for me to defend the effects of computer and video games to people who say that they stunt people's critical thinking skills.
China tries to control it's own Internet. USA tries to control the whole Internet. Which one is worse?
First of all, the US is not trying to "control the internet".
Dude, a spade's a spade. Our government is absolutely trying to control the Internet. Everyone is. Microsoft is. Apple is. EFF is. The RIAA and ThePirateBay both are. I am. You are.
The difference is the power to do so. The only reason the US government doesn't completely control the Internet at this stage and doesn't even attempt is that not all of the resources that go into making the Internet are in areas that the government can control. At the same time, the person you are replying to is also wrong. China can't control "[its] own Internet" because it doesn't have it's own Internet. Therefore, it's trying to control the Internet, period.
The only logical way that China can have what it wants is to completely separate itself from the international network. That'd be expensive and create a really neat hacker subculture as a side effect, but that's not my problem. And in general, oppressing the Chinese for the good of the Chinese isn't Google's problem, either, however much they extremely want it and deserve the respect to have it. (I'm sure I don't need to explain the sarcasm in that previous statement, but I'll mention that it's there just in case.)
All it is doing (albeit with a heavy hand at the expense of consumers), is to control certain commercial transactions that, arguably, skirt the law. Stopping someone from downloading copies of a U2 album that they in no way paid for is in no way the same thing as trying to stop someone from reading about the Tienanmen Square protests or sending emails about democracy. How can you compare the two?
To be fair, you can compare the two because they're both dictated by ideology. You find one reasonable and the other unreasonable because you prescribe to one ideology and reject the other. That's the nature of the beast, though. Nothing the size of the Internet can exist with ideological struggles.
And even if your point is that control of any kind is bad, are you suggesting that selling poached Ivory or distributing kiddie porn should be allowed as long as the transaction is completed online? Sounds like a principle without the application of common sense.
Yes, in general, common sense says that there are two shades: black and white. Wiser people say that there are a bunch of shades of grey that people miss. Nuts like me look around confusedly and say things like, "what about blue?"
As far as ivory, it can't be transmitted across the Internet, so it has no place in the discussion. As far as I know, it is perfectly legal for you and I to discuss an exchange wherein I give you poached ivory in person. It's once we meet that we're in trouble. For child pornography, it's against a common cultural more. I don't know of any established culture that would approve of it.
Your analogy presupposes too narrow a definition of 'preexisting condition'.
A woman who is denied insurance for several years after she is raped because it's considered a preexisting condition is merely high risk and not necessarily in current treatment.
My case more accurately fits your semantic objection, however even then your burning house analogy doesn't fit. The fire very literally and completely destroys the house or a part of it. If my mental illness destroys me, say, if I commit suicide or am mistaken in the madness of an episode as being violent and killed or some such, then it would fit. But it's much more likely that I'll survive until the episode is over. The house doesn't recover from its symptoms on its own, I do, with whatever collateral damage usually also being temporary. At the same time, I could argue that this will indeed be insurance for me. I'll explain.
With regular medical treatment, I've been able to avoid any serious episode that would cause me to use emergency services or cause any noticeable personal damage for over a year. Without medical treatment, this would have been nearly impossible for various reasons. This part would fit Wikipedia's definition. At the same time, current studies suggest that continued use of medications such as antipsychotics reduce or prevent the worsening of certain mental conditions over time. This as well fits the definition you quoted.
I am currently on Medicaid, but looking for work. My biggest worry has been finding myself unable to continue treatment and therefore being unable to continue working once I went downhill. This would land me (in my hopes, at least) back on Medicaid and SSI. I'll be paying no taxes and no copay. So even if you define the "loss" stated in the Wikipedia definition as being economic loss, the situation fits again. With some form of insurance, I can work, pay taxes, as well as pay some premium for my coverage.
This is where I lament the loss of the public option. I suppose I don't mind paying one and a half times what someone with no condition pays, but I'm dreading whatever ways the private insurance companies will find to weasel out of actually covering me while I pay it. Ah well. Now I just need to make it to 2014.
It's not just the educational system, it's our society.
There is a large contingent of Americans who fear what they might call, if they're honest, over-education. Institutions of higher learning are often believed to be indoctrinating (or "brainwashing", as they put it) students to be unpatriotic, often citing the teaching of evolution as being anathema to the morals of society. The term "educated fools" is common among the poorer population. Human rights are generally only important in regards to "people like you", while the extension of it especially to minority groups is seen as some sort of infringement. Combine this with fear of said minority groups and anyone else considered an "outsider", and it's only natural that this extends to the public schools.
This is what makes our educational system an overall failure.
Your comment just broke Slashdot. All other comments will pale in comparison. I hope you're happy, you insensitive clod.
I'm sure you're getting a lot of these right now from other Slashdotters. But this is in a slightly different tone.
I would like to show you my sincerest gratitude. This is what people need to see. The more incidents like this, the better.
Every time I meet a parent of a particularly bright child in the public school system, I tell them about how their schools are failing the student. I'm collecting a growing body of evidence to support my claim, as my own story is purely anecdotal and questionable because of that. This is one of the best stories I've yet come across.
Our public school system is designed for the mediocre. Bright students are discouraged and not challenged enough while the poor students aren't given the attention they need. For the average student, this system of education is sufficient and will prepare them for the place in the workforce that's suitable for them. People are led to believe that magnet schools are the solution, but magnet schools are staffed with the same caliber of educators that other public schools are. Even the knowledgeable, above average teachers are stifled by reactionary administration and the growing prison-like atmosphere of schools designed to leave the teaching of critical thinking skills mostly to the students, their caretakers, universities, and extracurricular, outside groups.
While public schools will continue to regularly give examples of this, there are few so extreme as to get media attention. This is why I must applaud your actions. I do regret the trauma given to the boy and his family, but hopefully they will eventually realize their importance in the education about education that the general populace needs.
I will continue to watch for stories about your school. I am certain that you will continue to provide the evidence I need.
I thank you again.