This has been my argument about a whole host of issues that are accepted today. The "slippery slope" concept is not invalid even though so many of various political opinions tend to disparage it today. All you have to do is look at TV and Movies to see that when we accept a greater level of violence, sexuality, etc as normal then even greater levels/extremes of such things push the "limits".

Exactly. Why behave like an adult when you don't have to. If society will support you in your right to act like an idiot, might as well. That's the problem with all powerful government providing. People don't get killed off by their own stupidity...

I have the same issue with what's called a "Ron's Chili burger" here in OK. A friend and I used to visit Ron's for lunch about once a month because we know that's all our arteries could handle. Luckily we've both moved on to other jobs and I haven't been to Ron's in several years... Still, whenever I pass by, I can hear the chili burger calling me....

A few of my earlier comments were along the order of "black humor".

This one is more of irony, in particular in terms of the article in this posting and timing. The link below describes how scientists (you know, those intelligent, sometimes geeky and ruthlessly moral people who are the producers of solutions to problems instead of making more of the latter) have created the first lab-grown limb. Hope for those disabled "not by choice", and further shame on these crazies...

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/06/04...

It's a sick mental process, regardless of cause. Attention grabbing or group acceptance or sex change. Lack of self esteem and/or confidence. And there probably are some that are looking for the disability.

I had a choice in '71 between a BMW 900 and
an FX (first factory "chopper" by Willie G Davidson);;;
bought the harley for $2544.18 .......

and sold it in 2011 for $10k. . then applied that to
the '07 hog. . it's a reallllllly comfy machine, as long
as I keep it within 20 degrees of vertical !!! -- j
.

Caitlyn is now in three protected hiring classes. 1. age 2. female 3. trans-gender

Old fashioned chocolate, apple fritter, maybe a maple bar. There's a place near my house that his this chocolate monstrosity that's got melted chocolate in the middle and chocolate chips on the top. I have about one per year.

I have always felt that, deep down, I needed to eat donuts all day. I'm trapped in this body. I'm forced to live a lie. I'm a victim and society should pay for it. When my weight hits four bills I should be given any job I want, too. (thanks Kaitlin Jenner)

The desire to become a "Trans-anything" is a psychological disorder. It could probably even be cured. What I simply can't wrap my head around is the fact that there is an entire society of people (including a large number of politicians) who are willing to accept this as "normal" behavior. There MUST be a hidden reason for this.

I watched an episode of one of those dumb crime shows (my wife is an addict) where there was a support group for pedophiles. Not a group to "cure" them, but to encourage their behavior as "normal". Why should any of us believe that this couldn't, eventually, become accepted as well? Imagine your 60 year old neighbor molesting your 7 year old daughter and being protected by the law because he was "born" this way? Believe me...unless something is done, this is a real possibility.

P.S. I don't mean to pick on 60 year old folks...it just seemed that "dirty OLD men" (I'm almost there, myself <grin>) seem to be more frequently targeted in these instances.

I cannot discount that the Americans With Disabilities Act might encourage some of this behavior-but I note the individuals in the article are either from Europe or Canada. They are farther along the socialist scale than we are, and I think it could definitely be a factor. If one would perceive disabled individuals as having separate and distinct rights from everybody else, that is.

Oh I don't know Jan,

The ones with the rings in the lobes that look like large Hot Wheels (tm) rims do handicap themselves in the job market. First impressions do matter.

now, Michael, I would enjoy riding my hog without
a helmet. . and I have insurance. . it's so strange that
the logic of my actions costing society allows social
demands of me. . I am ruled by others way too much
already!!! -- j

looks like this::: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=2007...
.

isn't normal just a setting on the clothes washer? -- j

p.s. Yes, they are changing -- fast! . just look at the
worldwide view of LBGT... no longer "scandalous."
.

I really would like to find a donor Transability so I can get a total spinal column replacement!

Ah, I will bow down to you Ganesh and feed you milk for blessings!

Several years ago, in a conversation with a Zen practitioner in mental health, he offered a definition that seems to fit this normality question:

"It's OK to be a human being and make all the mistakes humans make, as long as one doesn't intentionally harm another--or as importantly one's self."

Objectively, that seems to provide to me a perfect definition of mental normalcy, incorporating a pretty broad range of human thought and action within the normal range. Saying that, there are certainly situations in which the amputation or alteration of limb or organ, improves the living or ability of an individual, i.e. cancerous limbs or organs, or crippled limbs that a prosthesis can correct or improve on, etc. But I can't, ethically accept any imposition that requires that I support another in his normal and/or not normal activities or choices. Ethically and logically, I can accept the principle that such individuals, or groups, can be allowed to make their own choices and suffer from the consequences and further, that even individuals that have a mental or nervous system defect or physical defect beyond their control, be allowed to live or die in that condition, excepting where parents or other source voluntarily provide sufficient support for such individual.

But the Objectivist has to ask, can there ever exist a condition that requires of himself, from his own production, support (physically-financially-emotionally), of any individual or group. I can think of only one, the case where my choice of action directly harms another and I had reason to believe or know beforehand that my choice would harm that other, to the point that the other can, as a result, no longer support himself, with no contributory fault on his part.

As to a Libertarian argument of limits to reason, that's nonsense. There are limits to current knowledge, but reason is infinite within that current knowledge and logic doesn't change, the more information or knowledge becomes available. There are groups of Libertarians that are socialists, pacifist, communalist in their basic understanding of individual and community responsibility and altruism to others, but they lack a philosophical understanding of freedom. They want freedom from government, but not from each other.

...or other people's productivity or rights or achievements.

Time to make it legal to put some folks to sleep.
I will pay for the disability that is self-inflicted?
This is utter insanity.

well who can blame them for wanting equal rights? eh?

hey,brk, nice to see you. comment more often please. :)

ok, I'll bite :) which kind of donut, abaco?

good point