Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 10:11:56 -0700
From: eric + michiko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eric, I have tried several times to explain my point of view to you and you
have not managed to understand it so far. Perhaps I don't get yours
either. But after this I'm going to stop trying.
Perhaps you thought I was being sarcastic or something. Please reread my
original post; I have a few times and can't find what you are objecting to.
It was not an attack on people with MCS. I seriously wanted to discuss
the ethical question AND STILL NOBODY WILL!
I saw you and Jeff discussing ethics for quite a while on the list. Right
before we started discussing the safe cabin thread. I didn't join in
because the topic as presented didn't interest me. There is more than one
way to bring ethics into a discussion and more than one way to discuss
ethics in the abstract, I simply didn't wish to join in with the discussion
you were having. No more, no less. This should not be interpretted as my
saying that ethics are not important or that they bore me.
I never said the suggestion "should never have been made". I did say
styrofoam was not an ecological choice; not that the "suggestion" was
inappropriate, but that styrofoam might be an inappropriate material. I
did use the phrase "slam dunk", which may have inserted more emotion to the
point than I intended, but I still haven't heard an ethical principle
proposed that makes even "slam dunk" incorrect.
I never said you attacked anyone. I was very careful with my wording. I
made it clear I was talking about the impression I got from your post, not
the actual words you said. The *impression* I got was that you were
telling Dawnskye her post was suggesting something unethical and therefore
was inappropriate. Since you tell me you didn't actually mean to say that
then I believe you.
Is it because I ventured into the taboo subject of ethics?
It is because you took a practical suggestion and turned it into a
philosophical discussion of ethics without acknowledging that you switched
the focus of the conversation.
> See the beginning of my post. It goes way beyond discomfort and
> suffering. It's about maintaining enough functionality to consider
> yourself human.
I keep getting corrected on my terminology. I started with "discomfort"
and got "@#$%" in response, with the suggestion that I use "pain and
suffering". So, I used "suffering" and get "maintaining enough
functionality to consider yourself human" as the preferred wording.
Eric, it is not a terminology problem. I am not correcting your
terminology, I am trying to get you to understand things from the point of
view of a disabled person. The very question you are asking is one I find
insulting. That is why I keep changing the words around. To make the
point that the problem is with the question itself.
Why do you keep asking (over and over) do I think it's okay to harm the
environment in order for XYZ? The XYZ is not the major problem here, it's
the first half of the question. Can you seriously not see why I would take
offense at being asked that?
Do you think it's okay to harm the enivornment in order to have this
discussion on the enviroment?
That's a loaded question. Look at it closely. Take it apart. Analyse the
emotional impact of each word separately and in combination.
I prefer to ask: what are the environmental tradeoffs I am prepared to make
in order to improve my quality of living? "Quality of living" is yet
another random and insufficent phrase. Obviously, the "quality of living"
end of the equation is not a constant. Saving myself an hour of weeding is
not worth as many tradeoffs as being able to walk for the rest of the day.
Nor is the enivornmental starting place static. We all start in different
places and those places change as our lives do. The issue is how much
change away from my enivornmental starting place am I willing to allow
myself in order to keep healthy and sane?
Can't you see that I'm trying to respond with sympathy?
Not particularly, no. I see you trying to look at this issue from an
intellectual point of view when what's needed is a personal understanding.
Shall I reword my question again?
To what degree is it okay to harm the environment to prevent our personal
difficulty in maintaining enough functionality to consider yourself human?
Yes, I'm being sarcastic now. But I hope you can see the question for the
words (forest / trees). AND I STILL HAVE NOT GOTTEN AN ANSWER TO THE
QUESTION.
I have answered your question already. I do not feel the need to answer it
again. Nor do I have any desire to look at my personal life in the cold
academic way you are asking me to. If am I suddenly seized with this
desire, you'll be among the first to know. That's the nice thing about
this being a group of people...those folks who want to discuss the issues
you raise can, and the rest of us don't have to. Those folks who want to
discuss the issues I raise can, and the rest can read quietly or delete the
messages. Out of the 40ish people on this list, I've only heard from about
6-8 and that's perfectly fine with me.
I really would like to discuss moisture control in buildings...
Cyndi
_______________________________________________________________________________
Oakland, California Zone 9 USDA; Zone 16 Sunset Western Garden Guide
Chemically sensitive/disabled - Organic Gardening only by choice and neccessity
_______________________________________________________________________________
"There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman
something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.consultclarity.com/
_________________ Owner of the Immune Website & Lists http://www.immuneweb.org/
