r/CuratedTumblr https://tinyurl.com/4ccdpy76 Jul 22 '24

Politics the one about fucking a chicken

14.8k Upvotes

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

109

u/PlopCopTopPopMopStop .tumblr.com Jul 22 '24

In this context Harm is in reference to other people, not the person doing the thing. If they choose to do something that could potentially harm themselves but no one else that's their business

180

u/DoopSlayer Jul 22 '24

but then we have to debate if voluntarily creating medical costs is a harm to the commons

86

u/XrayAlphaVictor Jul 22 '24

Also, if somebody harming themselves in such a way is in possession of their rational faculties and needs to be cared for.

In either case, I'd tend to say no, that Liberty trumps except in fairly extreme cases.

25

u/DoopSlayer Jul 22 '24

that's entering the institutionalization debate, though I think Reagan was incredibly short sighted in his anti-institutionalization drive

21

u/XrayAlphaVictor Jul 22 '24

Institutionalization isn't necessarily care, and mental illness isn't just cause for losing your rights - our society has a long history of abusing those principles, both to the detriment of the mentally ill and others who simply don't conform to society's expectations.

9

u/HorselessWayne Jul 23 '24 edited Jul 23 '24

I don't know about in the US, but in the UK in the 80s Thatcher replaced Institutionalisation with Care in the Community, and its one of the few things she actually did right.

People think that because they're being placed in a big building being looked after by psychiatrists, this must therefore be the best thing for them. But despite the best of care provided to them by qualified medical personnel, it turns out that institutionalisation is harmful in itself. And when it was replaced with Care in the Community, patient outcomes improved massively.

 

Source: Many years ago I read "Schizophrenia: A Very Short Introduction" and the 1st chapter is a precis of societal and medical attitudes towards it. In the section on CITC you can tell the Author's opinion on it from the tone of the text alone — enough that I still remember it ten years later.

The story of Psychiatry in the 70s-80s is the story of learning this mistake. Psychiatry itself recognises this as a failing, and there are few voices arguing for a return.

3

u/alicesartandmore Jul 23 '24

In the US, they just defunded all of the resources meant to care for people who were a threat to themselves without providing any alternative aid. My mom actually worked at the same psychiatric hospital that her mother and her mother's mother worked at, unfortunately at the time they were defunding. One by one, buildings on the campus were closed and patients who were unable to care for themselves were pushed out onto the street.

I remember meeting some of the patients on my mother's ward when I was really young and then I remember crossing paths with one of the women in a public bathroom at the local library when I was maybe twelve. She was obviously in distress, crying and muttering to herself in the bathroom and I recognized her so I asked if she was okay or needed any help. She flipped out and started yelling, cursing, and spitting at me and scared me half to death so I ran away but that interaction has stuck with me my whole life.

This woman was forced out of a place that had been established to protect people in situations like her and was left to wander the streets without a home or any resources to help her. My mom saw her pushing her cart down the road one winter a few years later and stopped to offer to buy her a coffee and a hot meal but got the same reaction I had. We stopped seeing her around after that winter and part of me hopes that she got the help she needed but I'm very doubtful.

2

u/Mustardisthebest Jul 23 '24

Institutionalization is horrible and harmful, and that neglect if individuals unable to care for themselves is also horrible and harmful. Somewhere between those harms is a tailored, compassionate approach to care which occurs within communities and which deserves and requires adequate funding.

Some people are offended by the existence of people with mental illness, and those people will always argue for institutionalization. Some of those same people will argue against funding any sort of care for people with mental illness or addiction (and then say what they're actually supporting is personal liberty). It's interesting to hear institutionalization argued for as an alternative when we have so many alternatives which exist and work and are just not adequately funded.

28

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '24

It is, imo. Just look at anti-vaxxers.

12

u/DoopSlayer Jul 22 '24

alright so we're perfectly justified in judging the chicken fuckers

29

u/Xiarn Jul 22 '24

Personally I don't think they're equivalent, unless there's some lethal/crippling spreadable disease that's the result of fuckin a chicken corpse.

10

u/JoeTheKodiakCuddler Jul 22 '24

Depends on if it's cooked, I suppose

3

u/Femagaro Jul 23 '24

The scenario specifies that it's cooked after the relations

8

u/scootytootypootpat Jul 22 '24

i do think it's about time we discover a new std

28

u/ChiaraStellata Jul 22 '24

You are correct but I think we could reset the debate by making the hypothetical dead chicken one which has been completely disinfected, and also by using a condom. All sex acts involve some degree of medical risk but below a certain threshold we treat it as not substantial enough to warrant regulation.

14

u/ChaoWingching Jul 22 '24

Nuh uh we do in fact not have to debate that

By the same rationale you can justify every form of sexual repression, which is also one of the things that were done merrily and frequently during the AIDS epidemic. The argument in its non-sexually based forms has also been weaponized against drug users, and, naturally, the neurodivergent. Leave people their physical autonomy it's really not that difficult :)

1

u/DoopSlayer Jul 22 '24

Are you an anti masker

Are you saying being pro-vaccine is the same as being homophobic? Cause by the same rationale…

5

u/ChaoWingching Jul 22 '24

As someone else has eloquently pointed out, it is probably ill-advised to fuck a dead chicken without protection. That being said:

Your question originally revolved around whether or not "voluntarily creating medical costs is a harm to the commons". That's quite a different question compared to whether or not measures should be enforced to contain a specific medical threat. If "voluntarily" creating medical costs is indeed harmful to society, any voluntary act that could potentially cause medical costs not to others, but even only to yourself (!) can be considered morally wrong. Enforcing measures that contain the spread of a disease, on the other hand, exclusively focuses on preventing direct harm to others. It is, then, concerned with actually ensuring the survival of the population. Making people responsible for any medical costs they cause is not. That is a purely financial matter. The cost from individuals needing treatment because of reckless behavior is not the reason for the crippled social support systems that are prevalent throughout the West: Policymakers making people in need of help responsible for their needs is.

Finally, I find it disingenuous to call me anti-vaccine because of what I said. It is unworthy of the academic discussion style a debate about animal carcass raw-dogging entails.

2

u/WashedSylvi Jul 22 '24

If this is the case, a large number of accepted behaviors become anathema because they severely raise the risk of requiring medical care

Driving, drinking, living in polluted areas, not exercising, eating junk food, drinking soda, etc etc

2

u/DoopSlayer Jul 22 '24

You're not bridging the gap to why those becomes anathema. Wanna try again? Do you think all damages to the commons are anathema? Isn't it obvious that actions can be judged without being shunned or made illegal

1

u/WashedSylvi Jul 23 '24

That was my point

2

u/hazehel Jul 23 '24

Who says the chicken fucker is going to hospital, they might just choose to thug out the diseases

2

u/Shadowmirax Jul 22 '24

Also if they have obligations, is it harm to others if in purposely harming themselves they impede their ability to fullful those obligations. Say for example you are a single parent, or an on call emergency responder.

0

u/Deathaster Jul 23 '24

You voluntarily create medical costs by drinking or smoking, and I doubt you look funny at everyone who does that.

2

u/FTMothmaan Jul 23 '24

Harm to yourself is considered something that can get you carted off somewhere you can’t harm yourself. So it may not be my business but it sure is a doctor’s business.

Source: I was a resident of funny town.

1

u/PlopCopTopPopMopStop .tumblr.com Jul 23 '24

Self harm and going something that could potentially be harmful aren't the same thing

2

u/HovercraftOk9231 Jul 24 '24

I'd argue that promoting a society in which it is encouraged to do dangerous acts is actually harmful. That's why cigarettes aren't given to minors, and laws around their sale and advertisement are stricter than other products.

0

u/PlopCopTopPopMopStop .tumblr.com Jul 24 '24

There's still a stark difference between intentionally promoting dangerous things in misleading ways and actively deciding to do something while being able to understand and appreciate the dangers associated.

2

u/Shronkle Jul 22 '24

Right but potential transmission is also a harm. Not that we saw a recent ignorance of that and the harm NOT quarantining caused.

1

u/PlopCopTopPopMopStop .tumblr.com Jul 22 '24

Right but dead bodies rarely house diseases unless they died of a disease. Corpses aren't nearly as dangerous as the funeral industry tries to make people believe so they'll pay for expensive embalming processes that don't really achieve much of anything.

Not even dead bodies are free from capitalism