venomai

Looks cool. Is the ground 3D? Or was it filmed?

Not very dramatic composition. Could work with less people (one, maybe two), more focus on the sign (closer, less crowded around the text), and on a better day (maybe near dawn?).

It's also very likely (if not much more likely) that this stressor alone will not cause a mental illness. Myah has stated in her blog that Faith has no drug coverage, something which seems to be the most expensive aspect of her medical care. Bizarre delusions are one of the symptoms of schizophrenia. Arguing that delusions can lead to schizophrenia is like arguing that a runny nose can lead to a cold. The runny nose leads to a diagnosis of the cold, but it does not lead to the cold. Do you see the difference? Many mothers of severely disabled children, or for that matter relatives of deep coma/vegetative patients, show signs of what you might call "living in a fabricated reality." They attribute twitches/smile reflexes to something much more significant, they speak as if the individual is conscious and aware, etc. There has been some anecdotal evidence that certain coma patients can hear, but that's besides the point... Some will come to realize their delusions, others will not. Those that persist with their delusions, though, won't necessarily become 'damaged' because of them. Apologies for my poor choice of words. Your implications have been that Myah has a pre-existing vulnerability to schizophrenia -- to the point that such a life event is very likely to trigger it. "The Stress-Vulnerability Model: [...] it is likely that many aspects of an individual's life are significant in producing psychotic experiences. This idea has been described as the 'stress-vulnerability' model. In the stress-vulnerability model, it is suggested that everybody has a different level of vulnerability to the development of psychotic experiences. People are believed to be more or less vulnerable as a result of both biological factors (which could well be the result of either genetic factors or biological changes following birth) and psychological factors (for instance, being very sensitive - or resilient - to stress in a psychological rather than biological sense). Sensitivity to particular stresses may, of course, be at least partly a result of events that have happened previously in the person's life. [...] vulnerability will result in the development of problems only when environmental stresses are present." http://www.schizophreniaguidelines.co.u ... rapies.php Since we don't know Myah's biological, psychological or past-life details, it would be futile to try and gauge her vulnerability to schizophrenia. If you were addressing the risk of schizophrenia under some other model, feel free to correct me. You seem intent on analyzing Myah's state of mind and applying a mental disorder to her. It appears that you are indeed attempting to to diagnose her, even if you shy away from using the term itself. I don't mind speculation, but this is far from it. There's no need to make such blind and unsupported assumptions... "She is incapable of rationally acting in the interest of her long-term psychological health ..." "it is likely that somewhere there is another, more appropriate, diagnosis ..." etc.

Interesting posts by Myah. from reddit from her blog

Have you considered none at all? Not everybody who is deluded about one thing or another must suffer from a mental disorder. Are you f***king kidding me?! People who are pyschologically dependent on cigarettes or other drugs may not be very capable of making a "rational" decision regarding drug use, but that doesn't mean it's the government's job to force Nicotine patches and rehabilitation on them against their wishes. What you are suggesting is essentially attempting to improve society's well-being by deciding for them what is best, and then forcing that decision on them regardless of their wishes and legal rights. This entire thread has been a revolting display of Off-Topic's dark side. Nazism has been brought up a number of times not because of Goodwin's Law, but because some of the views expressed here mirror those of Hitler and other totalitarian regimes. Delusions do not "evolve into schizophrenia." :thumbdown: It's absolutely laughable to assume that this individual must have an unsurfaced case of schizophrenia -- something that is nearly if not entirely undetectable given what little information we have about her -- and then to assume that the realization of her own delusion -- assuming it ever occurs -- will trigger this underlying schizophrenia. I encourage you to stop trying to diagnose this woman before you make yourself look any more foolish.

Still trying to rig the thing. Rigging is a lot more frustrating than I thought. :lol: I've got some bones linked, so far... Might take a while to load the animation.

I'm not arguing that anencephalic babies are more intelligent or more able-bodied than those with other disabilities. I'm suggesting that many mothers see their child as more 'special' and more intelligent than they may be in actuality. Whether the food is going to this baby or an obese American's stomach really shouldn't matter, so long as the mother pays for it. PS: Babies with anencephaly are missing large regions of their brain, but they do not have "no brain."

Your analogy couldn't have made that line any more clear. Faith's mother is free to spend her own money and time to care for her child -- a baby who does not have 100 doctors (if any at all) idling uselessly by her side. Unlike Baby K, Faith is in good condition and is not significantly draining medical resources. Many people, disabled or not, use feeding tubes to assist with nutrition intake. Since Faith uses an NG/NJ-tube as opposed to a G-tube, it very well may only be temporary. Ever heard of Action T4? I can see why Zierro made the connection. "It was Brandt and Bouhler, Conti and Heyde who met to develop a systematic registry of patients in mental facilities for the purpose of euthanizing what Hitler and others referred to as 'feeders'. Hitler and others decried the injustice of German men of a 'higher order' losing their lives on battlefields while the mentally infirm took up space in hospitals at the state's expense [see above]. Part of their argument was bloodlines, part was economic as these mentally ill children and adults were seen as incurable and forever stressing tax-payers. As the systematic euthanization was developed, it began first by the Einsatzguüppen in the Wartheland in Poland, and before 1941 most of the hospitals became instead sites of mass graves." From: http://www.shoaheducation.com/t4.html Life support is intended to extend the life of a living thing, regardless of its level of intelligence. A stillbirth is not living, whereas this anencephalic baby is. Therein lies the difference...

The child certainly is alive and kicking, albeit unintelligently. The belief that an anencephalic baby "thinks like other humans" may be an illusion, but the choice to carry the baby to term certainly is not. The idea of pro-choice is to give the mother full freedom over her pregnancy. In the case of anencephaly, most will choose abortion, but some will carry the baby to term. Of those who give birth to the baby, some have its organs donated, while others attempt to raise the child, as in the case of Faiths mom. In all cases, a choice is made by the mother and the mother alone. An assumption which is likely incorrect, as Ive pointed out: "The baby, as is the case with Faith Hope, brings an incredible amount of happiness to the family, and this happiness is much greater than the (material) costs needed to keep her alive. Hence the reason they continue to spend the time and money to keep her alive." If you still aren't sure, I encourage you to e-mail her and ask her yourself: "Does the amount of happiness Faith brings you justify the costs needed to sustain her life?" :lol: Why should this matter? If somebody wishes to hook their loved one up to life support in their own home and does so at the expense of their own time and money, then there is no problem. This is a free society; we have the full right to love and care for -- and spend the money to sustain -- other humans and even robots, flowers, etc. These are things which many mothers of severely disabled children have yet to grasp.

What an awful analogy... You still aren't explaining why the mother doesn't have a choice when she clearly does. The choice is to abort her anencephalic child, or to give birth to it. No. People extend the lives of their dying and unintelligent fish/dogs/etc not because they are organisms, but because they want them to live longer (even if such an extension comes at a cost). The case of Faith Hope is no different. Either situation would be emotionally difficult. Euthanasia (giving it "the good death"), for many, is much better than watching your baby die slowly from starvation/asphyxiation/etc. Although the baby's crying and thrashing may be reflexive, its actions will look little different from those of an intelligent and suffering baby.

There is little difference. Both are choices to be made by the mother, and both include a living human. The baby is a living organism, i.e. she is alive. Whether she is an intelligent person is irrelevant to whether we ought to kill her against the mother's wishes. Refer to my earlier post, which you seem to have conveniently ignored. Who cares what the baby will or will not do? She brings a great deal of joy to those close to her, and she brings hope to many others. If the mother is happy to care for an unintelligent child at her own expense, there is no reason we should deny her of that right.

The child is very much a living human, even if she does not meet the intelligence standard of other humans. However, since these babies clearly bring a substantial amount of joy and hope to the parents as well as many others, and furthers scientific understanding of anencephaly if not birth disorders in general, these services are clearly not being "wasted." This is incorrect. We are each born with individuality, as can be seen in our genes, physical appearance, etc. Whether or not intelligence is needed for personhood, it certainly is not the only defining feature of individuality.

It brings joy and hope to those around her -- including siblings, parents, and extended family -- as well as those not related to her (i.e. many readers of her blog). Even if only one person loves their unintelligent pet or baby, they are entirely free to extend it's life at the expense of their own salary, even if others feel that doing so is ultimately "futile." The baby, as is the case with Faith Hope, brings an incredible amount of happiness to the family, and this happiness is much greater than the (material) costs needed to keep her alive. Hence the reason they continue to spend the time and money to keep her alive. Furthermore, let us assume the fish requires a substantial amount of medical attention, as the analogy would not be complete otherwise. (I have met people who spend thousands to extend the lives of their pets.) It may be more economically wise to let the fish die, but you are in no position to dictate to people what they ought to view as important in their life. If they didn't regret their decision, then who are you to tell them otherwise? I have explained how both of these assumptions are incorrect. The baby does not "contribute nothing," nor do the costs necessarily outweigh the (subjective) benefits. You also have yet to explain how a pet fish "contributes to society" more so than Baby K or any other anencephalic baby. And, as I've pointed out, even if you can explain such a thing, it would not justify the killing of these babies. The materials and labour used to produce collectable action figures, for example, could have been better spent elsewhere. But, just because I feel that collecting action figures is "useless" or "futile" doesn't mean that everybody else feels the same.

If a sick and dying pet fish "has potential to contribute to society," then an anencephalic baby, or for that matter any unintelligent thing (including certain technologies) sure as hell can contribute to society. Baby K, as well as other anencephalic babies, have given us a completely new perspective in the bioethics debates. They contribute plenty to their family: they bring them a great deal of joy, even if only for a short period of time. Anencephalic babies contribute a great deal to scientific research and help to broaden our understanding of birth disorders (as well as how to prevent them). To say that these babies "contribute nothing" is clearly incorrect and very much unsupported. In any case, whether or not something "contributes to society" is completely irrelevant. The term is vague and subjective. And, even if we could objectively "rank" the productivity of a certain thing or individual, it would be no grounds for killing individuals. The same could be said about most uses of television, fatty foods, video games, decorative flowers, pets, etc. Hell, one could argue that the resources used on a healthy third or fourth child could have been better spent on other things. See my earlier post for a better analogy. So why even suggest killing a baby that brings so much joy to her mother?

It depends who he kills, really. If a person killed, say, the current Prime Minister, that would be a worry. But if a jobless junkie is killed, well, that's a bit more money the tax-payers get to keep, isn't it? Of course that's undone tenfold by the cost of sending the person to jail.... So it's ok for a jobless junkie to be murdered? Quite frankly, yes. People need to realize that not all lives are equally valuable. Some lives are simply worth more than others and this baby's life is worthless. There's absolutely no way for it to contribute anything to society, so, logically, it should be euthanized. This is absolutely barbaric. Just because a homeless person (or for that matter somebody who lives in a tent in the woods, somebody who is severely disabled, or even just a couch potato) doesn't "contribute to society" in the same way that, say, a doctor or a fireman would doesn't mean we have the right to kill them. This is a horrible, horrible perspective. As I have said before, even children who are severely disabled and do not live a full or healthy life bring a great deal of joy to the parents. Let's take a step back, for a second. I hate to reduce this child to a mere pet, but it seems the best way for you dim-witted barbarians to understand the basics of happiness and life. Say a mother has an animal which she loves dearly, and treats as a child rather than a pet. She is aware that this animal is greatly unintelligent, and will die in a short number of years (yet, even so, she sometimes deludes herself into thinking that the animal is more intelligent than it really is). The animal is sick, and the cost of keeping it alive is steep. Yet, even so, this animal brings her an incredible amount of joy, and she wishes to be with it for as long as she can. Does she have the right to keep the animal alive, even at the cost of her own salary? Yes, of course. Is it her decision to make? Yes, of course. From our third-party perspective, it may seem most rational to just put down the animal, but it's ultimately not our call, nor should we have any say in the matter. An elderly person consumes medical resources. A celebrity consumes media resources. All children consume "their mother's resources." This baby is not "taking" anything significant from us, no more than any other person or even animal would. So long as the parent continues to pay the costs of medical attention, there is no problem here.

It's ultimately the mother's choice. I have worked with children who are blind, deaf, mute, and apparently do not know who they are or what they are doing. Yet the parents are happy with the situation, and nothing brings them greater joy than seeing a smile on their child's face (even if it may only be a reflexive smile). If the parents are coping, I see no reason not to support their decision. Or, for that matter, a loving bond with one's pet... Err... She is alive, and she's doing surprisingly well:

Since you describe it as a sound "in your head," rather than anything like an external stimulus, I bet it's a case of "earworms" rather than musical hallucinations. "Most people experience the phenomenon at some point. Some people, however, experience earworms more often. Among them are musicians (versus non-musicians), women (versus men), and individuals who are prone to worry." From: Earworms Research - Virtual Clinic The site also recommends some things to try in order to get rid of earworms. If it's really bothering you and the headaches persist, take it to a health professional.

Your example doesn't work. A strong acid indeed has more acid-like qualities and is closer to the true potential of what an acid can do than a weaker-acid. I'm not a chemist, so feel free to correct me here. "An acid (from the Latin acidus meaning sour) is traditionally considered any chemical compound that, when dissolved in water, gives a solution with a hydrogen ion activity greater than in pure water, i.e. a pH less than 7.0. [...] Most organic acids are weak acids." From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid "[Many people] are accidentally confusing the specific scientific term "strong acid" with the thought that it means it is a concentrated acid or a corrosive acid. But in fact it means neither of these things. [...] A strong acid is an acid which is fully ionised in solution. [...] There aren't very many strong acids" From: http://www.sky-web.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk ... gacids.htm The "true potential of what an acid can do" is yield hydrogen ions. As both weak and strong acids do this, neither is "more of an acid" than the other. But how about you explain where you are going with this, rather than uselessly nitpicking my analogy?

Would she begin with broad and open-ended statements before narrowing them down after occasional pauses (perhaps to pick up on your body language)? Was it anything like the cold reader in the youtube video I posted? If both answers are a no, then I'd have to say this certainly is an interesting story.

Pretty fascinating, assuming you didn't exaggerate anything. Could it be explained by cold reading? Did she tell you your past right out of the gate, or did she slowly build it up through a series of questions? An adept cold reader can pick up an incredible amount of detail and make it seem convincing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btP_vy5cQq4

And this isn't being anal? :| What exactly are you getting at? Simply because the word "strong" precedes "atheist" does not mean that a strong/positive atheist is "more atheist" than a weak/negative atheist. To use an analogy, a "strong acid" is no more or less of an acid than a "weak acid."

It's simply a less formal alternative to negative/positive atheism. "Strong" connotes a stronger, more fixed belief.

The definition of atheism, in the context of the strong/weak distinctions, is "a lack of belief" (i.e. weak atheism is closer). Had we defined atheism as the belief that no gods exist, we wouldn't be using the strong/weak distinctions. I personally prefer this definition of atheism -- it see no reason to label a baby as atheist -- but it seems less popular in online debates. Exactly... :P Drugs and alcohol take their toll.

Imitation of Life (1959) is one of the saddest films I've seen in a long time. A small clip wouldn't do it justice...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UV_mapping Essentially, it's a matter of lying all of the faces of a 3D model onto a flat, 2D surface (so that they can be painted on). In Max, this mostly consists of unwrapping and adjusting certain faces in order to lie them out in a nice and clean fashion, making the most of the space you have while still ensuring that the textures will look proportionate and seamless. I think I've got the hang of it now, though, so hopefully the torso will go by faster. :lol: