yesterday i watched hb230 signed into law
this bill elminates the term mental retardation
for many years we been trying to get this term elinated and so
it has happend on the state level now
hb 230 signed into law
hb 230 signed into law
thomas40;1359246 wrote: yesterday i watched hb230 signed into law
this bill elminates the term mental retardation
for many years we been trying to get this term elinated and so
it has happend on the state level now
What is the preferred term now?
this bill elminates the term mental retardation
for many years we been trying to get this term elinated and so
it has happend on the state level now
What is the preferred term now?
-
along-for-the-ride
- Posts: 11732
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:28 pm
hb 230 signed into law
When is a label on a human being universally accepted?
Label Falls Short for Those with Mental Retardation : NPR
Label Falls Short for Those with Mental Retardation : NPR
Life is a Highway. Let's share the Commute.
hb 230 signed into law
It's an odd situation.
If you wanted to refer to the group of people whose reading developed later than average, whose writing developed later than average, whose number skills developed later than average, there was a perfectly good word in the English language to say their development was slower than average, that it was held back. The word was retarded. That's what retarded means in English.
The trouble is that the group of people for whom the description is appropriate get laughed at for slowness, bullied for slowness and name-called. Question: Why's he so slow? Answer: He's always been retarded. The description ended up being a label. So, since we don't label people, we ban the term.
So now, if you want to refer to the group of people? The group of people simply don't want to be identified at all. They'd prefer not to have their slowness at developing reading or writing or numerical or other skills associated with them in any fashion. On the other hand, if they're to have any services made available to them, there has to be a group into which they can be assigned in order to validate them for the service provision. It's a dilemma for these people. Do they want to set aside service provision? I doubt it. If they do then fine, if they don't they need to accept some sort of category into which they're prepared to place themselves. It used to be retarded. Nobody's prepared to offer an improvement on retarded because the moment they do, the new term will be the one used by the mockers.
My own opinion is that they should have stuck with what worked. What worked was plain English. Retarded is bang on plain English and means exactly what it says.
If you wanted to refer to the group of people whose reading developed later than average, whose writing developed later than average, whose number skills developed later than average, there was a perfectly good word in the English language to say their development was slower than average, that it was held back. The word was retarded. That's what retarded means in English.
The trouble is that the group of people for whom the description is appropriate get laughed at for slowness, bullied for slowness and name-called. Question: Why's he so slow? Answer: He's always been retarded. The description ended up being a label. So, since we don't label people, we ban the term.
So now, if you want to refer to the group of people? The group of people simply don't want to be identified at all. They'd prefer not to have their slowness at developing reading or writing or numerical or other skills associated with them in any fashion. On the other hand, if they're to have any services made available to them, there has to be a group into which they can be assigned in order to validate them for the service provision. It's a dilemma for these people. Do they want to set aside service provision? I doubt it. If they do then fine, if they don't they need to accept some sort of category into which they're prepared to place themselves. It used to be retarded. Nobody's prepared to offer an improvement on retarded because the moment they do, the new term will be the one used by the mockers.
My own opinion is that they should have stuck with what worked. What worked was plain English. Retarded is bang on plain English and means exactly what it says.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
hb 230 signed into law
I have first hand information on "retarded". Couldn't it be called "developmentally disabled." My uncle was just such a person. He passed away at the age of 83. The doctors said very rarely does a person with this condition live beyond 35. The reason was because he was so well cared for and loved by the family. Where we went he went. He couldn't talk because of a condition of the tongue. He was very slow, but could run like lightening. He most always got what he wanted. he liked farm implements, so that is what he got. He could put on his clothes and shoes, he only wore overalls and was put to rest in overalls.===People especially the young stared and gazed, but as disabilities became more prevelent the looking let up. These special people bring such joy and one really learns and puts a greater definition on
THE POWER OF LOVE.
THE POWER OF LOVE.
hb 230 signed into law
Ask a teacher. I think you'll find that if you describe a pupil as disabled in anyone's hearing you'll get a written warning if you're lucky. If you're unlucky you'll be suspended.
What's this fad of thinking you remove the sting by adding a qualifier? "Developmentally" disabled? "Mentally" retarded? "Intellectually" crippled? What does "Developmentally" or "Mentally" or "Intellectually" add to these categories? If just means that when you actually want to describe "Physically retarded" you have a fourth category to allocate resources to. How about just having a single category for all State Assistance programs and call the recipients Similars. They're not the same but they're not different either, and heaven forbid we think of them as challenged in any sense. But State Assistance would be a valuable remediation tool.
Before anyone has a go, "crippled" is about the only word of all of them that's still used in polite society. My mother was crippled by arthritis, for example. If we eliminate that we'll lose "martyr" next and when's the last time anyone was permitted the use of "leper" outside of a discussion on Albert Schweitzer?
What's this fad of thinking you remove the sting by adding a qualifier? "Developmentally" disabled? "Mentally" retarded? "Intellectually" crippled? What does "Developmentally" or "Mentally" or "Intellectually" add to these categories? If just means that when you actually want to describe "Physically retarded" you have a fourth category to allocate resources to. How about just having a single category for all State Assistance programs and call the recipients Similars. They're not the same but they're not different either, and heaven forbid we think of them as challenged in any sense. But State Assistance would be a valuable remediation tool.
Before anyone has a go, "crippled" is about the only word of all of them that's still used in polite society. My mother was crippled by arthritis, for example. If we eliminate that we'll lose "martyr" next and when's the last time anyone was permitted the use of "leper" outside of a discussion on Albert Schweitzer?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
hb 230 signed into law
spot;1359258 wrote: It's an odd situation.
If you wanted to refer to the group of people whose reading developed later than average, whose writing developed later than average, whose number skills developed later than average, there was a perfectly good word in the English language to say their development was slower than average, that it was held back. The word was retarded. That's what retarded means in English.
The trouble is that the group of people for whom the description is appropriate get laughed at for slowness, bullied for slowness and name-called. Question: Why's he so slow? Answer: He's always been retarded. The description ended up being a label. So, since we don't label people, we ban the term.
So now, if you want to refer to the group of people? The group of people simply don't want to be identified at all. They'd prefer not to have their slowness at developing reading or writing or numerical or other skills associated with them in any fashion. On the other hand, if they're to have any services made available to them, there has to be a group into which they can be assigned in order to validate them for the service provision. It's a dilemma for these people. Do they want to set aside service provision? I doubt it. If they do then fine, if they don't they need to accept some sort of category into which they're prepared to place themselves. It used to be retarded. Nobody's prepared to offer an improvement on retarded because the moment they do, the new term will be the one used by the mockers.
My own opinion is that they should have stuck with what worked. What worked was plain English. Retarded is bang on plain English and means exactly what it says.People do have a tendency to connotate. Do you suggest that can be overcome somehow?
If you wanted to refer to the group of people whose reading developed later than average, whose writing developed later than average, whose number skills developed later than average, there was a perfectly good word in the English language to say their development was slower than average, that it was held back. The word was retarded. That's what retarded means in English.
The trouble is that the group of people for whom the description is appropriate get laughed at for slowness, bullied for slowness and name-called. Question: Why's he so slow? Answer: He's always been retarded. The description ended up being a label. So, since we don't label people, we ban the term.
So now, if you want to refer to the group of people? The group of people simply don't want to be identified at all. They'd prefer not to have their slowness at developing reading or writing or numerical or other skills associated with them in any fashion. On the other hand, if they're to have any services made available to them, there has to be a group into which they can be assigned in order to validate them for the service provision. It's a dilemma for these people. Do they want to set aside service provision? I doubt it. If they do then fine, if they don't they need to accept some sort of category into which they're prepared to place themselves. It used to be retarded. Nobody's prepared to offer an improvement on retarded because the moment they do, the new term will be the one used by the mockers.
My own opinion is that they should have stuck with what worked. What worked was plain English. Retarded is bang on plain English and means exactly what it says.People do have a tendency to connotate. Do you suggest that can be overcome somehow?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
hb 230 signed into law
7 LONG TITLE
8 General Description:
9 To the extent possible, this bill replaces outdated terms relating to persons with a
10 disability with updated terms.
11 Highlighted Provisions::rolleyes:
12 This bill:
13 . defines terms;
14 . except where impracticable due to language used in federal law, uniform law,
15 interstate compacts, or case law, replaces terms as follows:
16 . replaces the term "mental retardation," and its variations, with "intellectual
17 disability";
18 . replaces the term "crippled," with "disability";
19 . replaces the term "disabled person," and similar references, with the term
20 "person with a disability" or similar variations;
21 . replaces the term "mentally ill person" and similar references, with the term
22 "person with a mental illness" or similar variations;
23 . replaces the term "paraplegic" and similar references, with the term "person with
24 paraplegia" or similar variations;
25 . replaces the term "guilty and mentally ill," with the term "guilty with a mental
26 illness";
27 . replaces the term "guilty of a lesser offense and mentally ill," with the term
28 "guilty of a lesser offense with a mental illness"; and
29 . makes technical changes.
Times change and the terms used for groups/similars change with them. I can't remember other instances where we passed a law to do it, however. Are they out there?
I would think perhaps in census bills - maybe?
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
hb 230 signed into law
flopstock;1359285 wrote: Times change and the terms used for groups/similars change with them. I can't remember other instances where we passed a law to do it, however. Are they out there?
I would think perhaps in census bills - maybe?
It's a government law to change future government-speak, it doesn't criminalize use of those expressions outside of government. You'd think they could have sent a memo instead. Why do they need to legislate on their own future conduct? It makes no sense whatever to do so, it's feel-good propaganda. If they want their past acts changing then all they need do is get on with it and change them.
Besides, I don't like the structure of government-speak. We'll have Persons with Spasticity next.
I would think perhaps in census bills - maybe?
It's a government law to change future government-speak, it doesn't criminalize use of those expressions outside of government. You'd think they could have sent a memo instead. Why do they need to legislate on their own future conduct? It makes no sense whatever to do so, it's feel-good propaganda. If they want their past acts changing then all they need do is get on with it and change them.
Besides, I don't like the structure of government-speak. We'll have Persons with Spasticity next.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
hb 230 signed into law
Ahso!;1359281 wrote: People do have a tendency to connotate. Do you suggest that can be overcome somehow?It's a component of the language. Who's Mick Jagger? He's a singer. Keith Moon? A dead drummer. Bill Gates is a multi-billionaire, Walt Disney and Henry Ford are dead anti-Semites.
Now, what's the option? Scrap that format of expression, excise "er"-ending words from the dictionary? Mick Jagger is a person who sings. Keith Moon's a person who drummed while alive. Bill Gates is a person of mega-wealth, Walt Disney and Henry Ford hated Judaism?
Which way would you like us to go?
What's the connotation of drummer? It brings a picture to mind, it's great shorthand, it's effective. Is it disrespectful? Well yes, actually, go and check all the drummer jokes. Keith Moon was a person who percussed? True, but I think it's lousy grammar.
Now, what's the option? Scrap that format of expression, excise "er"-ending words from the dictionary? Mick Jagger is a person who sings. Keith Moon's a person who drummed while alive. Bill Gates is a person of mega-wealth, Walt Disney and Henry Ford hated Judaism?
Which way would you like us to go?
What's the connotation of drummer? It brings a picture to mind, it's great shorthand, it's effective. Is it disrespectful? Well yes, actually, go and check all the drummer jokes. Keith Moon was a person who percussed? True, but I think it's lousy grammar.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
hb 230 signed into law
spot;1359292 wrote: It's a component of the language. Who's Mick Jagger? He's a singer. Keith Moon? A dead drummer. Bill Gates is a multi-billionaire, Walt Disney and Henry Ford are dead anti-Semites.
Now, what's the option? Scrap that format of expression, excise "er"-ending words from the dictionary? Mick Jagger is a person who sings. Keith Moon's a person who drummed while alive. Bill Gates is a person of mega-wealth, Walt Disney and Henry Ford hated Judaism?
Which way would you like us to go?
What's the connotation of drummer? It brings a picture to mind, it's great shorthand, it's effective. Is it disrespectful? Well yes, actually, go and check all the drummer jokes. Keith Moon was a person who percussed? True, but I think it's lousy grammar.
Thats ret, ooops.
Now, what's the option? Scrap that format of expression, excise "er"-ending words from the dictionary? Mick Jagger is a person who sings. Keith Moon's a person who drummed while alive. Bill Gates is a person of mega-wealth, Walt Disney and Henry Ford hated Judaism?
Which way would you like us to go?
What's the connotation of drummer? It brings a picture to mind, it's great shorthand, it's effective. Is it disrespectful? Well yes, actually, go and check all the drummer jokes. Keith Moon was a person who percussed? True, but I think it's lousy grammar.
Thats ret, ooops.
hb 230 signed into law
spot;1359292 wrote: It's a component of the language. Who's Mick Jagger? He's a singer. Keith Moon? A dead drummer. Bill Gates is a multi-billionaire, Walt Disney and Henry Ford are dead anti-Semites.
Now, what's the option? Scrap that format of expression, excise "er"-ending words from the dictionary? Mick Jagger is a person who sings. Keith Moon's a person who drummed while alive. Bill Gates is a person of mega-wealth, Walt Disney and Henry Ford hated Judaism?
Which way would you like us to go?
What's the connotation of drummer? It brings a picture to mind, it's great shorthand, it's effective. Is it disrespectful? Well yes, actually, go and check all the drummer jokes. Keith Moon was a person who percussed? True, but I think it's lousy grammar.I see your point. Thanks
Now, what's the option? Scrap that format of expression, excise "er"-ending words from the dictionary? Mick Jagger is a person who sings. Keith Moon's a person who drummed while alive. Bill Gates is a person of mega-wealth, Walt Disney and Henry Ford hated Judaism?
Which way would you like us to go?
What's the connotation of drummer? It brings a picture to mind, it's great shorthand, it's effective. Is it disrespectful? Well yes, actually, go and check all the drummer jokes. Keith Moon was a person who percussed? True, but I think it's lousy grammar.I see your point. Thanks
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
hb 230 signed into law
Ahso!;1359299 wrote: I see your point. Thanks
Since people have forgotten what the words even mean, here's a primer.
Retarded: held back from reaching an attainment in some measurable area of performance as quickly as average owing to an innate fetal developmental condition. The speed of each attainment is slowed, or retarded. The slower the progress, the lower the plateau at which performance balances the effort to stay that good.
Disabled: held back from average attainment in some measurable area of performance owing to a life event. Emphysema and arthritis are disabling. Losing an arm to a chainsaw is disabling. The person started out able and at some point an event dis-abled them in that sphere. The person may, of course, compensate for the disability. It may enable him to achieve in ways he would previously not have had the opportunity to qualify. Track racing in the Olympics on springy flippers springs to mind.
The odd one in the middle is spasticity, a consequence (as best I understand it) of oxygen starvation to the brain during birth. I'd be interested to hear if that's wrong.
Society is quite good at self-censoring offensive language. Nobody's described as abnormal or unnatural for example.
All the subcategories can stem quite easily from those three terms, I suggest they're invaluable and they shouldn't be forced out of use, official or conversational.
As for grammar, "A person with retardation", "a person of handicap" or "a person with disablement" just won't cut the mustard. We know they're persons. That's a given. It doesn't need to appear in every sentence referring to them. Eliminating all applicable words except one, like "handicap", is an Orwellian attempt to remove the ability to discuss distinctions. I don't believe that's helpful.
Since people have forgotten what the words even mean, here's a primer.
Retarded: held back from reaching an attainment in some measurable area of performance as quickly as average owing to an innate fetal developmental condition. The speed of each attainment is slowed, or retarded. The slower the progress, the lower the plateau at which performance balances the effort to stay that good.
Disabled: held back from average attainment in some measurable area of performance owing to a life event. Emphysema and arthritis are disabling. Losing an arm to a chainsaw is disabling. The person started out able and at some point an event dis-abled them in that sphere. The person may, of course, compensate for the disability. It may enable him to achieve in ways he would previously not have had the opportunity to qualify. Track racing in the Olympics on springy flippers springs to mind.
The odd one in the middle is spasticity, a consequence (as best I understand it) of oxygen starvation to the brain during birth. I'd be interested to hear if that's wrong.
Society is quite good at self-censoring offensive language. Nobody's described as abnormal or unnatural for example.
All the subcategories can stem quite easily from those three terms, I suggest they're invaluable and they shouldn't be forced out of use, official or conversational.
As for grammar, "A person with retardation", "a person of handicap" or "a person with disablement" just won't cut the mustard. We know they're persons. That's a given. It doesn't need to appear in every sentence referring to them. Eliminating all applicable words except one, like "handicap", is an Orwellian attempt to remove the ability to discuss distinctions. I don't believe that's helpful.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
hb 230 signed into law
spot;1359261 wrote: Ask a teacher. I think you'll find that if you describe a pupil as disabled in anyone's hearing you'll get a written warning if you're lucky. If you're unlucky you'll be suspended.
What's this fad of thinking you remove the sting by adding a qualifier? "Developmentally" disabled? "Mentally" retarded? "Intellectually" crippled? What does "Developmentally" or "Mentally" or "Intellectually" add to these categories? If just means that when you actually want to describe "Physically retarded" you have a fourth category to allocate resources to. How about just having a single category for all State Assistance programs and call the recipients Similars. They're not the same but they're not different either, and heaven forbid we think of them as challenged in any sense. But State Assistance would be a valuable remediation tool.
Before anyone has a go, "crippled" is about the only word of all of them that's still used in polite society. My mother was crippled by arthritis, for example. If we eliminate that we'll lose "martyr" next and when's the last time anyone was permitted the use of "leper" outside of a discussion on Albert Schweitzer?
I see what You are getting at LABELING. I do not agree with that, either. People are just people. Whether they have three arms and six hands, they are just still people. However, when one ask for assistance with that person. A definition of the type of disability has to be given . Now if you say "crippled"; the definition of that word, means one who is lame of maimed--deprived of the use of a limb. Next, the assistance program is going to ask how is he crippled?-----There will need to be a UNIVERSAL word. Everyone will then know what category this individual. And there are categories, just as there are black and white, Mexican and Chinese, Japanese or Korean, and the list goes on.
What's this fad of thinking you remove the sting by adding a qualifier? "Developmentally" disabled? "Mentally" retarded? "Intellectually" crippled? What does "Developmentally" or "Mentally" or "Intellectually" add to these categories? If just means that when you actually want to describe "Physically retarded" you have a fourth category to allocate resources to. How about just having a single category for all State Assistance programs and call the recipients Similars. They're not the same but they're not different either, and heaven forbid we think of them as challenged in any sense. But State Assistance would be a valuable remediation tool.
Before anyone has a go, "crippled" is about the only word of all of them that's still used in polite society. My mother was crippled by arthritis, for example. If we eliminate that we'll lose "martyr" next and when's the last time anyone was permitted the use of "leper" outside of a discussion on Albert Schweitzer?
I see what You are getting at LABELING. I do not agree with that, either. People are just people. Whether they have three arms and six hands, they are just still people. However, when one ask for assistance with that person. A definition of the type of disability has to be given . Now if you say "crippled"; the definition of that word, means one who is lame of maimed--deprived of the use of a limb. Next, the assistance program is going to ask how is he crippled?-----There will need to be a UNIVERSAL word. Everyone will then know what category this individual. And there are categories, just as there are black and white, Mexican and Chinese, Japanese or Korean, and the list goes on.
hb 230 signed into law
Loyal;1359303 wrote: I see what You are getting at LABELING. I do not agree with that, either. People are just people. Whether they have three arms and six hands, they are just still people. However, when one ask for assistance with that person. A definition of the type of disability has to be given . Now if you say "crippled"; the definition of that word, means one who is lame of maimed--deprived of the use of a limb. Next, the assistance program is going to ask how is he crippled?-----There will need to be a UNIVERSAL word. Everyone will then know what category this individual. And there are categories, just as there are black and white, Mexican and Chinese, Japanese or Korean, and the list goes on.
Does this imply that the social services should take up the categorisation of disability used in the paralympics so that they know exactly the type and level of a person's problems?
Does this imply that the social services should take up the categorisation of disability used in the paralympics so that they know exactly the type and level of a person's problems?
hb 230 signed into law
The term is a person with a disability. In the US, the law which guarantees the rights of the person is the "Americans With Disabilities Act". I'm sure that it is easy to see the difference in focus between calling someone by a label and referring to them as a person who happens to have a disability. When someone has a pacemaker implanted to regulate their heartbeat, no one calls them a "pacemaker guy" or other such label. They are a person who has a medical condition.
Everywhere I go, my service dog goes with me (and I mean everywhere). Most people recognize the vest and don't give me any hassles at the presence of my dog. Someone can ask to see my dog's identification card (yes, it's a picture ID), but only in a few very limited circumstances can they deny access. The law is quite specific.
Everywhere I go, my service dog goes with me (and I mean everywhere). Most people recognize the vest and don't give me any hassles at the presence of my dog. Someone can ask to see my dog's identification card (yes, it's a picture ID), but only in a few very limited circumstances can they deny access. The law is quite specific.
hb 230 signed into law
What am I, a poster or a person who posts? Is Chonsi a person who moderates or a moderator?
Does the label Administrator or Moderator or Poster or Cook still have a future? If labels are still allowed then maybe we're pushing our terminology for the handicapped in entirely the wrong direction, maybe we should be just capitalizing their designation.
Does the label Administrator or Moderator or Poster or Cook still have a future? If labels are still allowed then maybe we're pushing our terminology for the handicapped in entirely the wrong direction, maybe we should be just capitalizing their designation.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
hb 230 signed into law
I understand your point, spot. The difference is that your examples describe something someone chooses to do, some of the time. I voted for a politician who supported equal rights. Does that make me a liberal? I also voted for a politician who wanted a balanced budget. Does that make me a conservative? To some, the attachment of a label means that they can disregard my thoughts on a topic. So far today I have been a sleeper, a driver, a cook, a programmer, a bird watcher, and a tourist. None of those labels describe or define who I am, only what I happened to be doing at the moment. My health insurance company defines me by a series of numerical diagnostic codes, but that isn't who I am.
Most labels that describe what someone does, or their profession, are commonly understood as such. Other labels attempt to describe who someone is, and as such fail. Such labels tend to be pejorative. When doctors or education professionals are discussing a patient with each other, they may use diagnostic codes or technical terms for those codes or attributes. They also see the person.
But, I see your point, so you may call me confused.
Most labels that describe what someone does, or their profession, are commonly understood as such. Other labels attempt to describe who someone is, and as such fail. Such labels tend to be pejorative. When doctors or education professionals are discussing a patient with each other, they may use diagnostic codes or technical terms for those codes or attributes. They also see the person.
But, I see your point, so you may call me confused.
hb 230 signed into law
There's a defensiveness on the part of those who perhaps fear they're seen as nothing but the label. Maybe the fear's unjustified.
A graduate doesn't fear being called a graduate. Yes there's never a minute when it's not applicable as an accurate description but he wears it loosely, doesn't bring it into conversation himself and might feel it's bad form if someone refers to him as "that graduate over there". The same would apply to an ex-convict. Very few people would associate either person primarily with university or with jail.
So why this labelling fetish from people with handicaps? What's wrong with shrugging it off and, if one does happen to meet a person who goes round introducing Jim as "this is Jim, he's handicapped" outside of golfing circles then one can just consider him a boor. Why on earth should someone else thinking incorrectly be a concern at all?
A graduate doesn't fear being called a graduate. Yes there's never a minute when it's not applicable as an accurate description but he wears it loosely, doesn't bring it into conversation himself and might feel it's bad form if someone refers to him as "that graduate over there". The same would apply to an ex-convict. Very few people would associate either person primarily with university or with jail.
So why this labelling fetish from people with handicaps? What's wrong with shrugging it off and, if one does happen to meet a person who goes round introducing Jim as "this is Jim, he's handicapped" outside of golfing circles then one can just consider him a boor. Why on earth should someone else thinking incorrectly be a concern at all?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
hb 230 signed into law
So when you got your dog, did yor tell them you had a medical condition, or did they require more spicifics? Did that put you in a catagory? Yes, you were a person with a disability, I'll bet they wanted to know what kind.
hb 230 signed into law
Loyal;1359345 wrote: So when you got your dog, did yor tell them you had a medical condition, or did they require more spicifics? Did that put you in a catagory? Yes, you were a person with a disability, I'll bet they wanted to know what kind.
Forms, letters from my doctors, evaluations, diagnostic codes, second and third opinions, etc.
Forms, letters from my doctors, evaluations, diagnostic codes, second and third opinions, etc.
hb 230 signed into law
letters from doctors, 2nd and 3rd oponions. What were they about? a broken leg , were you minus some limbs, could you not speek? You had to be put in a catagory in order to be approved for your dog. Now what was that catagory? was it legally blind, or maybe blind all together
hb 230 signed into law
Loyal;1359390 wrote: letters from doctors, 2nd and 3rd oponions. What were they about? a broken leg , were you minus some limbs, could you not speek? You had to be put in a catagory in order to be approved for your dog. Now what was that catagory? was it legally blind, or maybe blind all together
All of those hoops were to satisfy the organization that trains and certifies the dogs. Then there was the cost of the dog, which was not inconsequential. One of the interesting items in the Americans With Disabilities Act is that when I walk in with my dog, the owner of a restaurant, hotel, etc. is allowed to ask for my ID and my dog's, but is not allowed to ask me what my disability is.
Other than my ever present cane, my particular disability is not visible to most.
All of those hoops were to satisfy the organization that trains and certifies the dogs. Then there was the cost of the dog, which was not inconsequential. One of the interesting items in the Americans With Disabilities Act is that when I walk in with my dog, the owner of a restaurant, hotel, etc. is allowed to ask for my ID and my dog's, but is not allowed to ask me what my disability is.
Other than my ever present cane, my particular disability is not visible to most.
hb 230 signed into law
I didn't think anyone used the term "retarded" anymore to refer to people with real disabilities. I don't think it's been seriously used in that sense for maybe 10 or 20 years. It now is more of a synonym with 'dillweed' or 'nimrod' (now, thanks to the national council of fifth graders). It's generally only used now to refer to able-minded people who do things they should know better not to do. So it does make sense to officially stop using the term in a medical/legal sense.
hb 230 signed into law
You can be sure the insults will follow wherever the preferred terminology leads. That's just so public. Eww, is he a person or what. It takes a year to go from teenage insult to non-PC, regardless of how acceptable it was to start with. The official terminology in the textbooks when I was a lad included Mongoloid and spastic, after all, and I'm not even going to go near the question of race.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
hb 230 signed into law
The problem is essentially in trying to think of a polite way to call someone "permanently dumb." On one hand, there's a good argument that we don't need such a classification, but there are financial and legal benefits for such a classification. it will keep you from getting electrocuted if you kill someone.
The term "disabled" and "disability" have actually held up fairly well against the trend of becoming casual insults. Possibly because it implies a medical condition. Maybe it suggests to a person, for example, I'm only one car wreck away from being disabled. As long as the term does not set up a psychology of "us and them" it might be workable long term
The term "disabled" and "disability" have actually held up fairly well against the trend of becoming casual insults. Possibly because it implies a medical condition. Maybe it suggests to a person, for example, I'm only one car wreck away from being disabled. As long as the term does not set up a psychology of "us and them" it might be workable long term
hb 230 signed into law
The illogic rankles when it's applied to someone born with a pre-existent condition though, who was never able in the first place.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
hb 230 signed into law
yaaarrrgg;1359435 wrote: The problem is essentially in trying to think of a polite way to call someone "permanently dumb." On one hand, there's a good argument that we don't need such a classification, but there are financial and legal benefits for such a classification. it will keep you from getting electrocuted if you kill someone.
The term "disabled" and "disability" have actually held up fairly well against the trend of becoming casual insults. Possibly because it implies a medical condition. Maybe it suggests to a person, for example, I'm only one car wreck away from being disabled. As long as the term does not set up a psychology of "us and them" it might be workable long term
Permantly dumb... I see another law down the road..
The term "disabled" and "disability" have actually held up fairly well against the trend of becoming casual insults. Possibly because it implies a medical condition. Maybe it suggests to a person, for example, I'm only one car wreck away from being disabled. As long as the term does not set up a psychology of "us and them" it might be workable long term
Permantly dumb... I see another law down the road..
hb 230 signed into law
I see no problem using common expressions for those who are intellectually and emotionally able to shrug it off. For me, the problem lies with labels for those who cannot understand or deal with the insult.