WHat happens to the mentally challenged after grade school?
- Thread starter Thebestchefever
- Start date
stunning in its stupidity isn't it?
yeah so stunning i could almost laugh!!!
Speaking as someone who has to deal with getting killed by zombies every day, I think it's tragic.
And no, the similie isn't appropriate. But it's so over the top that the seriousness that followed it is....cute.
Speaking as someone who has to deal with getting killed by zombies every day, I think it's tragic.
And no, the similie isn't appropriate. But it's so over the top that the seriousness that followed it is....cute.
you really do need to stand in someone elses shoes for a few days and then see if its all cute and dandy!!
also ZOMBIES not real, disabled children very much real
Thebestchefever
Registered Member
Yeah, umm, guys i was kidding but thats cool too.
Edit: I was having trouble posting, and part of my post got cut off...does that happen often??
Edit: I was having trouble posting, and part of my post got cut off...does that happen often??
Mod Hat - Inquiry &c.
Mod Hat - Inquiry &c.
So is this one done?
I do have one question, though, and I'll ask because it's easier than going through each page of this topic and looking for the proverbial needle in the haystack: Did anyone do any research for this discussion?
I have a Down's Syndrome cousin. She's a year younger than I am, lives with her mother, and has worked various jobs from sweeping floors to ... well, hell, I don't remember. I haven't been as close with my Dad's side of the family over the years. (I saw this cousin at my aunt's birthday party earlier this year, and it might have been about the fourth time I've seen that side of the family in fifteen years.)
The larger point, though, is that there are any number of organizations out there to assist these people. Some are fairly large organizations, others are small and local.
The list goes on and on. Go to Google--remember that thing?--and enter the disability or disorder you wonder about. You can use other terms in the search, too, like "autism employment", or "down's syndrome jobs". It's a great starting point.
And it's not that we shouldn't post our questions at Sciforums, but the majority of this topic seems to aim it toward the Cesspool. When so much of a topic is dedicated to humor and superstition, it only affirms that we are superstitious and, if we're lucky, humorous.
It's generally not difficult to find the answers we seek, or at least a starting point. Most of the links listed above require additional clicks to get to any useful information. And I realize that's a lot to ask of folks around here.
But ... the question at hand: Is this one over? Is it done? Stick a fork in it? Pack it up and send it? Or do we need to embarrassingly fail to be funny some more?
Remember, folks. The phrase "Intelligent Community" did not disappear from the Sciforums standard by accident. Its disappearance was not an invitation. Rather, there's not much point to that kind of false advertising. Right now it looks like a "Frightened Community" where people are afraid to be honest, compassionate, or intelligent. And there's nothing more "intelligent", is there, than giving over to the bullies, trolls, and other semiliterate saboteurs who would sooner destroy a community than muster good faith and take part?
What do you want to say today? And should anyone else really pretend it's intelligent?
Mod Hat - Inquiry &c.
So is this one done?
I do have one question, though, and I'll ask because it's easier than going through each page of this topic and looking for the proverbial needle in the haystack: Did anyone do any research for this discussion?
I have a Down's Syndrome cousin. She's a year younger than I am, lives with her mother, and has worked various jobs from sweeping floors to ... well, hell, I don't remember. I haven't been as close with my Dad's side of the family over the years. (I saw this cousin at my aunt's birthday party earlier this year, and it might have been about the fourth time I've seen that side of the family in fifteen years.)
The larger point, though, is that there are any number of organizations out there to assist these people. Some are fairly large organizations, others are small and local.
• ARC: The Association of Retarded Citizens
• Vadis
• DirectGov (UK) - "Disabled People"
• Down's Syndrome Association (UK}
• NeuroDiversity.com - "Autism & Employment"
• WomensHealth.gov - "Down's Syndrome"
• Vadis
• DirectGov (UK) - "Disabled People"
• Down's Syndrome Association (UK}
• NeuroDiversity.com - "Autism & Employment"
• WomensHealth.gov - "Down's Syndrome"
The list goes on and on. Go to Google--remember that thing?--and enter the disability or disorder you wonder about. You can use other terms in the search, too, like "autism employment", or "down's syndrome jobs". It's a great starting point.
And it's not that we shouldn't post our questions at Sciforums, but the majority of this topic seems to aim it toward the Cesspool. When so much of a topic is dedicated to humor and superstition, it only affirms that we are superstitious and, if we're lucky, humorous.
It's generally not difficult to find the answers we seek, or at least a starting point. Most of the links listed above require additional clicks to get to any useful information. And I realize that's a lot to ask of folks around here.
But ... the question at hand: Is this one over? Is it done? Stick a fork in it? Pack it up and send it? Or do we need to embarrassingly fail to be funny some more?
Remember, folks. The phrase "Intelligent Community" did not disappear from the Sciforums standard by accident. Its disappearance was not an invitation. Rather, there's not much point to that kind of false advertising. Right now it looks like a "Frightened Community" where people are afraid to be honest, compassionate, or intelligent. And there's nothing more "intelligent", is there, than giving over to the bullies, trolls, and other semiliterate saboteurs who would sooner destroy a community than muster good faith and take part?
What do you want to say today? And should anyone else really pretend it's intelligent?
Thebestchefever
Registered Member
All due respect, I like to hear what other people have to say. I mean I've been a member here for a while (I had to make a new login because i lost my old password) and I was always under the impression that sciforums was here so people could discuss and present ideas that were important to them. Sure you can look anything up on google but that will give you the straight out truth.
On Google you cant find out about people who are in Lucifer's Angel's Position. It is interesting (at least to me) what they have to say and the different stories they have to share. And if something comes up criticizing what other people have to say, you accept it, in good humor and move on. Because even for all the humor and bigotry there are still good ideas presented in this topic.
If discussing ideas and formulating opinions is not allowed on sciforums then i will take my discussions else where. Sadly no other forum has such a diverse amount of intelligent people as this one does, but that doesn't mean i won't try.
Why pack it in? As long as people are posting according the "LAWS OF SCIFORUMS", then there's no reason for the POLICE to stop the discussions, is there?
Or do you have a tazer handy there??
How does it feel being a cop, Tiassa?
Baron Max
Mod Hat - Response
I don't protest that at all. Turns out that most people have crap to say. Nor is there any specific problem with that.
Did you lose your original email, as well? I only ask because Plazma Inferno could probably help you with your original user identification.
Indeed. And that's still the case. However, I'm looking for a reason that this discussion should continue where it is, as opposed to, say, the Cesspool.
Indeed. A certain amount of what you ask in the topic post can be answered through Google. All I wish to point out by that is that we often ask questions around here when it would be easier to get the answer from Google. Do other countries have speed limits? Well, I would imagine so. And I could probably look it up with less headache than a Sciforums discussion would bring.
Life is performance art, so people will always have their reasons for asking what color the sky is instead of looking out the window to find out. In considering your next point, however, we'll explore one of the problems with leaving it simply at that.
I agree, although you can, indeed, find such stories through Google. Also like Google, though, you have to pick through the majority of the result (e.g. the responses to the topic post) that are absolute shite. And that's the thing. People expect their freedom of speech to entitle them to render anyone else's communication useless. The first nineteen responses to your topic post are mostly jokes. There's the usual misanthropy, also, from the guy who thinks it's his holy mission to render discussions useless. But among the appropriate responses, it takes a while to get to the first post that actually fulfills your point noted above (e.g. post #15, Spidergoat).
The thing is that most of what you're going to get is insincere. Our membership displays a nearly exaggerated fear of everyone else. The best most can do are jokes and bullshit, and this is, to a certain degree, understandable.
Sometimes when I post polls, I'll include an "undecided" vote with some sort of silly parenthetic note like, "(I want to vote, but am afraid to take a side)". I do this largely in tribute to the fact that people actually used to complain about not being given option #3 on a flip-a-coin question.
The members are not, at present, obliged to conduct themselves in good faith. We have a number around here who will not. Presuming "good humor" on all parts is unwise and unfair. Some do, in fact, set out with the express purpose of hurting other people's feelings, and that's not good humor.
Oh, boo-hoo! For fuck's sake, quit your petulant, bratty whining and grow a pair!
(Now then: Part of me does actually want to be that dismissive, but the truth is that you make a point.)
It would be more fair to say that you're taking this too personally. I'm not complaining about the topic question itself. Rather, for all the energy people devoted to this topic, which nearly broke to a riot, I find it strange that none of that passion is specific to the topic.
Sciforums is only what its members choose to make it. One of the reasons we're not banning the people we should be is that the membership would prefer we don't. And so that standard affects the threshold of who should be banned and what should be permitted.
Consider this: Discussing ideas and formulating opinions is already not allowed at Sciforums. After all, your topic post has generated more anemic humor, malicious distractions, and hurt feelings than anything else. And no, I don't blame you for posting the topic. Rather, I blame the participants who could offer no better than cheap jokes or vicious spite; it's a hideous cycle that squelches sincere discussion.
So try all you like, or take it elsewhere if you decide that suits better. As a moderator of EM&J, though, what would you like me to think? I'm happy to let this discussion continue, so perhaps you should reconsider your criteria for allowing discussion and opinions. However, there's not much in this topic that considers the ethical, moral, or judicial aspects involved; the general tone of the discussion tends toward the barbaric. The only real connection the topic has to EM&J right now is that it is unethical, even immoral, for me to allow it to continue to waste space in this forum. Really, it's been a week since this discussion had any direction whatsoever. If people would like to continue slinging histrionic self-righteousness like it's the World Dodgeball Round-Robin, that's fine with me.
But the tournament will be moved to a more appropriate facility.
Thebestchefever said:
I don't protest that at all. Turns out that most people have crap to say. Nor is there any specific problem with that.
Did you lose your original email, as well? I only ask because Plazma Inferno could probably help you with your original user identification.
Indeed. And that's still the case. However, I'm looking for a reason that this discussion should continue where it is, as opposed to, say, the Cesspool.
Indeed. A certain amount of what you ask in the topic post can be answered through Google. All I wish to point out by that is that we often ask questions around here when it would be easier to get the answer from Google. Do other countries have speed limits? Well, I would imagine so. And I could probably look it up with less headache than a Sciforums discussion would bring.
Life is performance art, so people will always have their reasons for asking what color the sky is instead of looking out the window to find out. In considering your next point, however, we'll explore one of the problems with leaving it simply at that.
I agree, although you can, indeed, find such stories through Google. Also like Google, though, you have to pick through the majority of the result (e.g. the responses to the topic post) that are absolute shite. And that's the thing. People expect their freedom of speech to entitle them to render anyone else's communication useless. The first nineteen responses to your topic post are mostly jokes. There's the usual misanthropy, also, from the guy who thinks it's his holy mission to render discussions useless. But among the appropriate responses, it takes a while to get to the first post that actually fulfills your point noted above (e.g. post #15, Spidergoat).
The thing is that most of what you're going to get is insincere. Our membership displays a nearly exaggerated fear of everyone else. The best most can do are jokes and bullshit, and this is, to a certain degree, understandable.
Sometimes when I post polls, I'll include an "undecided" vote with some sort of silly parenthetic note like, "(I want to vote, but am afraid to take a side)". I do this largely in tribute to the fact that people actually used to complain about not being given option #3 on a flip-a-coin question.
The members are not, at present, obliged to conduct themselves in good faith. We have a number around here who will not. Presuming "good humor" on all parts is unwise and unfair. Some do, in fact, set out with the express purpose of hurting other people's feelings, and that's not good humor.
(Now then: Part of me does actually want to be that dismissive, but the truth is that you make a point.)
It would be more fair to say that you're taking this too personally. I'm not complaining about the topic question itself. Rather, for all the energy people devoted to this topic, which nearly broke to a riot, I find it strange that none of that passion is specific to the topic.
Sciforums is only what its members choose to make it. One of the reasons we're not banning the people we should be is that the membership would prefer we don't. And so that standard affects the threshold of who should be banned and what should be permitted.
Consider this: Discussing ideas and formulating opinions is already not allowed at Sciforums. After all, your topic post has generated more anemic humor, malicious distractions, and hurt feelings than anything else. And no, I don't blame you for posting the topic. Rather, I blame the participants who could offer no better than cheap jokes or vicious spite; it's a hideous cycle that squelches sincere discussion.
So try all you like, or take it elsewhere if you decide that suits better. As a moderator of EM&J, though, what would you like me to think? I'm happy to let this discussion continue, so perhaps you should reconsider your criteria for allowing discussion and opinions. However, there's not much in this topic that considers the ethical, moral, or judicial aspects involved; the general tone of the discussion tends toward the barbaric. The only real connection the topic has to EM&J right now is that it is unethical, even immoral, for me to allow it to continue to waste space in this forum. Really, it's been a week since this discussion had any direction whatsoever. If people would like to continue slinging histrionic self-righteousness like it's the World Dodgeball Round-Robin, that's fine with me.
But the tournament will be moved to a more appropriate facility.
Last edited:
Thebestchefever
Registered Member
Tiassa you will have to excuse my passion, for some reason if I post a topic I automatically assume responsibility for that topic, that that topic becomes the fruits of my labor. So, please do what you fell you need to do, i believe I got all the information I was looking for anyway.
And please understand I mean well, it just doesn't always work out as well as I would hope.
And please understand I mean well, it just doesn't always work out as well as I would hope.
I guess someone with an intellect far below that of the norm can't be inferior. After all, the basis for considering non-human animals inferior to humans is their reduced intellect... oh, wait.
In what way are non-human animals "inferior"?
See, the problem with that word is the value judgment implicit in it. The implication is that "inferior" means "less worthy of moral consideration". Why would anyone think twice about killing an "inferior" being, for instance?
See, the problem with that word is the value judgment implicit in it. The implication is that "inferior" means "less worthy of moral consideration". Why would anyone think twice about killing an "inferior" being, for instance?
James R:
Lacking introspection. Lacking the same degree of intellect and ability to rationalize.
I know that you don't agree with such a concept, but the vast majority of the human population does take the stance that animals are indeed inferior to humans, which gives us the right to kill and eat them with impunity. That isn't to say that 'majority makes right'. But it is the height of hypocrisy to class non-human animals as inferior to non-humans, and then turn around and try to claim that retards are our equals.
If you class animals as inferiors due to their lack of intellect, then the same rationale applies to retarded humans.
In fact, I'd argue that you also demonstrate this hypocrisy. If I were to assert that animals were inferior, you wouldn't punish me for such prejudice. But when I make the same claim regarding retarded humans.. ohhh boy. 7 day ban.
So the question here is: Why do you punish me for claiming that retards are inferior, yet not punish posters who have, over the years, claimed that animals are inferior to humans? Why the double standards, James? From what I understand, you believe in the concept of equal consideration. Hence, ALL prejudice is equally bad, not just that directed against retards.
So we can't measure superiority and inferiority? For instance, a rifle isn't superior to a spear in terms of killing power?
It sounds to me like you're trying to mince words. Retards requires more support, more coddling, are less capable, have a lower potential, and a lower intellect, than a normal human being. Hence, in my eyes, they are inferior.
Lacking introspection. Lacking the same degree of intellect and ability to rationalize.
I know that you don't agree with such a concept, but the vast majority of the human population does take the stance that animals are indeed inferior to humans, which gives us the right to kill and eat them with impunity. That isn't to say that 'majority makes right'. But it is the height of hypocrisy to class non-human animals as inferior to non-humans, and then turn around and try to claim that retards are our equals.
If you class animals as inferiors due to their lack of intellect, then the same rationale applies to retarded humans.
In fact, I'd argue that you also demonstrate this hypocrisy. If I were to assert that animals were inferior, you wouldn't punish me for such prejudice. But when I make the same claim regarding retarded humans.. ohhh boy. 7 day ban.
So the question here is: Why do you punish me for claiming that retards are inferior, yet not punish posters who have, over the years, claimed that animals are inferior to humans? Why the double standards, James? From what I understand, you believe in the concept of equal consideration. Hence, ALL prejudice is equally bad, not just that directed against retards.
So we can't measure superiority and inferiority? For instance, a rifle isn't superior to a spear in terms of killing power?
It sounds to me like you're trying to mince words. Retards requires more support, more coddling, are less capable, have a lower potential, and a lower intellect, than a normal human being. Hence, in my eyes, they are inferior.
That pretty much sums up your world view, doesn't it? Only it applies to just about everyone.
According to you, Jews are inferior. Women are inferior. "Retards" are inferior. Basically, anybody not mountainhare is inferior. And that justifies oppression and belittling and discrimination.
Right?