keene wrote:These kids DON'T need care and compassion -- not any more than anyone else. They need to be treated like human beings, but the protectiveness you portray goes overboard, to the point of insulting. Imagine if you had a friend who felt (compassionately) that you needed to be sheltered. Say you were in a bar, and some guy's hitting on you, and teases you a little -- suddenly your friend hops in "Hey! Don't say that! You'll hurt her! She's a sweet person! How awful of you to laugh at her!"
It'd get annoying REAL fast if it were to happen to you -- the retards don't like it much either.
Now, don't get me wrong -- real mistreatment and exploitation is wrong, no matter who does it, or who it's done to -- but 'sensitivity' can go too far.
This I agree with. Treating them better because they are different is wrong. They notice it. They dislike it.
Also I dislike the characterization that they are all sweet. That's borderline demeaning. They run the gamut from nice to mean, passive to aggressive, manipulative to honest, and everything else. In my job working with them I saw real compassion and kindness but I also had to break up fights, avert suicides, and deal with the nastiness they could throw at me and each other.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
keene wrote:These kids DON'T need care and compassion -- not any more than anyone else. They need to be treated like human beings, but the protectiveness you portray goes overboard, to the point of insulting. Imagine if you had a friend who felt (compassionately) that you needed to be sheltered. Say you were in a bar, and some guy's hitting on you, and teases you a little -- suddenly your friend hops in "Hey! Don't say that! You'll hurt her! She's a sweet person! How awful of you to laugh at her!"
It'd get annoying REAL fast if it were to happen to you -- the retards don't like it much either.
Now, don't get me wrong -- real mistreatment and exploitation is wrong, no matter who does it, or who it's done to -- but 'sensitivity' can go too far.
This I agree with. Treating them better because they are different is wrong. They notice it. They dislike it.
Also I dislike the characterization that they are all sweet. That's borderline demeaning. They run the gamut from nice to mean, passive to aggressive, manipulative to honest, and everything else. In my job working with them I saw real compassion and kindness but I also had to break up fights, avert suicides, and deal with the nastiness they could throw at me and each other.
When I use the characterization of 'sweet' or whatever I include EVERY child in that characterization. I enjoy working with the children with behavioral disorders. These are CHILDREN! They ALL deserve our love and compassion - and YES MORE OF IT!!! - than those that are not troubled or suffering in their lives.
That is the way I see it. They need more of something and by God I'm going to give it to them.
Doesn't help that I was one of these troubled teens (behaviorally as well as emotionally) and understand that the 'mean' and 'aggressive' doesn't negate the adults responsibilities to embrace these kids and give them MORE compassion because they are in DESPERATE need of such!
We are all individuals and these children are as well. We must meet their needs! If that means they need more of ANYTHING then they should have it. End of story!
Nehor when you see mean I see - in need of something? What is creating this child to act in a certain manner? What do they NEED? When you see aggression I think what can I do to help that child?
These are ALL children. They should NEVER be labeled 'mean'. Good fricking grief.
asbestosman wrote:I'll stick my neck out again for another question. Why is it that people get offended when referring to others as "retarded", but they do not make such a stink when referring to others as "blind", "lame", or "deaf"? Why are some differneces sacred as it were--something one must not use as an insult or joke wheras others are not?
I'm also curious as to why the mentally challenged are seen as the sweetest, most loving. I mean, does that imply that higher intelligence is correlated with less love, or more malice? I certainly don't like the implications of that if so. People also say that babies and small chldren are very loving. I think they are very selfish, but that selfishness is mitigated by their innocence. That is, we don't really hold them responsible for their rudeness or selfishness because they don't know better. We therefore do not take offense as quickly. And when small children show acts of kindness, it may be simple, but it is often without hidden agenda (or a very simple one) and we appreciate that too. The adult world is often complex with all kinds of crazy rules for social interaction. This very debate is a fine example of such complex rules society makes. Kids, on the other hand, have very simple rules for insults, truth, and so on. Maybe that simpleness is wonderful because it makes us reflect on our self-imposed complications. Is it really worth it?
Well the joke is what bothered me asb. The term itself does not mean anything other than a defintion of a disability! I use 'lame' often and that actually has a meaning that is outside the definition of a disability. Although now that you mention I'll probably try to not use that term anymore
I don't usually take offense yet I do often speak up when I feel the need to voice my opinion. That's what I've done in this situation. Perhaps bring a greater understanding to others as to my viewpoint and hopefully learn from theirs.
barrelomonkeys wrote:When I use the characterization of 'sweet' or whatever I include EVERY child in that characterization. I enjoy working with the children with behavioral disorders. These are CHILDREN! They ALL deserve our love and compassion - and YES MORE OF IT!!! - than those that are not troubled or suffering in their lives.
I suppose the difference I was trying to pin down is the motivation behind the love and compassion -- when you're treating them like an individual, you're naturally going to give them whatever love and compassion they need, it's not something you have to think about. However if you're trying to give them love and compassion from the start, without taking the individuality of who they are into account, it's going to come off as fake, forced, and will be in no way beneficial.
When you see ANYONE for who they are, behind their labels, love and compassion is the natural side-effect -- and it should remain a side effect, because that's when it's honest and true.