does anyone on this forum have aspergers syndrome?

girljam

doesn't bill gates have this and is this why you mentioned him,sadscareyguy? i am the caregiver of a 16yo autistic young man and i believe he is way ahead of most of his peers on manners and being an incredibly evolved being. he is sensitive to the fact when people are being rude, calls them on it and others are humbled by him. i am so glad he is in my life. he has taught me much. if asperger's syndrome symptoms are not functioning well sociably, than it is a common thing i've seen more and more of. you are not alone, sadscareyguy. we love you!

Restless Soul

sponger wrote:

http://www.aamr.org/

AAMR stands for "American Association for the Mentally Retarded".

quote]

OMG I just read this. No wonder americans don't see the word as a problem! I think people should email them. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt then sponger.

We used to have the national spastic society in britain for people with cerebral palsy but they saw that the word "spastic" was being used as an insult towards people and changed their name to Scope, which was a wise move. I googled spastic and still see the word is being used by organisations in other countries still. I guess the people there must be more polite to their disabled people there and its not become so much of an insult or something.

I do think the AAMR should change their name though because retard is clearly used as an insult now, and has been for years. It would send the right message out then.

Restless Soul

sponger wrote:

On the other hand, it is not possible to give specific reference toward people with certain mental deficiencies without using the word "retarded".

Yes, I know some countries have adopted alternative terms, but those terms are vague and lack specificity in describing certain traits that only the word "retarded" can encompass. This lack of specificity and its related impracticalities is well documented within the psychiatric community. That is, in the pursuit of being PC, the profession of mental health has had to sacrifice its own ability to distinguishe between varying levels of mental deficiency.
quote]

Retarded is also incredibly vague. It doesn't help that that organisation you referred to uses the word in its title. It means nothing to me in terms of telling me what the person's problem is. Its more preferable to use the words "a person with learning disabilities" or "physical disabilities", not retard because there are other, better alternatives.

sponger

Restless Soul wrote:

sponger wrote:

http://www.aamr.org/

AAMR stands for "American Association for the Mentally Retarded".

quote]

OMG I just read this. No wonder americans don't see the word as a problem! I think people should email them. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt then sponger.

We used to have the national spastic society in britain for people with cerebral palsy but they saw that the word "spastic" was being used as an insult towards people and changed their name to Scope, which was a wise move. I googled spastic and still see the word is being used by organisations in other countries still. I guess the people there must be more polite to their disabled people there and its not become so much of an insult or something.

I do think the AAMR should change their name though because retard is clearly used as an insult now, and has been for years. It would send the right message out then.

In other words, the national spastic society had to change its name to a word that has nothing to do with the illness they are treating. That's what I mean by impractical.

You see, the word itself is not the problem. The problem is abuse of the word by those who seek to use it in a derogative manner. The solution is to not just keep changing the word. That will only lead to the next word being used in a negative connotation by future would-be belittlers.

So, the solution is not to refrain from using the word "spastic". The solution is to teach people to stop using the word in a derogative manner. Otherwise, it will only be a matter of time before the word SCOPE becomes an insult.

sponger

Restless Soul wrote:

Its more preferable to use the words "a person with learning disabilities" or "physical disabilities", not retard because there are other, better alternatives.

"Learning disabilities" and "retarded" are two completely different concepts. Dyslexia is a learning disability. Under your rationale, people with dyslexia fit the criteria for psychology's current definition of retarded.

Retardation defines people who have an IQ of less than 70 and display significant disabilities in areas of coginitive function and adaptive behaviors. "Learning Disabilities" does not even begin to remotely describe those criteria.

Puck78

sponger wrote:

At any rate, "nigger" is not a technical term. Nor has it ever been. It is perfectly possible to give reference to a black person without using the word "nigger"

because instead "retarded" is a technical word currently used by psychologists and doctors, eh?

Restless Soul

sponger wrote:

Restless Soul wrote:

In other words, the national spastic society had to change its name to a word that has nothing to do with the illness they are treating. That's what I mean by impractical.

You see, the word itself is not the problem. The problem is abuse of the word by those who seek to use it in a derogative manner. The solution is to not just keep changing the word. That will only lead to the next word being used in a negative connotation by future would-be belittlers.

So, the solution is not to refrain from using the word "spastic". The solution is to teach people to stop using the word in a derogative manner. Otherwise, it will only be a matter of time before the word SCOPE becomes an insult.

Oh ha ha. That has not happened yet with Scope and they changed their name a few years ago. It's a case of changing the word AND educating others as to why it was changed and what the issues are. I don't think anyone, save for schoolchildren, uses that word against a person unknowingly. It's pigheadedness to do so otherwise.

I really think you are arguing for the sake of it now. You keep saying none of us get what you are saying but you are not getting us either.

redrock

sponger wrote:

Retardation defines people who have an IQ of less than 70 and display significant disabilities in areas of coginitive function and adaptive behaviors. "Learning Disabilities" does not even begin to remotely describe those criteria.

Imbecile was the correct word used before retarded was used. Now that is offensive. As long as people will use any word that pertains to a difference in an individual as an insult the cycle will continue (and yes, nigger can be perceived that way).

I have seen Intellectual Disability being used or even just mentally challenged.... It is not the word... it's how it's said...

Restless Soul

sponger wrote:

"Learning disabilities" and "retarded" are two completely different concepts. Dyslexia is a learning disability. Under your rationale, people with dyslexia fit the criteria for psychology's current definition of retarded.

Retardation defines people who have an IQ of less than 70 and display significant disabilities in areas of coginitive function and adaptive behaviors. "Learning Disabilities" does not even begin to remotely describe those criteria.

You would call someone with dyslexia a learning disability but someone with an IQ of 70 would be considered as having a “severe” learning disability or a severe learning impairment. There are different stages to it. You don’t have to resort to using insulting words to describe different stages. There are other terms. Maybe you Americans need to brush up on your "PC" skills! lol


This might explain things better for you:

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/disabilities/pages/staff-etiquette.html

redrock

Restless Soul wrote:

Maybe you Americans need to brush up on your PC skills! lol

Oh no!!!!! He's going to go on another 'hate for america' rhetoric!!!! Maybe when you said americans brushing up on their skills you meant the one (those) discussing the use of the word on this thread???? Not naming anyone of course.....

sponger

Puck78 wrote:

because instead "retarded" is a technical word currently used by psychologists and doctors, eh?

I forget that is how you tend to see things. You have this strange preference to determine what is right or wrong depending on who a said "authority" is.

So, no, it's not just because psychologists and doctors use it. It's because they use it for practical reasons to discern between varying levels of mental deficiency that cannot be distuinguished otherwise with any other single word.

sponger

Restless Soul wrote:

sponger wrote:

I don't think anyone, save for schoolchildren, uses that word against a person unknowingly. It's pigheadedness to do so otherwise.

I didn't say they did. I said it would be a matter of time. Before accusing me of arguing for the sake of arguing, you should actually take the time to understand that argument first. When you have gotten to that point, there will not be a need for me to correct you just as I did just now with the above.

redrock

sponger wrote:

So, no, it's not just because psychologists and doctors use it. It's because they use it for practical reasons to discern between varying levels of mental deficiency that cannot be distuinguished otherwise with any other single word.

Are you part of this medical profession? Just asking because you seem to 'know' what they do for 'practical' reasons.....

sponger

Restless Soul wrote:

You would call someone with dyslexia a learning disability but someone with an IQ of 70 would be considered as having a “severe” learning disability or a severe learning impairment. There are different stages to it. You don’t have to resort to using insulting words to describe different stages. There are other terms. Maybe you Americans need to brush up on your "PC" skills! lol


This might explain things better for you:

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/disabilities/pages/staff-etiquette.html

That link that you provided does not subscribe to your notion of using "sever" learning impairment, only using "learning disability" instead. So, why post a link that you do not share your views with?

Besides, there are varying levels of retardation, so under your suggestion, we would have to say "severe severe learning disability" or "mild severe learning disability".

Again, impractical. But, I appreciate the opportunity to illustrate this to you.

sponger

redrock wrote:

Are you part of this medical profession? Just asking because you seem to 'know' what they do for 'practical' reasons.....

Do you know what influenza is? Are you sure? You're not a doctor or anything. So, as far you know, you're just "sick", right? How could you possibly know what influenza is if you haven't even gone to medical school?

Puck78

sponger wrote:

Do you know what influenza is? Are you sure? You're not a doctor or anything. So, as far you know, you're just "sick", right? How could you possibly know what influenza is if you haven't even gone to medical school?

this is the man that was talking about the technicality of the word "retarded" compared to the lack of technicality of the word "nigger". You're contradicting yourself, mr.

sponger

redrock wrote:

Imbecile was the correct word used before retarded was used. Now that is offensive. As long as people will use any word that pertains to a difference in an individual as an insult the cycle will continue (and yes, nigger can be perceived that way).

I have seen Intellectual Disability being used or even just mentally challenged.... It is not the word... it's how it's said...

That's what I'm saying. It boils down to context. It doesn't matter what the word is, only the intentions behind the usage of that word.

sponger

Puck78 wrote:

this is the man that was talking about the technicality of the word "retarded" compared to the lack of technicality of the word "nigger". You're contradicting yourself, mr.

How am I contradicting myself? "Nigger" is a completely unnecessary word. That subject has nothing to do with the post that you quoted.

But, I appreciate the opportunity you've given me to illustrate this to you.

redrock

sponger wrote:

That's what I'm saying. It boils down to context. It doesn't matter what the word is, only the intentions behind the usage of that word.

Which is what we're trying to say. Those words are not used anymore as they are now commonly disparaging and offensive. Thus, when someone speaks of 'retarded', one would generally take it as insulting. So if there is some office gossip going around sadscary's place and they say he is retarded, it is in a derogatory manner. Nothing to do with his syndrome.

It is not context anymore. The word has changed meaning in the english language.

And when it comes to influenza... we all can look up the meaning of a word (though a lot of people do confuse influenza with a bad cold!). You affirm a profession would use certain words in a certain way.... like insider information. Nothing to do with medical school....

sponger

redrock wrote:

Which is what we're trying to say. Those words are not used anymore as they are now commonly disparaging and offensive. Thus, when someone speaks of 'retarded', one would generally take it as insulting. So if there is some office gossip going around sadscary's place and they say he is retarded, it is in a derogatory manner. Nothing to do with his syndrome.

It is not context anymore. The word has changed meaning in the english language.

But, without its technical meaning, the word would never survive as an insult. It wouldn't be an insult if it wasn't a word that describes someone with severe mental deficiencies.

So, under that rationale, there can never be a word that describes severe mental deficiencies. And that is impractical. So, the solution is not to change the word. The solution is to understand the intentions behind the usage of that word. Obviously, when someone is trying to describe a person who literally fits the criteria for mental retardation, that person is not trying to be insulting. If someone at the office uses the word to describe someone who doesn't know how to use the copier, obviously that's insulting. We as intelligent human beings need to learn how to discern between the two scenarios. Otherwise, we'll end up in this horribly inefficient and impractical situation where we have to keep changing words or even just not have a word.

And when it comes to influenza... we all can look up the meaning of a word (though a lot of people do confuse influenza with a bad cold!). You affirm a profession would use certain words in a certain way.... like insider information. Nothing to do with medical school....

I was under the impression that the practical usages for the word retarded were as common knowledge as the word influenza. You mean you didn't know that retardation is used to describe people with an IQ below 70? That physicians have to make this distinction to determine the proper care for said individuals?