Whom to Spend On: Geniuses or Retards?

[Amanda]

do you really want to talk about sentence structure? And I thought I was the one being snarky?

Sorry, I let genuine concern for you slip in again. My bad.

And that isn't what you said in your orginal post is it?

Don't know what you're referring to here.

You said one group of people deserves a job over another group of people because in your mind they deserve it more.

I'm pretty sure I said I thought they could do it better.

In reality a "retarded" person as you like to call them

It's not "what I like to call them" it's a diagnoses as far as I know.

could probably benefit from that job more because what they get to live on is peanuts and they will never have the opportunity to earn the income a non retarded person will have.

The reality is, when I go to a business I want the best service I can get for my money. I don't want to have to send my sandwich back because the guy making it dug around in his greasy hair just before handling the meat. Or any number of other sub-standard ways I've been served by retarded workers. The warm & fuzzy factor isn't enough to make me want to accept less. You might also note that I previously said I didn't want retarded people to have a sub-standard life. I know it's inconvenient to acknowledge when you're trying to pick and choose what to quote to make your case.

 

[Luissa]

if you work with developmentally disabled people you don't refer to them as retarded.
and saying one person should have job over another person, is saying that person is sub standard.
And way to generalize these people amanda!

 

[Amanda]

by the way miss know it all " retarded" people are also refered to as developmentally disabled. Being retarded means you have developmental problems. You don't know what you are talking about so please don't pretend that you do.
My point is if you can follow was every child deserves the same opportunities and investment no matter their condition.

I don't recall saying I was an expert on retardation or anything else. You're reaching again.

I wouldn't agree that every child should get the same opportunities and investment. If I child is especially bright they should get different opportunities and investment than a child that shows no interest in education. If a child has problems they should get different opportunities and investment. I don't believe 1 size fits all, and I think that sort of approach would be a phenomenal waste of money.

 

[Luissa]

you attempting to set me straight on me saying " developmental problems" meant I was refering to children who are just slow was you trying to act like you at least knew more about it than I do. And telling me to stay on topic was you being a know it all, when really you were trying to make me look bad.
And for same opportunities ,I am refering to be able to seek employment which you don't think they should be able to do because someone else can do the job better.
So by your words someone who pays taxes child should not have the same amount invested in their education if their child is developmentally disabled?

 

[Amanda]

if you work with developmentally disabled people you don't refer to them as retarded.

But um, I don't work with them. AFAIK, retarded is a valid term.

and saying one person should have job over another person, is saying that person is sub standard.

I suppose in a way it is. So? Are you trying to make the argument there is no difference? If you are then there's no reason for any special treatment.

And way to generalize these people amanda!

I've never said that I was speaking from anything but my own experience. What I've described is what I've seen. YMMV.

 

[Amanda]

you attempting to set me straight on me saying " developmental problems" meant I was refering to children who are just slow was you trying to act like you at least knew more about it than I do.

Huh? WTF are you talking about?

And telling me to stay on topic was you being a know it all, when really you were trying to make me look bad.

I'm not trying to make you look bad, you're doing that all on your own. I'm trying to keep the discussion on topic. If you're having trouble remembering what that is, go read WJ's OP again. If you want to discuss various degrees of developmental problems go start a thread about it.

And for same opportunities ,I am refering to be able to seek employment which you don't think they should be able to do because someone else can do the job better.

I didn't say that, you're jumping to conclusions again.

So by your words someone who pays taxes child should not have the same amount invested in their education if their child is developmentally disabled?

I didn't say that either. In fact, that's a lot closer to what you said when you commented that it should all be the same.

I think this would work a lot better if you'd stay focused. 1 moment it's about education, the next it's employment opportunity. You're applying a version of what I've said that's gone through your filters to which ever 1 you think will make me look like an uncaring ogre, but in the process all you're really demonstrating is that you're too emotional about the issue to stay rational.

Just for laughs why don't you answer WJ's OP with your own thoughts?

 

[Luissa]

you said retarded is a medical diagnoses, it is not, it is a general term that is being phased out.

 

[Luissa]

you attempting to set me straight on me saying " developmental problems" meant I was refering to children who are just slow was you trying to act like you at least knew more about it than I do.

Huh? WTF are you talking about?

And telling me to stay on topic was you being a know it all, when really you were trying to make me look bad.

I'm not trying to make you look bad, you're doing that all on your own. I'm trying to keep the discussion on topic. If you're having trouble remembering what that is, go read WJ's OP again. If you want to discuss various degrees of developmental problems go start a thread about it.

And for same opportunities ,I am refering to be able to seek employment which you don't think they should be able to do because someone else can do the job better.

I didn't say that, you're jumping to conclusions again.

So by your words someone who pays taxes child should not have the same amount invested in their education if their child is developmentally disabled?

I didn't say that either. In fact, that's a lot closer to what you said when you commented that it should all be the same.

I think this would work a lot better if you'd stay focused. 1 moment it's about education, the next it's employment opportunity. You're applying a version of what I've said that's gone through your filters to which ever 1 you think will make me look like an uncaring ogre, but in the process all you're really demonstrating is that you're too emotional about the issue to stay rational.

Just for laughs why don't you answer WJ's OP with your own thoughts?

nope not jumping to conclusions, you said non retarded people should have the job over retarded people which means you don't think they should be employed because the non retarded person needs the jobs more.
And you did say one should not get the same investment as the other.
And me refering people with developmental problems was not me getting off topic, since there are many diagnoses that fall under being developmentallly disabled/ retarded and some are caused by developmental problems. Like I said before don't pretend like you know what you are talking about.

And to answer is question I don't think gifted children should recieve more funding.

 

[Amanda]

you said retarded is a medical diagnoses, it is not, it is a general term that is being phased out.

AFAIK it is or has been a legit term. When I Google it lots of medical/official kinda sites use the term. If it's being phased out because it's seen as somehow derogatory, that has nothing to do with me or how I've used the term.

And again, I'm working from the OP and not interested in semantics.

 

[JW Frogen]

I once went into a McDonalds late at night, there was only one other customer. I ordered a Quarter Pounder and we waited, and waited, and waited. Finally the girl at the counter went back and I heard her yell "You have not turned the grill on you idiot!"

He may have been retarded.

I always though it might be nice to have a mildly retarded kid, you could get them to do all the work around the house and pretend it is play. You could reward very good work with cup a noodles and tell them the cup is a noodles kids toy and they would still be happy.

 

[editec]

Across the nation, we spend billions on retards through "special education".

We barely put a dime on the really smart, or "gifted" students.

Is this is a good policy?

Have we got to a point where we fetishize and worship the lesser, while denigrating the better? A dictatorship of the lowest common denominator?

We bearly put a dime into teaching the gifted?

William, practically our entire k-12 educational system is designed to benefit the gifted.

What we give to the handicapped (and to the average student) is practically an after-thought.

But if any class of student is getting screwed, it's the average student class

They're not bright enough to really take advantage of what schools offer (which really is designed for those who are very bright to take advantage of) , neither are they handicapped enough to get extra help.

K-12 Schools are designed mostly to prepare people for college.

Those not going to college aren't prepared for much of anything real unless they go into trade schools.

Those who go onto college start getting enormous help in the form of getting a education for less than half what it really costs. (eve though it's still too damned expesive, they're not paying for it).

 

[xotoxi]

if you work with developmentally disabled people you don't refer to them as retarded.

But um, I don't work with them. AFAIK, retarded is a valid term.

Technically, you could refer to black people as coloreds and we'd know what you were talking about.

But others may not have a very high opinion of you.

 

[Charles Stucker]

We bearly put a dime into teaching the gifted?

William, practically our entire k-12 educational system is designed to benefit the gifted.

Those who go onto college start getting enormous help in the form of getting a education for less than half what it really costs. (eve though it's still too damned expesive, they're not paying for it).

I was going to comment on hiring policies and the mentally challenged. I know a guy who is 'challenged' and works as a janitor. He knows he's not as smart as average people, so he works harder to make up for it. Because of his work ethic, he is a Great janitor, far better than average. However if a challenged person cannot perform a job adequately they should not have the job.

Then I saw this post.
E, you have only a partial picture. First, the average student is now expected to go to college because a high school diploma is almost useless. Graduating HS no longer means a person is able to read, write and do math. That is the reason for 'picture' based cash registers and automated prices scanning, because the operators can no longer enter numbers reliably.
College education is overpriced because of government loans, so someone getting such a loan is hit twice. First with inflated prices, next with interest on the loan, and finally with a devalued market for their skills. A degree in engineering no longer means you earn twice what the guy on the factory floor does, it means you might earn 10% more. Which ends up meaning the Engineer is not repaid for their investment in college, even though industry would grind to a halt if there were no engineers available. No wonder so many students opt for Law degrees, even though the nation needs more engineers and not more lawyers.

Finally the entire k-12 system is so poor because it is designed for the least common denominator. Exceptional students learn despite the poor system, but many learn nothing because they are not forced to learn to pass. Just so you understand, when I say least common denominator I am referring to the weakest students not in special education. That is who the education system is made to serve, the low average, and even though it fails that is a separate issue.

The OP has a point of sorts. As a society we could benefit somewhat from pushing the bright students faster at primary (k-12) levels. As a society we could also benefit enormously from pushing the average students at primary levels. Some "Retards" can be of utility if they learn to work hard, those who have such severe disabilities that they can never productively contributes should be given care at the least expensive rate which still conforms to humane standards.

 

[rightwinger]

Do only gifted children contribute to our society?

If you take a special education child and teach him to the point where he can hold a job and earn his way....have you helped society? Or would you rather have a lifetime welfare case?

 

[Screaming Eagle]

As a genius myself, I think that we should definitely not spend less on the mentally challenged. If we should spend more money on any group in particular I think it should be the rank and file average dumb asses that clog our streets.

 

[rightwinger]

No matter what your IQ, if education helps you reach a level you would not have achieved, it is good for society.

 

[Modbert]

Was it 1 of those big Foster's beers?

C'mon D, why play coy? You know what WJ's stance is, why not go for it and answer with what you believe in?

As for me, I see where WJ is coming from. I don't want retarded people to have a substandard quality of life, but shouldn't we be spending at least as much on the gifted as the retarded?

I've noticed quite a few retarded people out in the work force lately and it's kinda puzzling to me. In the instances I've observed they don't do as good a job as non-retarded people would have (and in 1 case I sent my food back because I witnessed it being improperly handled) and there are plenty of non-retarded people that could probably really use those jobs.

I'm not saying march them off to the ovens and I don't think WJ is either. I think there's an important point here about getting the best return on our investment.

For the record, they don't like being called "retarded."

 

[JW Frogen]

As a genius myself, I think that we should definitely not spend less on the mentally challenged. .

If I ever need an ego transplant I hope you are the donor.

 

[JW Frogen]

For the record, they don't like being called "retarded."

Allright, who let them in on the secret?

I think we should go back to the term used in the 1920s, slobbering idiots.

 

[Amanda]

Was it 1 of those big Foster's beers?

C'mon D, why play coy? You know what WJ's stance is, why not go for it and answer with what you believe in?

As for me, I see where WJ is coming from. I don't want retarded people to have a substandard quality of life, but shouldn't we be spending at least as much on the gifted as the retarded?

I've noticed quite a few retarded people out in the work force lately and it's kinda puzzling to me. In the instances I've observed they don't do as good a job as non-retarded people would have (and in 1 case I sent my food back because I witnessed it being improperly handled) and there are plenty of non-retarded people that could probably really use those jobs.

I'm not saying march them off to the ovens and I don't think WJ is either. I think there's an important point here about getting the best return on our investment.

For the record, they don't like being called "retarded."

For the record, I don't care. When you can post a link from some official source that says that term isn't valid I'll consider using a different 1, but I currently don't know a different 1.

All this blather about whether it's the right term or not is a dodge. And it's a boring 1 at that. The topic isn't what should we call retarded people, it's who should we spend more money on.