MN is quite happy to let innacurate thread titles be posted that could promote discrimination against disabled children and their famillies

[wasuup3000]

Title say's it all.

None of mine were deleted either so obviously I wasn't bullying anyone as my accuser supposes............

Uh oh, I had two deleted... bad girl :(

It's weird when adults put themselves in teh role of naughty little children.

OH well at least they are not putting themselves in the role of naughty little fuckers....

?

mine was deleted as I implied someone was a troll.

ccpccp - why are you acting all innocent now when you followed me to another thread and claimed I was bullying someone AGAIN ( I incidentally wasn't, either time, and only posted on this thread a little at the end).

Who are you talking about pointydog?

and ccp, fanjo has a point, i would like to hear that answer aswell.

anyway I don't actually want to start it all up again..

suffice to say ccp came on to a thread where I was upset with someone calling someone fat, and said "I see the same old familiar names are bullying people..what is the buzzword..fattist"..I think I was the only poster on that thread who had an interest in this thread.

So the butter wouldn't melt doesn't wash with me.

But not talking about it any more as the fun side of MN is much nicer

As I recall you were wading in on Spacehopper at the time Fanjo. Dont think it was just you though.

I read another post from you later saying you were considering leaving. No need to go that far.

Anyway - I'm not following you onto other threads!

Butter wouldnt melt? Was my last post a bit soft? Why dont you STFU.

I have to say it wasnt good form to follow her and come out with that sort of comment ccp, nobody bullied anyone on here.

the only bully was bret, with a couple of others trying to back him up.

i really cant see who else bullied

ccp - I wasn't wading into anyone, i was challenging someone who said fat people made them feel sick..having overweight friends...and I had barely even posted on the other "disablist" thread and had certainly not bullied anyone nor mentioned a ban at that point...so why did you feel it necessary to come and make such a comment about bullying, definitely directed at me? Am I not entitled to challenge someone's views?

Not impressed. It did make me feel like leaving, now I don't give a stuff tbh, I realise the decent people like me.

I'm afraid, knowing me, I will not STFU until my deathbed

anyway not wanting to talk about the whole issue any more, it's a waste of mental energy and i have NONE at the moment, am totally exhausted.

Fanjo, seen this?

Yes, and thanks loopy

wasuup3000 - Oh I never felt bullied, everyone else managed to respond to me in a grown up way, and for you to make me fell bullied on your own you would either have to have some kind of power or authority over me.

I'd describe this as a 'barney' or 'ding-dong'.

I never did accuse you of bullying - just not answering any questions or justifying your accusations.

Oh Good I don't think you were my accuser. I thought I answered your questions quite well and justified myself quite well too but never mind tis done now..

Oh Good. Re the question - one I don't think you have answered is in order for me to be disablist one or more of the following statements has to be false:-

a) Factual statements cannot be discriminatory.

b) Many children have bad parents.

c) Many bad parents are unable to see the link between their parenting and their children's behavior.

d) Some bad parents try and blame this on recognized disorders.

Which ones are false?

b,c and d are false and a)they can be discriminatory depending on the fact and the context or how the fact and context are used.

b) A few children may have parents who use poor behaviour management techniques

c) A few parents with poor behaviour management techniques may not be able to identify why their children are behaving the way they are

d)Whilst a few parents may allegedly try to blame their poor behaviour management on disabilities which their child is not diagnosed with and does not have; parents whose children are genuinely disabled do not usually verbalise publically that their child has a disability unless a member of public is giving them abuse or harassment which said member of the public themselves would have instigated.

a) So you REALLY mean a fact can be discriminatory? That seems to be little more than a desire for reality to be different to the way it is than a coherent position. The way a fact is expressed can of course be discriminatory. I'd say that the original quote contained subtext that probably was discriminatory and certainly was unpleasant. I don't believe that my restatement of the facts in it had the same subtext.

b) and c) ok - we have a language problem here with the ambiguity of the meanings of many and few (is a 1000 children many or few? Is 10? Is 10000? Do we mean percentages?). Picked up 'many' from the original quote. Maybe I should have changed it to 'some' for the removal of ambiguity. But this did mean some of the rhetoric from the original statement came across partly because I believe the a LOT of children have bad parents. Sorry about that.

I think that 'may' you have introduced is a bit of a 'weasel' word. Either there are a few parents who use poor behaviour management techniques or there are many if there are none. I don't believe you think there are none. Similarly with c) unless you think there is a chance that ALL parents with poor behaviour management techniques realise that this is affecting the behaviour of their children, then the 'may' is superfluous.

Your answer to d) seems to be 'yes, but...' which I agree with. The whole point of my anlysis was to suggest that 'Yes, but...' is a more productive course of action.

So, if I was to refine my statements to:-

a) Facts cannot be discriminatory.

b) Some children have bad parents, where bad parenting includes but is not limited to using poor behaviour management techniques.

c) Some bad parents are unable to see the link between their parenting and their children's behavior.

d) Some bad parents try and blame this on recognized disorders.

would you agree?

Because I hope that we could then agree that this is true, non-disablist and that an approriate response is

e) So what, this doesn't tell us anything about ADD/ADHD.

Damn, that first word was meant to be an interrogative 'Do' not and accusatory 'So' :(

Oh good grief are you lot still going on,

i thought this had been put to bed now.

and if anyone wants to know about adhd, then find the other thread, or ask a question on the sn board.

otherwise it just wont end

I think it's just me and wasuup3000 now.

What I said above TCNY

a) The Fact Point

It is a fact that some train companies want 24 hours notice before a wheelchair user makes their journey, however this fact is discriminatory because a person who does not need to use a wheelchair does not have to give 24 hours notice before they make their journey.

wasuup3000 - No - the fact isn't discriminatory, the policy is.

The fact is just a fact. It IS true that some train companies want 24 hours notice before a wheelchair user makes their journey. Stating this doesn't express approval or disaproval of it.

What about the other points?