-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Special Education
- Thread starter Bad Ass
- Start date
Then argue against it. Explain why it is OK to deny the mentally retarded education on the grounds that it will not make them able to "contribute to society", but not OK to deny them healthcare, welfare, or life because they don't "contribute to society". Edit: The slippery slope doesn't automatically follow, but it doesn't automatically not follow either.
And I know that there are other grounds to criticise the education on besides the whole "contribute to / drain on society" business. It's the line of argument I'm seeking to oppose more than the conclusion: the idea that people should be judged primarily on how much benefit - usually implied to be economic benefit - they bring to "society" versus how much they "cost" society. The idea that we should treat educating a person like an investment.
True or not, this focuses on what I believe is the correct thing to focus upon - the benefits or lack thereof to the disabled person themselves, and not to "society".
I'm not sure if it's possible for someone to be conscious but completely incapable of learning. (Well, severe memory disorders I guess...) Certainly I don't believe it to be common, compared to the number who can learn, but perhaps with great difficulty. Any person who can talk learnt to do so. And you state that you "honestly have never heard of a severely mentally retarded individual ever making use their education", but I take it as axiomatic that anything a person knows they may potentially make use of. (And heck, a lot of "normal" people will say they never used a lot of what they were taught at school.)
Just wondering, but what do you think they're being taught in their classes? Algebra?
@cantab-- Oh please. You know you will get a reaction out of using the name "hitler" and using that reaction alone to try and support your arguments is childish at best.
If you were going for a deeper point with more support, you would have gone further in depth to explain the point rather than just making a "for shock factor" statement.
If you were going for a deeper point with more support, you would have gone further in depth to explain the point rather than just making a "for shock factor" statement.
By severely I mean the type that cannot talk or do much of anything by themselves, I understand that less severely affected individuals could potentially learn skills that could help them in their lives but for the severely affected individuals that have to be attended to throughout their lives I really don't see how they could be benefiting from education. We might as well be trying to educate squirrels.
Well, avoiding the name got the matter ignored, http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3092949&postcount=30
How was it being ignored? If you look at most of the posts in this thread (including mine), I think you will clearly see that lati0s and the OP are in the minority.
A few people disagreeing is no excuse to make weak and baseless points when/where it is perfectly possible to make strong ones.
A few people disagreeing is no excuse to make weak and baseless points when/where it is perfectly possible to make strong ones.
The minute we stop trying to educate these "severely handicapped" children they become little more than pets. I mean, if they aren't at school, all we are doing is feeding, bathing, and taking care of them at home all day, receiving some sort of "love" in return. Isn't this the same as a dog or cat? Would you treat your child like a pet? Sounds a bit cruel I think. Now I'm not going to participate much more in this argument because my stance is more on moral grounds than scientific, so it comes down to my opinion which of course I cannot force on anyone. Regardless, I still believe we can't really know how much a person will "benefit" from education until we actually try to educate them. Even if that person only learns a little bit over the entire span of their education, that is progress from where they began, and one step closer to a degree of self-sufficiency. Personally, if I had a child who was severely handicapped, and many difficult years of education only meant the difference between forming a few small words and not speaking at all, I would still want them to endure it. Think what you will, but I feel that we should be more focused on compassion and morality than analyzing how every little thing will benefit us and/or make us a little richer.
Oh, and Hitler was also a genius when it came to military strategy and logistics. Not that it excuses him from maniacal genocide, just saying.
Oh, and Hitler was also a genius when it came to military strategy and logistics. Not that it excuses him from maniacal genocide, just saying.
Why should they be? This is not a rhetorical question, I really want to hear thoughts on this. Why are humans with the mental capacities of lesser animals inherently more valuable than those animals?
I think it's because they are still a human being biologically speaking, and it seems that that is enough to warrant "equal rights".
I could be way off though.
How do you know these people aren't just as intelligent as you? Lack of speech and movement is not the same as idiocy; if Stephen Hawking weren't attached to a computer, you'd have no idea how intelligent he is.
I realise he developed the condition after becoming a professor, but he has always had the disease and it's an easily accessible reference.
I think in some cases we have to have empathy for other perspectives. Consider being the parent of a severly disabled child, would you want to see your child undergo exactly the same proceedure? Of course not, you'd want the best possible assistance for your child. Arguably, it's a waste of money, but MEDCs such as Britain and America pride themselves on offering these services, and I think taking away dissabled benefits would be extremely unpopular.
It's very easy to say "these people do not contribute to society", and from a purely economic standpoint it's better not to spend money on these people. However, like I said earlier, rich countries offer services like these because they can afford it. I do have issues with LEDC or NIC schools spending a lot of money on special education that they can't really spare. America and Britain don't have big economic education problems, and that is why they offer further help for disabled children.
Personally, I think it's great that these people are given help.
Edit (read a few more posts): I do believe that one policy behind this education is that if we can teach these people to the point where they can somewhat contribute, their economic dependance is lower than them not having the education, then being put in a stately home. i.e. It should be cheaper in the long run. Of course this is not always the case, I know a boy of 12 who has severe autism and cannot talk. He will be put in special care later. However, I think special education is aimed at people who have a chance of improving, and they are the majority. Further discrimination is morally wrong. (Say all children >70*iq have a normal education, all <70*iq have special education. Saying those <30iq aren't educated is a violation of human rights from my perspective.)
*- I believe an iQ below 70 classes you as "retarded".
It's very easy to say "these people do not contribute to society", and from a purely economic standpoint it's better not to spend money on these people. However, like I said earlier, rich countries offer services like these because they can afford it. I do have issues with LEDC or NIC schools spending a lot of money on special education that they can't really spare. America and Britain don't have big economic education problems, and that is why they offer further help for disabled children.
Personally, I think it's great that these people are given help.
Edit (read a few more posts): I do believe that one policy behind this education is that if we can teach these people to the point where they can somewhat contribute, their economic dependance is lower than them not having the education, then being put in a stately home. i.e. It should be cheaper in the long run. Of course this is not always the case, I know a boy of 12 who has severe autism and cannot talk. He will be put in special care later. However, I think special education is aimed at people who have a chance of improving, and they are the majority. Further discrimination is morally wrong. (Say all children >70*iq have a normal education, all <70*iq have special education. Saying those <30iq aren't educated is a violation of human rights from my perspective.)
*- I believe an iQ below 70 classes you as "retarded".
Well, what do we do to pets? Teach them to fetch? Teach them to sit? How is this helping them in any way?
Well, what do we do to the mentally handicapped? Teach them the alphabet? Teach them to count? How is this helping them in any way?
Because latios was talking about mentally retarded people. Latios isn't talking about people that simply suffer from speech impediments, or paralysis.
Stephen Hawking is physically disabled, not mentally disabled.
The mentally handicapped aren't relatable to pets.
The majority of mentally handicapped people can learn enough to do a basic job though further education. If they spend their years after school doing a basic job, the overall economic loss is less than them never being taught. Yes, not everyone can learn the alphabet, we teach the very severe cases because of human rights.
If your school is like some in my district, you use special education people as water boys because they aren't good enough to fill any other niche on a sports team other than benchwarmer. I told some people that and they thought that it was nice for letting them be on the team at all and I continue to think that it's wrong to use somebody who is physically and mentally handicapped to get water for your healthy athletes because he won't ever be good enough to actually play, but of course that's just my opinion
This is the story of the thread, and it's getting a little old. Instead of providing legitimate arguments for having public education for these children, people are just resorting to appeals to pity and scarecrows to try and prove their points. The OP never even alluded to children with ADD or dyslexia, he was talking about severely mentally retarded children. Please try and stay on topic when posting your arguments.
Now my opinion. While I do agree that the parents of these children pay the same taxes as the parents of other children, I do not agree that they should get different treatment. It would be great if everyone could have a personal caretaker that would wheel you around, feed you, ect... That is not the case, and people should not be paying equal taxes for unequal education. Now, my personal opinion is that these children should not be taken out of school though. I believe that the parents of these children should either have a tax cut, allowing them to pay for a private facility, effectively stopping the average Joe from having to pay for unequal education, or the parents of these children could shell out some more money to pay for these special education programs, again protecting the average Joe. Through either one of these two, my personal choice is the tax cut, the children could receive the education they need, and the social interaction they need, while not causing an uneven distribution of tax money. *I know some people will take what I say next as serious so I am putting this warning. IT IS NOT SERIOUS. Thank you* Even the squirrels could have access to education!
If you are talking about people who are retarded to that degree, then a public school would already be a terrible place for them, for a whole bunch of reasons that I won't bother to list here. These sorts of people should go to a school run by people who can afford to take care of these people and have the resources readily available without sacrificing much.
Not a whole lot. In my High School there are 84 teachers, 10 of which roughly fall under the category of Special Education. 35,000 x 84 = 294,000 a year for teacher salaries alone. Add in costs for administrator salaries, janitor salaries, sports costs and school supplies and that number at least doubles if not triples. A few years ago we spent 27 million dollars to renovate our school, which holds about 1200 - 1500 students depending on the number of students in each year (my year is about 275 students). Keep in mind i'm from an average sized town in southern Maine.
I heard this somewhere: Opinions are like bellybuttons, everyone has one and they aren't all that useful. With that being said here is my 2 cents.
Why should they go to school? It's just wasting money, and if they are really that retarded then they will not benefit from school at all. The only argument for them to go to school is for them to have somewhere safe to be while their guardians are at work. I know a mentally retarded guy that was a senior last year (and is still going to school because he can stay longer or something) and guess what he was doing... fingerpainting. Needless to say he's going to be a very productive member of society with this quality education. It really pisses me off that they are going to put them through school but teach them useless shit like finger painting :T.
Why should they go to school? It's just wasting money, and if they are really that retarded then they will not benefit from school at all. The only argument for them to go to school is for them to have somewhere safe to be while their guardians are at work. I know a mentally retarded guy that was a senior last year (and is still going to school because he can stay longer or something) and guess what he was doing... fingerpainting. Needless to say he's going to be a very productive member of society with this quality education. It really pisses me off that they are going to put them through school but teach them useless shit like finger painting :T.
But that's how taxes work. People pay different amounts according to their earnings, and they get different services according to their needs. Families without children fund the schooling of families with children. People who never call the police fund policing for those who get burgled.