| > They don't object. They throw tantrums because they didn't get a 2 week advance warning of something happening. “Something happening”… or “adults deciding things while ignoring the needs and desires of the children”? Most of these situations follow a pattern, in my experience: • Society decides what things may matter and what things may not. • Adult unilaterally changes things that It Is Unreasonable To Care About. • Child is not allowed to care about them. • Child is not allowed to object. • Child is not allowed to be distracted by the change from What The Child Must Pay Attention To. • Child must pay attention, immediately, and cease this ridiculous behaviour. • Child “has a tantrum” (a word that does not distinguish between “deliberate disruption as a protest / spiteful action”, “inability to contain frustration / anger” and “meltdown”). > Mental disorders are bad by definition. Psychologists don't put behaviours in their diagnostic manuals for nothing. I never claimed that they did, and you're not addressing what I've said. > I suggest you go read through the DSM. I suggest you have a little look at DSM II's “302” section. > This category is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward objects other than people of the opposite sex, “hampered in their function” requires you to define “function”, and that's usually defined as “ability to fit into society's little box”. While we've made the box a bit bigger (when we don't have to put much effort into it), plenty of benign-of-themselves variations in what people are like are still outside that box, and still punished unnecessarily. If cyanide was a regular ingredient in food, people with normal levels of mitochondrial rhodanese would be “hampered in their function” – they wouldn't be able to eat even a tenth of the cyanide-containing food a normal person could eat without straight-up dying! You or I would therefore have a disability that just doesn't exist in our society, without any change having occurred to us. |
See my comment towards the other reply. The school thing was an example. Please don't get stuck upon that. You seem to have beef with the entire school system. Fair, maybe, but besides the point.
> If cyanide was a regular ingredient in food, people with normal levels of mitochondrial rhodanese would be “hampered in their function” – they wouldn't be able to eat even a tenth of the cyanide-containing food a normal person could eat without straight-up dying! You or I would therefore have a disability that just doesn't exist in our society, without any change having occurred to us.
So you're argument is "it's not they who don't fit, it's society who doesn't fit them", which may be true, but it extremely unhelpful and a pipe dream. It's all well and good to say "society should change to include people who don't fit", but we've been a social species with complex social interactions for over 20 kiloyears. Asking to change that because of a very small percentage is both inpractical and quite self-centered.