A Usenet persona calling itself frtzw906 wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:


As for the "handicapped" one, she has a RIGHT to that education, by your
own argument, and to suggest that her presence drags down the educational
environment for other children, which ought to be balanced out by forcing
her sister into academic slavery, is astonishingly uncaring and dismissive
of the fundamental value of each child, no matter how handicapped. I can't
believe you really mean this.

=======================
I don't know whether you've ever been in an elementary classroom, but I
wonder, are you suggesting that disabled children, mainstreamed into
classrooms, do not impact on the educational environment of other children?

Are you saying that they do? How undiverse of you. How dare you buck the
politically-correct dogma and suggest that disabled children
are...well...disabled. Shame on you.

I maintain that my position is neither uncaring nor dismissive. Can you
demonstrate otherwise.

What's uncaring and dismissive is your implicit suggestion that the gifted
child has some duty to accept an education inferior to what she might be
able to obtain in the interests of egalitarian pain-sharing.

The disable child is not to be discriminated against because she's disabled,
nor is the gifted child to be discriminated against because she's gifted by
being made into an intellectual prop for others.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser