in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/13/05 7:35 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/12/05 7:28 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

I've stated unequivocally that there are students with disabilities who
benefit from the same curriculum as non-disabled peers.

But you consistently argue a debate about general "mainstreaming" policy
within the narrow framework of one particular student who may not benefit.

I'm talking about an millions of students...all those who deserve a more
appropriate curriculum than one that is designed for a different purpose
and
need.

No, you're trying to use a single example as a model for millions of others.
You have absolutely no idea what an "appropriate curriculum" is for *any*
disabled student, not even your example. How could you? You don't know any
of them and you don't know WHAT they need.

Since most people with intellectual disabilities have numeracy and literacy
skills at an elementary school level, none of them need Grade 12 chemistry.

How generous of you to pigeon-hole every disabled person and dictate to them
what their "needs" are.

I'm not pigeon-holing anyone, I referred to a very specific population,
which by definition would not experience success at Grade 12 chemistry.


This is not really so complicated. The "mainstream" curriculum is about
following prescribed units of study and getting grades for post-secondary
education at college or university. There is an entirely different reality
for people with intellectual disabilities and forcing them to waste their
time on someone else's curriculum is waste and neglect.

Challenging them to succeed at a standardized curriculum is not wasteful nor
neglectful.

It is both, and severly so. They can have just as many challenges as
non-disabled students and still have a curriculum that meets their needs and
has relevance to their current and future life.


I'm simply not allowing you to set policy based on one extreme
example. I'm arguing for nuance and erring on the side of inclusiveness,
while you seem to be arguing on the side of exclusion.

It's not one extreme example. I am talking about all the millions of kids
that deserve a curriculum designed for their needs, not one that is
tailored
to the needs of others.

Problem with your theory is that in many cases, the curriculum tailored for
the "needs of others" is perfectly appropriate for the disabled.

Not for people with intellectual disabilities or any other type of
disability that calls for a different curriculum.

As I said before, you cannot possibly know what anybody "needs" by way of
curriculum, because there is an infinite number of variables involved and
each person is different.

Within the intellectual disability category, it is not difficult to see how
inappropriate the "mainstream" curriculum is, since it is designed to meet
entirely different needs for an entirely different purpose.

That they
may need *other* programs targeted at specific, individual needs of a
specific disable student is irrelevant to the greater need that *all*
children have for a basic education and socialization.

1) They are not receiving a basic education, they are wasting precious time
on someone else's curriculum that does not meet their needs

How do you know?

Because they have an intellectual disability. This means they are not going
to benefit from high school course with literacy and numeracy requirements
designed for transition to college and university. They deserve their own
curriculum so that they can be challenged and develop to the greatest extent
possible for life after high school.

2) They are being socialized into uselessness by sitting in a classroom that
is designed to meet someone else's needs and being humiliated in the process

How do you know?

See above.

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/13/05 7:54 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:



The real danger is in teaching compliance rather than respect.

That can be a problem. Still, if the choice is compliance or respect, I'll
take compliance.

If your goal is to prepare the child to be a victim, that's a good choice.

You engage in the fallacies of non causa pro causa and dicto simpliciter.

Do a bit of reading on people with disabilities and compliance. Scary stuff.
I'm afraid you are quite ignorant on this subject and your attitudes are
dangerous.

"I sit quietly so you won't hit me" is not respect.

If that is the only thought process, you're correct, but most often, the
thought process is rather more complex.

Yes, it might be...

"I'll sit quietly so you won't hit me, and one day I will murder you in your
sleep and then kill myself to escape this hell."

You engage in the fallacy of non sequitur.

If following a non sequitur with a non sequitur is a crime, I plead guilty.


That is fear, resulting
in compliance.

Well, depending on the need for compliance, compliance can come first, and
respect later.

LOL. Good luck with that.

I don't need a two-year-old to respect me when I tell him not
to run out into the street, I need his instant, unquestioning obedience. If
fear of punishment causes that compliance, fine. At some later time, when
he's intellectually capable of understanding why I required unquestioning
obedience, I'll be happy to explain to him why, and hopefully he will be
able to see that he owes me respect because it was his safety that I was
concerned with. This is, in fact, the way it usually happens.

Mm. Yes, I think we can agree that a 2 year old has quite a lot of
difficulty understanding the particulars of road safety.

The same reasoning is true in many other cases as well. Adults need not
explain every decision or order. Children will come to learn the reasons for
the decisions through context, repetition and experience.

Then again, they might not.

It gives them the
opportunity to engage their reasoning faculties and ask themselves questions
about why a particular order was given, and reason out for themselves why.

Then again, they might not.

There is no internal motivation to change the behaviour, it
is through external threat only that the change is achieved.

Don't be silly. The internal motivation is: "Scott was extremely displeased
at my behavior and he punished me for it. Why would he do that? Hm, maybe
what I did was wrong or dangerous. Perhaps I should amend that behavior in
order to gain both approval from Scott and avoid further painful and
embarrassing punishment, not to mention avoiding the possibility of physical
harm."

The external threat stimulates the internal motivation. Children are pretty
good at picking up on adult approval and disapproval. That's how they learn
to survive, and always have.

That's how many children learn how to be victims, particularly people with
intellectual disabilities, the group that you want "mainstreamed" with
assigned "mentors."

This is the fallacy of affirmation of the consequent.

You only think that because you are largely or totally ignorant with respect
to the issues being discussed.


Someone who is having trouble focusing in class who gets a smash on the
back
of the hand is being forced to comply.

Yup. They are also being taught that concentration is desirable

No, only that pretending to concentrate might mean suffering less physical
pain. They still have no idea why concentrating is a good thing

They'll figure it out eventually.

Then again, they might not.


and less
painful. Pure operant conditioning.

With the lousy results that operant conditioning produces.

Actually, operant conditioning is extremely effective, even with rats.

Not "even with rats." On rats. Rats are good at responding to operant
conditioning.

Humans are fully capable of integrating the conditioning and reasoning why
the stimulus was administered and how to avoid similar displeasure. Kids do
it all the time.

Then again, sometimes they don't.

There is no learning or respect or
understanding.

Wrong. Even a rat can learn behaviors in response to operant conditioning,
so clearly there's learning going on. "If I do that, it hurts. I guess I
won't do that."

The understanding and respect comes later.

Operant conditioning is nothing more than bringing about changes in
behaviour.

Yup.

There is no learning.

Sure there is.

No, there is only a change in behaviour. Like with a rat.

It is, as you suggest, treating a human
like a lab rat.

Actually, the lab rats were being treated like human beings.

Only rats and humans are not the same.

You can definitely change a behaviour by giving someone
electric shock, beating them, or whatever Weiser item might be on the menu
that day.

True. But you ignore the fact that not all incidences of corporal punishment
or "operant conditioning" are equal. This is the fallacy of composition.

Nevertheless, it is simply about achieving compliance through the
administration of pain. There is nothing being learned beyond "If I do A, I
get a whack, if I do B, I don't get a whack." This can be used to get a
child to sit quietly or to submit to sexual assault. All that is being
learned is that failure to comply = administration of pain.

Just compliance.

Compliance first, understanding and respect later. It's a multi-step
process.

The compliance is teaching many things, and respect is not one of those
things.

So what? Respect comes later.

Why not skip the beatings and go directly to developing respect.

And that is what that child is learning -
comply, or else.

Yup. A lesson every child must learn.

If they are being trained to be sexually molested, sure.

Again, the fallacy of composition

It only seems that way to you because you are highly or full ignorant with
respect to this topic.


Then they learn *why* they must
comply, and they learn why it is that they were punished, and who, and when
they are subject to justifiable punishment. As a result, they learn proper
behavior, respect and how to successfully integrate into society.

They are learning that life is about having the power to physically abuse
others.

Fallacy of composition.

It only seems that way to you because you are highly or full ignorant with
respect to this topic.


This is
not random brutalization we're talking about here, it's specific corporal
punishment administered for specific wrongdoing. Even small children
understand the cause and effect in getting a smack on the bottom for
disobeying a parent's safety instructions.

It's nothing more than operant conditioning, as you've said.

The act, yes. The result, however, is much greater because humans are
reasoning creatures.

You are not teaching them anything about reason. You are achieving
compliance through administration of physical pain.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/13/05 7:31 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


It's not mentoring when neither party is willing or makes the choice.

You wrongly presume that neither party is willing

You didn't speak of any process whereby the parties in question have a say
in this "mentoring."

Why should they? They are students. They are given assignments and they are
expected to complete them.

A person with a disability is not an object. They are a human being, not an
"assignment."

They are human beings, and they are students. Students are given
assignments. Assignments may include mentoring other students.



and you incorrectly
presume that one has to "make the choice" to be a mentor. No such
restriction is found in the definition of the word.

I think most people's understanding of a mentorship relationship is that the
two people have chosen to be in the relationship.

Certainly such relationships are possible, but it is not a requirement.

I disagree, but this is getting into semantics. Whatever you wish to call
it, I am in total disagreement with a forced relationship of this nature.
It's about the worst thing you could do for all concerned.

Ridiculous! People are in "forced relationships" throughout their lives.
They need to learn as children how to deal with such relationships through
experience.




The non-disabled student is not trained in supporting the individual with
a
disability in an appropriate helper role and will serve the purpose of
teaching the individual with a disability that they are not competent and
need to be assigned a non-disabled person to make their decisions for
them.

Balderdash. The whole point is to TEACH the mentor how to mentor while also
teaching the disabled student how to be mentored.

Ah, basically teaching the non-disabled student to boss people with
disabilities, and teaching people with disabilities to be bossed.

Mentoring is not "bossing." It's "tutoring or coaching."

Being forced to tutor or coach someone who has not asked for your tutoring
or coaching is a boss/being bossed relationship.

Not really.


Absolutely the worst possible suggestion, unless your goal is to make people
with disabilities even more vulnerable than they are.

The goal is to teach both students. No compulsory school student has freely
"chosen" to be in a mentor relationship with a teacher. They are required to
submit to education, and their teachers "mentor" them. It's not demeaning or
harmful for disabled student to be subjected to teaching, whomever the
teacher may be.

It is both demeaning and harmful to all concerned in the scenario you
propose. The forced-to-be-teacher does not have the maturity or training to
take on that role, and the forced-to-be-student is being asked to sort
through an impossibly confusing relationship whereby they are being bossed
by what should be a peer, not a superior.

That's why it's called "education." Everybody learns something.


Mentoring has nothing to
do with "making their decisions for them," it is simply defined as
"tutoring
or coaching."

Actually, even using standard dictionary definitions, the key to a mentoring
relationship is trust. While trust might possibly emerge from an imposed
relationship, it seems to me it is much more likely to come from a
relationship where the two people actually choose to be together.

That's happenstantial trust.

No, that's about mutuality.

Trust is also built between people forced
together through the interactions they experience.

That's also a good way to build hatred.

That it may be does not mean that it is, or will always be. Most of the time
it works out okay, and children need to learn early how to get along with
others, even those they don't like.

Maybe so, but the point is that neither
the two-year-old nor the disabled child nor the older child assigned to
mentor him are in charge of things

They should be.

They are CHILDREN. They don't get to be in charge of things until they are
grown up.

But you think children who are not disabled should be in charge of children
who are disabled.

Mentoring is not being "in charge of."


--
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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/15/05 12:01 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/13/05 7:31 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


It's not mentoring when neither party is willing or makes the choice.

You wrongly presume that neither party is willing

You didn't speak of any process whereby the parties in question have a say
in this "mentoring."

Why should they? They are students. They are given assignments and they are
expected to complete them.

A person with a disability is not an object. They are a human being, not an
"assignment."

They are human beings, and they are students. Students are given
assignments. Assignments may include mentoring other students.

This "mentoring" as you have described it is nothing but the objectification
of the person with a disability as lesser human.



and you incorrectly
presume that one has to "make the choice" to be a mentor. No such
restriction is found in the definition of the word.

I think most people's understanding of a mentorship relationship is that
the
two people have chosen to be in the relationship.

Certainly such relationships are possible, but it is not a requirement.

I disagree, but this is getting into semantics. Whatever you wish to call
it, I am in total disagreement with a forced relationship of this nature.
It's about the worst thing you could do for all concerned.

Ridiculous! People are in "forced relationships" throughout their lives.
They need to learn as children how to deal with such relationships through
experience.

Ridiculous! A person with a disability gains nothing positive from being
taught that they are lesser human beings and the non-disabled person gains
nothing positive from learning that they should assume power and control
over people with disabilities. Just because there are negative forced
relationships in the world it makes no sense to deliberately subject people
to experience them. With your way of thinking, it would make sense to
sexually assault children so they will be able to deal with it. Yes, your
thinking is that scary.


The non-disabled student is not trained in supporting the individual with
a
disability in an appropriate helper role and will serve the purpose of
teaching the individual with a disability that they are not competent and
need to be assigned a non-disabled person to make their decisions for
them.

Balderdash. The whole point is to TEACH the mentor how to mentor while
also
teaching the disabled student how to be mentored.

Ah, basically teaching the non-disabled student to boss people with
disabilities, and teaching people with disabilities to be bossed.

Mentoring is not "bossing." It's "tutoring or coaching."

Being forced to tutor or coach someone who has not asked for your tutoring
or coaching is a boss/being bossed relationship.

Not really.


Absolutely the worst possible suggestion, unless your goal is to make
people
with disabilities even more vulnerable than they are.

The goal is to teach both students. No compulsory school student has freely
"chosen" to be in a mentor relationship with a teacher. They are required to
submit to education, and their teachers "mentor" them. It's not demeaning or
harmful for disabled student to be subjected to teaching, whomever the
teacher may be.

It is both demeaning and harmful to all concerned in the scenario you
propose. The forced-to-be-teacher does not have the maturity or training to
take on that role, and the forced-to-be-student is being asked to sort
through an impossibly confusing relationship whereby they are being bossed
by what should be a peer, not a superior.

That's why it's called "education." Everybody learns something.

Why not have them learning more useful and positive things than how to have
a miserable life as victims or abusers?


Mentoring has nothing to
do with "making their decisions for them," it is simply defined as
"tutoring
or coaching."

Actually, even using standard dictionary definitions, the key to a
mentoring
relationship is trust. While trust might possibly emerge from an imposed
relationship, it seems to me it is much more likely to come from a
relationship where the two people actually choose to be together.

That's happenstantial trust.

No, that's about mutuality.

Trust is also built between people forced
together through the interactions they experience.

That's also a good way to build hatred.

That it may be does not mean that it is, or will always be. Most of the time
it works out okay, and children need to learn early how to get along with
others, even those they don't like.

They could learn to respect each other, rather than be forced into a
relationship that neither is equipped to handle.


Maybe so, but the point is that neither
the two-year-old nor the disabled child nor the older child assigned to
mentor him are in charge of things

They should be.

They are CHILDREN. They don't get to be in charge of things until they are
grown up.

But you think children who are not disabled should be in charge of children
who are disabled.

Mentoring is not being "in charge of."

Is the person with a disability freely inviting the individual to be their
mentor, and is the person being inviting freely accepting the invitation? If
not, your program is nothing more than assigning a non-disabled boss to a
person with a disability.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

A person with a disability is not an object. They are a human being, not an
"assignment."

They are human beings, and they are students. Students are given
assignments. Assignments may include mentoring other students.

This "mentoring" as you have described it is nothing but the objectification
of the person with a disability as lesser human.

No more so than any form of didacticism for any other student. No more so
than by creating a "specialized" curriculum for a disabled student, and in
fact less so. Students are, by definition, ignorant of the things they are
to be taught. Assigning studies is a perfectly ordinary part of every
educational scheme, and it's not "objectifying" anyone to do so,
irrespective of their abilities. When any student needs specialized teaching
or mentoring, providing it is not "objectifying" them or categorizing them
as a "lesser human," it's simply recognizing that students may learn
differently and may require some additional instruction to help them
succeed. No "objectification" is present.




and you incorrectly
presume that one has to "make the choice" to be a mentor. No such
restriction is found in the definition of the word.

I think most people's understanding of a mentorship relationship is that
the
two people have chosen to be in the relationship.

Certainly such relationships are possible, but it is not a requirement.

I disagree, but this is getting into semantics. Whatever you wish to call
it, I am in total disagreement with a forced relationship of this nature.
It's about the worst thing you could do for all concerned.

Ridiculous! People are in "forced relationships" throughout their lives.
They need to learn as children how to deal with such relationships through
experience.

Ridiculous! A person with a disability gains nothing positive from being
taught that they are lesser human beings and the non-disabled person gains
nothing positive from learning that they should assume power and control
over people with disabilities.

Sophistry. Providing mentoring is not, as you insist, an evil plot to
"objectify" and "dehumanize" the student, nor is it a method of creating
juvenile despots with megalomaniacal tendencies.

Just because there are negative forced
relationships in the world it makes no sense to deliberately subject people
to experience them.

It makes perfect sense. It's absolutely necessary to *every* child's proper
development to expose them to situations and relationships in which they
have to learn to compromise and seek consensus with others. That's one of
the primary things that group schooling is for; to expose children to other
children in venues that force them to learn to get along with others.
Students who receive exclusively private tutoring, with the absence of peers
with whom they can learn to form relationships, are ill-equipped to survive
in the real world. Just ask any child star.

With your way of thinking, it would make sense to
sexually assault children so they will be able to deal with it. Yes, your
thinking is that scary.

Specious, amphigorical nonsense. Learning to relate to and get along with
ones peers is entirely different from engaging in sexual abuse.

By even suggesting this as an appropriate analogy you destroy your
credibility.


They are CHILDREN. They don't get to be in charge of things until they are
grown up.

But you think children who are not disabled should be in charge of children
who are disabled.

Mentoring is not being "in charge of."

Is the person with a disability freely inviting the individual to be their
mentor, and is the person being inviting freely accepting the invitation? If
not, your program is nothing more than assigning a non-disabled boss to a
person with a disability.

Doesn't matter. They are students. They must complete the assignments given.
As for "assigning a boss" to a disabled person, every person who enters the
workforce gets assigned a "boss," and every person needs to learn how to be
"bossed" in one way or another. That's life. Get used to it.

--
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

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

A person with a disability is not an object. They are a human being,
not an
"assignment."

They are human beings, and they are students. Students are given
assignments. Assignments may include mentoring other students.

This "mentoring" as you have described it is nothing but the
objectification
of the person with a disability as lesser human.

No more so than any form of didacticism for any other student.

It is more in that you have just created two classes of students, an added
(negative and destructive) layer of objectification.

No more so
than by creating a "specialized" curriculum for a disabled student

An appropriate curriculum, not specialized.

and in
fact less so. Students are, by definition, ignorant of the things they are
to be taught. Assigning studies is a perfectly ordinary part of every
educational scheme, and it's not "objectifying" anyone to do so,
irrespective of their abilities.

Sure it is! They aren't a "study" they are human beings!

When any student needs specialized teaching
or mentoring, providing it is not "objectifying" them or categorizing them
as a "lesser human," it's simply recognizing that students may learn
differently and may require some additional instruction to help them
succeed. No "objectification" is present.

Forcing students with vastly different needs to be in the same class where
the students who are not getting an appropriate curriculum are assigned
non-disabled bosses is about nothing more than objectification and the
development of future victims and abusers.


and you incorrectly
presume that one has to "make the choice" to be a mentor. No such
restriction is found in the definition of the word.

I think most people's understanding of a mentorship relationship is
that
the
two people have chosen to be in the relationship.

Certainly such relationships are possible, but it is not a
requirement.

I disagree, but this is getting into semantics. Whatever you wish to
call
it, I am in total disagreement with a forced relationship of this
nature.
It's about the worst thing you could do for all concerned.

Ridiculous! People are in "forced relationships" throughout their lives.
They need to learn as children how to deal with such relationships
through
experience.

Ridiculous! A person with a disability gains nothing positive from being
taught that they are lesser human beings and the non-disabled person
gains
nothing positive from learning that they should assume power and control
over people with disabilities.

Sophistry. Providing mentoring is not, as you insist, an evil plot to
"objectify" and "dehumanize" the student, nor is it a method of creating
juvenile despots with megalomaniacal tendencies.

You may truly believe that your proposal would accomplish otherwise, but
sadly, that's exactly what such relationships produce.

Just because there are negative forced
relationships in the world it makes no sense to deliberately subject
people
to experience them.

It makes perfect sense. It's absolutely necessary to *every* child's
proper
development to expose them to situations and relationships in which they
have to learn to compromise and seek consensus with others.

Mhm.

That's one of
the primary things that group schooling is for; to expose children to
other
children in venues that force them to learn to get along with others.

OK.

Students who receive exclusively private tutoring, with the absence of
peers
with whom they can learn to form relationships, are ill-equipped to
survive
in the real world. Just ask any child star.

None of which has anything to do with your scheme.

With your way of thinking, it would make sense to
sexually assault children so they will be able to deal with it. Yes, your
thinking is that scary.

Specious, amphigorical nonsense. Learning to relate to and get along with
ones peers is entirely different from engaging in sexual abuse.

What you are proposing will result in production of victims and abusers much
more so than learning to get along.

By even suggesting this as an appropriate analogy you destroy your
credibility.

Only becuase you have no idea how foolish your idea truly is.

They are CHILDREN. They don't get to be in charge of things until they
are
grown up.

But you think children who are not disabled should be in charge of
children
who are disabled.

Mentoring is not being "in charge of."

Is the person with a disability freely inviting the individual to be
their
mentor, and is the person being inviting freely accepting the invitation?
If
not, your program is nothing more than assigning a non-disabled boss to a
person with a disability.

Doesn't matter.

It does matter.

This is why you need to think more about abusers and the abused.

They are students. They must complete the assignments given.

Thus when exerting this power care is required to ensure why the assignment
is being given and if the results are likely to meet with the goals.

As for "assigning a boss" to a disabled person, every person who enters
the
workforce gets assigned a "boss," and every person needs to learn how to
be
"bossed" in one way or another. That's life. Get used to it.

Why should people with disabilities "get used to" being bossed by
non-disabled people?!?

My goodness you are such a fool. This is EXACTLY why people with
disabilities are so vulnerable to sexual assault and other forms of abuse.
Fools like you actually want them to learn to be victims, and to teach
non-disabled people to be victimizers. Amazingly stupid.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:



As for "assigning a boss" to a disabled person, every person who enters
the
workforce gets assigned a "boss," and every person needs to learn how to
be
"bossed" in one way or another. That's life. Get used to it.

Why should people with disabilities "get used to" being bossed by
non-disabled people?!?

It's not just "disabled people," it's *everyone.* All children will
ultimately grow up and become members of the workforce, and they will be
"bossed" by any number of people in their lives. They need to learn how to
be a good subordinate FIRST. The military knows this, which is why even
General officers start out as boot recruits, where they learn to be
"bossed." It has absolutely nothing whatever to do with one's disability
status.



My goodness you are such a fool. This is EXACTLY why people with
disabilities are so vulnerable to sexual assault and other forms of abuse.
Fools like you actually want them to learn to be victims, and to teach
non-disabled people to be victimizers. Amazingly stupid.

You certainly are if you think that teaching children to be subordinate to
authority is a bad thing.

--
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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/15/05 10:22 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:



As for "assigning a boss" to a disabled person, every person who enters
the
workforce gets assigned a "boss," and every person needs to learn how to
be
"bossed" in one way or another. That's life. Get used to it.

Why should people with disabilities "get used to" being bossed by
non-disabled people?!?

It's not just "disabled people," it's *everyone.* All children will
ultimately grow up and become members of the workforce, and they will be
"bossed" by any number of people in their lives. They need to learn how to
be a good subordinate FIRST. The military knows this, which is why even
General officers start out as boot recruits, where they learn to be
"bossed." It has absolutely nothing whatever to do with one's disability
status.

I don't hear you assigning any people with disabilities to boss their
non-disabled peers. So, obviously, since your little system features
non-disabled people bossing disabled people, the main outcome will be as I
stated: people with disabilities will get used to being bossed by
non-disabled people, and non-disabled people will get used to bossing people
with disabilities.

But before you come up with some scheme to give the people with disabilties
equal bossing time, why the heck do these kids need to be bossing each other
at all...they already have teachers, principals, parents, and other
authority figures to boss them. Why not just eliminate the need for this
misguided and dangerous scheme by ensuring that students have an appropriate
curriculum?

My goodness you are such a fool. This is EXACTLY why people with
disabilities are so vulnerable to sexual assault and other forms of abuse.
Fools like you actually want them to learn to be victims, and to teach
non-disabled people to be victimizers. Amazingly stupid.

You certainly are if you think that teaching children to be subordinate to
authority is a bad thing.

Teaching people with disabilities to be a subordinate class of lesser humans
who are to yield control of their own lives to a higher class of
non-disabled people is most definitely and unquestionably a very bad thing
and leads to horrifying rates of sexual assault and other forms of abuse.

Scott, you had what you no doubt thought to be an interesting idea but it is
totally without merit, and would lead to a vulnerable group of people being
further victimized, and the school being nothing but a training ground for
victims and abusers.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/15/05 10:22 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:



As for "assigning a boss" to a disabled person, every person who enters
the
workforce gets assigned a "boss," and every person needs to learn how to
be
"bossed" in one way or another. That's life. Get used to it.

Why should people with disabilities "get used to" being bossed by
non-disabled people?!?

It's not just "disabled people," it's *everyone.* All children will
ultimately grow up and become members of the workforce, and they will be
"bossed" by any number of people in their lives. They need to learn how to
be a good subordinate FIRST. The military knows this, which is why even
General officers start out as boot recruits, where they learn to be
"bossed." It has absolutely nothing whatever to do with one's disability
status.

I don't hear you assigning any people with disabilities to boss their
non-disabled peers.
So, obviously, since your little system features
non-disabled people bossing disabled people, the main outcome will be as I
stated: people with disabilities will get used to being bossed by
non-disabled people, and non-disabled people will get used to bossing people
with disabilities.

Don't be silly, that's what mentoring programs are *about.* I never
suggested NOT mentoring non disabled students. In fact I repeatedly told you
that ANY student who was having difficulty in a specific academic area needs
to be mentored.

It so happens that we are specifically discussing the disabled, but that in
no way suggests that they are the only students who need mentors.


But before you come up with some scheme to give the people with disabilties
equal bossing time, why the heck do these kids need to be bossing each other
at all...they already have teachers, principals, parents, and other
authority figures to boss them.

You really seem to have some sort of authority-figure aversion.

Why not just eliminate the need for this
misguided and dangerous scheme by ensuring that students have an appropriate
curriculum?

Mentoring is an appropriate curriculum for a student who is having
difficulty.


My goodness you are such a fool. This is EXACTLY why people with
disabilities are so vulnerable to sexual assault and other forms of abuse.
Fools like you actually want them to learn to be victims, and to teach
non-disabled people to be victimizers. Amazingly stupid.

You certainly are if you think that teaching children to be subordinate to
authority is a bad thing.

Teaching people with disabilities to be a subordinate class of lesser humans
who are to yield control of their own lives to a higher class of
non-disabled people is most definitely and unquestionably a very bad thing
and leads to horrifying rates of sexual assault and other forms of abuse.

Specious, unsubstantiated, hysterical, untrue claptrap and nonsense.


Scott, you had what you no doubt thought to be an interesting idea but it is
totally without merit,

Sez you. It's not my idea, it's an idea held by many education
professionals, none of whom see the bogey-man you're in a panic about.

and would lead to a vulnerable group of people being
further victimized, and the school being nothing but a training ground for
victims and abusers.

Your anti-paranoia medication is wearing off.


--
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

Hi folks! Just thought I'd pop in and see how you are getting on.

I see that Sadder-butt Weiser is still spouting arrant nonsense, such
as:

...The military knows this, which is why even
General officers start out as boot recruits, where they learn to be
"bossed."...

In fact, only a small percentage of the officer corps is drawn from
enlisted recruits, and only a *tiny* percentage of general officers
come up from the ranks.

But when did Scott ever let truth and accuracy get in the way of what
looks (to him) like a good debating point?

Hang in there Scottie; keep on spittin' against the wind until you
finally bring it to a stop!

I'll look in again next month to see if yer still beating the same dead
horses.
-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--

================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================