If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WFTV Orlando)   If you thought that force feeding autistic children hot sauce soaked crayons is not an acceptable therapy method, you might want to revise your educational philosophy. Then again, this is Florida   (wftv.com) divider line 119
    More: Followup, educational philosophy, Play-Doh, Osceola County, therapy, WFTV  
•       •       •

6608 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Aug 2012 at 7:50 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



119 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-19 01:22:28 AM

sleeps in trees: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: sleeps in trees: insertsnarkyusername: PapaChester: jpat: As someone who works with autistic students all day, I can understand where the teacher is coming from. Here's the situation - four kids in a room (we are very lucky, we get small rooms), 3 love to color, 1 eats crayons. You can't take the crayons away from the one without taking it away from the other three. She 'treats his crayons' to make them unappealing. It doesn't sound much different than the nail stuff my brother had to use to stop him from chewing on his fingernails.

It's not evil, but it's not good teaching, either.

Same working situation as you, but I disagree. You can totally takes the wax eaters crayons away and not the others. If they want crayons, they should not eat them. This is an autistic child, not a vegetable. Training a person with mental issues just takes longer, but you don't give up before you try.

Then he throws a fit and the other 3 get nothing done for the day. Not that it really matters too much actually but it's easier on the teacher.

That's not how it works. Take a look at funding and where it goes. Not to the kids who need it but the motherfarking sparkle ponies.

/did I go too far?

Are you autistic yourself, or are you just under the influence of alcohol or some other recreational substance, tonight?

Also, no need to be rude. I did not agress to you, cool off.


No offense intended, lady.
 
2012-08-19 01:51:47 AM

ShannonKW: Madame Ovary: That's a very pretty strawman, but it doesn't disguise that you have no idea, none whatsoever, what you are talking about.

What am I supposed to say to that, or am I just supposed to admire your lazy snark?

[ohsnap.jpg]

It isn't a strawman unless you care to show how it misses the point.

Got an autistic kid? I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure you know things about autism that I'll never know. For that matter, the folks dancing around with venomous snakes in church know things about venomous snakes that I'll never know. They're not the only ones entitled to speak on the practice when it becomes a public issue and neither are the parents of autistic children.


OK, sure. Neither sleeps in trees nor Great Porn Dragon argued that any sort of unpleasantness visited upon children is a crime beyond the pale and unworthy of an educator, that allowing a child to taste hot sauce is tantamount to child abuse, nor that it is criminally cruel to feed a child a salad with radishes in it, nor that the world be padded in cotton to spare him. These, and the overarching notions behind them, are all your inventions. They are arguing, as I am arguing, that putting hot sauce on crayons and leaving them out for an autistic kid to handle is sloppy, irresponsible and ineffective (if not counterproductive) discipline that will cause unnecessary pain to the child. There are ways to teach autistic crayon-eating children not to eat crayons, but this isn't one of them. It is emphatically not the job of the teacher to inflict pointless pain on students.

There are a number of specifics offered in our above posts, most of which you have either marginalized with no supporting evidence (specifically, sensory reaction to hot sauce and the differences in perception between autistic and non-autistic persons), or ignored altogether (specifically, risk of secondary irritation and disciplinary ineffectiveness). Your opinions about how the autistic feel pain or can be successfully disciplined are clearly ill-informed conjecture.

I am the parent of a severely autistic child. Every other autism parent on this thread will know what that means. You are some random jackass on the Internet with an opinion he can't support, and who doubles down when he's called on his BS. Whatever. You have every right to speak. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.
 
2012-08-19 01:55:44 AM
Gomez denies ever force-feeding the student and said she only used the hot sauce to prevent him from eating the crayons.

Frankly, that makes a lot more sense than what the prosecution was claiming. If she wanted to use hot sauce to punish the kid, why wouldn't she just spoon-feed it to him? The only logical reason for putting it on crayons and Play-Doh is as a deterrent, to discourage him from eating those things. (People use the same tactic with dogs to keep them from eating their poop.)
 
2012-08-19 02:13:36 AM
I did a hot sauce soaked tequila shot 2 weeks ago for the first time in 16 years. It will be at least that long before I do one again.
 
2012-08-19 02:16:10 AM

ShannonKW: sleeps in trees: So.... she should let the kids eat crayons?

No, you remove them like all adults do. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

A teacher isn't "all adults." Neither, for that matter, are you.

The teacher's job is to help the kid learn how to use the crayons. She can't do that by taking them away. One of the most basic things the kid needs to learn about crayons is that they belong on paper, not in his mouth. So, she decided to make the crayons taste bad, perhaps on the theory that one is less likely to put a bad-tasting object in one's mouth.

Here's something for you to comprehend: she is accused of making something taste bad -- something that is not food and that she had no duty to preserve the flavor of. Depending on how the autistic kid feels about spicy food she may not even be guilty of that.


"Spicy" isn't a taste. It's a sensation.
A painful sensation to some and a child, let alone a special needs child, might not correlate the process of eating crayons with a painful sensation. Especially if this is not consistently reinforced. So the child learns nothing.
 
2012-08-19 03:18:35 AM

ShannonKW: By your reasoning it would be cruel -- criminally cruel and cause for dismissal -- to feed the child a salad with radishes in it. Let's say the kid is used to eating salads. Even normal people find radishes wickedly hot and bitter. Perhaps his autistic brain is wracked with agony at the taste of a radish, but this is how normals learn to spit the damned things out, and the autistic kid needs to learn this too, even if the lesson is harder on him.


As others have noted, I said no such thing--I'm not saying "ohgod don't correct the kid" or even "ohgod don't use aversives with the kid".

What I am noting is the following:

a) Children with autism--particularly those on the "lower functioning" end of the autistic spectrum--are far more sensitive to potential aversives, both directly and in ways that can actually cause sensory disruption and potential meltdowns outside of the sense being used in the aversion.

It is probably not an exaggeration, of note, to state that the entire sensory apparatus of your average kid with severe autism resembles a gigabit ethernet link (in a world of 10Base-T and 128-ISDN connections) with a non-negligible amount of cross-talk that develops when they get a lot of sensory data. (And yes, this pretty much IS a good description of what is going on with kids with autism; it's why they tend to stim and wall themselves off from often painful stimuli, it's why they tend to have synesthesia and meltdowns when a particularly strong stimulus or set of stimuli throw ALL the senses haywire into what amounts to God's own migraine times eleventy.)

A hot-sauce aversive usually isn't even recommended with kids with intellectual disabilities, because there are better aversives available. In a kid with autism, a hot-sauce aversive will likely not only be FAR more painful but could potentially cause visual and hearing and general body sensory problems (including frank body pain) as his neural network pretty much overloads and crosstalks all to hell.

In general, if aversives are used at all in kids with autism (and generally this is done less often, mostly for stuff that is literally "this will permanently maim or kill a kid") they must be far gentler than those used even in kids with intellectual disabilities and in a way the kid can associate with an action (which--again, because of sensory overload issues thanks to kids with autism having sensory equivalents of Big Pipes With Horrible Crosstalk Issues--is also problematic in some cases).

Usually (and especially in cases like crayon nomming, etc.) the more appropriate response would be to a) figure out why the kid has a fixation on eating paste and crayons (i.e. is it a form of "stimming"--that is, an action the kid is taking to try to dampen down the neural crosstalk--or is there another reason like pica, the kid having a general oral fixation because that's how they can sense the world without pain, etc.) and b) redirect the activity appropriately (in cases of stimming, work on a more appropriate "stim response" and see what may be overloading the kid, investigate for possible mineral deficiencies in case of pica, redirect oral stimming and/or oral fixations to a more appropriate tool like a chew ring, and so on).

Yes, it's more work than just dousing the crayons in some Cholula, but--interestingly enough--redirection and investigating WHY the kid keeps wanting to eat the crayons or modeling clay tends to be a more effective way to get them to stop.

(For all we know, the kid could be investigating whether the purple Play-Doh or crayons taste like grape because they smell like grapes--scented modeling clays and crayons are a lot more common nowadays. Hell, I've known neurotypical kids long before the days of scented crayons try to taste the crayons when 4-5 years old to see if they tasted purple and I've known neurotypical (but ultimately diagnosed with anxiety disorder) kids who chewed crayons and pencils as a nervous tic. There's a definite reason WHY he's chewing on this stuff, and it's better to find out WHY and redirect appropriately; it's NOT like he's chewing on electrical wires.)
 
2012-08-19 04:00:46 AM
t0.gstatic.com

crayola NIGHTMARE!!
 
2012-08-19 05:02:22 AM

Madame Ovary: They are arguing, as I am arguing, that putting hot sauce on crayons and leaving them out for an autistic kid to handle is sloppy, irresponsible and ineffective (if not counterproductive) discipline that will cause unnecessary pain to the child.


If that's all you're arguing, then it's a matter of professional opinion on which techniques are more effective than others (and which are not effective at all) in the esoteric world of autistic education, and I have no dog in this fight. The judge in TFA goes no further than to say it was "inappropriate" to use hot sauce, which these days could mean about anything.

The post that you responded to (walking around the filter here) was referring to posts by Great Porn Dragon and one other whom I'd rather not name (not you) in which there were apparently appeals made to pity (e.g. that it is cruel to expose even normal children to hot sauce). I don't recall reading any of your posts at the point you waxed pompous and accused me of attacking a strawman, though I may have been influenced by their tone. Mostly, though, you were attacking a comment which was not addressed to you.

One comment of mine that does seem to apply to your writings is the expectation that the world be padded in cotton. You deny holding this belief but it appears quite evident. The world is full of "aversives" for even closely watched children, hot sauce is not an outlandish one, and many of them are more intense. Expecting everyone in contact with a child to hem out these stimuli is an effort very much akin to padding the world in cotton. You may argue that an educator can be expected to, but there's no point unless you shrink the kid's world down to home and school, in which case you're back to Square One.

Like many people trapped in an intensely stressful situation, you appear to have lost some objectivity. You may have for ages of hopeless end busied yourself every waking day with not spinning up your autistic child, and you may be too ready to assume that others do likewise. I, and many others of voting age, am concerned that badly defective children not be subjected to wanton cruelty (found not to be the case in TFA) on my dime, but we have no practical interest in holding already hard-to-find and expensive teachers to such high standards that they be summarily fired for an instance of employing (what after expert analysis is thought to be) a suboptimal method, especially in the case of children so far gone.
 
2012-08-19 05:36:00 AM

ShannonKW: Madame Ovary: They are arguing, as I am arguing, that putting hot sauce on crayons and leaving them out for an autistic kid to handle is sloppy, irresponsible and ineffective (if not counterproductive) discipline that will cause unnecessary pain to the child.

If that's all you're arguing, then it's a matter of professional opinion on which techniques are more effective than others (and which are not effective at all) in the esoteric world of autistic education, and I have no dog in this fight. The judge in TFA goes no further than to say it was "inappropriate" to use hot sauce, which these days could mean about anything.

The post that you responded to (walking around the filter here) was referring to posts by Great Porn Dragon and one other whom I'd rather not name (not you) in which there were apparently appeals made to pity (e.g. that it is cruel to expose even normal children to hot sauce). I don't recall reading any of your posts at the point you waxed pompous and accused me of attacking a strawman, though I may have been influenced by their tone. Mostly, though, you were attacking a comment which was not addressed to you.

One comment of mine that does seem to apply to your writings is the expectation that the world be padded in cotton. You deny holding this belief but it appears quite evident. The world is full of "aversives" for even closely watched children, hot sauce is not an outlandish one, and many of them are more intense. Expecting everyone in contact with a child to hem out these stimuli is an effort very much akin to padding the world in cotton. You may argue that an educator can be expected to, but there's no point unless you shrink the kid's world down to home and school, in which case you're back to Square One.

Like many people trapped in an intensely stressful situation, you appear to have lost some objectivity. You may have for ages of hopeless end busied yourself every waking day with not spinning up your autistic child, and you may be too r ...


So what it comes down to is that you do not think that there is harm in using ineffective and outdated methods. Would you also defend a teacher who spanks kids in the classroom? Spanking in general is not technically illegal, afterall, they're just "employing suboptimal methods" of discipline. As someone in the psychology field, I know the history of my area of study, and just how badly some of those outdated "suboptimal methods" can actually cause more damage. If these methods HAVE been found to be suboptimal, which they most assuredly have, then yes, having standards that include knowing what NOT to do is a good thing. Rather than looking at it as "otherwise good teachers will be fired," how about we let them know there are consequences so that these good teachers put in the effort to educate themselves, especially when they are dealing with special needs kids.
 
2012-08-19 06:01:24 AM

Great Porn Dragon: Children with autism--particularly those on the "lower functioning" end of the autistic spectrum--are far more sensitive to potential aversives, both directly and in ways that can actually cause sensory disruption and potential meltdowns outside of the sense being used in the aversion.


You are saying, in short, "there are better ways of doing what that teacher set out to do." This is fine.

What I was trying to point out with the example of the radish-laced salad bowl was that unpleasant sensations are part of everyday life, even for sheltered children, and even when you don't incorporate them into an educational method and call them "aversives". If we were talking about some exotic chemical that the child couldn't have come in contact with, that would be a different matter. We're not. Somewhere within reach of that kid is bound to be something that is as unpleasant to put in his mouth as a lick of hot sauce. Naturally, it may end up in there as he explores the world, no matter who left it there or why.

Now, when a normal child. or even a relatively primitive animal does this, he gags it up and maybe learns not to do it again. Perhaps the far-gone autistic child is too ill-wired to react like this and, as you say, he "melts down" instead. I'd take your word for it for the sake of argument. In the worst case he has yet another meltdown in what is likely to be a long day of sticking things in his mouth and learns nothing, which is sad but unsurprising in a creature which is failing a mental task which can be performed by a healthy sea anemone. Regardless, the same task will be presented to him every day that he can find interesting but nasty things to eat, even if it isn't presented deliberately as a flawed lesson. So it seems unreasonable to get upset over it.
 
2012-08-19 06:06:50 AM

sleeps in trees: I had a comming to Jesus about my opinions used diagnoses.


what does this sentence even mean? they are all real words (except comming) but mean nothing in this arrangement.

wait, I have found a definition for comming from the urban dictionary

1. comming

A common misspelling of a word that seems so easy to spell that it hurts your brain when it's actually misspelled in this fashion. Even if you sounded out the word "coming" phonetically, to try and spell it, you would not get anything resembling "comming."



Also, it seems this kid needs 1 to 1 attention just to stop them eating crayons. That is a stupid waste of resources on a planet where so many children with a better chance of being productive members are denied food, water and basic education.
 
2012-08-19 06:48:34 AM

batcookie: So what it comes down to is that you do not think that there is harm in using ineffective and outdated methods. Would you also defend a teacher who spanks kids in the classroom? Spanking in general is not technically illegal, afterall, they're just "employing suboptimal methods" of discipline.


There is no harm in an ineffective method. There simply isn't any good in it. It doesn't make one whit of difference that a method is outdated, though the assumption that a method is better because it is in vogue (or because it is traditional) can lead to trouble.

Personally, I've never seen anything to suggest that spanking in itself would be effective in school, but I have seen good behavioral results from the plausible threat of it. I'm sure it's nothing like a disciplinary cure-all though, so it's not near the top of the list of approaches I'd endorse. In the case of a colleague who resorted to it (legally) I'd neither approve it on principle nor thump a psychology text and denounce his unorthodoxy. I'd observe the results and point these out if asked about the matter.

In the case of severe autism I'm less interested in the soundness of method because there is typically so little to be gained compared to what can be expected of normals. For a few hundred thousand dollars, top-notch experts using the best thought out techniques can teach a gorilla 2000 words of English. If I personally had commissioned the project, or it was my gorilla, I'd be pissed to find them using suboptimal methods; but if it was state law mandating education for all primates, I wouldn't care -- because an ape who knows 2000 words isn't significantly more valuable to society than one who knows only 1800. It's sunk money, and there's no use crying about it unless you intend to change the law.
 
2012-08-19 09:22:16 AM

ShannonKW: Madame Ovary: They are arguing, as I am arguing, that putting hot sauce on crayons and leaving them out for an autistic kid to handle is sloppy, irresponsible and ineffective (if not counterproductive) discipline that will cause unnecessary pain to the child.

If that's all you're arguing, then it's a matter of professional opinion on which techniques are more effective than others (and which are not effective at all) in the esoteric world of autistic education, and I have no dog in this fight. The judge in TFA goes no further than to say it was "inappropriate" to use hot sauce, which these days could mean about anything.

The post that you responded to (walking around the filter here) was referring to posts by Great Porn Dragon and one other whom I'd rather not name (not you) in which there were apparently appeals made to pity (e.g. that it is cruel to expose even normal children to hot sauce). I don't recall reading any of your posts at the point you waxed pompous and accused me of attacking a strawman, though I may have been influenced by their tone. Mostly, though, you were attacking a comment which was not addressed to you.

One comment of mine that does seem to apply to your writings is the expectation that the world be padded in cotton. You deny holding this belief but it appears quite evident. The world is full of "aversives" for even closely watched children, hot sauce is not an outlandish one, and many of them are more intense. Expecting everyone in contact with a child to hem out these stimuli is an effort very much akin to padding the world in cotton. You may argue that an educator can be expected to, but there's no point unless you shrink the kid's world down to home and school, in which case you're back to Square One.

Like many people trapped in an intensely stressful situation, you appear to have lost some objectivity. You may have for ages of hopeless end busied yourself every waking day with not spinning up your autistic child, and you may be too ready to assume that others do likewise. I, and many others of voting age, am concerned that badly defective children not be subjected to wanton cruelty (found not to be the case in TFA) on my dime, but we have no practical interest in holding already hard-to-find and expensive teachers to such high standards that they be summarily fired for an instance of employing (what after expert analysis is thought to be) a suboptimal method, especially in the case of children so far gone.


Please direct me to where I or anyone else on this thread said that everyone in contact with an autistic child must hem out all aversive stimuli, or anything even close to that.

Also, please explain how criticizing a teacher for a sloppy, ineffective, counterproductive disciplinary measure that may actually hurt the child is the same thing as expecting the teacher to hem out all aversive stimuli.

Finally, please explain how I somehow don't have objectivity. While you're at it, you can justify your incorrect assumptions about my parenting technique.

Those are all straw men.

I expect special education teachers to be highly qualified, meaning that they know enough about autism and teaching to properly design disciplinary measures, and to work with me and with a team of qualified professionals to design any unusual disciplinary measures. I also expect special education teachers and the school not to act negligently in the care of my child, and of everyone's children. Those expectations are also the expectations of US law.

It has been explained elsewhere in this thread why the teacher's approach is not merely suboptimal, but counterproductive and injurious, to the point of placing the teacher's qualifications in doubt.
 
2012-08-19 09:48:44 AM

ShannonKW: batcookie: So what it comes down to is that you do not think that there is harm in using ineffective and outdated methods. Would you also defend a teacher who spanks kids in the classroom? Spanking in general is not technically illegal, afterall, they're just "employing suboptimal methods" of discipline.

There is no harm in an ineffective method. There simply isn't any good in it. It doesn't make one whit of difference that a method is outdated, though the assumption that a method is better because it is in vogue (or because it is traditional) can lead to trouble.

Personally, I've never seen anything to suggest that spanking in itself would be effective in school, but I have seen good behavioral results from the plausible threat of it. I'm sure it's nothing like a disciplinary cure-all though, so it's not near the top of the list of approaches I'd endorse. In the case of a colleague who resorted to it (legally) I'd neither approve it on principle nor thump a psychology text and denounce his unorthodoxy. I'd observe the results and point these out if asked about the matter.

In the case of severe autism I'm less interested in the soundness of method because there is typically so little to be gained compared to what can be expected of normals. For a few hundred thousand dollars, top-notch experts using the best thought out techniques can teach a gorilla 2000 words of English. If I personally had commissioned the project, or it was my gorilla, I'd be pissed to find them using suboptimal methods; but if it was state law mandating education for all primates, I wouldn't care -- because an ape who knows 2000 words isn't significantly more valuable to society than one who knows only 1800. It's sunk money, and there's no use crying about it unless you intend to change the law.


Since we're all of a sudden placing economic measures on the education of primates, which I infer to be a simile to autistic children, let me just point out that it is vastly less costly to society for a severely autistic child to be able to communicate as effectively as possible, be as well socialized and best able to self-moderate behavior as possible, and to function cognitively to the greatest possible degree. It's the difference between independence and dependence, between assisted living and institutionalization, between having a happy adult life and being abused, ill, incarcerated or dying alone in the street. Leaving aside the moral obligation of a society to protect its most vulnerable members, it's also less costly for society for autistic adults to live in a safe, appropriately independent setting than is institutionalization or any of the bad outcomes above. This, along with the aforementioned moral obligation, is why US law mandates the free and public education of the disabled, and why special education professional practices are what they are.
 
2012-08-19 12:20:50 PM

Madame Ovary: Please direct me to where I or anyone else on this thread said that everyone in contact with an autistic child must hem out all aversive stimuli, or anything even close to that.


I'm not sure I can put this any more clearly, but here goes. You are arguing against leaving a bad-tasting object within reach of a child. To the extent that it would take an extreme effort to remove all such objects, this amounts to "hemming out" stimuli. I'm assuming, of course, that you consider it bad to leave to leave strong flavors out whether or not one is trying to teach the kid something by it.

Madame Ovary: explain how criticizing a teacher for a sloppy, ineffective, counterproductive disciplinary measure that may actually hurt the child is the same thing as expecting the teacher to hem out all aversive stimuli.


Wasn't saying that. For one thing, neither I nor the court thinks this was disciplinary. I have nothing to say of your judgment of the effectiveness of the teacher's methods. I am very skeptical of the claim that hot sauce could harm a child, and even more skeptical of the implicit belief that it would harm him worse than anything else that might be found laying around the school. Again, I get the idea of "hemming out" bad tastes from your claim that the teacher is culpable for leaving out a single spiced object.

Madame Ovary: explain how I somehow don't have objectivity.


To people who don't spend much of their time pondering the theoretical psychiatric consequences of spicy sauce, flavoring a crayon is a 5-minute act worth 5 minutes of thought. It looms large in your mind, and you seem to think it should do so in others' to the extent that a public servant who has charge of autistic children may not be forgiven such a lapse, assuming it even is one. This is a standard of conduct fit for air traffic controllers, and you would be lacking in objectivity to think (having an autistic child of your own) that your teachers should be held to it.

Madame Ovary: While you're at it, you can justify your incorrect assumptions about my parenting technique.


I have no idea what your parenting technique is and less interest, though I assume it involves not exposing your child to strong flavors. You want to fire people who do that.

Madame Ovary: This, along with the aforementioned moral obligation, is why US law mandates the free and public education of the disabled, and why special education professional practices are what they are.


I do not believe this, nor can conceive of any honest adult believing it, though it makes for heart-warming campaign rhetoric, and some version of it may be scrawled on the posters and pamphlets of the offices you have to visit. The reason for it is that there is a small pool of intensely interested citizens who want education for hopelessly defective children, a larger pool of people who know it's a waste of resources but who second it because they can't endure looking callous, and a still larger pool who don't give a damn because it's none of their affair and the government wastes more money on worse things.
 
2012-08-19 02:01:50 PM

ShannonKW: Madame Ovary: Please direct me to where I or anyone else on this thread said that everyone in contact with an autistic child must hem out all aversive stimuli, or anything even close to that.

I'm not sure I can put this any more clearly, but here goes. You are arguing against leaving a bad-tasting object within reach of a child. To the extent that it would take an extreme effort to remove all such objects, this amounts to "hemming out" stimuli. I'm assuming, of course, that you consider it bad to leave to leave strong flavors out whether or not one is trying to teach the kid something by it.

No. The "all such objects" is you creating a straw man, and your assumption is completely invalid. This has been explained at length.

Madame Ovary: explain how criticizing a teacher for a sloppy, ineffective, counterproductive disciplinary measure that may actually hurt the child is the same thing as expecting the teacher to hem out all aversive stimuli.

Wasn't saying that. For one thing, neither I nor the court thinks this was disciplinary. I have nothing to say of your judgment of the effectiveness of the teacher's methods. I am very skeptical of the claim that hot sauce could harm a child, and even more skeptical of the implicit belief that it would harm him worse than anything else that might be found laying around the school. Again, I get the idea of "hemming out" bad tastes from your claim that the teacher is culpable for leaving out a single spiced object.

No. Yes, you were saying that. They are your words. Your skepticism is based on willful ignorance at this point, because its invalidity has been explained at length. Your two attempts to generalize the issue ("worse than anything else that might be found laying around the school"; ""hemming out") are you creating straw men.

Madame Ovary: explain how I somehow don't have objectivity.

To people who don't spend much of their time pondering the theoretical psychiatric consequences of spicy sauce, flavoring a crayon is a 5-minute act worth 5 minutes of thought. It looms large in your mind, and you seem to think it should do so in others' to the extent that a public servant who has charge of autistic children may not be forgiven such a lapse, assuming it even is one. This is a standard of conduct fit for air traffic controllers, and you would be lacking in objectivity to think (having an autistic child of your own) that your teachers should be held to it.

No. The act fails to meet an acceptable standard for special education practice for multiple reasons explained to you by several experts in this very thread, and I am not seeing, nor do I expect, anyone claiming actual expertise riding to your rescue. You clearly have no understanding of how special education classroom procedures are actually developed and executed and make up nonsense about how you imagine it's done, as has also been explained at length. If anyone's not being objective here, it's you.

Madame Ovary: While you're at it, you can justify your incorrect assumptions about my parenting technique.

I have no idea what your parenting technique is and less interest, though I assume it involves not exposing your child to strong flavors. You want to fire people who do that.


Oh, I think you do have an interest. You wrote:

"One comment of mine that does seem to apply to your writings is the expectation that the world be padded in cotton. You deny holding this belief but it appears quite evident. The world is full of "aversives" for even closely watched children, hot sauce is not an outlandish one, and many of them are more intense. Expecting everyone in contact with a child to hem out these stimuli is an effort very much akin to padding the world in cotton. You may argue that an educator can be expected to, but there's no point unless you shrink the kid's world down to home and school, in which case you're back to Square One.

Like many people trapped in an intensely stressful situation, you appear to have lost some objectivity. You may have for ages of hopeless end busied yourself every waking day with not spinning up your autistic child, and you may be too ready to assume that others do likewise."


While I appreciate your ingenuity in trying to make an issue of special education professional practice about me, personally, your assumptions have no basis in fact, and are a little creepy.

Madame Ovary: This, along with the aforementioned moral obligation, is why US law mandates the free and public education of the disabled, and why special education professional practices are what they are.

I do not believe this, nor can conceive of any honest adult believing it, though it makes for heart-warming campaign rhetoric, and some version of it may be scrawled on the posters and pamphlets of the offices you have to visit. The reason for it is that there is a small pool of intensely interested citizens who want education for hopelessly defective children, a larger pool of people who know it's a waste of resources but who second it because they can't endure looking callous, and a still larger pool who don't give a damn because it's none of their affair and the government wastes more money on worse things.


I'm not inclined to assign a lot of weight to your beliefs at this point. You've spent significant time and energy in this thread enunciating beliefs with no actual basis in fact, and stand revealed as a hateful, disingenuous nutter, so I won't go into the economic data supporting the fairly intuitive fact that independent and productive living is cheaper than institutionalization, incarceration, etc. - it's a waste of my time and I expect you will only come back with more straw men and unsupported conjecture. I will simply quote 34 CFR Part 300, Subpart A of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act:

"Section 300.1 Purposes. The purposes of this part are:

(a) To ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living;

(b) To ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents are protected;

(c) To assist States, localities, educational service agencies, and Federal agencies to provide for the education of all children with disabilities; and

(d) To assess and ensure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities."

The fact is, it works. The great majority of the people engaged in special education today are caring, committed professionals, and they have helped many, many disabled people lead happier and more productive lives. I'm grateful to them.

You, however, seem not to be able to understand basic argumentation and reason, construct alternate realities to avoid inconvenient facts, can't seem to stop digging when you're in a hole, and increasingly appear to be driven by narrowness and hate. I actually feel a little sorry for you.

Enjoy your day.
 
2012-08-19 05:53:26 PM

ShannonKW: Madame Ovary: They are arguing, as I am arguing, that putting hot sauce on crayons and leaving them out for an autistic kid to handle is sloppy, irresponsible and ineffective (if not counterproductive) discipline that will cause unnecessary pain to the child.

If that's all you're arguing, then it's a matter of professional opinion on which techniques are more effective than others (and which are not effective at all) in the esoteric world of autistic education, and I have no dog in this fight. The judge in TFA goes no further than to say it was "inappropriate" to use hot sauce, which these days could mean about anything.

The post that you responded to (walking around the filter here) was referring to posts by Great Porn Dragon and one other whom I'd rather not name (not you) in which there were apparently appeals made to pity (e.g. that it is cruel to expose even normal children to hot sauce). I don't recall reading any of your posts at the point you waxed pompous and accused me of attacking a strawman, though I may have been influenced by their tone. Mostly, though, you were attacking a comment which was not addressed to you.

One comment of mine that does seem to apply to your writings is the expectation that the world be padded in cotton. You deny holding this belief but it appears quite evident. The world is full of "aversives" for even closely watched children, hot sauce is not an outlandish one, and many of them are more intense. Expecting everyone in contact with a child to hem out these stimuli is an effort very much akin to padding the world in cotton. You may argue that an educator can be expected to, but there's no point unless you shrink the kid's world down to home and school, in which case you're back to Square One.

Like many people trapped in an intensely stressful situation, you appear to have lost some objectivity. You may have for ages of hopeless end busied yourself every waking day with not spinning up your autistic child, and you may ...


Dude, you kind of farked yourself with the last paragraph.
 
2012-08-19 05:58:24 PM

dready zim: sleeps in trees: I had a comming to Jesus about my opinions used diagnoses.

what does this sentence even mean? they are all real words (except comming) but mean nothing in this arrangement.

wait, I have found a definition for comming from the urban dictionary

1. comming

A common misspelling of a word that seems so easy to spell that it hurts your brain when it's actually misspelled in this fashion. Even if you sounded out the word "coming" phonetically, to try and spell it, you would not get anything resembling "comming."


Also, it seems this kid needs 1 to 1 attention just to stop them eating crayons. That is a stupid waste of resources on a planet where so many children with a better chance of being productive members are denied food, water and basic education.


Sorry, tired as crap last night and wasn't paying attention. Good to know you still understood what I was saying and took the time to correct me.
 
2012-08-20 02:21:15 AM

sleeps in trees: dready zim: sleeps in trees: I had a comming to Jesus about my opinions used diagnoses.

what does this sentence even mean? they are all real words (except comming) but mean nothing in this arrangement.

wait, I have found a definition for comming from the urban dictionary

1. comming

A common misspelling of a word that seems so easy to spell that it hurts your brain when it's actually misspelled in this fashion. Even if you sounded out the word "coming" phonetically, to try and spell it, you would not get anything resembling "comming."


Also, it seems this kid needs 1 to 1 attention just to stop them eating crayons. That is a stupid waste of resources on a planet where so many children with a better chance of being productive members are denied food, water and basic education.

Sorry, tired as crap last night and wasn't paying attention. Good to know you still understood what I was saying and took the time to correct me.


I have nothing to do with this thread, but I did read quite a bit of it, and I just want to applaud you for your "gracious on the surface, with only a slight undertone of *zing*" response to someone who was being a total dick in the part you quoted.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with any of the special-ed/autism stuff; I don't have enough knowledge in that area. It's just nice to see that someone is able to keep a cool head after being repeatedly belittled in one of these threads.

That's all.
 
Displayed 19 of 119 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report