section 504

[Snakemaster-13]

Section 504 of the rehibilitation program states that all children, deaf, blind, retarded, etc. have access to a public education. Frankly, I think that whoever made this rule is wrong in the head. I want it to be made clear that I have absolutely nothing against any person with any disability, but I think that children with moderate-severe mental deficits should be placed in different learning facilities. This is only because they would get extra attention, have focuses on particular problems, and would not be ridiculed as they are in public schools.

Discuss.

[dreamstohack]

I agree that they shoudl have special facilities (as should any deaf, or otherwise imparied kid, you dont want to force teachers to suddenly be able to teach 100 students, 20 of which are deaf), and while i do think that there shoudl be more facilities for disabled kids, but i dont think the fault is in section 504. The section is true, they should all get an education, the problem is that we need more facilities to help kids with problems

[Snakemaster-13]

You're right, but it is because of section 504 that they go to regular school, which is what I'm arguing against.

[AdamRice]

I agree kinda. But that would be more expensive and you know money is more important then the convenience of a few retards. Atleast that's what Washington thinks.

[troubles1]

sure and wile they are at it maybe they can put them on some island where you wont have to look at them either. the point in them going to the school you go to is to interact with people and try to get them to be able to live in society, and the same for you so you can , learn to interact with people and hopefully not be the ass who makes their life unpleasant but helps them.

[BeFell]

They do have special facilities.

[Snakemaster-13]

They do, but unfortunately that costs a lot of money. So once again money is the source of the problem. But I don't want anyone to call me an ass for thinking that section 504 is wrong, because that "healthy interaction" happens to be endless ridiculing and pointing. If you had a retarded child, would you want him to go through that?

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 9/26/06 11:06 PM, Snakemaster-13 wrote: would you want him to go through that?

Yes. Because he/she cannot be wrapped up and protected in cotton wool for their entire life.

Should we create separate educational facilities for fat kids, because they are often the target of bullies too?

[Glendale]

At 9/26/06 11:10 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote:

At 9/26/06 11:06 PM, Snakemaster-13 wrote: would you want him to go through that?

Yes. Because he/she cannot be wrapped up and protected in cotton wool for their entire life.

Should we create separate educational facilities for fat kids, because they are often the target of bullies too?

Yeah, but fat kids can stand against bullies. Retarted kids cant stand against their own mental illness. Its not like fighting a bully.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

Why can't they stand up to bullies?

Bullies exist in more places than the schoolyard....By taking these kids out of the usual school system, your just making life later on more difficult for them.

[Snakemaster-13]

At 9/26/06 11:10 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote:

At 9/26/06 11:06 PM, Snakemaster-13 wrote: would you want him to go through that?

Yes. Because he/she cannot be wrapped up and protected in cotton wool for their entire life.

Should we create separate educational facilities for fat kids, because they are often the target of bullies too?

So you're saying you would want your child to be called "fucktard" and "TIMAAAAH!" for his entire school educational time? And we should not create seperate facilities for fat kids, because firstly of what Glendale said, and secondly because if a kid is fat, it's his fault. The same cannot be said for born mentally deficit children.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 9/26/06 11:19 PM, Snakemaster-13 wrote: So you're saying you would want your child to be called "fucktard" and "TIMAAAAH!"

for his entire school educational time?

Of course I wouldn't, but if it happens, then it happens. The world is a cruel place, And the sooner young Timmy realises that, the longer he had to grow accustomed to it, and gain strength to tackle the problems he'll be confronted with in later life.

and secondly because if a kid is fat, it's his fault. The same cannot be said for born mentally deficit children.

If a kid is fat, then it's his parents fault, not his.

[Snakemaster-13]

At 9/26/06 11:25 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote:

At 9/26/06 11:19 PM, Snakemaster-13 wrote: So you're saying you would want your child to be called "fucktard" and "TIMAAAAH!"

for his entire school educational time?

Of course I wouldn't, but if it happens, then it happens. The world is a cruel place, And the sooner young Timmy realises that, the longer he had to grow accustomed to it, and gain strength to tackle the problems he'll be confronted with in later life.

Yeah, for a regular kid. A regular kid will be able to cope with those problems in later life. Someone with a lower mental capacity or other problems would not be able to cope with this.

and secondly because if a kid is fat, it's his fault. The same cannot be said for born mentally deficit children.

If a kid is fat, then it's his parents fault, not his.

Does a parent whine to his kid "Son! I want you to eat these happy meals RIGHT NOW!" No, it's the other way around.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 9/26/06 11:33 PM, Snakemaster-13 wrote: Yeah, for a regular kid. A regular kid will be able to cope with those problems in later life. Someone with a lower mental capacity or other problems would not be able to cope with this.

Why not? Why are you assuming that they need protection from the world? How about giving them a little credit huh?

Does a parent whine to his kid "Son! I want you to eat these happy meals RIGHT NOW!" No, it's the other way around.

Oh shut the fuck up. the parent is the adult in the situation. The choice on what to feed their child ultimately rests with them.

If they're too weak and give in to their child, that's their fault and not the kids.

The Mental Health issue disturbs me a bit. Firstly, because of the increasing number of mental illnesses being discovered that have no chemical or scientific backing.

I think that if every child had an outlet for expression, through fashion, the arts, music, architecture, essays, writing, poetry, debate, etc -- then they wouldn't be so angsty. People don't like being told what to do without any recourse.

I mean, I know, some kids have lost huge portions of their mental capacity due to fatal accidents, spinal chord injuries, etc. But some kids are just randomly diagnosed as schizo, ADD and other disorders. Read Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. That's a great book. It tells about the troubling fate of society if it descends to a therapuetic state and what you can do to try and stop it merely by being outgoing and involved in the community.

There was also a crazy mental health law passed by Bush in going about now called the "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_Con
sent_Act_of_2005" (Parental Consent Act) where they want to do "Universal Mental Health" screening. This is scary, I think since if you're a political dissident and you want to go out and get active they could say you have "ADD" or some other crap, put you in a straight jacket and feed you drugs until there you've got nothing left in your brain but mashed potatoes.

[Snakemaster-13]

But is it not also the kid's choice to eat those things? Whatever. That's not the point. the point is that kids with special needs should be in schools that cater specially to their needs.

[JakeHero]

At 9/26/06 11:52 PM, Snakemaster-13 wrote: But is it not also the kid's choice to eat those things? Whatever. That's not the point. the point is that kids with special needs should be in schools that cater specially to their needs.

Well, then there's the issue of vouchers....

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 9/26/06 11:52 PM, Snakemaster-13 wrote: But is it not also the kid's choice to eat those things?

The kid might choose to want unhealthy food (like every child on the planet), but the parent chooses whether to let them eat it or not.

Whatever. That's not the point. the point is that kids with special needs should be in schools that cater specially to their needs.

Why? the only point you seem to come up with is to stop them being bullied. But this wouldn't work, because as I’ve said i don't know how many times, bullies exist everywhere in life. And if they don't learn to ignore them in school, if they aren't conditioned to let the insults slide off them like water of a ducks back....then that's just something they will have to learn (or maybe never will) later on in life.

I understand your point dude, and it's a noble one at that....but it's my belief that over protection is one of the worst things you can do to a child, mentally disabled or not.

I’ve worked in retail now for over 5 years, and dealt with hundreds of physically and mentally disabled people of all ages….and those who are most adjusted to life, no matter how ‘retarded’ they are, are the ones who are treated normal. Not special.

[Snakemaster-13]

I understand your points as well. I'm sorry if I was passing an incomplete train of thought. I meant the more severely disabled kids. There are quite a few of them at my school that are incapable of talking. I can completely sympathize and comprehend the more mild cases going to public school. But a school is just that: a school, not a daycare. And a child that is incapable of fully learning to communicate due to a disabillity should not be left for the school system to deal with. And that is one of the cons of section 504: turning schools into daycares.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 9/27/06 12:05 AM, Snakemaster-13 wrote: ...

This I can agree with.