Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/31 12:21:56
Subject: Re:So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Servoarm Flailing Magos
|
Melissia wrote:As a condition re-tard refers solely to mental retardation
... and again, what kind? The term is not useful in treatment.
It is. A re-tard is someone with an IQ of less than 70.
Unfortunately such people are simply now labled as having "learning difficulties", therby lumping them in with people who're otherwise intelligent but do have a learning difficulty, dyslexics etc. Due to a reluctance to offend, we take brilliant young people and group them in with the very stupidest in society.
|
Ever thought 40k would be a lot better with bears?
Codex: Bears.
NOW WITH MR BIGGLES AND HIS AMAZING FLYING CONTRAPTION |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/31 12:30:55
Subject: Re:So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
On a boat, Trying not to die.
|
Joey wrote:Melissia wrote:As a condition re-tard refers solely to mental retardation
... and again, what kind? The term is not useful in treatment.
It is. A re-tard is someone with an IQ of less than 70.
Unfortunately such people are simply now labled as having "learning difficulties", therby lumping them in with people who're otherwise intelligent but do have a learning difficulty, dyslexics etc. Due to a reluctance to offend, we take brilliant young people and group them in with the very stupidest in society.
In England, perhaps. But in my school, here in America, we have many programs for the student who have disabilities.
We have gifted, support, Life Skills, and others tailored to every student's needs.
|
Every Normal Man Must Be Tempted At Times To Spit On His Hands, Hoist That Black Flag, And Begin Slitting Throats. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/31 12:33:41
Subject: So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair
In your base, ignoring your logic.
|
Actually outside of psychology maybe, but within psychology people with dyslexia are classified as having a learning difficulty. They are still in need of special education because they aren't "normal". Then you have Learning Disorders which relate to various sections of academics. Math LD, Written LD, Verbal LD, all due to wiring of the brain that prevents proper learning of these subjects. MR, LD, Dyslexia, all are abnormal and need special education. Chowderhead wrote:Joey wrote:Melissia wrote:As a condition re-tard refers solely to mental retardation ... and again, what kind? The term is not useful in treatment.
It is. A re-tard is someone with an IQ of less than 70. Unfortunately such people are simply now labled as having "learning difficulties", therby lumping them in with people who're otherwise intelligent but do have a learning difficulty, dyslexics etc. Due to a reluctance to offend, we take brilliant young people and group them in with the very stupidest in society.
In England, perhaps. But in my school, here in America, we have many programs for the student who have disabilities. We have gifted, support, Life Skills, and others tailored to every student's needs. Gifted isn't a disability...
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/31 12:34:25
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/31 12:35:16
Subject: So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
On a boat, Trying not to die.
|
halonachos wrote:Actually outside of psychology maybe, but within psychology people with dyslexia are classified as having a learning difficulty. They are still in need of special education because they aren't "normal". Then you have Learning Disorders which relate to various sections of academics. Math LD, Written LD, Verbal LD, all due to wiring of the brain that prevents proper learning of these subjects. MR, LD, Dyslexia, all are abnormal and need special education. Chowderhead wrote:Joey wrote:Melissia wrote:As a condition re-tard refers solely to mental retardation ... and again, what kind? The term is not useful in treatment.
It is. A re-tard is someone with an IQ of less than 70. Unfortunately such people are simply now labled as having "learning difficulties", therby lumping them in with people who're otherwise intelligent but do have a learning difficulty, dyslexics etc. Due to a reluctance to offend, we take brilliant young people and group them in with the very stupidest in society.
In England, perhaps. But in my school, here in America, we have many programs for the student who have disabilities. We have gifted, support, Life Skills, and others tailored to every student's needs. Gifted isn't a disability...
It's under the Americans with Disabilities Act, IIRC. I don't know why.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/31 12:35:33
Every Normal Man Must Be Tempted At Times To Spit On His Hands, Hoist That Black Flag, And Begin Slitting Throats. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/31 12:35:19
Subject: So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience
|
halonachos, your model completely disregards the idea that people can learn from failure and work harder because of it. I flunked chemistry and got bad results in physics in my second year of uni because I was a lazy gak. I spent the summer studying really hard to catch up while working, and did better in my subsequent exams. My self esteem with regard to my scores was justifiably low- I had not done well, so I didn't deserve to feel good about it.
Increase someone's self worth by making them worth something, not by never letting them know they have failed. Otherwise you make people with artificially high and extremely brittle self esteem, with no resilience. It's much more complicated than "Always preserve self esteem" or "never preserve self esteem". Like most things.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/31 13:38:10
Subject: So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Boosting Space Marine Biker
|
The self esteem/success correlation is exactly that, a correlation. Does good self esteem cause success? Or does success cause good self esteem? What about someone like me with severe clinical depression? Once I am fully "cured" will I instantly become successful?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/31 14:08:28
Subject: Re:So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot
Southampton, Hampshire, England, British Isles, Europe, Earth, Sol, Sector 001
|
"Severe clinical depression", isn't that just the Emo effect by another name?  (you know I'm kidding  )
The thing is you can make satistics say any thing you want, its like the "Global warming is course by lack of pirates", argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation. Just becouse the two things look like they are related doesn't mean they are, look at the most sucsefly of the standup comics, most of them are or could be classed with clinical depression but they do just fine
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/31 14:12:09
Subject: Re:So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Boosting Space Marine Biker
|
Ribon Fox wrote:"Severe clinical depression", isn't that just the Emo effect by another name?  (you know I'm kidding  )
The thing is you can make satistics say any thing you want, its like the "Global warming is course by lack of pirates", argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation. Just becouse the two things look like they are related doesn't mean they are, look at the most sucsefly of the standup comics, most of them are or could be classed with clinical depression but they do just fine 
I look horrible in skinny jeans, and I look like a donkey cave with a caeser haircut...
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/31 17:00:05
Subject: Re:So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Kid_Kyoto
|
treadhead1944 wrote:I look horrible in skinny jeans, and I look like a donkey cave with a caeser haircut...
Everyone looks horrible that way; it's just that the ones who do it don't realize it until they hit the age of about 24.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/01 01:56:03
Subject: So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair
In your base, ignoring your logic.
|
Da Boss wrote:halonachos, your model completely disregards the idea that people can learn from failure and work harder because of it. I flunked chemistry and got bad results in physics in my second year of uni because I was a lazy gak. I spent the summer studying really hard to catch up while working, and did better in my subsequent exams. My self esteem with regard to my scores was justifiably low- I had not done well, so I didn't deserve to feel good about it.
Increase someone's self worth by making them worth something, not by never letting them know they have failed. Otherwise you make people with artificially high and extremely brittle self esteem, with no resilience. It's much more complicated than "Always preserve self esteem" or "never preserve self esteem". Like most things.
Anecdotal evidence versus widely held theories of the downward spiral of self-esteem and depression.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/03 09:10:42
Subject: Re:So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
halonachos wrote:Melissia wrote:As a condition re-tard refers solely to mental retardation
... and again, what kind? The term is not useful in treatment.
R-tard itself doesn't really apply, however Mental Retardation is a mental disorder in the DSM-IV-TR. In fact there are several levels of Mental Retardation ranging from Profound to Mild and they all express different levels of retardation, with profound referring to a person who cannot even feed themselves or sit up on their own. So Retardation itself is a widely accepted medical term and can either be Mild Mental Retardation, Moderate Mental Retardation, Severe Mental Retardation, or Profound Mental Retardation. However the term "r-tard" typically is not used, they either use Mentally R-tarded or Mentally Handicapped.
It's worth pointing out that discussion of the use of "r-tard" rather underlines the futility of changing terminology to avoid offence, since the term "mental retardation" was itself introduced with the intention of providing a non-pejorative replacement for the former medical terms "imbecile", "idiot" and "moron". As with r-tard, any neologism imposed in place of "obese", "overweight" or "fat b-stard" will inevitably just become a new insult within a few years. The process has become known as the "euphemism treadmill".
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/03 17:08:02
Red Hunters: 2000 points Grey Knights: 2000 points Black Legion: 600 points and counting |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/03 16:55:33
Subject: Re:So.. should we? :D
|
 |
The Conquerer
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
|
yup, basically there is no point in renaming something thats derogatory. It will just become the new derogatry term eventually.
|
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/03 19:49:50
Subject: Re:So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord
|
Personally, I think that the scope of "obese" and "overweight" should not be ceased, but curtailed with a more narrow and restrictive meaning. For example:
Ideal weight + 10% = overweight
Ideal weight + 20% = pudgy/chubby
Ideal weight + 30% = fat
Ideal weight + 40% = fatty-fatty-fat-fat
Ideal weight + 50% = obese
Ideal weight + 60% = hambeast
Ideal weight + 70% = morbidly obese
And of course, when I say 'ideal weight', I am not referring to any generalized index; it should be one a person-by-person system, as generalized indexes do not account for height, age, metabolism or body type.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/03 22:37:53
Subject: Re:So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
azazel the cat wrote:
And of course, when I say 'ideal weight', I am not referring to any generalized index; it should be one a person-by-person system, as generalized indexes do not account for height, age, metabolism or body type.

Actually, there is a system that could be used to determine this.... Bicycling Magazine ran the chart a couple months back and it goes something like this
Height = weight.... simple enough, but then they take it a step further, because that doesnt work. You take your height, which lets you know whereabouts you should be, but then you measure the wrist and that will determine where you should actually be.
I think the example was something like 5'9" should be around 160 "ideally", but a person who measures in the "small frame" category ideally would need to be 150, while a person who measures in the "large frame" category's ideal weight would be 170
One good thing with there being so many large people around.... When Soylent Green comes around there'll be plenty
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/03 23:38:07
Subject: So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
It's not all exercise, I used to be overweight because i drank a couple cans of coca cola a day. I stopped drinking full fat cola/other brands of fizzy beveridge and i am now skinny. Go figure.
If anything i did more exercise in my chubby days. Only just starting to do more exercise now and thats because my smoking was causing me to get 'puffed out' really easily. Gotta say i love the irony of me stopping in the middle of a 20 mile bike ride to have a Cigarette
|
Mary Sue wrote: Perkustin is even more awesome than me!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/04 00:31:39
Subject: Re:So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord
|
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Actually, there is a system that could be used to determine this.... Bicycling Magazine ran the chart a couple months back and it goes something like this
Height = weight.... simple enough, but then they take it a step further, because that doesnt work. You take your height, which lets you know whereabouts you should be, but then you measure the wrist and that will determine where you should actually be.
I think the example was something like 5'9" should be around 160 "ideally", but a person who measures in the "small frame" category ideally would need to be 150, while a person who measures in the "large frame" category's ideal weight would be 170
No.
I'm always so amazed by how people seem to think that a generalized index of ANY SORT can be applied universally. Even if it applies to 99% of the population, IT IS NOT UNIVERSAL.
Do you not understand that "generalized" =/= "universal" ?
Bicycling Magazine (a source no doubt on scientific par with Cosmo and Tiger Beat) doesn't take body type, or metabolism, or muscle density, or body fat percentage, or even bone density into account. No general index will, so they may as well just make up some more fakey BS that includes eye and hair colour.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/04 02:12:10
Subject: Re:So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
azazel the cat wrote:
Bicycling Magazine (a source no doubt on scientific par with Cosmo and Tiger Beat) doesn't take body type, or metabolism, or muscle density, or body fat percentage, or even bone density into account. No general index will, so they may as well just make up some more fakey BS that includes eye and hair colour.
Just because a magazine runs it doesn't mean that they created it. And, the numbers they use are based in medical studies. As the article outlined, it is merely a baseline guide. Each person is different, but we can still place, I would guess around 90% of the Earth's population into the ecto-, meso-, and endomorph categories. The baseline remains the same, and is adjusted for each of those types of people. The numbers used are based on an average, and can also be used by using the body fat formula for "target" weight (body weight x body fat percentage= number of excess pounds person is carrying around)
Recent studies have also shown that people whose natural waist line is larger than 40" round, are at much greater risk of many heart and weight related issues... Are there healthy people who are larger than that? sure. Are there unhealthy people who are smaller than that? of course.
The point is, doctors who come up with "fakey BS" stuff in order to create a working, yet flexible baseline with which to judge people who come into their offices with weight problems.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/04 02:19:09
Subject: So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Androgynous Daemon Prince of Slaanesh
|
Weren't we supposed to be talking about fat people needing to put down the cheeseburgers and hit the treadmill?
|
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/04 02:23:10
Subject: So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
timetowaste85 wrote:Weren't we supposed to be talking about fat people needing to put down the cheeseburgers and hit the treadmill?
yes, however the tangent of defining just what is a "fat person" came into the equation. Of course, there are some I've seen that I think would break a treadmill... which is quite sad.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/04 04:44:19
Subject: Re:So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord
|
azazel the cat wrote:And of course, when I say 'ideal weight', I am not referring to any generalized index; it should be one a person-by-person system, as generalized indexes do not account for height, age, metabolism or body type.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:Actually, there is a system that could be used to determine this.... Bicycling Magazine ran the chart a couple months back and it goes something like this
Height = weight.... simple enough, but then they take it a step further, because that doesnt work. You take your height, which lets you know whereabouts you should be, but then you measure the wrist and that will determine where you should actually be.
I think the example was something like 5'9" should be around 160 "ideally", but a person who measures in the "small frame" category ideally would need to be 150, while a person who measures in the "large frame" category's ideal weight would be 170
azazel the cat wrote:No.
I'm always so amazed by how people seem to think that a generalized index of ANY SORT can be applied universally. Even if it applies to 99% of the population, IT IS NOT UNIVERSAL.
Do you not understand that "generalized" =/= "universal" ?
Bicycling Magazine (a source no doubt on scientific par with Cosmo and Tiger Beat) doesn't take body type, or metabolism, or muscle density, or body fat percentage, or even bone density into account. No general index will, so they may as well just make up some more fakey BS that includes eye and hair colour.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:As the article outlined, it is merely a baseline guide. Each person is different, but we can still place, I would guess around 90% of the Earth's population into the ecto-, meso-, and endomorph categories. The baseline remains the same, and is adjusted for each of those types of people. The numbers used are based on an average, and can also be used by using the body fat formula for "target" weight (body weight x body fat percentage= number of excess pounds person is carrying around)
So, I specify that you cannot use any sort of general index to determine weight classifications because they are only averages and do not apply to everyone.
Then you tell me that there is actually a magical index that actually CAN do this.
Then I call you on that BS because you've failed to notice that it's just another generalized, averaged index.
Then you try to defend it by saying that it's just an averaged-out, general index that doesn't apply to everyone, and thus contradicting your first statement where you said that, and I'll quote you again here:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Actually, there is a system that can be used to determine this...
So really, what point were you trying to make, exactly? Because you managed to cite EXACTLY the type of generalized index that I suggested precluding, and then tried to backpeddle on it for the EXACT reason why I said it needed to be precluded in the first place.
And I'm not trying to deny that fat people are at greater risk to their health -quite the opposite, in fact. I live in Canada, wherein our beloved universal health care system is starting to come under attack due to its extremely high cost -due to the greater burden that fat people and smokers place on it. But my entire point is that the practice of using any sort of general index should be done away with because it cannot be universally applied.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/04 10:46:36
Subject: So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
We'll have to agree to disagree then. If there is not any sort of basic standar, no matter how loose, then there cannot possibly be any fat person. As i said, there are ways to determine where a person's weight should be that is adjusted based on body type and a number of other factors. This system works fairly well, and has worked for quite a while too.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/04 21:16:04
Subject: So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord
|
Ensis Ferrae wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree then. If there is not any sort of basic standar, no matter how loose, then there cannot possibly be any fat person. As i said, there are ways to determine where a person's weight should be that is adjusted based on body type and a number of other factors. This system works fairly well, and has worked for quite a while too.
So then what you're saying is that you agree with my original post, and acknowledge that a general index cannot and should not be universally applied?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/04 21:19:03
Subject: So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
azazel the cat wrote:Ensis Ferrae wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree then. If there is not any sort of basic standar, no matter how loose, then there cannot possibly be any fat person. As i said, there are ways to determine where a person's weight should be that is adjusted based on body type and a number of other factors. This system works fairly well, and has worked for quite a while too.
So then what you're saying is that you agree with my original post, and acknowledge that a general index cannot and should not be universally applied?
that's what the doc's are for mate  take the "baseline" and the guy who's got at least 8 years of school inputs all other relevant info on said patient to get their "ideal" weight... An actual "general index" works great for media, etc.... If that is what you were saying in your original post, I misread it then
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/04 21:47:51
Subject: Re:So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord
|
Since you seem to need the Cliffs Notes version, this is what I said:
azazel the cat wrote:And of course, when I say 'ideal weight', I am not referring to any generalized index; it should be one a person-by-person system, as generalized indexes do not account for height, age, metabolism or body type.
And this is what I meant:
General indexes should never be used; instead 'ideal weight' should be determined on an individual basis, because general indexes do not apply to everyone, which is why they are called GENERAL indexes. It is also why doctors do not use general indexes; they examine people in a one-on-one basis.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/04 23:14:55
Subject: Re:So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
azazel the cat wrote:Since you seem to need the Cliffs Notes version, this is what I said:
azazel the cat wrote:And of course, when I say 'ideal weight', I am not referring to any generalized index; it should be one a person-by-person system, as generalized indexes do not account for height, age, metabolism or body type.
And this is what I meant:
General indexes should never be used; instead 'ideal weight' should be determined on an individual basis, because general indexes do not apply to everyone, which is why they are called GENERAL indexes. It is also why doctors do not use general indexes; they examine people in a one-on-one basis.
I wish the US Army used your logic
My thinking was, if we got rid of all general indexes, how could the average person figure out a loose guide on what they should weight, without consulting their doctors. Especially if they are ones who have prior knowledge of exercise and diet, in relation to weight loss.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/05 07:43:29
Subject: Re:So.. should we? :D
|
 |
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord
|
I understood what you were saying.
I was merely taking the time to point out how foolish it was. My entire argument is based on the concept of not alienating the outliers for the sake of the ease of the majority.
|
|
 |
 |
|