• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Permenently Disabled Adults.

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
LOL I've been speaking writing and abusing English for over 4 decades I understand it fine sir.


BTW everyone... take a shot!!!
 
Last edited:

Lineaire

Well-Known Member
I told you to use a dictionary because your replies haven't made sense in the context of arguing against me. Therefore, I assume that you lack the skill to properly understand English.

I don't know what kind of English teacher you had... But my teacher, in my country, says "they" is a correct alternative for she/he in spoken English. "It" AND "they" are however not currently acceptable in formal WRITING (in replacement to a singular he/she only of course). Could be different somewhere else but these are the current English rules where I live. It's an unfortunate thing that we cannot use "they" for he/she in let's say, an essay (if we're writing to an audience that could be either male or female, the only way I can get around it in my class it to write for example "the gardeners must do [...]. They [...]." They being the gardeners. But if I write "the gardener must", and the person could be male or female, I can't use "they" for gardener is singular. We also however cannot use "it" when referring to a person in writing.
 
Last edited:

Ludwig

Well-Known Member
I don't know what kind of English teacher you had... But my teacher, in my country, says "they" is a correct alternative for she/he in spoken English. "It" AND "they" are however not currently acceptable in formal WRITING. Could be different somewhere else but these are the current English rules where I live. It's an unfortunate thing that we cannot use "they" in let's say, an essay. We also however cannot use "it" when referring to a person.

The words have defined meanings and using them doesn't make the grammar incorrect, implying that there is no reason to not allow their use.

LOL I've been speaking writing and abusing English for over 4 decades I understand it fine sir.


BTW everyone... take a shot!!!

That doesn't change that you failed to understand what I wrote.
 

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
Not to be disrespectful Ludwig, but what are you trying to say? 'It' is as genderless as 'they' but is more often used to identify objects than beings... so I fail to see why you are splitting this hair.

@Lineaire, This is the Net so The rules of formal writing really don't apply often. ;)
 

Lineaire

Well-Known Member
The words have defined meanings and using them doesn't make the grammar incorrect, implying that there is no reason to not allow their use.



That doesn't change that you failed to understand what I wrote.


Maybe you should actually familiarize yourself with the rules of English. ^^ In other words, take your own advice... Because I have a feeling either the rules are different where you live or you didn't pay attention in your English class...

Also, perhaps Malanu isn't at fault. Have you ever thought that maybe your misuse of the English language is actually at fault here? Then the misunderstanding would be because you're not being clear.

Malanu: Well he's talking about whether or not using "it" when referring to a person is correct in English writing. It's just not. Formal writing or otherwise. Really, by formal writing I mean anything you feel you could show your teacher without getting smacked for/glared at. Then again I've had my fair share of teachers who are too lazy to care about the rules in English... kind of backwards but oh well.
 
Last edited:

Ludwig

Well-Known Member
Also, perhaps Malanu isn't at fault. Have you ever thought that maybe your misuse of the English language is actually at fault here? Then the misunderstanding would be because you're not being clear.

I know the definition of the words and I know how the grammar combines them.
It's common that people don't understand me, but it haven't (yet) happened that it was my fault.

Not to be disrespectful Ludwig, but what are you trying to say? 'It' is as genderless as 'they' but is more often used to identify objects than beings... so I fail to see why you are splitting this hair.

In most cases, a gender-specific alternative for they wouldn't work because you refer to both males and females. But a person won't (or very rarely will) have two genders, meaning that "they" got a limitation that "it" doesn't have, which could be the explanation to your observation:

It may be Arrogant or it could be the PC generation. I use he or she when I refer to a pet but if it's a bear in the wild & I don't know the gender I will use it. "They" is also gender neutral and can refer to individual or groups and is less... offensive.
 
Last edited:

Lineaire

Well-Known Member
Technically he's right about the usage of "they." It doesn't make sense to refer to a singular person as a plural "they" (that's kind of why it's again, not accepted in writing) So at least I can agree on that... xD

Ludwig: "It's common that people don't understand me, but it haven't (yet) happened that it was my fault." Don't you mean, "it hasn't (yet) happened that it was my fault." ? Lol.

Anyway, I wish "they" could be used. However, they would need to change what "they" can mean or it wouldn't make sense. Sort of how "you" can be both plural and singular.
 
Last edited:

Ludwig

Well-Known Member
Technically he's right about the usage of "they." It doesn't make sense to refer to a singular person as a plural "they" (that's kind of why it's again, not accepted in writing) So at least I can agree on that... xD

Neither of us stated that "they" should be used for singular.
 

Lineaire

Well-Known Member
Neither of us stated that "they" should be used for singular.

Which is why we agree. They shouldn't be used when referring to a singular he/she but only as a plural "they." Basically, we agree on the non-usage of "they" for he/she. Maybe for slightly different reasons, but oh well.

If someone says that "they" can be used to replace he/she, unless one changes the meaning of "they", it WOULD be using "they" as a singular. Which is incorrect.
 
Last edited:

Lineaire

Well-Known Member
Hey Lineaire, Thanks for the mediating. It's a nice change round here. :)

I didn't know I was. XD I hardly ever reply on debate threads so I just thought I'd change it up a bit... That and the "they" and "it" thing really reminded me of my last English class.

On a side note, English is a language that can change and evolve. So maybe one day my teacher will let me use "they" in my essays/homework to mean he/she. @_@ Either that or find a better alternative... Would make writing a lot easier haha.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Generally you do not use 'it' to refer to anyone. That is about is socially inappropriate as using 'they' as a gender-neutral pronoun is grammatically inappropriate. The grammatical expectation will bend right here and now, but the social use will not because of the implications of dehumanizing someone by calling them 'it'. Sure, we are animals, but to each other we are kin so it is appropriate. Also, at least one of my English professors accepts the use of 'they' to refer to a single person, after seeing how it is being used by most speakers of English, who are ultimately right in the long run.
 

Profesco

gone gently
For the purposes of polite communication, referring to a human being as "it" is not acceptable. Dictionary definitions or not, calling a person an "it" is not polite or reasonable.

"They" as a third-person singular gender-neutral pronoun is considered acceptable grammatical usage these days because of the lack of such an epicene mot juste, despite attempts like shehe, O, and thon.

Now that we've tackled and settled these tangential concerns (they are indeed hereby settled, so don't keep arguing for the use of "it"), please stick to the topic - as humanely as possible.
 

Lineaire

Well-Known Member
For the purposes of polite communication, referring to a human being as "it" is not acceptable. Dictionary definitions or not, calling a person an "it" is not polite or reasonable.

"They" as a third-person singular gender-neutral pronoun is considered acceptable grammatical usage these days because of the lack of such an epicene mot juste, despite attempts like shehe, O, and thon.

Now that we've tackled and settled these tangential concerns (they are indeed hereby settled, so don't keep arguing for the use of "it"), please stick to the topic - as humanely as possible.

It must be different where you live then. o_O Because where I live the Ministry of Education (which is in charge in distributing certain final examinations) doesn't accept that on paper... My teacher is pretty up to date with the rules of spoken/written English and even updates us on changes or added rules to keep us on track with what's expected of us (so that on the final examination we don't get points taken off for something we weren't aware of basically).

But either way, it is slightly off topic... ^-^
 

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
I didn't know I was. XD I hardly ever reply on debate threads so I just thought I'd change it up a bit... That and the "they" and "it" thing really reminded me of my last English class.

On a side note, English is a language that can change and evolve. So maybe one day my teacher will let me use "they" in my essays/homework to mean he/she. @_@ Either that or find a better alternative... Would make writing a lot easier haha.
My last English class was... 20ish years ago. I don't have a teacher to impress any more and in the real world, many of the grammar rules become unimportant.

Any way... If the challenged person is able to survive (with aid & assistance) then by all means let them try to be as independent as possible. But to cast out someone who requires constant assistance is cold hearted.

Eleven years ago my Wife & I inherited the care of her grandma. Her husband died, & her being a stroke survivor left her needing lots of assistance, that none of her children could/would provide. It was very demanding & stressful. We finally had to put her in an assisted living home because we had just had our son and my wife could not be lifting Grams to get her to the bathroom while she healed from delivery.

After she was transferred a coworker asked, 'knowing what you do now, would you do it again?' I didn't even blink before answering yes. Grams was family and as long as we could provide her with the aid she needed it was our obligation to provide her a home. May not have been a young adult but I have lived the scenario of being a care giving relative. It's not for everyone.
 

Arceusdude222

Reshiram, anyone?
I make my comeback after 2+ years of inactivity, and what post sticks out at me? this one. What does it turn out to have drawn in? a bunch of people who don't seem to realize that there ARE disabilities that prevent one from living alone for quite a while (sometimes never) but doesn't prevent them from having feelings. I myself have Aspbergers Syndrome, and I can vouch that those of us who have that or other mental/physical disabilities have feelings and calling us "invalids" as if it's a label and is all we are good for is actually hurtful for those of us who have the capacity to understand what a label is, and how it would not be right to label others who might not have a disability with a derogatory label.
Now my answers to the questions of the debate:

1. I think the parent should have the right if it's to put them in a home that can better care for the individual than the parent can, as not all situations where the disabled person is living with the parent is the best situation for them.

2. If the parent is an appointed advocate, and the person cannot live on their own, then the parent should not kick them out, as they obligated themselves to not doing so by volunteering to be said advocate.

3. No clue what to say here, as I haven't really looked at the laws more than I needed to.

4. if SSDI were to be cut off from disabled people who absolutely need it, essentially, that would make the homeless rate skyrocket. and it's bad enough with the current homeless people not being able to fend for themselves. and if SSDI were to be taken away, our streets would be crowded with homeless people who could not pay their bills, or their parents/etc could not pay rent and whatnot. SSDI is essential to helping keep the homeless rate down.
 

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
Welcome back, and thank you for your perspective on this issue. My wife and I are raising a son with Aspergers Syndrome. Even though my state has some laws in place to aid people on the Spectrum, It is a fight every year for our son to get the help/education he needs. I understand how some parents can just throw up their hands in defeat, but I cannot grasp how they could walk away from them once they become an adult. That goes for any person with disability!

I can be cold and heartless when it comes to people I don't know, but my family is my life and I will protect them till I become plant food. If it's possible I'll keep doing it after that!
 

Kaiserin

please wake up...
Stop talking like we humans are so special, we are just another animal, and we refer to animals (atleast in english) as it, so why shouldn't we towards other humans, are we really that arrogant?

If you're willing to refer to other people as he or she, why would you refer to a non-cisgendered or, more on topic, a disabled person as an "it"? That is dehumanizing because it's putting them on a level below others for their differences. That is what I'm taking issue with. Ludwig seems positively oblivious to any social rules that the dictionary doesn't clearly spell out for him, though, so I guess the point is pretty moot right now. And I was late replying to this anyway, SO.

I kind of shudder to think what would happen to people on disability who were forced to become homeless, by their parents or their inability to support themselves. Something even as seemingly miniscule as Asperger's could be trouble for that -- whereas a lot of other individuals would probably at least have the sense to track down a homeless shelter or seek help somewhere, I wouldn't be surprised if someone on the autism spectrum hadn't the foggiest idea about any of that.

And it'd be even worse for someone with a disorder that requires medication, too. I'm sure we'd see the suicide rate skyrocket for a lot of them, and a good chunk would probably have a lot more difficulty not succumbing to their symptoms. Seizures, hallucinations, depression, violent mood swings, anxiety through the roof... all of these often get controlled through medication, and if you have no money, you cannot get that medication. And I know that'd make even living in a shelter much, much harder on both the person with the issues and the people who have to house that person.

As much of a strain as it is, I think any alternative is better than that.
 

Charizardfan900

Charizard King!
Someone (I don't who said it) on this page brought up on if they can live independently, how much help they can get.

I say if a permentley disabled adult can live somewhat independently, then the Goverment should help them get a house/a job if ther eis no parent or guardian capable of doing them. Of course the arguement is in todays economic climate house pries are on the rise etc.

Moving on, the should recieve benfits. Someone said on this forums (maybe in this thread) that their benefits were taken when they got a full/part time job. I think this is harsh. Being permantly disabled will most likely hold you back from a large ammount of careers so they may need their benefits after they get a job.

Also a carer should visit them at least once a week.

If all of these are done completely, the disabled who can be somewhat independent can live a nicer life.
 
Top