the term brat (or jerk) is not a pejorative or vulgarity, asshole's use as an insult attributed to the anus dates back to the 1860s. Come on, at least pick a term thats slightly related to the conversation.
Printable View
the term brat (or jerk) is not a pejorative or vulgarity, asshole's use as an insult attributed to the anus dates back to the 1860s. Come on, at least pick a term thats slightly related to the conversation.
Er no you're 100% factually wrong it's slang and pejorative. It always has been. What it has never been is a medical condition of what one is. FYI all children are brats anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
So you're saying it's quite a modern term then? As the phrase brat dates back to circa 1500.Quote:
asshole's use as an insult attributed to the anus dates back to the 1860s. Come on, at least pick a term thats slightly related to the conversation.
as does arsehole, which asshole comes from. but the point you missed is that its an insult, a strong insult, that originally did compare the target to the body's actual asshole.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I am puzzled, is all slang perjorative and vulgar? :bulb:
I guess so if you ask Rand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
EDIT:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Aren't we discussing the 2nd definition (and hey, past tense)? Otherwise thats like calling cracker pejorative in a food thread :bulb: Every time you've used it up to this point has been in the sense of spoiled or bad children. Not once have you used the term to relate to children in general. Can't tell if your reaching very poorly, or if you don't understand how language works and how to read a dictionary entry...
No, but much slang is pejorative. This specifically is pejorative slang and dates back over half a millennium as such so really not sure what OG is trying to prove. Maybe urban dictionary can find a point for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Neither brat nor jerk are the least bit technical, clinical, or formal. Their origin and use is purely that of idiomatic pejoratives. And I don't know about you but to my knowledge "brat" behaviors which might lead to correct or incorrect diagnoses of attention disorders are not generally those associated with a child being spoiled, which makes the entire thrust of your argument, that Rand has always been using it to mean "selfish or spoiled", off-base.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
In context that's exactly what he was doing, but, more to the point, you can't usually "placate" a regular old brat by giving them ritalin, you just risk making them brattier.Quote:
I do. I think its because now people can't just be "naughty" or a "brat" or get "disciplined" instead it needs to be a disease, hence ADHD
He also parroted my definition in reply 66 :o, when he decided parenting fixes medical disorders.
Bootstraps man. Personal responsibility. Blame. Self-made men. Winning, point-scoring. Ghost in the machine. Realism? Pragmatism? Compassion and understanding? Insight? Ha. More religion. More rigid defense- and coping-mechanisms. Resistance is futile.
The reference to a child getting "disciplined" indicates concrete individual events, rendering the "naughty" and "brat" terms as connoting ephemeral bits of behavior, not a regular descriptive trend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
In the context of a discussion about diagnosing ADHD that meaning would be truly puzzling. I have never heard of anyone being diagnosed with ADHD based exclusively on isolated incidents of ephemeral bad behavior rather than based on patterns of behavior. Have you? Has RB? Would he say that most ADHD diagnoses are made that way?
Perhaps he was using "ADHD" in the 16th century slang sense, I dunno. I don't mean to be combative but I'm out of meds.
Exactly yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Minx please explain what scientific tests diagnose ADHD? Is it chemical imbalances you can detect in a blood test ...?
Oooo..this is gonna be good.
:popcorn:
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Sadly enough, I'd also have to answer that one with a 'Yes'. I dare say that we tend to over-diagnose ADHD upon unruly children.
In addition do you not think that patterns of behaviour may not be indicative of something else wrong - and possibly a warning sign - than a mental disorder?
For starters you can't make a diagnosis of ADHD based exclusively on the occasional isolated incident of unruly behavior. If you've seen that happen then feel free to do your duty as a teacher and report it to the appropriate authorities. Esp. if the kids received eg. ritalin and didn't react as expected. My guess is that the vast majority (ie. "most") of eg. Canadian kids who have been 1. officially diagnosed with ADHD and 2. are receiving pharmacological treatment have been diagnosed based on more than eg. just throwing a paper aeroplane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Of course that option should be considered and investigated. I don't know if anyone here is dismissing entirely the possibility of a child's behavior being indicative of something other than ADHD. ADHD isn't as much a mental disorder as it is a neuropsychiatric developmental disorder.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
So to go back to the original claim that brought ADHD into the discussion, I think we have demonstrated it that can be a coincidence given there are far more factors involved with the increasing diagnoses (and misdiagnoses) of ADHD than merely the introduction of Game Boys. Do you agree Minxy?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Yes I can definitely agree with both you and GGT being wrong, that'd be like Christmas :p
Which totally shows up in a blood test, because those are the only real disorders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Well said :p
Don't get me started on the amount of so-called Depression either.
I'm starting to understand the remark about religion at this point :rolleyes:
Well I am an atheist and a sceptic about religion, what is wrong with being sceptical about other things? Healthy scepticism is the bedrock of good science.
Incidentally depression is a good comparison as it can have physiological markers that can show up in a blood test. Although that's not how it's diagnosed. Questionnaires are horrible ways to conduct science and easy to fake.
There is a difference between rejecting something because it lacks proof, and rejecting something because you obviously do not understand the concept, the science, the proof, etc.
Yes and I reject it because it lacks proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Seems almost universal, practically everyone on this thread agrees that a diagnoses of ADHD != proof of ADHD.
All that seems to be disputed is the scale and extent of misdiagnoses. Do you dispute that? Do you believe that ALL cases of ADHD diagnoses are universally correct and proven?
no one disputes the idea that disorders can risk being overdiagnosed, even with blood samples, what you have yet to explain is thought pattern on how this makes ADHD diagnoses such bullshit that the disorder can be fixed with good parenting / upbringing. So far you're using a displayed oversensitivity to deny its basic existence. That displays a serious lack of understanding.
So you agree with me.
I believe the misdiagnosed cases can be treated with a good upbringing.
lets recap, and how often to you believe this to be the case again (mostly is such an open ended term)? and how are the real suffers supposed to be handled?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
At the very least a statistically significant proportion of the time an prrobably most of the time, though I acknowledge that is both debatable and unprovable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Now you answer your same question and let's see how different we are
and how should we treat those that truely suffer from this disorder?
You answer the first question first, I have.
We don't have any valid scientific studies (or at least none have been presented thus far) to answer the first question, as we covered in the first 2 pages of this thread. I'd rather not speculate on something that is unproven based on my personal understanding of brats.
Now, attempt #3, how should we treat those that truely suffer from this disorder?
So before we move on are you saying my claim is wrong, unknown or unprovable? Could I be right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
b and c as you're already admitted. however that doesn't at any point suggest you could be any more right than you are any more wrong. That loops back to the comment on religion and reply 106.
maybe 4th times a charm. how should we treat those children that truely suffer from this disorder
So what you're saying 100 replies later is that my original claim you can not say is either right or wrong?
Depressive disorders are among the most underdiagnosed and socially harmful disorders in the world but sure jesus saves and gays are devil worshippers or something :bulb:
Your original claim and most of your subsequent claims have been wrong. You're neck-and-neck with ggt at the mo with the difference that her claim has more evidence to back itQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
your first child will be a goat. Cause hey, you never really know if thats right or wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
see how that works?
I'm curoius now why its so uncomfortable for you tackle the question of treatment for honest suffers:bulb: