Don't disturb my dinner with your autistic child!

[say what]

I think everyone involved in the article and situation should probably have been more considerate about what others are going through. No one knows how an individual is experiencing life at any given moment - one cannot say my hardships are worse than yours, because we don't know what the other person is experiencing. I think instead of one party changing or being in the wrong, the entire situation needs to be understood as lives living together and experiencing difficulties and issues simultaneously. We want to live in a bubble and focus on our own issues because we believe they are the most important- everyone needs to rupture that bubble and begin relating and learning from each other instead of thinking "that's that person's problem, they need to fix it so it doesn't bother me" .... in fact, one person's problem is likely, in a larger context, a problem for all - the fact that the conversation has asked 'should we limit xyz person to house arrest' is a perfect example how that one situation between a mother and child could ultimately impact us all.

Having kindness and consideration of others, their own lives and issues, would likely resolve 95% of the social issues we face.

 

[the]

if you say so.

It is. You assume they have a perfect life. You assume the are more fortunate. you assume its only a minor disruption.Then you get assume that asking to be quiet is bullying.

Nigga please.

 

[invisible]

It is. You assume they have a perfect life. You assume the are more fortunate. you assume its only a minor disruption.Then you get assume that asking to be quiet is bullying.

Nigga please.

did u miss the part about not being allowed in a public place?

 

[the]

did u miss the part about not being allowed in a public place?

She did ask that newspaper advice columnist a question. She sure did how dare she! What did she do to the autistic family again, I missed that part.

Classic bullying.

 

[invisible]

sorry, but like the columnist, its the person who wrote the letter im pissed at, and who has the completely wrong idea about life, not the mourners in the scenario. they can ask for quiet if they want to, its an unusual situation, but unfortunately its the nature of public life to be surrounded by people who cant always control themselves.

 

[invisible]

She did ask that newspaper advice columnist a question. She sure did how dare she! What did she do to the autistic family again, I missed that part.

Classic bullying.

theres something fundamentally wrong with the idea that disabled people should be excluded from public life. i like you a lot but i dont need anyone to teach me about what bullying is. and i dont care if you thimk my ideas on this means im emotionally out of control.

 

[Matt3737]

theres something fundamentally wrong with the idea that disabled people should be excluded from public life. i like you a lot but i dont need anyone to teach me about what bullying is. and i dont care if you thimk my ideas on this means im emotionally out of control.

It is your assumption, incorrect I might add, that an exclusion from public life is being proposed by anybody. That is a hyperbolic argument that you have produced.

 

[invisible]

It is your assumption, incorrect I might add, that an exclusion from public life is being proposed by anybody. That is a hyperbolic argument that you have produced.

in the OP, the writer to the columnist suggests that people who might cause a fuss should be kept at home, and not brought into public. this is an all or nothing scenario, ie. excluded or included, because theres no way of telling whether a person who might not be able to help causing a fuss will end up causing a fuss on one particular situation or another.

 

[Matt3737]

in the OP, the writer to the columnist suggests that people who might cause a fuss should be kept at home, and not brought into public. this is an all or nothing scenario, because theres no way of telling whether a person who might not be able to cause a cause a fuss will end up causing a fuss on one particular situation or another.

You are right, but I think you are taking that wording far too literally.

If a mother knows her kid might act out, does she have the right to bring him to a public place, where his actions might disrupt others?

If we take it, literally word for word, then she's suggesting that children shouldn't be allowed to leave their house until they reach adulthood. I think the more likely scenario is that there are some unstated assumptions in her question. I think the more likely interpretation is that she means a public place that has a reasonable expectation of quiet like, say, a library.

 

[Lark]

I think everyone involved in the article and situation should probably have been more considerate about what others are going through. No one knows how an individual is experiencing life at any given moment - one cannot say my hardships are worse than yours, because we don't know what the other person is experiencing. I think instead of one party changing or being in the wrong, the entire situation needs to be understood as lives living together and experiencing difficulties and issues simultaneously. We want to live in a bubble and focus on our own issues because we believe they are the most important- everyone needs to rupture that bubble and begin relating and learning from each other instead of thinking "that's that person's problem, they need to fix it so it doesn't bother me" .... in fact, one person's problem is likely, in a larger context, a problem for all - the fact that the conversation has asked 'should we limit xyz person to house arrest' is a perfect example how that one situation between a mother and child could ultimately impact us all.

Having kindness and consideration of others, their own lives and issues, would likely resolve 95% of the social issues we face.

I agree with that and I think that all of lifes problems stem from ignorance about consequence for others, aswell as yourself, although while I'm 101% in favour of kindness, compassion etc. etc. and dont mind doing others favours when its obvious they've not had the breaks or learned the lessons that I have and are making a mess of things I fully expect them not to make a habit of it or to become dependent upon others bailing them out repeatedly.

I think that a lot of people cant help being rescuers and seeking to mitigate unpleasant consequences for others when they see them about to run up agains them simply because they can imagine how it would be to experience them themselves, even if its wholly unlikely that they would experience it themselves, however that sort of rescuing in some cases is precisely what has brought that individual to that point acting in ways others dont appreciate and then imagining those others are at fault.

 

[Lark]

She did ask that newspaper advice columnist a question. She sure did how dare she! What did she do to the autistic family again, I missed that part.

Classic bullying.

Its typical though, first you get the emoting, then the righteous indignation, then the impulse to fight, fight, fight, maybe after a while embarrassment and back tracking when the error's realised but I'd not count on it.

 

[invisible]

You are right, but I think you are taking that wording far too literally.

i dont.

If we take it, literally word for word, then she's suggesting that children shouldn't be allowed to leave their house until they reach adulthood. I think the more likely scenario is that there are some unstated assumptions in her question. I think the more likely interpretation is that she means a public place that has a reasonable expectation of quiet like, say, a library.

but she didnt say a library, she said a restaurant, and a public place. and anyway it doesnt matter. what she is saying is outrageous in any context. people cant always be quiet in public places, even when the expectation that they should be quiet is reasonable. they can still go there and have access to them even if they cant be quiet. its unfortunate for others, but they have as much right to be there as anyone else, even if they are making a noise and pissing others off when they do it.

 

[say what]

I agree with that and I think that all of lifes problems stem from ignorance about consequence for others, aswell as yourself, although while I'm 101% in favour of kindness, compassion etc. etc. and dont mind doing others favours when its obvious they've not had the breaks or learned the lessons that I have and are making a mess of things I fully expect them not to make a habit of it or to become dependent upon others bailing them out repeatedly.

I think that a lot of people cant help being rescuers and seeking to mitigate unpleasant consequences for others when they see them about to run up agains them simply because they can imagine how it would be to experience them themselves, even if its wholly unlikely that they would experience it themselves, however that sort of rescuing in some cases is precisely what has brought that individual to that point acting in ways others dont appreciate and then imagining those others are at fault.

I guess I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.

I don't think you have to be overly kind to an individual to stop yourself in a moment of criticism for another person and say "Hm, I actually don't know what's going on right now for them...perhaps I shouldn't be so critical". And, if I understand you correctly, you're also saying that it might not be the best thing to help someone when you think they're in need, as this might be inadvertently placing them at a disadvantage - I agree with this. This is 100% off topic from the OP, but yesterday I saw a young man in a wheelchair making his way up a gigantic and steep hill (I'm talking about so awful, that I would walk around the hill, than go up it). I felt bad for him, and told myself "you should go help him" ...then I realized that just because I would find that hard and wouldn't want to do it, that I shouldn't impose that onto him - that it's actually disempowering him as an individual to take away his choice to do what he's doing. I think that sometimes we look upon someone who we think is disadvantage and think we're helping them- when we're doing the exact opposite. This goes back to my point that you don't know what a person is thinking or living- you can't assume good or bad about them.

 

[Matt3737]

i dont.

but she didnt say a library, she said a restaurant, and a public place. and anyway it doesnt matter. what she is saying is outrageous in any context. people cant always be quiet in public places, even when the expectation that they should be quiet is reasonable. they can still go there and have access to them even if they cant be quiet. its unfortunate for others, but they have as much right to be there as anyone else, even if they are making a noise and pissing others off when they do it.

Well in that case, she wrote in with a passive aggressive rhetorical statement that she, more or less, dislikes other people's children which is her right to do so and will be ignored by the rest of us.

I think the point of her question was to get to what is or should be considered reasonable.

I know you may have gotten a little bit worked up over what you perceived to be an intolerant, hateful person, but dismissing any expectation of responsibilities whatsoever is ridiculous and self-defeating.

If we cannot expect some status quo, then you cannot have an expectation against having reasonable expectations and makes your argument contradictory.

By what right do you have unreasonable expectations for others then? That they should suck it up and not complain. If it is reasonable to be disruptive then it is reasonable to complain.

 

[invisible]

Well in that case, she wrote in with a passive aggressive rhetorical statement that she, more or less, dislikes other people's children which is her right to do so and will be ignored by the rest of us.

I think the point of her question was to get to what is or should be considered reasonable.

I know you may have gotten a little bit worked up over what you perceived to be an intolerant, hateful person, but dismissing any expectation of responsibilities whatsoever is ridiculous and self-defeating.

If we cannot expect some status quo, then you cannot have an expectation against having reasonable expectations and makes your argument contradictory.

By what right do you have unreasonable expectations for others then? That they should suck it up and not complain. If it is reasonable to be disruptive then it is reasonable to complain.

:twitch:

 

[Lark]

I guess I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.

I don't think you have to be overly kind to an individual to stop yourself in a moment of criticism for another person and say "Hm, I actually don't know what's going on right now for them...perhaps I shouldn't be so critical". And, if I understand you correctly, you're also saying that it might not be the best thing to help someone when you think they're in need, as this might be inadvertently placing them at a disadvantage - I agree with this. This is 100% off topic from the OP, but yesterday I saw a young man in a wheelchair making his way up a gigantic and steep hill (I'm talking about so awful, that I would walk around the hill, than go up it). I felt bad for him, and told myself "you should go help him" ...then I realized that just because I would find that hard and wouldn't want to do it, that I shouldn't impose that onto him - that it's actually disempowering him as an individual to take away his choice to do what he's doing. I think that sometimes we look upon someone who we think is disadvantage and think we're helping them- when we're doing the exact opposite. This goes back to my point that you don't know what a person is thinking or living- you can't assume good or bad about them.

Yeah, this would be my point.

For a variety of reasons there's a lot of theorising, heavy duty theorising, about people which encourages people these days to make assumptions, sometimes the subject of this dont mind it or at least dont challenge it in the ways it has been before (like when women spoke out about womans liberation not actually benefiting them or the distance between academic feminism and their own lived experience).

That bothers me. The thread and the OP started out discussing expectations and social attitudes, then, at least in my reading, it went on a tangent about compassion and consideration and I was trying to make a point that when that acts as a break upon natural consequences sometimes that's not a good thing. By indulging your own need to be helpful you can be delaying for another time someone helping themselves.

Or I could be reading that all into it myself and taking things on my own tangent.

 

[barbad0s]

As a society NOTHING MAKES SENSE ANYWAY...

Imagine if the kid went berserk and then ran to the hospital and stabbed the author of the letter's dying mom to death

Disturbance is relative

 

[Lark]

The theme of competiting rights is a good one though, what about the right to smoke? What is someone is spoiling your dinner by smoking at a neighbouring table?

 

[Eventhorizon]

I have a 5 yr old, and my husband and I will not bring him to restaurants because he can be difficult to handle at times. I don't think it's fair for other restaurant patrons to have to deal with my child when he's having a bad day. And when we do bring him and he starts to act up, we will leave. I don't have any tolerance for bad behavior when we are out.

I know that I'm not going to have a stress free dinner with a 5yr old acting up, so why would I want to bring him out and have him stress other people out also? It's an avoidable situation (we don't bring him out to restaurants).

That being said, I don't think that people shouldn't bring their children with them to restaurants; well behaved or not. Do I think it's in poor taste to put yourself and your child in a situation that probably won't turn out well? Sure. But it's no ones place to say what you should or should not do.

I have been in nice restaurants where people have brought horribly behaved children, and it annoyed me, but it's nothing I would ever complain about.

As for the child being autistic, o_q makes a great point. It really shouldn't even be a part of the argument. But I do think it's sad that this person felt the need to write to a local paper about it. That's just pretentious, imo.

Thoughtful and reasonable.

 

[sprinkles]

Well in that case, she wrote in with a passive aggressive rhetorical statement that she, more or less, dislikes other people's children which is her right to do so and will be ignored by the rest of us.

I think the point of her question was to get to what is or should be considered reasonable.

I know you may have gotten a little bit worked up over what you perceived to be an intolerant, hateful person, but dismissing any expectation of responsibilities whatsoever is ridiculous and self-defeating.

If we cannot expect some status quo, then you cannot have an expectation against having reasonable expectations and makes your argument contradictory.

By what right do you have unreasonable expectations for others then? That they should suck it up and not complain. If it is reasonable to be disruptive then it is reasonable to complain.

Um yeah but it's not reasonable to be disruptive so you have a problem.

Let me tell you, when somebody goes off on a disruptive stint, like screaming in a restaurant or playing music way too loud, then there's already something wrong there. Something unreasonable is already happening. To ask them to keep it down as if they'll listen to you or something is just really fucking stupid. It's not like they're gonna say "oh gee, you're right!" and suddenly start behaving the way you want them to.