As for the OP, anyone dumb enough to call Dr. Laura for advice pretty much gets what they deserve. If the original caller wanted good advice, there’s plenty of other sources. Most people listening to Dr. Laura probably know to take her spoutings with a handful of salt, too; people who take Dr. Laura’s “advice” as gospel probably have a few of their own wrong ideas already, and aren’t interested in getting right ones. I have a problem with Dr.Laura disguising her opinions as fact and calling it advice, but you can’t protect people from themselves, and no one forces anybody to listen to her.
As noted earlier regarding weddings, it would depend on the circumstance - how severe the illness, etc. The same guidelines would also apply to other events. (Obviously, the closer a person is to the event, the more leeway you give them - even for a wedding you would give more leeway to closer family members etc. than you would to comparitively distant relatives or friends). The everyone-or-noone approach, which in fact seems to characterize your post, is not a good one.
OT, now that we aparently have some TS experts here, a question: Is it correct to categorize obscenities with tics as one category? Wouldn’t (or couldn’t) tics be completely involuntary, whereas obscenities would be voluntary acts that the person has a strong or uncontrollable urge to do?
Keep in mind, we aren’t discussing what to do about a disruptive person in a setting, what’s being suggested as ‘perfectly reasonable’ is to specifically exclude some one based on what they might do. Where do you stop? Currently my son has had chest cold/congestion all year and coughs quite loudly. I guess he shouldn’t be allowed to go to weddings, church, etc. My buddy Paul has bad allergies at certain times of the year and sneezes quite a bit, guess he’s out of luck as well.
here Izzy educate yourself on Tourettes. National Institute of Neurological Disorders & strokes which says, among other things "Tics worsen in stressful situations and improve when the person relaxes or is absorbed in an activity. ", so inclusion in an activity might actually increase the probablity that there wouldn’t be outbursts. want more? or even yet more which comments that “Periodic changes in the number, frequency, type and location of the tics, and waxing and waning of their severity. Symptoms can sometimes disappear for
weeks or months at a time” So, apparently, even for those rare people who have tics, and verbal ones, the tics are not necessarily 24/7 - they wax and wane in severity.
See, if I was at a wedding and had a coughing jag, I’d quietly slip out the door to gag in private. But I’d find it heartily insulting for some one to tell me, ‘gee, we’d love to have you, but we’re afraid you might sneeze’
What kills me is that she said, “But it’s not normal. And it’s not nice.”
In my mind, “nice” implies intent. “Nice” little boys do not scream obscenities. Therefore, all little boys who scream obscentities are not “nice.”
Or maybe she means that the mother isn’t being nice because she doesn’t keep her son away from anyone who might be annoyed by his tics.
It’s not nice to have to look at a child whose face is disfigured. Would a “nice” mother take such a child out into public where people will see him and be uncomfortable? What a terrible lapse of judgement to bring such a child to a wedding, and prop him up next to the expensive floral arrangements! How distracting! How disruptive!
How dare a mother expect people to accept any child who is not normal?
So there’s either one extreme or the other? Either eliminate everyone who has a slight chance of being mildly disruptive or no one can be eliminated?
No, please stop talking about tics. No one is suggesting not inviting a kid to a wedding because he has tics. I specifically mentioned in my post that it depended on how the condition manifested itself. See also the second post to this thread by primaflora.
You asserted that some one should be excluded based not on what they had done, but what they might do, that people would find, disruptive or whatever, and that the rights of the many trump out the rights of the few. I’m asking you where you would draw the line. Everything may be offensive or disruptive to some one. Anyone might be offensive or disruptive at some point. To single out this one condition as being excludable (other than being against the Americans with Disabilities Act) is morally offensive as well.
I see that you say ‘it depends on how severe the disorder is’, so I’m asking again, under what conditions are you saying to exclude someone beforehand on the basis of what might happen?
In general, there are many many issues in which the line is unclear, and there are examples in which either decision can be justified. This does not mean that no line exists at all, and to just say “but where do you draw the line?” in an effort to obliterate the line entirely is wrong. In this instance, if there is a high likelihood that many people will be discomforted by one person’s presence, then that one person should not be present, barring overriding circumstances. If there is a low likelihood, or if the discomfort is minor, than they should be. In many cases this decision will be an easy one. In many cases it will not. Exactly how to determine these factors, and what to do in borderline cases, should be determined on a case by case basis - I couldn’t think of a nifty rule of thumb.
Really? are you sure you want to hang on this one? 'cause you see, I find cranky, rude, dismissive, rigid conservatives to be more than a little ‘discomforting’, as do many others, should we be insuring that standard in a church? In other times, places, being black was considered to be something that would cause ‘discomfort’ in other people.
Nope, as far as I’m concerned, the line is: If you are causing a problem in the here and now, we reserve the right to eject you (the screaming baby in the movie theater etc.) but to decide that one particular group/classification/condition is sufficient evidence before the fact, well, just seems unfair/not right to me.
There seems to be some confusion here. Your comments about conservatives and blacks make a point about what is to be considered discomforting. Your subsequent rule is about what action is to taken in dealing with such people. Do you think that if a member of these groups showed up and turned out to be every bit as conservative and every bit as black as feared, that they should be ejected? The issue here is whether people’s bigotry should be accomodated, whether against conservatives or blacks. Not about dealing with the offensiveness.
By contrast, the issue in this thread is about behaviour that is agreed to be offensive can be forestalled in the manner discussed. Completely separate issue.
I’ve attended both of my cousins’ weddings, and both of them included tiny babies that threatened to outburst and squall. It would have ruined the formal, elegant ceremonies so terribly to have anything as uncouth as an infantile crying jag.
But they invited the babies anyway. And do you know why? Because they were, respectively, the first cousin of the bride and the nephew of the groom!!
Good heavens, you invite people to weddings because they’re family whom you love dearly, regardless of whether they might cry or tic!
Given all the incestuous grabassing (hey, I’m from Kentucky) and obnoxious drunken behavior that normally occurs at the wedding reception, I’d say that most of the guests usually have plenty to be embarrassed about their own damn selves for the bride to worry about anybody feeling uncomfortable for something so insignificant.
If the participants have their heads shoved that that far up their asses that they’d exclude a loved one for something they can’t control, then FUCK THEM, they deserve to have their “perfect wedding” ruined. I’d drop my drawers and take a dump on the altar just to provide moral support to the uncontrollably swearing party.
I spent enough time in the banquet business to know that weddings fucking exist to make people miserable. Anybody who thinks otherwise needs to stop putting lead paint in their cereal instead of milk every morning.
I’ll assume for a moment that you’re genuinely interested. I think you’re setting up a false difference between the two. Admittedly, I’m the person on the outside, although close, rather than on the inside, but the way it seems to work is more like a sneeze than a tremor. Even motor tics, and other vocal tics (barks, shrieks and so on) probably fall under the second half of your question. That is - you can supress your tics for short periods of time, but the urge to tic, in whatever form it manifests, becomes overwhelming. This seems to be why concentration for short period of time can hold the tics off. (An off the top of my head example - Oliver Sachs talked about one of his patients with TS who took their medication during the week, but stopped at the weekends to allow the tics their release). YMMV of course.
To call this an urge, without wishing to pick nits here, seems grossly inadequate. It’s an urge like I have the urge to swallow, or to move my hand away from a hot stove.
And to those of you who support this bitch over this - again I’m glad for you that your own particular shortcomings are so much less embarassing for you than Tourette’s. The biggest problem I have living with TS is the attitude of people like her - who stare at my husband, accuse him of being drunk, tell him to calm down, treat him like a fucking freak. You know what? He’s very tactile, he’s effusive, he’s occasionally extreme in his movements and he makes ‘inappropriate’ noises of all kinds. Big fucking deal. That’s not nearly as important as the fact that he’s a good, kind, generous, wonderful person - streets ahead of a lot of the people replying to this thread, anyway.
And if it is based on past experience? If every time you saw the kid with touretts he screamed quiet loudly would it be ok not to invite him to a wedding ceremony?
A few doors down from me when I was growing up was a kid with very severe physical handicaps. He was (I assume with hindsight) partially paralysed, and had very little control over his upper body movements - he made a lot of noise and flailed around in his wheelchair a lot of the time. So how does he fit in? Marcus makes a lot of noise, he’s very disruptive - so lock him away, hide him from the public - don’t invite him to our family gatherings with the rest of the loved ones. There’s your answer on past behaviour, MGibson. (Nice description by the way - screaming quite loudly? :rolleyes: )
To me that is an outrageous, offensive attitude. And it seems no different to the attitude Dr. Dipshit and her like are displaying. The only thing I can put it down to is that maybe you (those agreeing with her) don’t actually believe that this is the same as any other physical or mental handicap. Maybe you don’t actually believe that people with TS do find this sort of behaviour impossible to control for any length of time? It’s a bit ridiculous after all, isn’t it? People who make outbusts like that - it’s funny more than anything, isn’t it? Har bloody har, it’s a laugh a week.
To pick up on wring again (sorry, but I think you’re expressing this in the way I most agree with) - this kind of occasion is about sharing with your loved ones. You want perfection at your wedding - small small ceremony.
no need to appologize to me Charly, I agree w/you.
Izzy sez
Gee, you picked the word “discomforting” and now you object to it?
But, anyhow, you’re wrong again, the thread is indeed about bigotry being accomodated. Dr. Laura, with the information that the nephew in question had Tourettes, even if given the information that the kid was one of the few with verbal tics, made the assumption that this person would be behaving in an unacceptable manner on that occasion. She made this assumption based on a poor understanding of the condition (as evidenced by her “if I went to your party and yelled F*** etc.” statements), and it is her bigotry against a medical condition that led to her poor advice. You stood by her. I’ve insisted that the only legimate call for specifically excluding the person would be behavior at the time (I will amend it to allow if some one promises that they will indeed be disruptive, feel free, but that wasn’t the case here at all).
Again, I’d suggest that you get a clearer idea of the disease before you keep defending her position. Watching Ally McBeal and LA LAW won’t do it.
No, I did not object to the term “discomforting”. I merely pointed the difference between being discomforted (and treating people differently) based on their political views or the color of their skin on the one hand, and based on their likely actions on the other. Surely you must be capable of understanding this difference.
Your suggestion that I look to sources other than Ally McBeal and LA LAW is well taken. I will henceforth try to avoid basing my positions on these shows.
When my husband was on crutches, large part of the population seemed uncomfortable around him and did not wanthim around. We were told repeatedly not to be affectionate because it make ppl uncomfortable to see the disabled kissing, holding hands, etc. People did not seem to want to talk to him and would often talk to me instead as if he were incapable of communicating. Banning someone from an event because it would make many ppl uncomfortable is not a good Rule of thumb.
My husband’s Aunt Roberta tried to exclude my niece from a family reunion on the same grounds for similar reasons. She felt most of the family would be unconfortable about having a black relative. Fortunately, she was wrong.
The rule is if the hosts want them to attend, they are invited. If the hosts do not, they are not invited. What ever the Bride or the Groom decided is final for a wedding.
I would not exclude a good friend from a celebration if they were prone to outbursts, if they were my friend, I expect I would be accustomed to it.
FYI: Babies making a bit of noise or fussing a bit is concidered a good omen at a wedding. It means the couple will be blessed with children.