The ‘discomfort’ is not based on the person’s likely actions, but on a distorted, uninformed assumption about what might happen, as has been patiently explained. A wedding ceremony is only about an hour long. Even those very few people with loud verbal tics as a symptom of their Tourettes do not do them 24/7, as evidenced by the links.
So, again, on what legal and moral basis do you exclude some one based on what they might do as a symptom of their medical condition?
This is simply untrue, as noted earlier by Jackmannii
Well, let’s leave alone for the moment that we can’t cite jack’s recollection of the phone call (to ascertain if his recollection is correct, we can’t ascertain if the caller was accurately describing the degree of ticing etc), let me again point out to you that even when a person with Tourettes has tics, loud and verbal ones, and (as I said before) ** even if** the person in question has exhibited loud verbal tics in the past, this does not mean that for the one mother fucking hour that this fucking wedding will go on, that the person will have as much as one fucking loud verbal tic.
and therin is the bigotry.
wring,
Let’s get this straight. You haven’t heard the show, and know nothing about this particular case, but are supremely confident that Dr Laura, who actually inquired about the specifics of this particular case from the aunt of the afflicted child, must be basing her words on a “distorted, uninformed assumption”, despite apparent evidence to the contrary. I would suggest, in light of the above, that the quoted description would be more aptly applied to your own posts on this subject.
In general it is a good idea, when you really really hate someone, to think extra hard about the possiblity that you may be biased with regards to specific issues involving this person.
Read the specifics about the disease. Even when the person has loud verbal tics, they are not 24/7. Gee where have I heard this before? oh yea, I’ve posted it several times.
I’ve suggested over and over to you to educate yourself about the disease, you and Dr. Laura herself (who has appologized for her comments) should take the time to do so, before you make further assertions.
and further more, you’re basing your position on :
feh.
OK, well our respective positions are out there. I’m going to let it rest here.
Also, your links and TS relative’s posts to this thread are also available, and anyone may decide for themselves whose position they support.
A wedding is a private event. If you think someone is going to disrupt that event, you are completely within your rights not to invite somebody.
I personally solved this problem by not inviting anybody to my wedding. I think it would solve most of these issues if more people just went that route.
Dr. Laura gave poor advice, she recognized it and issued an apology the next day acknowledging that alternative courses of action were quite reasonable.
If more of you listened to her show you would find that 80% of her advice is quite reasonable, that 18% is completely open to debate, and that 2% is complete wacko. And I say this as someone who disagrees with 50% of what she says and has a lifestyle she would find completely “unmoral.” As she so frequently says, callers call for her opinion.
In this case she gave an uninformed opinion, learned more, recognized her opinion had been poorly formed and acknowledged it. Is that not behavior we would all like to see more often?
She has a strong moral code. It is an amazingly consistent moral code. It is a moral code with which I disagree strongly. People want to know how her moral code would handle their situations. I fail to see the problem.
Interesting, Izzy, isn’t it that you still are maintaining that Dr. Laura’s original advice was correct ‘cause she had questioned the aunt etc.’, and yet, as obfusciatrist points out, Dr. Laura herself admits she was wrong
that the solution was not to exclude the nephew based on fears of what he might do, but to include him, seating him w/his mom, and near a door, in case they needed to leave, so not making the assumption that he’d make a disturbance but for providing for the possability if one occurs.
She actually read up on the condition in the meantime, after shooting her mouth off (good for her), and discovered, that even for those who do have tics, they don’t always have them. And it only took her a week to post this apology and change in advice. Of course, she failed to acknowledge her part in spreading misconceptions about this ‘widely misunderstood’ condition. (which, by the way, was the ‘problem’)
Frankly, I am fucking amazed that Dr. Bitchcunt researched any issue (before OR after the fact), let alone apologized for her uninformed, ignorant, hateful remarks. Isn’t this a first?
I am pretty sure that the people who listen to her show agree with her most of the time, otherwise they wouldn’t bother. I mean, why be constantly pissed off? That so many people do listen to her scares the shit out of me, because I tried to listen when people first started ragging on her (be informed before you judge, etc). I couldn’t believe my ears. I am an educated woman, and I was so offended by what this bitch was putting out there, I almost crashed my car.
My sister-in-law (doctorate in psychology, teaches at USC) can’t stand it when people hear she’s a doctor, and say something like “Psychology? Oh, like Dr. Laura!” Grrrrrrr…
She spreads ignorance and hate. I wish she would go away, but I can’t make her.
In spite of her statements to the contrary, Laura Schlessinger did not establish that the child in question had coprolalia. See the full transcripts on my website, verified by hundreds of people who played the audio file from the Dr Laura website. http://members.home.net/tourettenowwhat/DrLauraTS.htm If she did establish that fact off-air, then she was misleading early on in the call, when she pretended not to know the nature of the call.
Laura Schlessinger did not personally apologize for or retract the majority of her damaging remarks about TS. Premiere Radio executives apologized “allegedly” on her behalf, and she has failed to authenticate or validate that apology or the statement that they had her read on air when she made her third statement on the topic.
Her inaccurate statements, which she backed up “as a scientist” and never fully retracted were:
Based on twenty-year-old data from a fifteen-year-old textbook referring only to clinically referred populations, she stated that coprolalia was present in 60% of persons with TS, even though she had scores of faxes and e-mails at her disposable with the accurate information (10 - 15%), which she chose to ignore.
She advocated for the use of Haloperidol to control “90% of tics,” which is not only inaccurate – it’s dangerous. She never retracted that – the most damaging statement she made.
She implied that children should be able to control their tics through behavioral means, quoting out of context from a letter she had which indicated that, while behavioral methods are effective for some, children are not always successful in managing their tics with behavioral means.
She completely reversed all of her previous positions about weddings (in fact, she reversed the position she herself took in the opening minutes of the call – that the sister should not get involved) when she heard that the boy had Tourette’s. At that point, she unequivocably stated that he should be excluded, and there was no discussion of any possible arrangements in order to accommodate him in some limited way.
She partially retracted only one of these inaccurate statements (60% coprolalia) in a prepared statement, ONLY after intense pressure was brought to bear upon her advertisers, and she never apologized or retracted her most damaging statements.
Incorrect. The first call was on May 22nd, she recieved “lots of faxes and e-mails” (her words), she went on the air again on May 25th to mangle things to a much greater degree when she used an outdated textbook to justify her original wrong information, and she read a statement apparently prepared by her producers on May 31st, only after a very successful boycott had been launched. She never apologized.
I think you people are being too hard on Dr. Laura. She is what she is, if her listeners choose to take their moral advice from a hateful shrewish pornographer, that is their own poor judgement.
from TSNowWhat, Dr. Laura went beyond giving poor moral advice (which she has since taken back), and went on to give factually incorrect data about a condition, which even she admits is often misunderstood. and since she proudly puts out that ‘Dr.’ in front of her name, and mentioned ‘as a scientist’ in her comments, it goes beyond ‘well, if you’re dumb enough to listen to her in the first place’. She place wrong information out into a public forum and apparently hasn’t done much of anything to correct it. As a scientist she should be horrified at dispensing wrong, outdated and potentially harmful material. As a moralist, well, I’ll let her figure out what to do there.
Maybe by “it is not nice” dr. laura meant “it would not be nice to bring something that screams obscenities to a wedding.” What does it matter that ‘it’ is a person, and that it is bringing itself? Does some guy’s ‘right’ to ‘be himself’ give him to the right to fuck (haha pun) up a wedding?
Perhaps an example will illuminate…
Suppose I had a four foot dick, but I also really liked to wear shorts. Should I be allowed to go out in public in shorts, swinging freely? Should I be allowed to go to a church? A wedding?
bah