Predictably, she says I misrepresent her, and refers to me as a troll. Anyone who calls them on their nonsense is somehow a troll. "Discussion" to them can't be anything other than agreement and reinforcement. I didn't make a post to counter her simply because she deletes my comments. If she and the other creeps won't let my responses be heard, I make even longer ones on my own territory so others can view. That's why I've written all of the posts I've done so far. I wondered if it would convince them to consider letting me comment on their place instead, as it wouldn't be as scathing. I just don't want to let their despotic bullshit go unchallenged. She then explains herself as if she's just writing her thoughts and considerations of things, as if she's not trying to prove points.
"It is a crime to be shocked by and proud of your students?" Why misrepresent what you're proud of and blow it out of proportion? If she's so proud, why won't she just act pleased with only what went well?
"Is it a crime to engage in armchair philosophy–armchair only because I haven’t finished my degree?" It should be expected to have some real reasoning for the expressed thoughts, and not have ridiculous conclusions that don't follow from the premises. But I've basically seen an attempt to make a point that many others with the same ploy are trying to make. The level of misconception caused by all of those trying to lie about what intelligence is, is something to be noticed and complained of.
"this is the internet. If you don’t like it, don’t read it" Got to be fucking kidding me! As if she doesn't tend to have many readers who consider her ideas seriously, isn't talking of a contentious issue, isn't trying to convince readers one way or the other about it, isn't one among a bunch of other similar characters who push the same agenda, and as if she isn't in contact with those other characters, even having them on her blogroll. She shouldn't try to dupe me into thinking that what she says has no potential effect on anyone, regarding issues that concern many.
Then she makes fun of me for having weak reading comprehension. If she likes to antagonize others based on their abilities, that completely disproves that she supposedly thinks impairments aren't misfortunate or problematic. She of course, is trying to backtrack what she said to protect her reputation after I explained her for what she is.
"I have never tried to argue that my students are not seriously impaired, or that language and communication are not important."
Bullshit!: "I’m not convinced that lacking language is the cruel blow it’s often thought of" Saying that belies that one thinks that language and communication are important. You can't talk the way she does of things and not be one who undermines the understanding of how problematic severe impairment is.
"Hardly. I am attempting to ascertain what, exactly, these “real professionals” are saying, and how that fits in with my experience." She should read up on it and act like she has done so.
Then she pathetically tries to refute my slamming her for saying: "Intelligence, if it means anything to me, is a light, a brightness behind someone’s eyes, a spark thrown off by the working gears of their mind."
with this: "What? No. No no no.
First of all, I am a homo homo sapiens, not vermin. But nice insult. It seems, to me, to signal the beginnings of ravings.
Secondly, I was, in the paragraph referenced, revering to common usages of the word “intelligence”. " Nothing was cleared up to her credit. Just showing that she can't handle my castigation or being called basically an asshole.
"This is not tantamount to calling my students gifted or nondisabled." I know she wouldn't just come out and say that, or simply try to convince others of exactly that. That doesn't mean she's not implicitly undermining the realization of how severe and devastating mental impairments are, through making sweeping statements using slight progress as examples.
"Take anything out of context" The context excuse is getting really old.
"Said it was morally repugnant to write someone off, to say that they are sub-human because of their intellect." No. Don't pretend you said things you didn't in an order you didn't. Saying someone lacks intelligence isn't the same as writing them off.
"I am more optimistic, more determined, than you. I see their futures differently. I don’t waste my time with horror and pity–I do something about it." Optimistic about what? What goal? You aren't determined to end the suffering. When have you asked them what they want you to be determined to do for them, how much they want in the long run? Where is their consent for you to see their futures in the way you do, and to talk of their futures in such a way? It's no skin off your nose if all that would benefit them isn't done.
"I see we have moved from personal attacks into sheer delusions. I am working to give these kids a self-determined life" The way you talk is detrimental to their self-determination. You don't represent them. The euphemistic talk you throw in is degrading. How are you acting in accord with their own conscious efforts and wishes in their own interests?
"and even harder for them" At least this is truthful. I think the much harder work of them should be compensated with a future of independence and prosperity, that isn't less than that of those who don't have to work anywhere near as hard.
"So yeah, I’ll celebrate the small victories" Why do you do it the way you do?