Split Is Fetterman's aphasia relevant to his being a Senator?

[Metaphor]

It is not an ad-hominem to speculate ideological bias as the reason several board members are resisting eye-bleedingly obvious statements, like that processing speech is an important part of a Senator's job.

If you are attacking someone's motives,

I didn't attack motives or try to base on arguments on the motives of posters. I am trying to find a reason to understand how people can hold such unreasonable positions, like that the ability to process speech is irrelevant to the job of a Senator.

then you are making an ad hominem attack. That is just what the expression "ad hominem" means. All I did was point out that you yourself are vulnerable to the same attack. You already know that ad hominem attacks are fallacious and irrelevant to this argument,

I didn't make any arguments based on the character of the posters. I made an expression of despair at the state of the board. I am allowed to have feelings.

so I shouldn't need to point it out to you.

I also see you changed your words in your penultimate sentence, from processing speech to processing 'language'. I have very carefully said Fetterman has speech (that is, verbal rather than written) processing issues. This is something he and his own camp have said and admitted to. That is why he asked for closed captioning in his tv interview and his debate.

There is no significance to the use of "language" instead of "speech". You are talking about a linguistic impairment and implying that his disability would somehow render him unfit for his job.

No: you see, you are once again mischaracterising what I have said. I did not say he was unfit for the job. You have mischaracterised my expressed views on this once already. Stop saying I said it. Stop.

I agreed with you that it was relevant, but disagreed that it was as serious as you have made it out to be. That he asked for closed captioning supports my contention that his speech/language/linguistic processing was relatively insignificant regarding his fitness for office, given the circumstances. It only showed that he was at a serious disadvantage in a TV debate, because he is not yet fully recovered from the damage caused by his stroke. He could obviously process written English better than spoken English. That is quite common in people who have suffered light or moderate strokes. The prognosis for a full recovery at his age is usually good.

I did not make any speculations about his prognosis, though I see ZiprHead has chosen not to ask you where you got your medical degree and when did you examine Fetterman.

I made a single claim: that speech processing difficulties was hardly irrelevant to the job of a Senator. Responses to that claim have included:
* Go fuck yourself, ableist
* People's cognitive deficits can improve after a stroke (a claim seemingly offered as counterevidence, as if I'd made the claim Fetterman could not experience improvement)
* It's not a 'cognitive deficit', which, even if that were true (it's not) makes no difference whatever to my claim, which is that processing real-time speech is not irrelevant to the job of a Senator
* That the deficit can be accommodated or mitigated, which is a separate question
* That I was not Fetterman's doctor, and therefore...I apparently don't understand what the words 'cognitive deficit' could mean.

Do you have any idea what it's like to make an eye-bleedingly obvious statement and then have half the board resist that statement and ascribe motives and positions to you manufactured from whole cloth?

Yes, and that does not describe the treatment I have given your post. I am not here to defend comments made by others, nor do I endorse your characterization of the extent of your victimhood. People here have disagreed with the way you have framed Fetterman's linguistic difficulties, and I am one of those people.

Your characterisation of my views is also false, as I have pointed out above and before.

If you don't think they are serious, then why all the fuss you are making about them?

Of course his problem is serious. It's a serious problem to have difficulties processing speech.

 

[Copernicus]

We have advanced to double-down ad nauseam territory, Metaphor, and I think I've addressed all of your points already. If you want to pursue this line of argument with others, have at it.

 

[ZiprHead]

No: you see, you are once again mischaracterising what I have said. I did not say he was unfit for the job. You have mischaracterised my expressed views on this once already. Stop saying I said it. Stop.

Oh, that's just a load of crap. You may not have said those words but you most certainly implied it.

 

[Metaphor]

No: you see, you are once again mischaracterising what I have said. I did not say he was unfit for the job. You have mischaracterised my expressed views on this once already. Stop saying I said it. Stop.

Oh, that's just a load of crap. You may not have said those words but you most certainly implied it.

Apologising: you're doing it wrong.

 

[Elixir]

It’s odd when someone gets huffy about being called out for the obvious implications of their posts, claiming that they used different words. Especially when it becomes a habit pattern.
Just to be clear, “different words“ is what makes them implications rather than statements.

 

[laughing dog]

I hope he does. Because he is a Senator now and Senators need to be able to follow conversations and debates in real-time.

I am unaware there evidence Mr. Fetterman has a problem processing what he hears. If that is true, then there is no real issue. If that is untrue, it is easily dealt with if Mr. Fetterman has an aide with him to help him understand what is said in conversations.

There is no real need for any Senator to follow debates in the Senate. Those are almost always choreographed for the public.

And, once you realize that a minimum of 80% of what is said out loud by every Senator is utter bullshit, maybe being slow in processing speech is not a handicap but an advantage.

 

[Metaphor]

Just to be clear, “different words“ is what makes them implications rather than statements.

No. "Different words" is a paraphrase instead of a quote.

Manufacturing positions from whole cloth isn't "different words". It's lying.

EDIT: Just to be clear, the accusation that I made the implication that it was impossible for Fetterman to function as a Senator is unjustified. But, even if you wanted to indulge your clear desire to build straw men, the fact that I have said your inference is not a position I hold should (a logical and moral should) be enough for you to stop making that claim.

 

[Metaphor]

I hope he does. Because he is a Senator now and Senators need to be able to follow conversations and debates in real-time.

I am unaware there evidence Mr. Fetterman has a problem processing what he hears.

Well, Fetterman has said that, and arranged for closed captions to mitigate it.

If that is true, then there is no real issue. If that is untrue, it is easily dealt with if Mr. Fetterman has an aide with him to help him understand what is said in conversations.

An aide can't provide real-time subtitles for him. But even if she could, she'd be providing them because Fetterman has a cognitive deficit in processing speech.

Nevertheless, the idea that processing speech is not important for a Senator is still a ludicrous idea.

There is no real need for any Senator to follow debates in the Senate. Those are almost always choreographed for the public.

Is there a need for a Senator to process the speech of people talking to him?

And, once you realize that a minimum of 80% of what is said out loud by every Senator is utter bullshit, maybe being slow in processing speech is not a handicap but an advantage.

He isn't "slow" in processing speech. He has a speech processing deficit. During his debate and tv interview, he asked for and got captions for everything that was said.

 

[pood]

Fetterman’s own doctor said he has no cognitive deficit and no deficit in his ability to think and reason. So unless you are a doctor and know something his own doctor doesn’t, I suggest you stow your BS.

 

[pood]

Fetterman’s own doctor said he has no cognitive deficit and no deficit in his ability to think and reason.

I did not say Fetterman had a deficit in his ability to think and reason.

So unless you are a doctor and know something his own doctor doesn’t, I suggest you stow your BS.

I am not a physician and never claimed to be. However, I reject your attempt to shut down conversation via claims of epistemological privilege.

You didn’t say he had a deficit in his ability to think and reason? Then what the hell are you carping about? Oh, I know … your boy, the quack “doctor” named Oz, lost. Well, you know, folks looked behind the curtain.

As to the rest … I’m trying to “shut down conversation” via claims of epistemological privilege? Wow, that’s a new phrase I never heard before. Maybe you’re a right-wing snowflake who needs a safe space?

 

[Metaphor]

Fetterman’s own doctor said he has no cognitive deficit and no deficit in his ability to think and reason.

I did not say Fetterman had a deficit in his ability to think and reason.

So unless you are a doctor and know something his own doctor doesn’t, I suggest you stow your BS.

I am not a physician and never claimed to be. However, I reject your attempt to shut down conversation via claims of epistemological privilege.

You didn’t say he had a deficit in his ability to think and reason?

That's correct. I didn't say it. You can see for yourself I didn't say it, and I suspect that's the reason you cannot produce evidence of me having said it.

Then what the hell are you carping about?

I am astonished that an absolutely eye-bleedingly obvious statement, like 'processing speech is not irrelevant to the job of a Senator' got immediate and relentless pushback, and when I defended myself from false statements, I got further kvetching about defending myself.

Oh, I know … your boy, the quack “doctor” named Oz, lost.

My "boy"? I haven't said anything about Oz in this thread, except to say I have never said anything about him.

Well, you know, folks looked behind the curtain.

As to the rest … I’m trying to “shut down conversation” via claims of epistemological privilege?

Yes. I quoted you where you did it.

Wow, that’s a new phrase I never heard before.

Well, okay?

Maybe you’re a right-wing snowflake who needs a safe space?

What makes you think I've asked for a safe space? Shutting down nonsense is not asking for a 'safe space'. Nor does defending myself from falsehoods make me a 'snowflake'.

 

[Metaphor]

I’m trying to work this out. Is “epistemological privilege“ intended as a pejorative characterization of the idea that a doctor can know more about the health of his patient than some rando on the internet? Or what?

I did not say Fetterman's doctor did not know more about Fetterman than I do. If you think I made that claim, show your receipts.

Epistemological privilege is a term I've used (I came up with it independently, I believe, but I might have heard it somewhere) to describe the behaviour where people attempt to shut down somebody's assertions through mere statement of their own superior position in attaining knowledge. An example:
* You are a man trying to explain to a woman what mansplaining is *

This is a claim of epistemological privilege, that no man has the right to make any kind of assertion about the meaning of the word 'mansplain', and therefore no arguments need to be addressed or even considered. As if the meanings of words is not a matter of reason or evidence.

Claims to epistemological privilege is rampant amongst progressives, in my experience.

 

[pood]

But Fetterman has said he needs captioning to follow conversations, even with a single questioner (e.g. when he was interviewed). And, he needs things written down because of his cognitive/processing deficits, not a sensory deficit. Sometimes cognitive deficits are very narrow and specific, but often they are general. Whatever the deficit is that is causing him difficulty in processing speech might also cause other problems.

You.

 

[Metaphor]

Another example of epistemological privilege: "Are you a doctor"?, which is a reverse appeal to authority, as if only medical doctors can understand anything medical or medical-adjacent.

 

[pood]

I’m trying to work this out. Is “epistemological privilege“ intended as a pejorative characterization of the idea that a doctor can know more about the health of his patient than some rando on the internet? Or what?

I did not say Fetterman's doctor did not know more about Fetterman than I do. If you think I made that claim, show your receipts.

Epistemological privilege is a term I've used (I came up with it independently, I believe, but I might have heard it somewhere) to describe the behaviour where people attempt to shut down somebody's assertions through mere statement of their own superior position in attaining knowledge. An example:
* You are a man trying to explain to a woman what mansplaining is *

This is a claim of epistemological privilege, that no man has the right to make any kind of assertion about the meaning of the word 'mansplain', and therefore no arguments need to be addressed or even considered. As if the meanings of words is not a matter of reason or evidence.

Claims to epistemological privilege is rampant amongst progressives, in my experience.

Ha ha, OK chief. “Epistemological privilege” is pretty good, though. I’m going to borrow it for a novel I’m currently writing. Maybe I’ll even make you a character in it.

 

[Elixir]

But Fetterman has said he needs captioning to follow conversations, even with a single questioner (e.g. when he was interviewed). And, he needs things written down because of his cognitive/processing deficits, not a sensory deficit. Sometimes cognitive deficits are very narrow and specific, but often they are general. Whatever the deficit is that is causing him difficulty in processing speech might also cause other problems.

You.

“I’m not saying it’s aliens, but … it’s aliens.“

 

[Metaphor]

But Fetterman has said he needs captioning to follow conversations, even with a single questioner (e.g. when he was interviewed). And, he needs things written down because of his cognitive/processing deficits, not a sensory deficit. Sometimes cognitive deficits are very narrow and specific, but often they are general. Whatever the deficit is that is causing him difficulty in processing speech might also cause other problems.

You.

Me....what?

 

[pood]

Another example of epistemological privilege: "Are you a doctor"?, which is a reverse appeal to authority, as if only medical doctors can understand anything medical or medical-adjacent.

Oh, come off of it. You claimed, contra your recent disclaimers, that Fetterman has cognitive deficits related to his stroke. HIs doctor says he does not. Why the hell should anyone “epistemologically privilege” your claim over that of his own dcotor? Reverse appeal to authority, indeed!

 

[pood]

But Fetterman has said he needs captioning to follow conversations, even with a single questioner (e.g. when he was interviewed). And, he needs things written down because of his cognitive/processing deficits, not a sensory deficit. Sometimes cognitive deficits are very narrow and specific, but often they are general. Whatever the deficit is that is causing him difficulty in processing speech might also cause other problems.

You.

Me....what?

“Me” as in, “You” said the part I quoted.

 

[Metaphor]

But Fetterman has said he needs captioning to follow conversations, even with a single questioner (e.g. when he was interviewed). And, he needs things written down because of his cognitive/processing deficits, not a sensory deficit. Sometimes cognitive deficits are very narrow and specific, but often they are general. Whatever the deficit is that is causing him difficulty in processing speech might also cause other problems.

You.

Me....what?

“Me” as in, “You” said the part I quoted.

No, I didn't. You falsely claimed that I said

...he had a deficit in his ability to think and reason?

Which I did not say. What I said was

Whatever the deficit is that is causing him difficulty in processing speech might also cause other problems.

You cannot square your false accusation with what I wrote. "Other problems" is not "think and reason". If I meant "think and reason", I'd have said "think and reason". And if I meant to say he had other problems, I'd have said he had them, instead of allowing the possibility.