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

[laughing dog]

Apparently I might be wrong about that, according to laughing dog, from which I gather Americans have no standards from what they expect in a Senator.

You gather wrong. Your strawmen continue to pile up. And this is discussion is, in essence, close captioned. So what is your excuse?

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Only to the epistemologicallly impaired. BTW, there is no evidence Mr. Fetterman has a cognitive deficit in processing speech but auditory speech issues.

The problem is in his brain.

Unless you are somehow implying this affects his ability to reason and think, what is your point?

 

[Swammerdami]

His doctors also said he will get better over time.

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

Really? I find it much likelier that you will be delighted if this Democrat's condition worsens; this will allow you to argue something-something about American politics. And this is especially likely after this thread where you have vociferously espoused a case fort "cognitive" disability.

 

[Metaphor]

I notice Metaphor didn't respond to post #232 that contained a link that directly says aphasia is not a cognitive issue but a one of language.

That you found a headline conforming to your narrative is immaterial. Whether being unable to process speech is labelled a 'language' disorder or a 'cognitive' disorder (it's both) doesn't make a difference to my argument--that understanding the speech of others is not an irrelevant ability for a Senator.

 

[Metaphor]

His doctors also said he will get better over time.

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

Really? I find it much likelier that you will be delighted if this Democrat's condition worsens; this will allow you to argue something-something about American politics. And this is especially likely after this thread where you have vociferously espoused a case fort "cognitive" disability.

I know the contents of my mind better than you know the contents of my mind.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

Only to the epistemologicallly impaired. BTW, there is no evidence Mr. Fetterman has a cognitive deficit in processing speech but auditory speech issues.

The problem is in his brain.

Unless you are somehow implying this affects his ability to reason and think, what is your point?

I've already answered this. I was making a point that being unable to process speech is different from a sensory deficit like being hard of hearing, and accommodations for it have to be different and may not be all practical, and the effects may not be able to be mitigated even with accommodations.

 

[Metaphor]

Apparently I might be wrong about that, according to laughing dog, from which I gather Americans have no standards from what they expect in a Senator.

You gather wrong. Your strawmen continue to pile up.

It's true, you don't represent all Americans. You're the only American who has said being able to understand the speech of others 'maybe' or 'maybe not' important to the job of a Senator.

And this is discussion is, in essence, close captioned. So what is your excuse?

My "excuse" for what, laughing dog?

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Only to the epistemologicallly impaired. BTW, there is no evidence Mr. Fetterman has a cognitive deficit in processing speech but auditory speech issues.

The problem is in his brain.

Unless you are somehow implying this affects his ability to reason and think, what is your point?

I've already answered this. I was making a point that being unable to process speech is different from a sensory deficit like being hard of hearing, and accommodations for it have to be different and may not be all practical, and the effects may not be able to be mitigated even with accommodations.

Well, since we have evidence the effects are mitigated with accommodation, it seems that once again, you have no relevant point.

 

[laughing dog]

Apparently I might be wrong about that, according to laughing dog, from which I gather Americans have no standards from what they expect in a Senator.

You gather wrong. Your strawmen continue to pile up.

It's true, you don't represent all Americans. You're the only American who has said being able to understand the speech of others 'maybe' or 'maybe not' important to the job of a Senator.

Yet another straw man. Regardless, my statement does not mean Americans or I have no standards.

And this is discussion is, in essence, close captioned. So what is your excuse?

My "excuse" for what, laughing dog?

For your demonstrated inability to effectively process written communication (your response provided 2 examples).

 

[Metaphor]

I notice Metaphor didn't respond to post #232 that contained a link that directly says aphasia is not a cognitive issue but a one of language. He had to have seen it since he's responded to posts made after it. That's now two authoritative links I've provided that say aphasia is not a cognitive condition yet he continues to make his argument.

I don't find it worth the effort to try to get Metaphor to admit that he has exaggerated the seriousness of Fetterman's linguistic problems.

What I have said is that Fetterman has a speech processing deficit, which is not an exaggeration.

He has pretty much admitted that it is just a language problem, not necessarily something that has seriously affected his intelligence or overall ability to think rationally.

"Just a language problem"? So you think a deficit in understanding the speech of others is irrelevant to the job of a Senator?

However, he still seems to think that there is some kind of political hay that he can make out of Fetterman's stroke-induced linguistic disability. So he focuses on the need of a politician to communicate effectively with his constituents and colleagues, which is a real need that a senator has, ignoring the fact that Fetterman, even with his language issues, is still doing a pretty good job of communicating effectively with the press and others.

I have ignored nothing. In fact, I haven't seen how Fetterman performs without closed captions.

The problem is that people really do confuse linguistic ability with intelligence and reasoning ability.

The problem is that you have decided that I did that.

 

[Metaphor]

Apparently I might be wrong about that, according to laughing dog, from which I gather Americans have no standards from what they expect in a Senator.

You gather wrong. Your strawmen continue to pile up.

It's true, you don't represent all Americans. You're the only American who has said being able to understand the speech of others 'maybe' or 'maybe not' important to the job of a Senator.

Yet another straw man.

You said it, laughing dog. Anyone can go back and see.

For your demonstrated inability to effectively process written communication (your response provided 2 examples).

That is your opinion, laughing dog, and I rather suspect my academic and professional record would be much poorer if your assertion were true.

 

[Copernicus]

What I have said is that Fetterman has a speech processing deficit, which is not an exaggeration.

That is just one of the things you've said, but it is a lot of the other things you've said that people are having a problem with--particularly your implication that this rather mild stroke caused by a blood clot will seriously impair his ability to function as a senator. There is reason to believe that he will recover without difficulty, and he can take (and likely is taking) blood thinners to prevent another stroke. He is completely functional now and able to communicate with the press, constituents, his doctors, and his new colleagues in the Senate. Your repetition of the claim that his job performance will suffer is unfounded speculation.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Only to the epistemologicallly impaired. BTW, there is no evidence Mr. Fetterman has a cognitive deficit in processing speech but auditory speech issues.

The problem is in his brain.

Unless you are somehow implying this affects his ability to reason and think, what is your point?

I've already answered this. I was making a point that being unable to process speech is different from a sensory deficit like being hard of hearing, and accommodations for it have to be different and may not be all practical, and the effects may not be able to be mitigated even with accommodations.

Well, since we have evidence the effects are mitigated with accommodation, it seems that once again, you have no relevant point.

We have no such evidence.

Of course we do. We have Fetterman's admission.

Apparently I might be wrong about that, according to laughing dog, from which I gather Americans have no standards from what they expect in a Senator.

You gather wrong. Your strawmen continue to pile up.

It's true, you don't represent all Americans. You're the only American who has said being able to understand the speech of others 'maybe' or 'maybe not' important to the job of a Senator.

Yet another straw man.

You said it, laughing dog. Anyone can go back and see.

That does not mean I have no standards. Thanks for providing yet more evidence to support my observations.

For your demonstrated inability to effectively process written communication (your response provided 2 examples).

That is your opinion, laughing dog, and I rather suspect my academic and professional record would be much poorer if your assertion were true.

It is not an opinion. Not only do you create straw men, you persist in defending them.

 

[Metaphor]

What I have said is that Fetterman has a speech processing deficit, which is not an exaggeration.

That is just one of the things you've said, but it is a lot of the other things you've said that people are having a problem with--particularly your implication that this rather mild stroke caused by a blood clot will seriously impair his ability to function as a senator.

I didn't say it, and your inference is incorrect. You can stop promulgating your false inference as I am now telling you quite directly and unambiguously I did not say it and don't believe it.

There is reason to believe that he will recover without difficulty, and he can take (and likely is taking) blood thinners to prevent another stroke. He is completely functional now and able to communicate with the press, constituents, his doctors, and his new colleagues in the Senate. Your repetition of the claim that his job performance will suffer is unfounded speculation.

It is of course not unfounded. You chose to downplay Fetterman's performance in the debate, saying it was high stress, but you cannot simply dismiss it.

But, whether or not I am mistaken about how much of an impact Fetterman's language processing deficit will have in two months time (and I can't be mistaken about it because I simply have no beliefs about it one way or another), it would still be true that the ability to process language is an important ability for a Senator to have.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

Only to the epistemologicallly impaired. BTW, there is no evidence Mr. Fetterman has a cognitive deficit in processing speech but auditory speech issues.

The problem is in his brain.

Unless you are somehow implying this affects his ability to reason and think, what is your point?

I've already answered this. I was making a point that being unable to process speech is different from a sensory deficit like being hard of hearing, and accommodations for it have to be different and may not be all practical, and the effects may not be able to be mitigated even with accommodations.

Well, since we have evidence the effects are mitigated with accommodation, it seems that once again, you have no relevant point.

We have no such evidence.

Of course we do. We have Fetterman's admission.

Apparently I might be wrong about that, according to laughing dog, from which I gather Americans have no standards from what they expect in a Senator.

You gather wrong. Your strawmen continue to pile up.

It's true, you don't represent all Americans. You're the only American who has said being able to understand the speech of others 'maybe' or 'maybe not' important to the job of a Senator.

Yet another straw man.

You said it, laughing dog. Anyone can go back and see.

That does not mean I have no standards.

It's a figure of speech, laughing dog. If Veronica eats greasy fish and chips each night for dinner, and her frenemy Savannah says 'you'll eat anything, you have no standards', Savannah is not making a claim that Veronica would eat human waste or shattered glass. I'm sorry you don't know how figures of speech work--at least, you don't seem to know when I use them.

It is not an opinion. Not only do you create straw men, you persist in defending them.

I am uninterested in your opinion on my language processing ability, laughing dog.

 

[pood]

What I have said is that Fetterman has a speech processing deficit, which is not an exaggeration.

That is just one of the things you've said, but it is a lot of the other things you've said that people are having a problem with--particularly your implication that this rather mild stroke caused by a blood clot will seriously impair his ability to function as a senator.

I didn't say it, and your inference is incorrect. You can stop promulgating your false inference as I am now telling you quite directly and unambiguously I did not say it and don't believe it.

And yet you write, directly below:

There is reason to believe that he will recover without difficulty, and he can take (and likely is taking) blood thinners to prevent another stroke. He is completely functional now and able to communicate with the press, constituents, his doctors, and his new colleagues in the Senate. Your repetition of the claim that his job performance will suffer is unfounded speculation.

It is of course not unfounded. You chose to downplay Fetterman's performance in the debate, saying it was high stress, but you cannot simply dismiss it.

But, whether or not I am mistaken about how much of an impact Fetterman's language processing deficit will have in two months time (and I can't be mistaken about it because I simply have no beliefs about it one way or another), it would still be true that the ability to process language is an important ability for a Senator to have.

Of course you are implying that Fetterman’s language processing deficit (assuming he really has one) will impair his ability to function as a senator! You have been saying and implying this again and again.

 

[pood]

As to those polls, note that if you back up a handful of days, you wil find Biden’s rating HIGHER THAN Trump, Clinton, Reagan and Carter, though again by minuscule tenths of a percent. The point stands. Biden’s approval rating at this stage of his presidency is equivalent to six predecessors and better than a seventh, and by a substantial margin at that.

 

[Metaphor]

What I have said is that Fetterman has a speech processing deficit, which is not an exaggeration.

That is just one of the things you've said, but it is a lot of the other things you've said that people are having a problem with--particularly your implication that this rather mild stroke caused by a blood clot will seriously impair his ability to function as a senator.

I didn't say it, and your inference is incorrect. You can stop promulgating your false inference as I am now telling you quite directly and unambiguously I did not say it and don't believe it.

And yet you write, directly below:

There is reason to believe that he will recover without difficulty, and he can take (and likely is taking) blood thinners to prevent another stroke. He is completely functional now and able to communicate with the press, constituents, his doctors, and his new colleagues in the Senate. Your repetition of the claim that his job performance will suffer is unfounded speculation.

It is of course not unfounded. You chose to downplay Fetterman's performance in the debate, saying it was high stress, but you cannot simply dismiss it.

But, whether or not I am mistaken about how much of an impact Fetterman's language processing deficit will have in two months time (and I can't be mistaken about it because I simply have no beliefs about it one way or another), it would still be true that the ability to process language is an important ability for a Senator to have.

Of course you are implying that Fetterman’s language processing deficit (assuming he really has one)

Oy gevalt. One absurdity doth tread the other's heels, so fast they follow.

 

[laughing dog]

It's a figure of speech, laughing dog.
If Veronica eats greasy fish and chips each night for dinner, and her frenemy Savannah says 'you'll eat anything, you have no standards', Savannah is not making a claim that Veronica would eat human waste or shattered glass. I'm sorry you don't know how figures of speech work--at least, you don't seem to know when I use them.

You really have no standards - you will say anything to justify your wrongness.

 

[Toni]

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.

Only to the epistemologicallly impaired. BTW, there is no evidence Mr. Fetterman has a cognitive deficit in processing speech but auditory speech issues.

The problem is in his brain.

Unless you are somehow implying this affects his ability to reason and think, what is your point?

I've already answered this. I was making a point that being unable to process speech is different from a sensory deficit like being hard of hearing, and accommodations for it have to be different and may not be all practical, and the effects may not be able to be mitigated even with accommodations.

Well, since we have evidence the effects are mitigated with accommodation, it seems that once again, you have no relevant point.

We have no such evidence.

Of course we do. We have Fetterman's admission.

Apparently I might be wrong about that, according to laughing dog, from which I gather Americans have no standards from what they expect in a Senator.

You gather wrong. Your strawmen continue to pile up.

It's true, you don't represent all Americans. You're the only American who has said being able to understand the speech of others 'maybe' or 'maybe not' important to the job of a Senator.

Yet another straw man.

You said it, laughing dog. Anyone can go back and see.

That does not mean I have no standards.

It's a figure of speech, laughing dog. If Veronica eats greasy fish and chips each night for dinner, and her frenemy Savannah says 'you'll eat anything, you have no standards', Savannah is not making a claim that Veronica would eat human waste or shattered glass. I'm sorry you don't know how figures of speech work--at least, you don't seem to know when I use them.

It is not an opinion. Not only do you create straw men, you persist in defending them.

I am uninterested in your opinion on my language processing ability, laughing dog.

To be extremely fair, it is exceedingly difficult to discern tone over the internet. There is no body language, no tone of voice to guide is in determining whether someone is joking or being arch or sarcastic or mean or whatever.

The other thing is that with some posters, I personally have a fair amount of trouble determining whether they wish to be taken at face value or whether there's a bit of a tone or twist to the actual words. For instance, I could never tell when TomSawyer was joking and sometimes I have a lot of trouble with bilby as well. I absolutely take this as MY fault/failing.

With regards to YOUR posts, I think that I often either misunderstand what exactly you are getting at or you are not doing a good job of conveying what you are getting at. However, I don't seem to be the only person with this problem and so I think that perhaps you might consider that your meaning is not conveyed as well as you believe it is and stop taking offense when someone misunderstands or misinterprets you.

Your earlier assertion in this thread (paraphrasing here) that you might infer from ld's post that Americans have no standards for which they determine what makes an effective Senator seems, at first reading to be meant with no sarcasm or irony. I would have taken it at face value as well. If that, however, is not how you intended it to be interpreted, you could correct the impression LD had of your typed words and simply say; Sorry, I meant that in an ironical or in a sarcastic or whatever fits way. It would help people learn to understand when you type words how you intend for them to be taken. Here, you are saying that it was just a figure of speech. There are other instances when you refuse to accept that some other poster is merely employing a figure of speech---which sort of implies that you do not employ figures of speech.

Nothing I've written here is intended as any kind of attack on you or your writing style. I'm just hoping to find a way so that what you type is understood in the way you intended by everyone who reads it. Just as I hope people understand what I write in the way I intend them to understand it. And for those times when things are not understood as the writer intended, that different interpretations or meanings or implications are pointed out as an addition to the discussion and not as a discussion of the merits of one person's writing style vs another. I like to be understood and I am assuming everyone also wants to be understood as well.