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

[Metaphor]

Rhea, I do not normally number you in the people who refuse to get the point.

Fetterman is not surrounded by Republicans. They are not part of his circle. His family is not Republicans, his friends are not Republicans, the people who worked on his campaign are not Republicans, his personal physician donated to his campaign.

I get your point. I’m refuting it.

You think Fetterman interacts only with his “team.”

No. You see, I did not say that and don't believe it.A simple personal attack was made on me by saying 'even Fetterman would have gotten the point by now', or words to that effect. I pointed out that the people Fetterman chooses to have near him--his team--probably do not ideologically oppose every single utterance he makes, no matter how banal the point.

You think he lives in a bubble and never has to face Republican questioning.

No. I did not say it and don't believe it.

And that means that he does not face as difficult an interrogation as you do here in this thread.

I can tell you that when I utter banal statements in real life, around people who do not necessarily agree with me but are not instantly prejudiced against any statement I make--like that listening to and understanding speech is an important ability for a Senator--I am not told to go fuck myself.

Is Fetterman surrounded by a team of people of opposing ideological persuasion and who are determined not to get the point?

I see that now you are considering us “your team” as contrasted to Fetterman’s “team” and how your team is against you while Fetterman’s is for him.

Well, yes, you interpreted it correctly. Which makes me wonder why you chose not to do so earlier.

So if you’re counting us as “your team” for the purpose of tring to refute my joke, then you need to count all the people who argue with Fetterman as being “his team” also.

If Fetterman chose to go on a message board populated mainly by his ideological opponents, I am quite sure he would get roughly equivalent treatment to what I get--and that his dissent from whatever the prevailing ideology is would be regarded as him 'not getting the point'.

Fetterman is not surrounded by Republicans. They are not part of his circle. His family is not Republicans, his friends are not Republicans, the people who worked on his campaign are not Republicans, his personal physician donated to his campaign.

I admit that I am charmed by being part of your circle. That your family is here, that I’m one of your friends, the equivalent of working on your campaign, indeed, to be numbered alongside your personal physician! It warms the cockles of my heart.

I choose to come on to this board, knowing I am both vastly outnumbered and that people will make prejudicial leaps and inferences no matter what I say.

This thread is a case in point, but I don't always anticipate it. I could not have anticipated that blastula could utter something so monumentally daft, be corrected on it, and then a platoon of countrymen coming to the defence of his daft statement.

 

[Metaphor]

...

Otherwise, what is all the fuss you are making about his speech impairment about?

Correcting blastula's ridiculous assertion.

But he said that Fetterman's speech problems were irrelevant to his potential job performance, and I believe that he made a correct observation. You disagreed with him, which triggered this whole discussion about whether his speech problems were actually irrelevant to his potential job performance as a senator.

Now you seem to be saying that you weren't making any claims in that regard

I am not, and did not, make any specific claims about Fetterman's ability to recover between now and the start of his period as a Senator, nor the availability and effectiveness of accommodations to mitigate his speech processing deficit.

and that everyone is making stuff up about what you said, but that is not the impression you have given over the past few pages. The problem, as I see it, is that you have exaggerated the impact of his stroke-related aphasia on his ability to communicate with colleagues and the public, but he is fully capable of doing that even now, as we've seen in his public appearances since the debate. There is every reason to believe that his linguistic performance will improve, so why do you think blastula's assertion was ridiculous?

Of course it was ridiculous. Listening to and understanding the speech of others is not irrelevant to the job of a Senator, nor is it obvious, as you appear to believe, that the accommodations Fetterman had arranged for his campaign can continue effectively during his Senatorship.

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.

I have not simply dismissed it or downplayed it! I have pointed out to you that high stress exacerbates symptoms, and that this is commonly known.

There you go again! Fetterman has the ability to process language, yet you imply here that he does not.

I mistyped. Indeed, I meant to say speech processing deficit.

The linguistic impairment that he has experienced since the stroke will have little or no impact on his ability to understand others and express complex ideas to others, because he can do that right now.

It of course has an impact on his ability to understand others speech. That's why he requested accommodations for it.

His speaking problems are the equivalent of having a speech impediment such as a stutter or a lisp. He may need people to explain some things to him again that he has missed, but he is perfectly capable of getting clarification when he needs it. It would be better if he articulated words better than he can now

In fact, I haven't said anything about his articulation and don't find it to be a concern.

and understood speech more easily than he can now, but he is still able to process language in a way that is sufficient to do his job. According to his doctors, the linguistic problems will largely go away over time.

They might, though I understand he has only one report from a doctor (who also donated to his political campaign), not multiple doctors who have examined him.

Then I suggest that you go online and listen to his victory speech. That is not the speech of someone who has an "inability to process language"

A victory speech does not require someone to listen to and understand the speech of others. Indeed, it is a monologue.

 

[Copernicus]

...
I am not, and did not, make any specific claims about Fetterman's ability to recover between now and the start of his period as a Senator, nor the availability and effectiveness of accommodations to mitigate his speech processing deficit.

Nor did I say you did make such specific claims, so why do you keep bringing this up? All I said was that the prognosis for recovery is very good and that the difficulties he experienced during the debate were likely exacerbated by the pressure. The "accommodations" you refer to were just his need for closed captioning for debate questions that he was hearing spoken for the first time. This is quite understandable for a victim of a recent stroke, especially in a situation where it is critical for that person being posed questions under stressful conditions.

See: Fetterman’s use of captions is common in stroke recovery, experts say

...There is every reason to believe that his linguistic performance will improve, so why do you think blastula's assertion was ridiculous?

Of course it was ridiculous. Listening to and understanding the speech of others is not irrelevant to the job of a Senator, nor is it obvious, as you appear to believe, that the accommodations Fetterman had arranged for his campaign can continue effectively during his Senatorship.

The "accommodations" were not "for his campaign", but just closed captions for debate questions! He does not require, and has not requested, closed captions for interviews, conversations, and discussions. Nor is he expected to need them for his job as a senator.

and understood speech more easily than he can now, but he is still able to process language in a way that is sufficient to do his job. According to his doctors, the linguistic problems will largely go away over time.

They might, though I understand he has only one report from a doctor (who also donated to his political campaign), not multiple doctors who have examined him.

No, he has been examined by multiple specialists. You are talking about the report from his primary care physician, which claimed that he "has no work restrictions and can work full duty in public office." That he might or might not have contributed to Fetterman's campaign is utterly irrelevant. Did he need to be examined by a doctor who had contributed to Oz's campaign? There is no evidence that he was bribed to say what he did, nor did Fetterman, like Donald Trump, actually edit the doctor's report to make himself look good.

A victory speech does not require someone to listen to and understand the speech of others. Indeed, it is a monologue.

A lengthy extemporaneous speech by a recovering stroke victim is solid evidence that he can process and understand English. Even monologues require an ability to understand the language that the speaker is using, unless the speaker is just parroting words written in a foreign language. You called blastula's accurate claim "ridiculous", but you are really going to ridiculous lengths to exaggerate Fetterman's linguistic difficulties.

 

[Rhea]

STAFF NOTICE:

The clinical discussion of aphasia and its effect on cognition has been split into its own thread for further discussion HERE

Split - Is aphasia a cognitive disability?

STAFF NOTICE - This is a split of a split Was the political discussions 2020 mid-terms, then Fetterman fit to work. This split is the clinical and philosophical discussion of the condition of aphasia Very happy for Fetterman. Would have been too dispiriting if he lost over a disability...

iidb.org

 

[laughing dog]

...
You called blastula's accurate claim "ridiculous", but you are really going to ridiculous lengths to exaggerate Fetterman's linguistic difficulties.

The irony is that Fetterman gets it while Metaphor clearly does not.

 

[Metaphor]

...
I am not, and did not, make any specific claims about Fetterman's ability to recover between now and the start of his period as a Senator, nor the availability and effectiveness of accommodations to mitigate his speech processing deficit.

Nor did I say you did make such specific claims, so why do you keep bringing this up? All I said was that the prognosis for recovery is very good and that the difficulties he experienced during the debate were likely exacerbated by the pressure. The "accommodations" you refer to were just his need for closed captioning for debate questions that he was hearing spoken for the first time.

It was not just for the debate, but for his interview as well.

The "accommodations" were not "for his campaign", but just closed captions for debate questions! He does not require, and has not requested, closed captions for interviews,

Yes, he did. If you were unaware of this (despite my having mentioned it several times), you should now be aware of it.

conversations, and discussions. Nor is he expected to need them for his job as a senator.

I don't know where you obtained that "won't need captions" prognosis. The reports on his doctor's letter do not seem to contain it (I say seem to as I keep finding reports on it but not the actual letter).

and understood speech more easily than he can now, but he is still able to process language in a way that is sufficient to do his job. According to his doctors, the linguistic problems will largely go away over time.

They might, though I understand he has only one report from a doctor (who also donated to his political campaign), not multiple doctors who have examined him.

No, he has been examined by multiple specialists. You are talking about the report from his primary care physician, which claimed that he "has no work restrictions and can work full duty in public office." That he might or might not have contributed to Fetterman's campaign is utterly irrelevant. Did he need to be examined by a doctor who had contributed to Oz's campaign? There is no evidence that he was bribed to say what he did, nor did Fetterman, like Donald Trump, actually edit the doctor's report to make himself look good.

In Australia, a report from somebody who contributed to your campaign would be seen as a conflict of interest.

A victory speech does not require someone to listen to and understand the speech of others. Indeed, it is a monologue.

A lengthy extemporaneous speech by a recovering stroke victim is solid evidence that he can process and understand English. Even monologues require an ability to understand the language that the speaker is using, unless the speaker is just parroting words written in a foreign language. You called blastula's accurate claim "ridiculous", but you are really going to ridiculous lengths to exaggerate Fetterman's linguistic difficulties.

I did not claim Fetterman could not speak. I said he had a deficit in processing the speech of others. Please do not change my statement into a straw man that you can attack instead.

 

[steve_bank]

I hit my head when I was rehabbing in a nursing home. I ended up with subdural hemotoma. Fluids accumulated between skull and brain.

I had speech aphasia. My thinking was fine but when I tried to speak nothing came out. I cold hear and understand perfectly The fluids that acclimated compressed the speech center.

I ended up having a hole drilled in my skull to drain fluids and I quickly recovered.

In he nursing home and assisted living I saw and knew stroke victims. Somebody I took meals with was a stroke victim. Mentally he was all there but he had shakes sometimes and diminished use of one arm. Sometimes I cut his food for him.

It is a disability, with varying degrees of incapacity.

It will make his job difficult with communications, but sholud not disqualify hum outright.

 

[Copernicus]

...
I am not, and did not, make any specific claims about Fetterman's ability to recover between now and the start of his period as a Senator, nor the availability and effectiveness of accommodations to mitigate his speech processing deficit.

Nor did I say you did make such specific claims, so why do you keep bringing this up? All I said was that the prognosis for recovery is very good and that the difficulties he experienced during the debate were likely exacerbated by the pressure. The "accommodations" you refer to were just his need for closed captioning for debate questions that he was hearing spoken for the first time.

It was not just for the debate, but for his interview as well.

The "accommodations" were not "for his campaign", but just closed captions for debate questions! He does not require, and has not requested, closed captions for interviews,

Yes, he did. If you were unaware of this (despite my having mentioned it several times), you should now be aware of it.

I was not aware that he had been using closed captioning in interviews, but I see that he has. So you were right about that. However, this is no worse than someone who is deaf requiring the same, and being deaf is not a disqualification for being a senator. The disability that you are complaining about is entirely auditory, so, even if it were permanent, it would not render him unfit for office. Nevertheless, the prognosis is for improvement over time, so you are still making a lot of noise over nothing significant.

conversations, and discussions. Nor is he expected to need them for his job as a senator.

I don't know where you obtained that "won't need captions" prognosis. The reports on his doctor's letter do not seem to contain it (I say seem to as I keep finding reports on it but not the actual letter).

Here is the actual letter: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23168211/file_8769.pdf. Since he is showing improvement and has no problem hearing music, it is reasonable to assume that his auditory problem will gradually go away. It is just a matter of his brain finding paths around the damaged areas. He hasn't actually lost the vocabulary, since he can read the words, so it is just a matter of neural rewiring to circumvent the damaged areas. Even if were to stop improving, it only makes his disability equivalent to that of a person who is hard of hearing. Are you of the opinion that deaf people cannot function effectively as elected officials?

and understood speech more easily than he can now, but he is still able to process language in a way that is sufficient to do his job. According to his doctors, the linguistic problems will largely go away over time.

They might, though I understand he has only one report from a doctor (who also donated to his political campaign), not multiple doctors who have examined him.

No, he has been examined by multiple specialists. You are talking about the report from his primary care physician, which claimed that he "has no work restrictions and can work full duty in public office." That he might or might not have contributed to Fetterman's campaign is utterly irrelevant. Did he need to be examined by a doctor who had contributed to Oz's campaign? There is no evidence that he was bribed to say what he did, nor did Fetterman, like Donald Trump, actually edit the doctor's report to make himself look good.

In Australia, a report from somebody who contributed to your campaign would be seen as a conflict of interest.

The doctor is a Democrat who has contributed to other Democratic campaigns. There is no conflict of interest there, and it would be quite difficult to find a doctor who was a political independent who took no position on politics at all. Calling it a "conflict of interest" is absurd.

A victory speech does not require someone to listen to and understand the speech of others. Indeed, it is a monologue.

A lengthy extemporaneous speech by a recovering stroke victim is solid evidence that he can process and understand English. Even monologues require an ability to understand the language that the speaker is using, unless the speaker is just parroting words written in a foreign language. You called blastula's accurate claim "ridiculous", but you are really going to ridiculous lengths to exaggerate Fetterman's linguistic difficulties.

I did not claim Fetterman could not speak. I said he had a deficit in processing the speech of others. Please do not change my statement into a straw man that you can attack instead.

He has an auditory impairment. However you spin your statements, it still doesn't wash.

 

[Toni]

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.

I think you are using terms you do not understand.

Fetterman’s deficit is not cognitive and is recoverable.

 

[Metaphor]

I was not aware that he had been using closed captioning in interviews, but I see that he has. So you were right about that. However, this is no worse than someone who is deaf requiring the same, and being deaf is not a disqualification for being a senator.

Can you please stop implying I implied that this 'disqualified' Fetterman. I didn't. But even if you think I did, even if I did unknowingly make that implication, I am telling you, and have already told you, I do not believe that this 'disqualifies' a Senator.

The disability that you are complaining about is entirely auditory, so, even if it were permanent, it would not render him unfit for office.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'entirely auditory'; I believe you mean 'applies to understanding spoken language and does not apply to understanding written language'.

Nevertheless, the prognosis is for improvement over time, so you are still making a lot of noise over nothing significant.

Nothing significant according to you. You don't get to judge for other people how important they find Fetterman's disability (though you agree that understanding the speech of others is an important ability for a Senator) or how much faith they put into a prognosis, or how performance under pressure is something they value in somebody they are eligible to elect.

Here is the actual letter: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23168211/file_8769.pdf. Since he is showing improvement and has no problem hearing music, it is reasonable to assume that his auditory problem will gradually go away.

Thank you for the link. I see nothing in there saying he will not require closed captions in the future. That does not mean he will or won't. The letter concentrates mostly on his physical health.

Here is what I consider the relevant part, emphasis mine:

His speech was normal and he
continues to exhibit symptoms of an auditory processing disorder which can
come across as hearing difficulty. Occasional words he will “miss” which
seems like he doesn't hear the word but it is actually not processed properly.
His hearing of sound such as music is not affected.

Some extreme fuss has been made over my calling his disorder a 'cognitive deficit', but I still cannot understand why. The disability is obviously not sensory--he is not deaf or hard of hearing--the problem is in his brain.

But whether it is called a cognitive disorder or not is irrelevant.

It is just a matter of his brain finding paths around the damaged areas. He hasn't actually lost the vocabulary, since he can read the words, so it is just a matter of neural rewiring to circumvent the damaged areas. Even if were to stop improving, it only makes his disability equivalent to that of a person who is hard of hearing. Are you of the opinion that deaf people cannot function effectively as elected officials?

No, it is not "equivalent". Deafness is not a language processing disorder. It's a sensory deficit. Dsylexic people do not have a sensory deficit (vision) causing their reading disorder, the problem is in their brain. Now perhaps this can be completely mitigated by accommodations and perhaps it cannot be completely mitigated. I do not know.

In Australia, a report from somebody who contributed to your campaign would be seen as a conflict of interest.

The doctor is a Democrat who has contributed to other Democratic campaigns.

The doctor contributed to Fetterman's campaign specifically. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/doctor-cleared-fetterman-donated-to-his-campaign

There is no conflict of interest there, and it would be quite difficult to find a doctor who was a political independent who took no position on politics at all. Calling it a "conflict of interest" is absurd.

You appear not to be aware of the facts. Chen wrote the letter and contributed personally to Fetterman's campaign.

You may or may not consider that a conflict of interest, but if you worked in the Australian public service as I do, you'd know that something that might even appear to be a conflict of interest should raise red flags.

Now, as it happens, the primary care physician probably is the most appropriate person to write such a letter, but the apparent conflict of interest could have been avoided by the physician not donating to Fetterman's campaign, or seeking an independent medical report with input from, but not written by, Chen.

He has an auditory impairment. However you spin your statements, it still doesn't wash.

No, Copernicus. You are doing the 'spinning'. More correctly, the strawmanning. I have been very careful to talk about Fetterman's disorder in terms of understanding the speech of others, not of producing his own speech. As a linguist, it seems to me you should understand the difference.

 

[ZiprHead]

Some extreme fuss has been made over my calling his disorder a 'cognitive deficit', but I still cannot understand why. The disability is obviously not sensory--he is not deaf or hard of hearing--the problem is in his brain.

 

[laughing dog]

I was not aware that he had been using closed captioning in interviews, but I see that he has. So you were right about that. However, this is no worse than someone who is deaf requiring the same, and being deaf is not a disqualification for being a senator.

Can you please stop implying I implied that this 'disqualified' Fetterman. I didn't. But even if you think I did, even if I did unknowingly make that implication, I am telling you, and have already told you, I do not believe that this 'disqualifies' a Senator.

The disability that you are complaining about is entirely auditory, so, even if it were permanent, it would not render him unfit for office.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'entirely auditory'; I believe you mean 'applies to understanding spoken language and does not apply to understanding written language'.

Nevertheless, the prognosis is for improvement over time, so you are still making a lot of noise over nothing significant.

Nothing significant according to you. You don't get to judge for other people how important they find Fetterman's disability (though you agree that understanding the speech of others is an important ability for a Senator) or how much faith they put into a prognosis, or how performance under pressure is something they value in somebody they are eligible to elect.

Here is the actual letter: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23168211/file_8769.pdf. Since he is showing improvement and has no problem hearing music, it is reasonable to assume that his auditory problem will gradually go away.

Thank you for the link. I see nothing in there saying he will not require closed captions in the future. That does not mean he will or won't. The letter concentrates mostly on his physical health.

Here is what I consider the relevant part, emphasis mine:

You appear not to be aware of the facts. Chen wrote the letter and contributed personally to Fetterman's campaign.

You may or may not consider that a conflict of interest, but if you worked in the Australian public service as I do, you'd know that something that might even appear to be a conflict of interest should raise red flags.

Now, as it happens, the primary care physician probably is the most appropriate person to write such a letter, but the apparent conflict of interest could have been avoided by the physician not donating to Fetterman's campaign, or seeking an independent medical report with input from, but not written by, Chen.

We are not discussing a candidate standing for election in Australia, so “Australia standards” are irrelevant.

As to the appearance of a conflict of interest, appearances are in the eye of the beholder and reflect more on the beholder than the beheld.

 

[Metaphor]

We are not discussing a candidate standing for election in Australia, so “Australia standards” are irrelevant.

I gave Copernicus my experience and perspective.

Some people would consider the situation with Fetterman's physician a conflict of interest. Whether you do or not says something about you, too.

 

[laughing dog]

We are not discussing a candidate standing for election in Australia, so “Australia standards” are irrelevant.

I gave Copernicus my experience and perspective.

There is no need to justify the irrelevant.

Some people would consider the situation with Fetterman's physician a conflict of interest.

So?

Whether you do or not says something about you, too.

True. The physician’s letter is consistent with Fetterman’s recovery as anyone who paid attention can tell. Even if there is an apparent conflict of interest in the eyes of those projecting their moral values, it is of so little value, one wonders why you persist in defending your view.

 

[Ford]

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.

No. I directly claimed the following:

Being able to process and understand the speech of others is not irrelevant to the job of a Senator.

I said nothing about how long it would take or if Fetterman could recover
I did not make a judgment about how much accommodations could mitigate the effect
I did not say Fetterman would be unable to function as a Senator or should not have been voted in.

So your answer to the (split) OP question would be a definitive "no." His aphasia does not disqualify him. So what's the problem?

More to the point, when this was split into a separate thread, you could have saved everyone a lot of time by saying "no, it does not disqualify him." Not by doing the Seinfeld "not that there's anything wrong with that, but..." thing, but making yourself clear and not adding any qualifiers...end of discussion. Right?

Instead, you keep pointing out that he has a "cognitive disorder" or "cognitive deficit" as if it is somehow the most important thing about him, and thus dragging out the discussion.

He CAN "process and understand the speech of others" if there is an accommodation made for his (temporary) health issue. Problem solved, right?

Right?

 

[Metaphor]

We are not discussing a candidate standing for election in Australia, so “Australia standards” are irrelevant.

I gave Copernicus my experience and perspective.

There is no need to justify the irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant. I was having a conversation with Copernicus and I was explaining to him how he was wrong about the facts of Chen's actions. I am uninterested in your perception of whether Chen's letter represents a conflict of interest.

 

[Copernicus]

I was not aware that he had been using closed captioning in interviews, but I see that he has. So you were right about that. However, this is no worse than someone who is deaf requiring the same, and being deaf is not a disqualification for being a senator.

Can you please stop implying I implied that this 'disqualified' Fetterman. I didn't. But even if you think I did, even if I did unknowingly make that implication, I am telling you, and have already told you, I do not believe that this 'disqualifies' a Senator.

I did not say that you accused Fetterman of being deaf. Read what I actually wrote. And you should really stop trying to pretend that you did not question Fetterman’s fitness to do his job because of his speech comprehension disability. That’s why the thread title is now about his qualifications (in the sense of “fitness”) to do his job as a senator. You didn’t choose the thread title, but it is no accident that others interpret your posts in the same way I do.

The disability that you are complaining about is entirely auditory, so, even if it were permanent, it would not render him unfit for office.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'entirely auditory'; I believe you mean 'applies to understanding spoken language and does not apply to understanding written language'.

That’s right. What else do you think “auditory” could mean? He requested closed captioning because his difficulty only affects his auditory comprehension.

...
Some extreme fuss has been made over my calling his disorder a 'cognitive deficit', but I still cannot understand why. The disability is obviously not sensory--he is not deaf or hard of hearing--the problem is in his brain.

But whether it is called a cognitive disorder or not is irrelevant.

Technically, I have no problem with the word “cognitive”, because the problem is in his central nervous system, not his peripheral nervous system. In a non-technical sense, “cognitive” is a very general label that includes an individual’s ability to think clearly, which is not an issue with Fetterman. He has only been diagnosed with an auditory problem. Technically, he isn’t deaf, but the damage has affected his ability to interpret expressions in spoken English. It isn’t even clear that the expressions are the problem so much as his ability to process fast or casual articulation.

It is just a matter of his brain finding paths around the damaged areas. He hasn't actually lost the vocabulary, since he can read the words, so it is just a matter of neural rewiring to circumvent the damaged areas. Even if were to stop improving, it only makes his disability equivalent to that of a person who is hard of hearing. Are you of the opinion that deaf people cannot function effectively as elected officials?

No, it is not "equivalent". Deafness is not a language processing disorder. It's a sensory deficit. Dsylexic people do not have a sensory deficit (vision) causing their reading disorder, the problem is in their brain. Now perhaps this can be completely mitigated by accommodations and perhaps it cannot be completely mitigated. I do not know.

Technically, it is true that Fetterman’s disability is more like dyslexia than deafness, but why do you think that is significant? Roughly 15% of the population is dyslexic, and a fair number of officeholders almost certainly are. That’s just a reading/writing disorder, not an auditory one. Fetterman is no more unfit for office than someone with a purely sensory deficit such as deafness. Why would you think otherwise?

...You appear not to be aware of the facts. Chen wrote the letter and contributed personally to Fetterman's campaign.

You may or may not consider that a conflict of interest, but if you worked in the Australian public service as I do, you'd know that something that might even appear to be a conflict of interest should raise red flags.

Now, as it happens, the primary care physician probably is the most appropriate person to write such a letter, but the apparent conflict of interest could have been avoided by the physician not donating to Fetterman's campaign, or seeking an independent medical report with input from, but not written by, Chen.

All I can say is, wow! All of that just to question the honesty and integrity of Fetterman’s physician. I don’t know what the laws are concerning campaign contributions and medical ethics in Australia and don’t really care, but this kind of argument strikes me as scraping the bottom of the barrel to find any excuse to question Fetterman’s fitness for office. I don’t care what the physician’s politics were or whether he donated to his patient’s campaign. I have every reason to assume that he believed what he wrote.

He has an auditory impairment. However you spin your statements, it still doesn't wash.

No, Copernicus. You are doing the 'spinning'. More correctly, the strawmanning. I have been very careful to talk about Fetterman's disorder in terms of understanding the speech of others, not of producing his own speech. As a linguist, it seems to me you should understand the difference.

As a linguist, I can tell you that there is a relationship between articulation and auditory discrimination, and that is one of the reasons that I do not treat auditory impairment as completely distinct from articulatory impairment. I would not expect you to know about those issues, and that has very little to do with our dispute here. There is nothing about Fetterman’s auditory difficulty that is significantly different from difficulties that might be experienced by someone who is hard of hearing. He is still completely fit for public office, just as his doctor wrote in his letter.

 

[laughing dog]

We are not discussing a candidate standing for election in Australia, so “Australia standards” are irrelevant.

I gave Copernicus my experience and perspective.

There is no need to justify the irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant. I was having a conversation with Copernicus and I was explaining to him how he was wrong about the facts of Chen's actions. I am uninterested in your perception of whether Chen's letter represents a conflict of interest.

Your explanation tested on your interpretation of an irrelevant standard. No one in the USA is interested in the Australian standards applied in the USA.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

No. I directly claimed the following:

Being able to process and understand the speech of others is not irrelevant to the job of a Senator.

I said nothing about how long it would take or if Fetterman could recover
I did not make a judgment about how much accommodations could mitigate the effect
I did not say Fetterman would be unable to function as a Senator or should not have been voted in.

So your answer to the (split) OP question would be a definitive "no." His aphasia does not disqualify him. So what's the problem?

That something does not 'disqualify' you does not mean it does not affect you negatively, or does not make your job harder, or does not make other people's jobs harder.

More to the point, when this was split into a separate thread, you could have saved everyone a lot of time by saying "no, it does not disqualify him."

I never said it did. Am I to anticipate every single false position people are going to impute to me and pre-emptively deny them?

Not by doing the Seinfeld "not that there's anything wrong with that, but..." thing, but making yourself clear and not adding any qualifiers...end of discussion. Right?

Instead, you keep pointing out that he has a "cognitive disorder" or "cognitive deficit" as if it is somehow the most important thing about him, and thus dragging out the discussion.

I am correcting the false statements people have made about me. I am allowed to defend against false statements, am I not?

He CAN "process and understand the speech of others" if there is an accommodation made for his (temporary) health issue. Problem solved, right?

I don't know. I don't know what accommodations the US Senate provides and how difficult and different that environment will be. Certainly I have been told that apparently nobody listens to anything people say in the Senate anyway so there's no problem there (well that's a problem but of an entirely different nature). But there are many unknowns as well.

 

[steve_bank]

Quoting Seinfeld? Shhessh, is that indicative of diminished mental capacity?

Is anyone arguing that he is unfit to serve in congress?

Would you not vote for hum based on his disability?