Profil von »VictorHeb«

VictorHeb

EVE-Member
- »VictorHeb« ist weiblich
- Registrieren Sie sich jetzt!
Sie müssen sich registrieren, um eine Verbindung mit diesem Benutzer herzustellen.

Über mich

An Oklahoma preschool teacher is below investigation following she reportedly told a four-year-old student - and his mother
- that left-handedness is a sign of the devil. When Sands wrote to his teacher about what he'd stated, the teacher sent house
an short article claiming that left-handedness is "evil" and "sinister," and that the
devil is generally portrayed as a lefty. Sands, who is also left-handed, was stunned.
Sands told the television station. Sands stated the teacher was
not disciplined, but the principal of the
college told the news station the matter is beneath
investigation. Sands mentioned she will file a formal complaint with the school
district and will likely get rid of her son from that teacher's classroom.
Smithsonian Magazine reports that the bias against left-handedness dates back to medieval instances
and, in some cultures, it is still regarded "unclean" to use your left hand.
In India, for instance, the appropriate hand
- the dominant hand for about 90 percent of the global population - has been historically applied
to write and manage objects.

[img]http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0006/5454/0866/products/mockup-d16df885_1200x1200.jpg?v=1524959260[/img]In at least a single case, it would seem,
the challenge of the left-handed is not just a side effect of
the truth that the world is constructed for the suitable handed but a genuine, inherent weakness.
When the left-handed particular person writes with ink (the ball-point pen was a blessing, indeed), his hand tends to smear
the ink as it drags more than what he has written. Of course, he can hold his hand up as he writes,
but this is an inferior method, not to mention getting tiresome.
Upon closer examination even this apparently inherent weakness is not truly
inherent at all but just another trouble created
by society in its catering to the correct-handed.

There is no actual purpose why it is better to start reading or writing at the left side of the web page and move to the ideal, except that it is additional efficient
and comfortable for the majority, the suitable-handed.
The left-handed have often been considered inferior by the ideal-handed.
Formerly (in primitive times--twenty or thirty years ago) parents attempted to make their left-handed youngsters behave
typically--that is, use their right hands. Thereby, they usually produced trauma and psychiatric
challenges--causing complexes, psychoses, and emotional disturbances.
Right now (in the age of enlightenment) whilst parents do not precisely say,
"left is attractive," they recognize the rights of
minorities and leave their left-handed progeny to do their personal factor.

Parenthetically, I could possibly say here that these who perform with the blind are not generally so progressive.

Parents--and specially educators--nonetheless try to make the blind child with a small sight read huge kind,
even when Braille would serve him greater and be far more efficient.
But back to the left-handed. Regardless of
the enlightenment of parents and teachers, the ancient myth of the
inferiority of the left-handed nonetheless lingers to
bedevil the lives of that unfortunate minority.

To say that someone has offered you a "left-handed compliment" is not a compliment to the left-handed.
It is ordinarily the left hand that doesn't know what the proper hand is undertaking, rarely the other way around and it is the correct hand that is raised, or placed on the Bible, to take an oath.
Salutes and the Pledge of Allegiance are offered with the appropriate hand.

It may well simply be that the left handed are supersensitive, wearing chips on their
shoulders and hunting for insult where none is intended.
It is really hard to make this case, nevertheless,
when 1 considers the word gauche. Whatever else may be said,
there is practically nothing subtle about all of that
nor is there something subtle about the term "bar sinister," which comes from the Latin sinistral, which means left-handed.
Not on your life. Left-handers arise. You have practically nothing to shed but your chains.
They likely never fit you anyway, being produced for the
appropriate-handed. As with other oppressed minorities, the subtleties of language
and prejudice carry more than into
the job market.

I know of a girl, for instance, who lives in Kansas and who sought
employment in a factory in that State. She was interviewed and passed just
about every test with flying colors. The potential
employer terminated the interview by telling her, "You are in every way certified for the job, and I would employ you immediately, except for your handicap." In outrage and indignation she demanded to know what he meant.
This is not fantasy but reality. The firm tends to make greeting cards.
The girl did not get the job. If, in truth and in reality,
the left handed girl would have slowed the assembly line, it is difficult to see how
the action of the employer can be known as discriminatory.
He could not be expected to get new machinery basically to
give her a job, nor could he be anticipated to redesign the entire factory.

The "typical" individual is appropriate-handed, and it is affordable
for the factory to be created accordingly. Or does all of this miss the entire point?
Is this not precisely the way employers and the common public believe and speak about the blind?
How did the employer know that the girl would slow down the assembly line?
How did he know she was less effective? Perhaps she had alternative methods.
Probably, in reality, she could have carried out the job better
than most of the other men and women he had on the line. He decided (primarily based on what he doubtless referred to as "clear" and "widespread sense" factors) that she could not do the function.
Accordingly, she was never ever even given the chance
to try.

Do you nevertheless say there is no discrimination against
the left-handed? Likely you do--unless you commence to believe about it, unless you get the details--and even then, some
persons will say you are quibbling, that you are exaggerating.

How extremely like the case of the blind. How uncomplicated to make rapid judgments and have all of the answers, especially when you are not confronted with the trouble or compelled to appear at reality.
From all of this, you can see that the life of the left-hander is not straightforward.
Nonetheless, his infirmity can be reduced to the level of a mere nuisance.

It require not imply helplessness or inferiority. It does not necessarily
cripple him psychologically. With reasonable chance he can compete
on terms of equality with his ideal-handed
neighbor. The typical left-hander can do the average job in the average spot of small business
and do it as well as the typical correct-hander.
So far as I can inform, there is no inherent
weakness in left-handedness at all. The problems arise from the reality that society is structured for the right-handed.
But these complications (annoying although they be) do
not maintain the left-handed from top typical
lives or competing with others. They are at the nuisance level.

Therefore, even if blindness (like left-handedness) had
no inherent difficulties, it would nonetheless be a nuisance since society is structured and planned for the sighted--occasionally when it could be arranged much more effectively otherwise.
For instance, most windows in contemporary buildings are not
there for ventilation. They are sealed. They are there only so that
the sighted may look out of them. The building loses heat in winter and coolness in summer, but the
sighted (the majority) will have their windows. I assume, nevertheless, that blindness is not specifically like left-handedness.
I think there are some items that are inherently much easier to do with sight than without having it.
For instance, you can glance down the street and see who is coming.

You can look across a crowded area and inform who
is there. But here, it appears to me, most men and women go astray.
It appears to me that Dr. MacFarland is as far off the track as the particular
person who would contend that blindness is not even vital sufficient to be regarded as
a nuisance. I believe it would be pleasant to look at
a sunset. I consider it would be beneficial to appear across a space and see who
is there, or glance down the street and recognize a pal.

But I know that these things are peripheral to the main issues of life.
It is correct that it is from time to time a nuisance to devise
option procedures to get the same final results.

I could have without having effort if I have been sighted, but
it is just that (a nuisance), not a tragedy or a psychological crisis or an international incident.

It seems to me that many of the problems which are regarded as inherent in blindness are a lot more like
these of the left-handed--in other words, created as a organic side impact of the structuring of society for the
sighted. It appears to me that the remaining challenges (those that are actually indigenous to blindness) are ordinarily vastly overrated and over dramatized.
Blindness can, indeed, be a tragedy and a veritable hell, but this is not for the reason that of the
blindness or something inherent in it. It is due to the fact of what individuals have thought about blindness
and due to the fact of the deprivations and the denials
which outcome.

It is since of the destructive myths which have existed from the time of
the caveman--myths which have equated eyesight with capability, and
light with intelligence and purity. It is for the reason that the blind, getting aspect of the general culture, have tended to accept the
public attitudes and as a result have performed a great deal to make these attitudes
reality. As far as I am concerned, all that I have been saying is tied
up with the why and wherefore of the National Federation of the Blind.
If our principal issue is the physical truth of blindness,
I feel there is little purpose in organizing. Having said
that, the genuine problem is not the blindness but the mistaken attitudes about it.

These attitudes can be changed, and we are changing them.

The sighted can also adjust. We the blind will have to neither cop
out by selling ourselves short with self-pity and myths of tragic deprivation, nor lie to ourselves by denying the existence of a problem.
We require your aid we seek your understanding and we want
your partnership in changing our status in society.
There is no location in our movement for the philosophy of the self-effacing
Uncle Tom, but there is also no spot for unreasonable and unrealistic belligerence.
We are not out to "get sighty." Will you function with us?

[img]http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0006/5454/0866/products/mockup-b7d54267_1024x1024.jpg?v=1526652262[/img]So ironic I stumbled upon this web site.
My e mail address is Lefty2ndbaseman@yahoo.com for this cause.
I spent my whole small league "profession" playing 2nd base as
a left-handed thrower (and hitter). I was too short to be
a 1st baseman, and had too weak an arm to pitch or throw from 3rd base or SS.
I loathed playing the outfied since I loved the quick-reflex aspect of playing the infield.
This is also why I played goalie in my floor hockey leagues for years.
Playing 2nd base as a lefty is not as tricky as it seems for
the similar cause most have mentioned on this post.
I basically think the double-play ball is extremely
typical in softball due to the fact the likelihood of a batter reaching 1st base is
a great deal greater than in most baseball leagues.

Turning a 4-6-3 double play is somewhat quick when your physique is
naturally positioned to throw to your ideal side of your physique, so throwing to
2nd or even 3rd base is no significant deal.
Playing at Second base provides you adequate time if
you have to turn your physique toward 1st base.

Did you know that being left-handed is basically a requirement to hold the U.S.

Lefties comprise just ten percent of the population, but the only proper-handed president more
than the past 3 decades was George Dubya Bush. What does
it imply? Are the left-dominant a superior race?
Is the "evil" hand some sort of Illuminati-approved symbol?
As of 2012, four (five if Reagan is counted) out of the last seven presidents have been left-handed.
In the 1992 election, all three key candidates - George H.
W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot - have been left-handed.
The 1996 election also involved three left-handed candidates:
Clinton, Perot, and Bob Dole, who discovered to use his left hand immediately after his appropriate hand was paralyzed by a World War II injury.
Furthermore, both major-party candidates in the 2008 presidential election - Barack Obama
and John McCain - had been left-handed.

Also visit my webpage ... left handed clothing