UK supermarket launches a quiet hour

[Insertnamehere]

And maybe the language for all of this is different in Spanish, but in English the term accessibility is what's used when talking about this sort of thing, whether it relates to those with physical or developmental disabilities. Which is why I used it, and stand by my usage of it. Integrating people on the spectrum into broader society is important. But so is creating accessible spaces for them.

And you can brush me off as being self righteous or trying to make myself feel like a better person by working with people with disabilities. But just because someone has a different perspective on this stuff from you doesn't mean their motivations are that self indulgent.

Ok, so we've moved on from the conceptual misunderstanding. Good.

Yes, I do take the term "accessibility" in a strict form. For me, mental disorders do not carry lack of accessibility as described here. In education, for instance, I would agree on you on the term usage, but not as far as physical spaces go. If the term has a wider meaning there, globalizing problems as different in nature as physical disabilities vs developmental disorders, then that's that. I won't embrace the term, but I can now understand the use you make of it.

I was not directing a self-indulgent agenda on to you, nor to anyone else, for that matter. I'm afraid the sarcasm goes unnoticed in writing.

What causes the sarcasm? A phrase by Camfer about short-sightedness, which has its source, most obviously, on your response to my comment. Why?

Because you began to widen the scope of the topic I was discussing by throwing this:

I mean, how do you feel about wheelchair accessibility or accomadations made for people with other physical disabilities? There's only so much you can do to prevent disabilities

And then what do you know. Camfer start talking about physical disabilities too and concluding with that phrase as if it had any relation with autism.

Not only such a judgement reeks of self-indulgence from an outsider's point of view, but from that to take my comments in the same generalized light and even going far as to "brush me off" in that short-sightedness label, it will take a small step, given the dynamics of this place, or at least how they worked at times.

And all because somehow we went from autism to other unrelated disabilites.

I hold you accountable for all of that. Do with that thought whatever you want.

Now onto this

I get what you're saying. I got what you were saying the first time. But I still think that it's funny that you're so focused on what people should do to diagnose and try to prevent the development of autism that you won't agree with the sentiment that it's a good thing that people are making moves to help people who have these kind of sensory issues. It doesn't solve the issue of having autism but it helps create a more comfortable and less stressful space.

Do you mean to say it's funny that I'd be focused on solving problematics on their early stages or even preventing their occurence, if possible, rather than attempting a patch later on?

Well, do forgive me. This structure of thought and action is prevalent in my line of work and to be honest with you, this is the first time someone finds it "funny".

I don't know about you, but when fighting a disorder or disease, I'd rather get rid of the source and not merely treating the symptoms it causes.

The story may appear endearing to the general public, but give me a break. Its 1 hour on 1 store.

Whatever triggered that kid in the article will trigger him in many other environments the 23 remaining hours of the day.

In the story that generated this action from the branch, to go further, I find another more pressing problem: It wasn't the mother who calmed the kid down, but someone else.

Do you think it's nice that the supermarket has decided on a limited action to adress a particular niche of clients? Sure, it is. To me, however, it falls short on 2 sides.

1) If you're truly thinking about making a more pleasant environment, you get rid of the noise all together. Hardly anyone needs music while grocery shopping, no? Legislate on the matter and make it extensive to other branches.

2) You are dealing with a mother who clearly doesn't have the tools to handle the problem. What kind of support is she getting, if at all? Has anyone taught her how to deal with it? Has she asked someone for that help? Has she informed herself about it? What kind of situation sorrounds the kid at home?

I'm sorry if I don't find a cause for celebration that someone decided on an action of limited effectiveness when there are more important issues pertaining that kid that are not being adressed. You can go ahead and find that view "funny".