Terminology and the language as legal context
Posted: November 2nd, 2014, 10:23 am
It isn't against the law to be epileptic or autistic or on the spectrum !
you can not use terminology in the context of discrimination or marginalization or as a pretext to legal discovery or application of law ... Where it presents itself as discrimination. !
Lower rates of development lend itself to the application of law as condition syndrome and curiosities rather than to say 'disorder' ... As condition of law and order ... !
Unless it is disclosed the conditions of representation that doesn't present itself as discrimination !
Is it used and understood that the term 'disorder' is used in the context of an application to absolve liability claims or as a term to represent the condition(s) and symptoms of diagnosis ? As question !
Then the use of the term 'disorder' has no legal application or foundation under 'law' and practise!
It is the concern that it presents itself as being illegal to be epileptic or on the spectrum !!
Copyright ... Laws do apply !
you can not use terminology in the context of discrimination or marginalization or as a pretext to legal discovery or application of law ... Where it presents itself as discrimination. !
Lower rates of development lend itself to the application of law as condition syndrome and curiosities rather than to say 'disorder' ... As condition of law and order ... !
Unless it is disclosed the conditions of representation that doesn't present itself as discrimination !
Is it used and understood that the term 'disorder' is used in the context of an application to absolve liability claims or as a term to represent the condition(s) and symptoms of diagnosis ? As question !
Then the use of the term 'disorder' has no legal application or foundation under 'law' and practise!
It is the concern that it presents itself as being illegal to be epileptic or on the spectrum !!
Copyright ... Laws do apply !
