2 Idiot Box Full Movie Download Hd 720p
Hedy Madrid
The word "idiot" comes from the Greek noun ἰδιώτης idiōtēs 'a private person, individual' (as opposed to the state), 'a private citizen' (as opposed to someone with a political office), 'a common man', 'a person lacking professional skill, layman', later 'unskilled', 'ignorant', derived from the adjective ἴδιος idios 'personal' (not public, not shared).[3][4] In Latin, idiota was borrowed in the meaning 'uneducated', 'ignorant', 'common',[5] and in Late Latin came to mean 'crude, illiterate, ignorant'.[6] In French, it kept the meaning of 'illiterate', 'ignorant', and added the meaning 'stupid' in the 13th century.[7] In English, it added the meaning 'mentally deficient' in the 14th century.[2]
Many political commentators, starting as early as 1856, have interpreted the word "idiot" as reflecting the Ancient Athenians' attitudes to civic participation and private life, combining the ancient meaning of 'private citizen' with the modern meaning 'fool' to conclude that the Greeks used the word to say that it is selfish and foolish not to participate in public life.[8] But this is not how the Greeks used the word.
In 19th- and early 20th-century medicine and psychology, an "idiot" was a person with a very profound intellectual disability, being diagnosed with "idiocy". In the early 1900s, Dr. Henry H. Goddard proposed a classification system for intellectual disability based on the Binet-Simon concept of mental age. Individuals with the lowest mental age level (less than three years) were identified as idiots; imbeciles had a mental age of three to seven years, and morons had a mental age of seven to ten years.[12] The term "idiot" was used to refer to people having an IQ below 30[citation needed][13][14] IQ, or intelligence quotient, was originally determined by dividing a person's mental age, as determined by standardized tests, by their actual age. The concept of mental age has fallen into disfavor, though, and IQ is now determined on the basis of statistical distributions.[15]
Until 2007, the California Penal Code Section 26 stated that "Idiots" were one of six types of people who are not capable of committing crimes. In 2007 the code was amended to read "persons who are mentally incapacitated."[17] In 2008, Iowa voters passed a measure replacing "idiot, or insane person" in the State's constitution with "person adjudged mentally incompetent."[18]
The constitution of the state of Arkansas was amended in the general election of 2008 to, among other things, repeal a provision (Article 3, Section 5) which had until its repeal prohibited "idiots or insane persons" from voting.[22]
A few authors have used "idiot" characters in novels, plays and poetry. Often these characters are used to highlight or indicate something else (allegory). Examples of such usage are William Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury, Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca and William Wordsworth's The Idiot Boy. Idiot characters in literature are often confused with or subsumed within mad or lunatic characters. The most common intersection between these two categories of mental impairment occurs in the polemic surrounding Edmund from William Shakespeare's King Lear.
In Fyodor Dostoevsky's novel The Idiot the title refers to the central character Prince Myshkin, a man whose innocence, kindness and humility, combined with his occasional epileptic symptoms, cause many in the corrupt, egoistic culture around him to mistakenly assume that he lacks intelligence. In The Antichrist, Nietzsche applies the word 'idiot' to Jesus in a comparable fashion, almost certainly in an allusion to Dostoevsky's use of the word:[23] "One has to regret that no Dostoevsky lived in the neighbourhood of this most interesting décadent; I mean someone who could feel the thrilling fascination of such a combination of the sublime, the sick and the childish."[24][25]
The terms idiot, imbecile, moron, and their derivatives were formerly used as technical descriptors in medical, educational, and regulatory contexts. These uses were broadly rejected by the close of the 20th century and are now considered offensive.
The terms idiot, imbecile, moron, and their derivatives were formerly used as technical descriptors in medical, educational, and regulatory contexts. These uses were broady rejected by the close of the 20th century and are now considered offensive.
Many states allow or require persons under guardianship/conservatorship to be prohibited from voting, either in their constitutions or statutes (for more detailed information, see table in Appendix A). Also, many states, typically in their constitutions, use such terms as idiots, lunatic, insane, non compos mentis, of unsound mind, or some other outdated language in reference to persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities; sometimes there is more than one of these terms used in the same state (see Table 1). The existence of these laws raises many questions. Among them are when and why were they adopted, and what are their implications for the self-determination of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities?1
American history is rife with debates and conflicts over voting rights. When the colonies were established, it was common to specify the qualifications for electors in terms of property ownership. This practice obviated the need for more specificity. As Porter notes, [s]uch undesirable persons as paupers, idiots, the insane, etc., were practically excluded by the property test, and the need for specifically disqualifying them did not appear until the property test was gone (Porter, 1918, pp. 20-21). Women, African Americans, and other persons considered inferior were not typically addressed in electoral qualification law, since social convention was so strong that these individuals rarely appeared at the polls even if they owned the required amount of property (McKinley, 1905, pp. 35-37). Over time, the colonies (and later, states) began to use a tax-paying qualification either in addition to, or as a substitute for, the property-owning qualification. Adult males who had paid taxes voted freely, and generally others did not even try (Rogers, 1992, p. 3).
Theoretically, the political and legal transformation of voting from a privilege to a fundamental right is now complete. However, there is a long history of state-sponsored discrimination in voting rights laws affecting individuals with disabilities, beginning in the nineteenth century. A review of state constitutions illustrates this history. Before 1820, only two state constitutions (Maine, under guardianship; and Vermont, not quiet and peaceable) contained language disenfranchising individuals on the basis of disability, but more states adopted such measures in subsequent decades. Massachusetts adopted its constitutional prohibition (under guardianship) in 1821, Virginia disqualified persons of unsound mind in 1830, and Delaware began to prohibit voting by idiots and insane persons in 1831.
Why did the states adopt laws restricting access to the polling place for people with disabilities? Based on our research thus far, it appears that states developed these laws for two major reasons. First, the citizenry and political elite in various states believed they needed to ensure that the electorate was morally and intellectually competent to participate in representative government. Debate raged about the abilities of women, African Americans, Native Americans, and other groups to vote intelligently and independently. Opponents claimed that some individuals were by nature incapable of taking part in democratic self-governance while proponents argued that there were no innate differences, only differences in experience and preparation. While this debate focused much more on African Americans and women, it seems quite probable that the states adoption of disability-based exclusions reflected opinions that people labeled idiots and insane (or those under guardianship or labeled incapacitated or incompetent) could not be trusted to vote.
Second, idiocy and insanity began to be recognized as a social and political problem during the nineteenth century. States funded the establishment of idiot schools and insane asylums, created commissions to provide advice to the legislatures regarding disability policy, and established agencies with oversight responsibility for disability policy (Grob, 1973; Grob, 1983; Noll, 1995; Trent, 1994). These policy responses were shaped by the nascent professions devoted to providing care and treatment for and control of persons labeled idiots or insane. Between the mid-nineteenth century and the early twentieth century, idiocy and insanity were viewed with a combination of pity, concern, and, increasingly, fear as they were paired with social disorder, deviancy, and criminality. It is unlikely that these portrayals of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities did not affect the perceptions of the public and policymakers as laws were created governing the right to vote.
These laws were justified presumably because idiots and insane persons (and those under guardianship or labeled incompetent) were believed to be incapable of participating. They were viewed as incapable of engaging in the reasoned, complex thinking necessary for making political judgements. They could not acquire and weigh information about the qualifications of candidates for elected office and the relative merits of their positions on matters of public policy. Democracy was too complicated for simple and demented minds. Also, it is probable that these individuals were thought to be morally deficient as well as intellectually inferior. Such individuals were viewed as neither intellectually nor morally fit to participate as equals in democratic self-governance.
aa06259810