Posted This On Autism Speaks Facebook Page

Page 12 of 23 [ 359 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 23 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,948

13 May 2011, 12:11 am

Bethie wrote:

aghogday wrote:

However, they work with many scientists and medical professionals on advisory boards that help to make decisions, just like similar organizations. And as evidenced, if they don't agree with the actions that autism speaks pursues some are willing to resign their positions over it.

...you don't see this as slightly alarming? That former Autism Speaks scientific advisors have RESIGNED because it is pursuing unscientific and uncredited conspiracy theories as a "cause"?

Please tell me you're joking.

As for intent, is it just a sheer coincidence that an organization presuming to speak for Autistics has not a single actual AUTISTIC person on their board? "Whoops, forgot to hire some members of the group we claim to represent!"

I do see it as a problem and don't think it is the best action to take, but they are supported by some in taking the action. Is it evidence that they are evil or corrupt. No. It is evidence in my opinion that they don't always make decisions that I agree with.

There is no evidence that there is intent on Autisms part for evil or corruption in not having an autistic person on their board. They hired whom they believed were the best qualified people to run a multi-million dollar charity organization.

They certainly haven't been hiding the fact that there were no autistic people on the board and given the input they have received, and mistakes that they have made in awareness videos, I certainly see were that input is important, but it doesn't have to be on the board to make a difference.

Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

13 May 2011, 12:15 am

aghogday wrote:

There is no evidence that there is intent on Autisms part for evil or corruption in not having an autistic person on their board. They hired whom they believed were the best qualified people to run a multi-million dollar charity organization.

"They're bigots, but it's okay, cause they likely don't think they are."

_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,948

13 May 2011, 12:29 am

Zeraeph wrote:

aghogday wrote:

Absolutely not, I delt with legal issues over slander in my area of employment with the government so am fully aware of them. It concerns me when I hear people make comments about organizatios that could potentially be seen as slanderous if not backed up by facts, because I am aware that they don't play games with their legal rights and aren't afraid to use them as necessary.

I see. So anyway, tell your friends at "Autism Speaks" that if they ever do decide to follow through on the veiled threat you "absolutely" did not make on their behalf that I don't play games either, and if they want to "bring it on" I am not afraid to give them a 3 ring circus the world will never forget...

...anytime...

Even in context here you clarified that their actions were motivated by money, status and influence, so there would be no need for concern, even if this were an environment for that kind of concern.

But, again, if someone makes a potentially slanderous statement not supported by fact on their website, it is not a harsh consequence to have that kind of statement removed.

I haven't seen anyone make a statement that they are evil, corrupt, or are intentionally harming Autistic people on their facebook page, so it is evident that it is understood it is not a good place to do it, or those kind of comments are immediately deleted.

If you were to come here and state that ASAN is intentionally harming autistics by taking away potential funding for a treatment for Autism, I would defend that there was no evidence to support that statement either. I've already had that discussion with another individual here on this site.

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,948

13 May 2011, 1:04 am

Bethie wrote:

So basically I spent damn near an hour authoring a post for people to regurgitate some crap about them not INTENTIONALLY being corrupt, demonistic, and anti-scientific?

Yeah, okay. F*ck actual harm done to people- so long as you can't prove it's deliberate maliciousness, it's a-okay.

Anyone who'd defend a multi-million dollar organization demanding $90,000 from a 14 year old Autistic girl who hits a little too close to home with a perfectly-legal parody website is off their rocker.

DONE.

I didn't state that no one has felt un-intentional harm from the organization or that I agree with them threatening a legal action in what their lawyers saw as copyright infringement. Only that it wasn't evidence that they had evil intent or were intentionally doing corrupt actions.

Or, that their emotional appeal was hate intentionally directed at children, rather than the problems that they encountered with autism. You hold an opinion that the organization is evil and corrupt; sorry, I see problems but not evidence that they have an evil or corrupt agenda.

No organization is immune from making mistakes, but image is important, so it is to their advantage to correct PR problems, when they are brought to their attention.

They aren't the first big organization to make mistakes.

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,948

13 May 2011, 1:22 am

Bethie wrote:

So we're really making an ethical distinction based on intent as opposed to reality and effect.

"Oh they don't KNOW that less than a quarter of their revenue goes to help Autistics,
they don't KNOW that they advocate chemical chelation, they don't KNOW that the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars they make would buy therapy and tutoring and more for hundreds of children, they don't KNOW that two of their scientists resigned rather than be part of their wild goose chase vaccine theories, they don't KNOW that an organization claiming to speak for Autistics should HAVE AUTISTIC PEOPLE IN ITS LEADERSHIP, they don't KNOW that calling Autistics diseased and implying they're possessed by a demon is hateful and promotes hate."

Yeah, okay. Good luck with that theory.

aghogday wrote:

A woman's individual decision to have an abortion, in general. is not seen as a dark agenda

So what you're saying is, you've never been to the Midwest or South of the Mason-Dixon line?

As stated before I don't agree with all their policies but don't see an intent to injure autistics, evil intent, or intentional corrupt actions. Differences in opinions and direction, yes. Actions that I see as mistakes, yes.

I live in an area where the majority of voters are against against abortion. I've seen no evidence that the majority of the country views abortion as a Dark agenda, though.

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,948

13 May 2011, 1:30 am

Bethie wrote:

aghogday wrote:

"They're bigots, but it's okay, cause they likely don't think they are."

I personally see no evidence that the people that run autism speaks are bigots. Differences in opinions, yes. But, Bigots, no.

And again, an Autistic person on their board is not a requirement to receive input from Autistics to improve how the organization operates.

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

13 May 2011, 1:34 am

wavefreak58 wrote:

Verdandi wrote:

wavefreak58 wrote:

How is this heavy handed Appeal to Emotion any less disingenuous than the over the top rhetoric about Aspies being the next step in human evolution? That is hate speech as well when it espouses the marginalization, subjugation and eventual elimination of NTs.

Wait, what does that have to do with ASAN?

It was not directed at ASAN. There are Aspies that give lip service to such ideas. ASAN has it's own rhetorical flair, but it is not so extreme as this.

Okay, so what was the point of that particular tu quoque, then?

I know there are Aspies who give lip service to such ideas, and some who may even believe them. I do not get why they do this, and it actually creeps me out when I come across it. I don't understand what point you were trying to make relative to the "I am autism" commercial that Autism Speaks produced a couple of years ago.

And what is ASAN's rhetorical flair?

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

13 May 2011, 1:48 am

aghogday wrote:

I think focusing on intent is a wild goose chase. You can't read their minds, and even if they do have sinister intentions they won't put them in their press releases.

So what's left is what they do, and who benefits - as well as who does not benefit - from it. Any reasonable criticism needs to focus on actions and outcomes, not what they might be thinking or not thinking when they do it.

MyWorld
Deinonychus

Joined: 12 Nov 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 320
Location: I'm in ur kitchenz, eatin ur foodz

13 May 2011, 2:46 am

Woo, this is quite an intense discussion going on.

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,948

13 May 2011, 3:06 am

Verdandi wrote:

aghogday wrote:

In my view some of the evidence that was presented in suport of Autism Speaks as a corrupt and evil organization that harms autistics, is evidence of mistakes, but not just cause to categorically label an organization as corrupt, evil, or an organization that harms autistics.

Intent wasn't a good choice of wording on my part, evidence to categorically label the organization as evil, corrupt or harming autistics would have been a better choice of wording.

I don't see a problem with an opinion that some of their actions might be corrupt, evil, or harm autistics, but do see a problem when an organization is categorically labeled as such when there is no solid evidence, in my view to support the categorical label.

But I see that I am getting too caught up in semantics and syntax rather than substance. You are correct, it is time to move on to something with more substance

wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

13 May 2011, 6:15 am

Verdandi wrote:

Okay, so what was the point of that particular tu quoque, then?

That inflammatory rhetoric is not solely the pervue of Autism Speaks and that inflammatory rhetoric does not necessarily make one evil, just inflammatory.

Quote:

And what is ASAN's rhetorical flair?

Perhaps I am mistaken, but wasn't it ASAN that recently picketed an event sponsored by Autism Speaks? That's a bit of dramatic flair if nothing else.

_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.

Zeraeph
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Aug 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 592

13 May 2011, 7:49 am

wavefreak58 wrote:

Perhaps I am mistaken, but wasn't it ASAN that recently picketed an event sponsored by Autism Speaks? That's a bit of dramatic flair if nothing else.

No, it was actually just a calm, logical and long overdue reaction...incidentally, I think someone has to make some kind of speech or statement before the word "rhetoric" applies at all.

wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

13 May 2011, 8:32 am

Zeraeph wrote:

wavefreak58 wrote:

Perhaps I am mistaken, but wasn't it ASAN that recently picketed an event sponsored by Autism Speaks? That's a bit of dramatic flair if nothing else.

No, it was actually just a calm, logical and long overdue reaction...incidentally, I think someone has to make some kind of speech or statement before the word "rhetoric" applies at all.

Whatever. You continually discredit yourself by never offering anything of substance to this conversation.

Picketing is dramatic, even when doing it is logical. My point is that drama is used by more than Autism Speaks as a vector for promulgating ideas.

_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.

Zeraeph
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Aug 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 592

13 May 2011, 10:54 am

wavefreak58 wrote:

Whatever. You continually discredit yourself by never offering anything of substance to this conversation.

You do know that kind of remark is called "projecting" and yet another reason why you will find people tend to stop caring what you say?

wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

13 May 2011, 11:06 am

Zeraeph wrote:

wavefreak58 wrote:

Whatever. You continually discredit yourself by never offering anything of substance to this conversation.

You do know that kind of remark is called "projecting" and yet another reason why you will find people tend to stop caring what you say?

Yet another useful addition to the conversation. At least you are consistent.

If what I say is factual, it is not projecting. Should we go through your posts one by one, examining the extent of your substantive contribution to the conversation and compare it to the content that falls into the category of unsupported opinion? It would be tedious, an unproductive, so I am disinclined to do so. But it might be of interest to others.

I have not found that people (other than those like yourself) have stopped caring about what I say. Did you invent that little supposition or do you have some evidence that it is actually true?

_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.

Zeraeph
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Aug 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 592

13 May 2011, 11:54 am

wavefreak58 wrote:

I have not found that people (other than those like yourself) have stopped caring about what I say. Did you invent that little supposition or do you have some evidence that it is actually true?

I don't know, do I? :roll:

Incidentally, bullies bring me out in hives, so if you wouldn't mind cutting it out now? Thank you.

Page 12 of 23 [ 359 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 23 Next

Jump to:

Posted This On Autism Speaks Facebook Page Post Reply New Topic

Posted This On Autism Speaks Facebook Page