Neurodiversity < Aspergianism

Post Reply New Topic

On a note related more to the rest of the thread, here is a BBC report on a study that shows what happens when you dump a lot of geeks (with a high proportion of aspies) in one place:
Autism link to "Geek Genes" (BBC)

This does not demonstrate that when two aspies have children that their offspring will always be aspies.

In hypothetical situations I consider all the alternatives. In the real world I usually follow the rules. Mostly the result is the same, because most rules are there for a reason.

Allowing animals where they are forbidden is unfair towards people with allergies. I've heard that hostels tend to be dusty, so someone with more generalized allergies is likely to bring meds and eye drops. But some do have specific allergies. If a place claims not to allow dogs, you wouldn't expect to encounter them there. I also knew a Down Syndrome girl who was mortally afraid of dogs, but phobias are perhaps less of an issue in youth hostels.

If a blind person wants to make sure they have a place to stay, they need to contact hostels beforehand and ask if service dogs are allowed. They should know that many places don't allow them.

Interesting. I wish there was a full article.

I tend to believe accidents are due to negligence more often than other people. Unless a person was following all the rules (eg. speed limits), they're responsible for the consequences of their actions, even if they seem out of proportion to some. I suspect that people would act more responsibly if they didn't ultimately believe they would get away morally with what I consider a predictable consequence. But I've always thought it's due to stricter views rather than a Theory of Mind deficit.

I have no idea how the law stands in Finland (I followed the link to your profile and then your web site, which tells me you're Finnish - I have nothing against you or any other Finns!), but here in th UK we have laws that prohibit the banning of service dogs from shops, restaurants, or indeed other premises where the service dog handler would otherwise be able to go. Many shops and restaurants have signs that state "No dogs except guide dogs".

This law is flouted on a routine basis. Frankly, I think that kind of discrimination is utterly despicable, but it's very common. It means people with visual impairments, or other people who need a service dog for other reasons, are artificially excluded from the rest of society. I have no idea if this is an NT problem or a human problem.

Are we to allow this because someone is scared of a highly trained dog who has been selected partially for his lack of aggression?

Why should someone with a disability be made to grovel for entry to somewhere that I could walk into with no hassle?

Yes, it makes me angry.

Sorry. This is off topic, but I am not going to stand by while someone justifies a vulnerable person being made to sleep in a shop doorway because some excuse for humanity knows he can ignore the anti-discrimination laws.

People on this forum are known to complain about how NTs discriminate against aspies. It seems it is acceptable, however, to discriminate against people with physical disabilities. I will stand up against discrimination wherever I see it.

Societies on this scale are, themselves, artificial, so it's impossible to be naturally excluded from one of them.

/nitpick

My perspective on the hostel owner's reaction to the blind woman: Even ignoring the fact that a law put in place by a legitimate, democratic government demands he allow seeing eye dogs, that someone might have an allergic reaction is not nearly as dangerous as the threat that a blind woman might get taken advantage of while sleeping on the streets. At least she wasn't in the US, where a criminal's efforts to rob you usually start with a baseball bat in the back of your head...

Here, even non-disabled people need to make reservations. Otherwise they may end up sleeping in a park

I can't speak for her, but I'm extremely offended when people talk about me as if I were deficient somehow. If she's unable to take care of herself and plan ahead, she needs a guardian.

A woman who once visited our grandma touched our dog and had to be taken to hospital. You may think she should've been more careful, but it still happened. I saw a documentary about someone who disliked having to discuss her severe allergies. She came close to death when someone opened a bag of peanuts near her, so she has to tell everyone what to do if she has an anaphylactic shock. I do understand why it's difficult to constantly have to draw attention to yourself.

If you are required to let animals into places where people stay for longer periods and can't easily get away from, there should be safe places for those who have medical problems.


I strongly disagree in most cases. I've replied to a thread or two, but I usually ignore them. People like feeling mistreated by the authorities. There's some kind of emotional reward involved. But many have trouble getting discriminated against, so they have to get creative.

That someone might have an allergic reaction isn't nearly as dangerous as a normal person being required to sleep on the streets either. The number of people who are hurt because of incredible allergic reactions is far smaller than the number of people who are hurt because they sleep on a street.

Check out Zyborgs old, dead, forum - Aspergia.

I still post there from time to time, under the name Neo. Reading some of his writings make me laugh.

Wow. It's like a parody of OTT Aspergers people.

What does OTT mean?

"Over the top": colloquial for "excessive".

Anyway back to the question about discrimination. In my opinion Nuerotypical people will discriminate only if it is socially acceptable to do so. To discriminate against a blind person would be difficult for a neurotypical to do because it would be impossible to blame the blind person for his blindness. However it would be easier to discriminate against an autistic person because it would be easier to blame the autistic person for him being that way simply because the neurotypical thinks that the autistic refuses to conform to social norms.

So nuerotypical morality is really based on social norms. If the social norms for morality are high then the morality of neurotypical will be high. But neurotypical morality is limited because he cannot transcend to a higher than average morality without becomming a social deviant.

On the other hand autistic morality is not limited by social constraints. On one hand I suppose an autistic could become a moral criminal but on the otherhand an autistic could achieve a much higher standard of morality then would be socially acceptable.

What, to you, is high morality and what is low?

This is not an opinion. This is a statement which can be proven true or false. It also leaves no room for any exceptions. So, again, prove it. If all you're going to do is keep shouting that you're right, then shut up until you learn how to make an actual argument.

And let's live with chimpanzees and gorillas, because we're all only apes after all.

Neurotypical people have demonstrated time and time again their utter contempt for autistic people. They discriminate against us at jobs and would fire us in a heartbeat. The extraordinary skills, talents and the genius of autistic people mean nothing to the neurotypicals who regard us as just a bunch of ret*ds. And then the neurotypicals while adding insult to injury say to the autistic that we should just learn how to get along?

Like in the last scene in Life of Brian we are going to make AS suicide squad ;D

"Take that NT's!"