Having an Adult Conversation About Autism

Post Reply New Topic

It is and it is the same war that others fight in the mainstream world. The needs for inclusion can be complex and different for each individual.

Your program is vital to it and the other organizational efforts are vital to help other people achieve what they see as necessary for inclusion.

It is normal in life for the needs of people to be excluded in certain inclusive efforts, but it doesn't mean those peoples needs can't be met in other inclusive efforts.

Your program does not meet the inclusive needs for all those on the Autism Spectrum; but that doesn't make it any less vital of a program for those that get their inclusive needs met by it.

On the other hand, there are other organizations that don't meet the inclusive needs of the individuals that your program serves, but that doesn't make those programs any less important for the services they provide to people with other inclusive needs.

The needs across the spectrum may be too diverse for any one organization to meet. I believe there is a separate organization that supports those with Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, part of the spectrum, at this point, that none of us consider should or could provide support the inclusive needs of the other conditions on the Autism Spectrum.

I am still doing my best not to include any polarizing political classifications and focus on the middle ground. The middle ground, I think, are the good efforts that many different organizations, as a cumulative effect, provide to meet the many different inclusive needs in our society as a whole.

Sometimes the middle and political correctness combined is an indifference and one must remember the right for treatment for absolute remedy is fundamental human rights. I do not cower from this ethical responsibility to protect this right. I am fully confident in overcoming any political obstacle in the ways necessary to assure those human liberties. To ratify this as not simply of an idealism I'd be prepared to go on major network television to face the personalities of the anti-cure movement and make for an end to the rhetoric and separate issues accordingly.

That's a good point. Having a disability means you have to put much more energy into what you're doing. On top fo that, attitudes have changed so much even perfectly healthy people have burnouts before they turn 30.

One can seek middle ground. But, one cannot force middle ground. You can go on major network telelevision and hope to make an end to rhetoric you oppose. If it doesn't work here, though, where some are willing to listen to your ideas, what would make the difference if you expressed your opinions to those who oppose them even stronger on national TV?

There is already an enormous organization that has a different point of view from those that you oppose. And, a general public that supports your view on this topic. They don't see these people as a threat because they are a tiny voice compared to the demand of the other voices.

In my opinion, it is an extreme course of action, that addresses a risk that is not significant. If an opinion is strongly opposed, the only way to create any change is to convince the other opinion that your opinion has specific merits. Strong talk against opinion creates more resilience against the opposing opinion an individual supports.

It is evident, from the response received on this website when that approach is taken. This effect would likely be even stronger against those that oppose your opinion in solidarity on national TV.

If a person wants a good argument, controversy, with little significant change in opinion, that is the approach to take. If a desire for a change in rhetoric is desired, logical pursuasion is required to influence a change in the rhetoric. Rambo style emotionality tends to create additional additional Rambo style emotionality. Is it not evident?

I'm expecting a Rambo You Tube Video, in response.

That's not the entirely the middle. Being passive is not the middle. Some forms of acceptance are a kind of indifference in result. when people compel others to support a cure they trying to garnish the help. I think some people have an agenda, may be special interest and may not be the leadership that is in the best interest. I'm still working on understanding all of this and my papers will be forwarded nationally.

I think there is only one thing that needs revision. Cure does not mean intolerance or non-acceptance. I think people are intolerant of cure and need to accept people want a cure yet can be tolerant of the person anyways. I'd be only interested in going on Network TV if they needed someone with a form of autism to show they support the idea of cure awareness. I think there are plenty of others with ASD that do. As far as Rambo I have another one. The Rocky Balboa Eye of the Tiger.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgSMxY6asoE[/youtube]

There is nothing passive about presenting intelligent facts to influence opinion. In the military where the chain of command is necessary for survival, reasons are not required to follow orders. People in the civilian world, out of the workplace, do not respond well to rhetoric that is authoritarian. We, presently don't live in the world of Rambo, but that might change one day.

Thanks for the video, the ideology behind it, is the effort, for some people with disabilities to survive in this world; without the benefit of glory. This may be the kind of life you have lived. The song was of great inspiration to me when it came out.