do you like autism supremacy?

Post Reply New Topic

Wow, you've actually managed to diagnose someone from beyond the grave based on what other people have said about him? Amazing!

I hate the whole idea of it, I've seen way too much of that BS. I see lots of groups and forums on the internet for auties and aspies that gang up on NTs and go on about how much better aspies apparently are.

Neurological superior: Yes (by that i mean musical and scientific generally, which is my opinion)
Socially superior: No (that's pretty obvious...)
Physical superior: Totally the same

And i don't agree on the guns part you wrote, here it's not easy to get a gun at first and vice versa
Only a few has been killed by guns here...

That's exactly what I was thinking! As great as it would be if someone like Einstein had autism for a FACT, there is no definitive answer. Go to a website about dyslexia because he actually had that... unless you visit an ADHD website... then he had that... or maybe a personality disorder! Posthumous diagnoses are not valid!

As for autism supremecy it's just a way for autistics with a low self-esteem to make themselves feel better about their lives. I went through a little phase of it when I was at my lowest then I did this thing called 'got on with my life'. I'm not superior to others, nor am I inferior. Plus you can't just automatically group all autistics and all NTs together and say that all autistics will be good for evolution for example. I live in care and believe me, you wouldn't want to let some of these people out to control society! The world as we know it would end!

whats wrong with Post-humous diagnosis? Doctors do it all the time with autopsy! Historians do it all the time when new information about diseases becomes available!

You kind of have to in order to understand history. Psychologists and historians examine old accounts of important figures in history all the time to figure out why they behaved like they did.

It doesn't matter if the subject is living or dead, what is important is if there is enough evidence that the Doctor can use. Even if they can only say "probably was", most of us are "probably" AS. Even when formally diagnosed while living, there's a chance of misdiagnoses. (pretty good one actually considering the number of disorders with similar symptoms.)


Thats not to say that any of us are qualified to make that diagnosis, but if a Psychologist and/or Historian says they probably had "x", they know more then I, and I'm going to believe them. It's my understanding that such individuals HAVE made such observations about Einstein and even Newton. Therefore I believe them.

Frankly, I'm not sure why people want to pretend that Autism suddenly sprang up this century, when it's far more likely to have been around much much longer.

+100

]

Add a million onto that for me bud!

This assumes that evolution is fundamentally dependent on natural selection. If as some people believe, that our technology has largely eliminated eliminated natural selection, this does not in itself stop genetic mutations and 'evolution' from occurring. Eliminating natural selection simply creates more diversity. Regardless of weather or not a difference is 'advantageous' with regards to reproduction, it can still have an evolutionary effect.

The human race has developed alternate means of information transfer beyond simple sexual reproduction. The ideas people generate can have a profound impact on our cultural and technological evolution, regardless of weather they reproduce or not.

We are a fundamentally diverse species, this diversity makes us stronger. In fact, we would likely have gone extinct thousands of years ago were it not for our diversity.

---

We need to accept other peoples ideas without instantly bashing them down. Nobody is going to get anywhere if everyone is being negative all the time.

I once said, "I'm ableist; I think there should be a class system with Autistics at the top and NT at the bottom," but it was a joke.

Sorry this reply is late, I have been busy. This may also be incoherent, as I'm really tired right now.

Huh? This is like saying that colour must not exist because blind people can't see colour. Just because you can't detect someone's race from their blood, doesn't mean race doesn't exist.


Right, and I've read quotes from scientists that we share as much as 98.5% of our DNA with chimpanzees, so clearly chimpanzees and humans must be the same thing if there is so little genetic difference?


Well, no, domestic dogs are a subspecies of Canus lupus, Canus lupus familiaris. That's irrelevant to the point I was making though, I never made any claims as to whether they were a separate species to wolves. My point was that, in 15,000 years, dogs have evolved into the vast array of breeds you see today, and I don't think you're going to deny that dog breeds exist, are you? Furthermore, it's quite obvious that there are inherent differences between each breed, regardless of whether they are the same species or not, such as the example I gave of the size disparity between mastiffs and chihuahuas. In fact, a study was conducted on the intelligence of dog breeds, which you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intelligence_of_Dogs
The Border Collie is considered the most intelligent, whilst the Afghan Hound is considered mentally slow. I'm sure you would not object to this study, and it is widely accepted by most dog breeders. But of course, if the same type of study was conducted on human races, it would instantly be dismissed as a racist, fascist, biased, bigoted study conducted by neo-nazis, because "races don't exist, they are a social construct".

Please don't take any of this personally, I just love debating. I'm not racist either, in case you were wondering...

Nobody is better than anyone else. They are both okay ways to be. I AM fed up with NT supremacy, though.

Several things...hmm.

Humans are all one race. The human race. Races exist, yes, and all human beings are one.

Ok...so, the idea of the major ethnical groups, well, it IS a social construct. It is based on huge regions and skin colors, primarily. But if you were to take examples of peoples from bordering regions your ability to classify them would break down. If you took a sample from a Russian and classified them as Caucasian you would be incorrect, as they are Asians by virtue of living in Asia. But by which classification would you label them? It's all arbitrary, because whether anyone wants to admit it or not we are all the same damn species, same race. We have different cultures, different ethnicities, different ancestry to a degree...but it's far more complex than any major race label could ever hope to identify. Borders and labels are arbitrary and pointless. You can make up another set of major ethnical groups and just divide the world by latitude and longitude and it would have a similar degree of pointlessness. If someone were to attempt to classify me, for example, I'm not sure where I would end up. Outwardly, I "look" Caucasian, mostly. But in dog breed terms, I'm a mutt. I have ancestors from every continent.

Technically, colors don't exist. There are various wavelengths in the light spectrum and our brains convert
sensory input that is stimulated by various bands of those wavelengths and converted into an easier to instantly comprehend form, ie color. But the color exists only in the mind of the perceiver. So, to a blind man, it is quite true that colors do not exist. Light still exists, colors do not. It's a mental construct for intuited understanding of one's surroundings.

As far as sharing 98.5% of DNA with chimps...well, 1.5% difference in dna is actually a significant amount. People who throw that number around in reference to how similar to chimps we are or whatever other half true argument they are attempting to make...well, frankly, don't understand genetics enough to hold a reasonable conversation with about it. The differences in human beings, species wide, is MUCH less than 1.5%. I mean...there is so vast a number of genes that 1.5% of them constitutes a HUGE number of differences.

In regards to dog breeds; It is far more accurate to say that in 15,000 years dogs have been bred into the vast array of breeds you see today. They did evolve, sure, but it was an atypical evolutionary process, known as being bred. Any species can potentially be bred into a huge array of subtypes, even humans can be. But so far as I am aware, this is not the case with us, so the comparison is somewhat pointless.

I like the way that you think mate!

However, I suspect that the bit about guns may detract from your credibility.

It is true that,without aspies, mankind would probably still be living in mud huts and Fred Flinstone/Barnie Rubble running mates for president!

Totaly agree with MONKEY:

Look in reality, first and most important thing is socialization, if we don't know how to contact with people, we can't learn many basic things, than science, and some of aspie become genius, Some, not all, because him or her helped some NT man, parent, group of people. This is NT society and aspie must learn live in it and become useful. We are just people who have common problem, basic communication with people, some were successful, some not, we are different, everyone with own problems and gifts and have only one common thing asperger, nothing more.

I have to disagree with this. I reckon Aspies were the aristocracy of primitive societies and were the inventors, the law makers and the priests and the Nt's were the cannon fodder.

We must organise to reclaim our birth rights!

How the hell do you suggest we go about preventing natural selection when a huge percentage of people with a certain genetic mutation can't find a partner?!?!?!? You can have ASD scientists, engineers, artists, etc, teach new ideas to NT groups, but the genetics themselves of the ASD individuals are going to get naturally selected without sexual reproduction.