Is Aspie A Political \ Advocacy Party?
08 Sep 2011, 2:36 pm
ci wrote:
There are countless things which you have said that cannot be proven.
No, there are countless statements where I said that you have not proven anything. I don't need to prove that you have not proven anything. That's just circular.
ci wrote:
Also with regards to ASAN's political behavior it's all very well recorded.
1. I thought you said that they hid it.
2. Well you shouldn't have any problem finding some things that actually prove that ASAN is run my jerks!
ci wrote:
Looking at something and deriving an observation what you get is observation.
I, yes?
ci wrote:
If they use abortion to get attention and accuse the public of Eugenics and then ask for money for supports for otherwise very high functioning people protesting then they are making those requests in the same context.
Okay. So why is talking about Abortion, Eugenics and Social funds at the same time a problem? Also where did they accuse the public of eugenics? Also they didn't use abortion to get attention. They said they didn't want pre-natal checks to abort children with something they don't think is bad. The real problem you have I think is that you don't want to have money takenaway from curing whatever defects you think people with autism have and need fixed and that they aren't being inclusive.
If you want to really argue your point you should point out that it is hypocritical that they say there is nothing wrong with us but at the same time they want people to fund social projects to help them. Just a piece of advice. Unless of course ASAN says that this will be a temporary state of affairs then you have every right to make this argument.
I just don't have proof that they are using Abortion to get attention. There is a real argument here ci and they have every right to talk about it. Incredulous arguments are not a crime if they have reason to use them.
ci wrote:
How can you not prove they are not making those very requests while accusing others of things in which they were not intending.
in which? of which do you mean? Also there is nothing wrong with requesting money for social projects. Is there? Are anti-discrimination social projects wrong? Furthermore you have to prove to me what you are telling me is right. You said that Autism Speaks doesn't do such things but so? You have proof? Do I need to have to check everything you are saying myself?
ci wrote:
It is just not appropriate according to many I've talked to. To me I have proof of the the behavior in the same context and people not agreeing with how they did things.
No, what you have said ASAN is nasty, and the first reason was that they talk about abortion. That doesn't prove anything. You also said that they were wrong because they use Abortion to get people's attention. But if they have reason to do so then it isn't a crime. You then said they were politcally naive or something. So does that make their message wrong? No. And so on and so forth....
08 Sep 2011, 2:48 pm
Gedrene wrote:
ci wrote:
There are countless things which you have said that cannot be proven.
No, there are countless statements where I said that you have not proven anything. I don't need to prove that you have not proven anything. That's just circular.
That is not what I said in the quote above. Your trying to hold me to the same standards that you should ASAN and yourself to. That's my point and that kind of circular reasoning is perfectly reasonable.
ci wrote:
Also with regards to ASAN's political behavior it's all very well recorded.
1. I thought you said that they hid it.
Never and I've said time and time again look at the videos and research the organization yourself.
2. Well you shouldn't have any problem finding some things that actually prove that ASAN is run my jerks!
Not Jerks. Very angry people at times that imagine into things so far it damages others rights to progress they deserve just like all other Americans whenever they are found to develop disabilities.
ci wrote:
Looking at something and deriving an observation what you get is observation.
I, yes?
Doyyy!
ci wrote:
If they use abortion to get attention and accuse the public of Eugenics and then ask for money for supports for otherwise very high functioning people protesting then they are making those requests in the same context.
Okay. So why is talking about Abortion, Eugenics and Social funds at the same time a problem? Also where did they accuse the public of eugenics? Also they didn't use abortion to get attention. They said they didn't want pre-natal checks to abort children with something they don't think is bad. The real problem you have I think is that you don't want to have money takenaway from curing whatever defects you think people with autism have and need fixed and that they aren't being inclusive.
They are holding up signs accusing others of Eugenetics and at the same time demanding money to go away from cure toward themselves as very high functioning people. It is inappropriate to combine issues in the same context of demanding money for those not as disabled as those whom cure would benefit the most in whatever that can be achieved of it in the long-term. They should raise money on their own using more positive methods to get support. I do it for a work project and do $20,000 a year in just wholesale sales and growing for instance. I didn't need to attack anyone while doing it.
If you want to really argue your point you should point out that it is hypocritical that they say there is nothing wrong with us but at the same time they want people to fund social projects to help them. Just a piece of advice. Unless of course ASAN says that this will be a temporary state of affairs then you have every right to make this argument.
They blame society which is simply nonsense as a whole. Societal accommodations to include a diversity will help tremendously but so will treatment advancements which they are fighting.
I just don't have proof that they are using Abortion to get attention. There is a real argument here ci and they have every right to talk about it. Incredulous arguments are not a crime if they have reason to use them.
ci wrote:
How can you not prove they are not making those very requests while accusing others of things in which they were not intending.
Alright is a man stands in front of you for instance and everyone else can see him but you refuse to see him are you just lying or is everyone else crazy. They use abortion to get attention in the same context as other issues. Crazy to deny it.
in which? of which do you mean? Also there is nothing wrong with requesting money for social projects. Is there? Are anti-discrimination social projects wrong? Furthermore you have to prove to me what you are telling me is right. You said that Autism Speaks doesn't do such things but so? You have proof? Do I need to have to check everything you are saying myself?
ci wrote:
It is just not appropriate according to many I've talked to. To me I have proof of the the behavior in the same context and people not agreeing with how they did things.
Appropriate methods help and inappropriate methods hinder creating hard feelings in the same context.
No, what you have said ASAN is nasty, and the first reason was that they talk about abortion. That doesn't prove anything. You also said that they were wrong because they use Abortion to get people's attention. But if they have reason to do so then it isn't a crime. You then said they were politcally naive or something. So does that make their message wrong? No. And so on and so forth....
Their methods of approach are down right nasty and confrontational. Inciting not tolerance to their views but making monsters out of people that actually help. their would be more acceptance if they were more accepting of even the personal choices for cure advancements individuals with autism choose for themselves. The choice is a right and not theirs to take away!
_________________
The peer politics creating intolerance toward compassion is coming to an end. Pity accusations, indifferent advocacy against isolation awareness and for pride in an image of autism is injustice. http://www.autismselfadvocacynetwork.com
08 Sep 2011, 3:41 pm
ci wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
No, there are countless statements where I said that you have not proven anything. I don't need to prove that you have not proven anything. That's just circular.
That is not what I said in the quote above. Your trying to hold me to the same standards that you should ASAN and yourself to. That's my point and that kind of circular reasoning is perfectly reasonable.
That is not what I said in the quote above. Your trying to hold me to the same standards that you should ASAN and yourself to. That's my point and that kind of circular reasoning is perfectly reasonable.
No it doesn't. You have just said what I said you did. What's circular is what I said was circular.
ci wrote:
Never and I've said time and time again look at the videos and research the organization yourself.
You make the accusations. You provide the proof. Don't expect me to do anything for you.
ci wrote:
Not Jerks. Very angry people at times that imagine into things so far it damages others rights to progress they deserve just like all other Americans whenever they are found to develop disabilities.
Right of protest also needs to be defended.
ci wrote:
Doyyy!
1) Don't patronise me.
2) So what? An observation is an observation. That doesn't need qualifying.
ci wrote:
They are holding up signs accusing others of Eugenetics and at the same time demanding money to go away from cure toward themselves as very high functioning people. It is inappropriate to combine issues in the same context of demanding money for those not as disabled as those whom cure would benefit the most in whatever that can be achieved of it in the long-term.
How is it inappropriate? That's just silly. Argument from incredulity fallacy. 'Surely they cannot talk about those things at the same time!'
ci wrote:
They should raise money on their own using more positive methods to get support. I do it for a work project and do $20,000 a year in just wholesale sales and growing for instance. I didn't need to attack anyone while doing it.
Well do you? Also how does picketing what they did wrong? They picketed Autism Speak's inefficiency and misappropriation of our image. That isn't wron in of itself. You have to explain: why is it wrong?
ci wrote:
They blame society which is simply nonsense as a whole.
1- Where do they blame society?
2- Why is blaming society wrong?
3- Societies have been wrong: Take discrimination about blacks, jews, attitudes towards women, ideas of what constitutes a good punishment such as hanging, drawing and quartering, torture for religious confession, the belief that democracy is bad, the belief that only kings should rule, the slave trade, despotic rule and so forth. All societies have presumed things that are wrong at some point.
ci wrote:
Societal accommodations to include a diversity will help tremendously but so will treatment advancements which they are fighting.
So far I only have proof that they are fighting pre-natal scan technology.
ci wrote:
Alright is a man stands in front of you for instance and everyone else can see him but you refuse to see him are you just lying or is everyone else crazy. They use abortion to get attention in the same context as other issues. Crazy to deny it.
That's a bad analogy for a start. I said just below what is wrong with talking about different issues at the same time. Also I have seen proof that pre-natal scans have been deployed against people with Down's and Edward's syndrome. IF that get's attention then it isn't because they intended it.
in which? of which do you mean? Also there is nothing wrong with requesting money for social projects. Is there? Are anti-discrimination social projects wrong? Furthermore you have to prove to me what you are telling me is right. You said that Autism Speaks doesn't do such things but so? You have proof? Do I need to have to check everything you are saying myself?
ci wrote:
It is just not appropriate according to many I've talked to. To me I have proof of the the behavior in the same context and people not agreeing with how they did things.
Something just not being appropriate according to what other people say doesn't mean that it isn't appropriate. That is an Argumentum ad populam on your part and a 'just so' fallacy on theirs.
ci wrote:
Appropriate methods help and inappropriate methods hinder creating hard feelings in the same context.
So what is it that makes what ASAN has done inappropriate since I have said that all the reasons you have given in this long text are not good enough.[quote=Gedrene]No, what you have said ASAN is nasty, and the first reason was that they talk about abortion. That doesn't prove anything. You also said that they were wrong because they use Abortion to get people's attention. But if they have reason to do so then it isn't a crime. You then said they were politcally naive or something. So does that make their message wrong? No. And so on and so forth....
ci wrote:
Their methods of approach are down right nasty and confrontational. Inciting not tolerance to their views but making monsters out of people that actually help. their would be more acceptance if they were more accepting of even the personal choices for cure advancements individuals with autism choose for themselves. The choice is a right and not theirs to take away!
Did you read what I said there?:
Gedrene wrote:
No, what you have said ASAN is nasty, and the first reason was that they talk about abortion. That doesn't prove anything. You also said that they were wrong because they use Abortion to get people's attention. But if they have reason to do so then it isn't a crime. You then said they were politcally naive or something. So does that make their message wrong? No. And so on and so forth....
Also you haven't proven the last point you made about choice being a right. Freedom of Speech is also a right, but you said that high-functioning autistics shouldn't be able to talk about 'seriously affected' people's problems. That's saying they don't have a right to freedom of speech.
AlanTuring
Deinonychus
Joined: 3 Jul 2011
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 302
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota, USA
08 Sep 2011, 3:56 pm
There is no 'right' to a cure or to research that might result in a cure.
If you want to support that sort of research, pay for it yourself and persuade others to do likewise.
I've already explained why I don't think money spent on a 'cure' is money well spent. I don't think that autism is the type of thing that has a 'cure', at least not in the next few hundred years.
In the meantime, a great many autists could benefit from research into treatment and relief from some of the more debilitating aspects of autism and its comorbid conditions.
Spend your money and your words as you will; I will do likewise. We do not need to agree.
Research on treatment makes sense; research on a cure does not.
_________________
Diagnosed: OCD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Dysthemia
Undiagnosed: AS (Aspie: 176/200, NT: 37/200)
High functioning, software engineer, algorithms, cats, books
08 Sep 2011, 5:33 pm
AlanTuring wrote:
There is no 'right' to a cure or to research that might result in a cure.
If you want to support that sort of research, pay for it yourself and persuade others to do likewise.
I've already explained why I don't think money spent on a 'cure' is money well spent. I don't think that autism is the type of thing that has a 'cure', at least not in the next few hundred years.
In the meantime, a great many autists could benefit from research into treatment and relief from some of the more debilitating aspects of autism and its comorbid conditions.
Spend your money and your words as you will; I will do likewise. We do not need to agree.
Research on treatment makes sense; research on a cure does not.
If you want to support that sort of research, pay for it yourself and persuade others to do likewise.
I've already explained why I don't think money spent on a 'cure' is money well spent. I don't think that autism is the type of thing that has a 'cure', at least not in the next few hundred years.
In the meantime, a great many autists could benefit from research into treatment and relief from some of the more debilitating aspects of autism and its comorbid conditions.
Spend your money and your words as you will; I will do likewise. We do not need to agree.
Research on treatment makes sense; research on a cure does not.
Relief from symptoms is curing hardships when those hardships no longer remain. When I state an individual has the right to a cure being developed I am not saying it must be funded as a right. I am saying an individual has a right to that modality in awareness public relations and as well as the ability to have that science funded. It seems quite profoundly odd to say yes treat me but do not cure what hinders me. I believe cure has been made into a strong arm of anti-abortion politics that this is why the word is not liked. The stubbornness is chosen and I choose to see it for what it is. Entirely illogical to frame treatment rights as ok but not cure to entirely remedy applicable impairment whenever possible now or in the future.
_________________
The peer politics creating intolerance toward compassion is coming to an end. Pity accusations, indifferent advocacy against isolation awareness and for pride in an image of autism is injustice. http://www.autismselfadvocacynetwork.com
08 Sep 2011, 5:35 pm
Gedrene wrote:
ci wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
No, there are countless statements where I said that you have not proven anything. I don't need to prove that you have not proven anything. That's just circular.
That is not what I said in the quote above. Your trying to hold me to the same standards that you should ASAN and yourself to. That's my point and that kind of circular reasoning is perfectly reasonable.
That is not what I said in the quote above. Your trying to hold me to the same standards that you should ASAN and yourself to. That's my point and that kind of circular reasoning is perfectly reasonable.
No it doesn't. You have just said what I said you did. What's circular is what I said was circular.
ci wrote:
Never and I've said time and time again look at the videos and research the organization yourself.
You make the accusations. You provide the proof. Don't expect me to do anything for you.
ci wrote:
Not Jerks. Very angry people at times that imagine into things so far it damages others rights to progress they deserve just like all other Americans whenever they are found to develop disabilities.
Right of protest also needs to be defended.
ci wrote:
Doyyy!
1) Don't patronise me.
2) So what? An observation is an observation. That doesn't need qualifying.
ci wrote:
They are holding up signs accusing others of Eugenetics and at the same time demanding money to go away from cure toward themselves as very high functioning people. It is inappropriate to combine issues in the same context of demanding money for those not as disabled as those whom cure would benefit the most in whatever that can be achieved of it in the long-term.
How is it inappropriate? That's just silly. Argument from incredulity fallacy. 'Surely they cannot talk about those things at the same time!'
ci wrote:
They should raise money on their own using more positive methods to get support. I do it for a work project and do $20,000 a year in just wholesale sales and growing for instance. I didn't need to attack anyone while doing it.
Well do you? Also how does picketing what they did wrong? They picketed Autism Speak's inefficiency and misappropriation of our image. That isn't wron in of itself. You have to explain: why is it wrong?
ci wrote:
They blame society which is simply nonsense as a whole.
1- Where do they blame society?
2- Why is blaming society wrong?
3- Societies have been wrong: Take discrimination about blacks, jews, attitudes towards women, ideas of what constitutes a good punishment such as hanging, drawing and quartering, torture for religious confession, the belief that democracy is bad, the belief that only kings should rule, the slave trade, despotic rule and so forth. All societies have presumed things that are wrong at some point.
ci wrote:
Societal accommodations to include a diversity will help tremendously but so will treatment advancements which they are fighting.
So far I only have proof that they are fighting pre-natal scan technology.
ci wrote:
Alright is a man stands in front of you for instance and everyone else can see him but you refuse to see him are you just lying or is everyone else crazy. They use abortion to get attention in the same context as other issues. Crazy to deny it.
That's a bad analogy for a start. I said just below what is wrong with talking about different issues at the same time. Also I have seen proof that pre-natal scans have been deployed against people with Down's and Edward's syndrome. IF that get's attention then it isn't because they intended it.
in which? of which do you mean? Also there is nothing wrong with requesting money for social projects. Is there? Are anti-discrimination social projects wrong? Furthermore you have to prove to me what you are telling me is right. You said that Autism Speaks doesn't do such things but so? You have proof? Do I need to have to check everything you are saying myself?
ci wrote:
It is just not appropriate according to many I've talked to. To me I have proof of the the behavior in the same context and people not agreeing with how they did things.
Something just not being appropriate according to what other people say doesn't mean that it isn't appropriate. That is an Argumentum ad populam on your part and a 'just so' fallacy on theirs.
ci wrote:
Appropriate methods help and inappropriate methods hinder creating hard feelings in the same context.
So what is it that makes what ASAN has done inappropriate since I have said that all the reasons you have given in this long text are not good enough.[quote=Gedrene]No, what you have said ASAN is nasty, and the first reason was that they talk about abortion. That doesn't prove anything. You also said that they were wrong because they use Abortion to get people's attention. But if they have reason to do so then it isn't a crime. You then said they were politcally naive or something. So does that make their message wrong? No. And so on and so forth....
ci wrote:
Their methods of approach are down right nasty and confrontational. Inciting not tolerance to their views but making monsters out of people that actually help. their would be more acceptance if they were more accepting of even the personal choices for cure advancements individuals with autism choose for themselves. The choice is a right and not theirs to take away!
Did you read what I said there?:
Gedrene wrote:
No, what you have said ASAN is nasty, and the first reason was that they talk about abortion. That doesn't prove anything. You also said that they were wrong because they use Abortion to get people's attention. But if they have reason to do so then it isn't a crime. You then said they were politcally naive or something. So does that make their message wrong? No. And so on and so forth....
Also you haven't proven the last point you made about choice being a right. Freedom of Speech is also a right, but you said that high-functioning autistics shouldn't be able to talk about 'seriously affected' people's problems. That's saying they don't have a right to freedom of speech.
Mr. G I replied to you in another post where the replies have become to extraordinarily long. I will make another post to focus on all of the relevant specifics of our unique arguments to incite new structure to the relevant debate.
_________________
The peer politics creating intolerance toward compassion is coming to an end. Pity accusations, indifferent advocacy against isolation awareness and for pride in an image of autism is injustice. http://www.autismselfadvocacynetwork.com
AlanTuring
Deinonychus
Joined: 3 Jul 2011
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 302
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota, USA
09 Sep 2011, 9:19 am
ci wrote:
AlanTuring wrote:
There is no 'right' to a cure or to research that might result in a cure.
If you want to support that sort of research, pay for it yourself and persuade others to do likewise.
I've already explained why I don't think money spent on a 'cure' is money well spent. I don't think that autism is the type of thing that has a 'cure', at least not in the next few hundred years.
In the meantime, a great many autists could benefit from research into treatment and relief from some of the more debilitating aspects of autism and its comorbid conditions.
Spend your money and your words as you will; I will do likewise. We do not need to agree.
Research on treatment makes sense; research on a cure does not.
If you want to support that sort of research, pay for it yourself and persuade others to do likewise.
I've already explained why I don't think money spent on a 'cure' is money well spent. I don't think that autism is the type of thing that has a 'cure', at least not in the next few hundred years.
In the meantime, a great many autists could benefit from research into treatment and relief from some of the more debilitating aspects of autism and its comorbid conditions.
Spend your money and your words as you will; I will do likewise. We do not need to agree.
Research on treatment makes sense; research on a cure does not.
Relief from symptoms is curing hardships when those hardships no longer remain.
A condition is cured if its underlying problem has been fixed and no further treatment is necessary.
A condition that has been treated and that is not expected to reoccur may have been cured.
A condition that has been treated but which may reoccur or may need to be treated on an ongoing basis has not been cured.
Autism involves physical changes in the structure of the brain, probably at different levels. These differences from NT brains affect our behaviors in ways that we call 'autism'.
To 'cure' autism, one would have to either prevent brain development from proceeding in an 'autistic' way or change the structure of an autist's brain, making it look and behave like an NT's brain. I seriously doubt that the second approach will become available. It is far too late to 'cure' me using the first approach, and I wouldn't want to be 'cured' by the second approach - whatever survived the process would not be 'me'.
Three of my autism-comorbid conditions (OCD, anxiety, depression) are being treated fairly well right now with an anti-depressant. It may also be helping some aspects of Asperger's as well - I don't know.
ci wrote:
When I state an individual has the right to a cure being developed I am not saying it must be funded as a right. I am saying an individual has a right to that modality in awareness public relations and as well as the ability to have that science funded.
(bolding added)
Well, which is it? Is funding 'cure' research a right or not?
You've just said that it is and that it isn't in the same sentence.
Also, no one has the 'right' to a cure being developed.
ci wrote:
It seems quite profoundly odd to say yes treat me but do not cure what hinders me. I believe cure has been made into a strong arm of anti-abortion politics that this is why the word is not liked. The stubbornness is chosen and I choose to see it for what it is. Entirely illogical to frame treatment rights as ok but not cure to entirely remedy applicable impairment whenever possible now or in the future.
Not at all.
Research in treatment for autism and its comorbid conditions is ongoing, has produced results, and is expected to continue producing results that will improve the lives of millions and millions of autists.
Research for a 'cure' for autism has not produced any results that will lead to a 'cure'. As I explained, a cure for autism could not be expected to be applied to a postnatal person and leave their minds intact. I do not expect the development of anything that could be recarded as a cure for children or adults. A prenatal cure may be centuries off, if ever.
All of this has avoided the nasty question of whether a 'cure' is possible or appropriate when many of us don't think there is a disease or disorder.
_________________
Diagnosed: OCD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Dysthemia
Undiagnosed: AS (Aspie: 176/200, NT: 37/200)
High functioning, software engineer, algorithms, cats, books
09 Sep 2011, 12:17 pm
I'd have to ask you to consult legal advisory concerning the issues you present. I just follow the law as it is written here. A cure does not have to entail brain formation changes. Simply remedy to difficulty by working with what already exists. I have a more liberal view of what cure could mean and that means the creation of self-fulfillment, happiness and equality. That entails treatments to modify environment, accommodation in society and treatments where personal difficulties reside for a more even match to normalcy. I divide cure into cures as autism is to broad to imply a cure as a whole to for sure mean the same thing for each individual in root causation.
_________________
The peer politics creating intolerance toward compassion is coming to an end. Pity accusations, indifferent advocacy against isolation awareness and for pride in an image of autism is injustice. http://www.autismselfadvocacynetwork.com
AlanTuring
Deinonychus
Joined: 3 Jul 2011
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 302
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota, USA
09 Sep 2011, 1:36 pm
ci wrote:
I'd have to ask you to consult legal advisory concerning the issues you present. I just follow the law as it is written here. A cure does not have to entail brain formation changes. Simply remedy to difficulty by working with what already exists. I have a more liberal view of what cure could mean and that means the creation of self-fulfillment, happiness and equality. That entails treatments to modify environment, accommodation in society and treatments where personal difficulties reside for a more even match to normalcy. I divide cure into cures as autism is to broad to imply a cure as a whole to for sure mean the same thing for each individual in root causation.
I don't give a damn about the law - it has no bearing on this discussion.
Words mean things.
If you give common words new meanings, don't be surprised when communication fails.
Your use of language has complicated a rather straightforward issue.
Autism is not merely due to a chemical imbalance of the brain, or something else that might be cured through medication.
Autism is a brain that is structurally different from those of neurotypicals. We have different patterns of interconnection between many neurons, for a start. We really are wired differently.
A cure for autism would have to result in a brain that is structured similarly to, and behaves similarly to, brains of neurotypicals. Such a change, if possible, would not leave our minds (which are only the operation of our brains) intact.
When many people use the word 'cure', they want to avoid people who have autism. There are only six ways in which this might be accomplished, all of which require identification of genetic markers for autism or deeper genetic knowledge:
1. Genetic counselling for would-be parents to discuss whether they should have children at all. [needs genetic markers]
2. Discarding eggs or sperm that carry genes for autism. [need non-destructive genetic analysis, genetic markers]
3. Perform genetic engineering on fertilized eggs to alter the DNA. [far beyond our current capabilities, need to know what to change]
4. Destroy in-vitro embryos that exhibit markers prior to implantation. [needs genetic markers]
5. Identify embryos or fetuses likely to be autistic in utero and abort them [needs genetic or other markers]
6. Perform genetic engineering on post-natal autists. [far beyond our current capabilities, need to know what to change, would destroy current mind]
Those are your choices. This is what you claim to be striving for.
Choices 1, 2, 4, and 5 would result in our never being born.
Choice 3 would result in someone else being born.
Choice 6 would allow us to be born, only to have our minds torn up later.
Only choices 1, 2, 4, and 5 are plausible in the next few decades, and 1 says "don't have kids" while 4 and 5 are abortion.
Some people would be against each of these choices for various reasons.
Boy, a cure sounds wonderful!
I'll go for improved treatments any day.
_________________
Diagnosed: OCD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Dysthemia
Undiagnosed: AS (Aspie: 176/200, NT: 37/200)
High functioning, software engineer, algorithms, cats, books
09 Sep 2011, 1:49 pm
Some seek to tie identity to brain structure to hamper the right to treatment advancements and the ultimate form of treatment is cure. How you interpret what a cure to mean is personal. I view it has increasing ones ability to functional normalcy where it is no longer an impairment which is a protected liberty. If you refuse to realize the laws and seek to dismiss liberty seeking to remedy symptoms then this is a political agenda. My concern is with the preservation of the right to treatment as defined by the law and which is common sense in human rights. I do not personally believe treatment to enable functioning as compared to peers within society to be discrimination or intolerance. Even a psychiatrist could argue the benefits of hyper-focusing for instance just the same as the same psychiatrist or individual with autism could argue at times it is not. However the inability to speak for instance and sensory integration issues may be brain formation related and I'd still support a cure for those things when individuals choose however science might eventually modify brain functions in ways you do not like.
I think what is needed in this topic is a focus on the big picture and the maturity to take things less personally as adults. It can be hard to but I think the emotional maturity is needed and not necessary a chosen reality. It can be done better when peers realize this and stop pressuring others to hold specific views or feel like others are declining who and what others are. Peer pressure to me evades rational conclusions and potentially better outcomes.
_________________
The peer politics creating intolerance toward compassion is coming to an end. Pity accusations, indifferent advocacy against isolation awareness and for pride in an image of autism is injustice. http://www.autismselfadvocacynetwork.com
09 Sep 2011, 2:45 pm
ci wrote:
Some seek to tie identity to brain structure to hamper the right to treatment advancements and the ultimate form of treatment is cure.
This is an accusation that presumes wrong about people that you haven't justified so is clearly just speculation on people that don't agree with you.
How is what AlanTuring said at all an attempt to hamper anything? If you can't supply a good reason for saying AlanTuring's theory is wrong then hampering what insane thing you are trying to defend would be good.
No attempt to try and throw around a right that doesn't exist is not going to help you if you can't challenge AlanTuring's concepts rather than just make up stuff about the person themselves.
No amount of attacking the made-up motivations of 'pride-mites' justifies cure as a sensible alternative. You have to justify cure on its own grounds, just as AlanTuring challenged the justification of cure.
09 Sep 2011, 3:15 pm
Gedrene wrote:
ci wrote:
Some seek to tie identity to brain structure to hamper the right to treatment advancements and the ultimate form of treatment is cure.
This is an accusation that presumes wrong about people that you haven't justified so is clearly just speculation on people that don't agree with you.
How is what AlanTuring said at all an attempt to hamper anything? If you can't supply a good reason for saying AlanTuring's theory is wrong then hampering what insane thing you are trying to defend would be good.
No attempt to try and throw around a right that doesn't exist is not going to help you if you can't challenge AlanTuring's concepts rather than just make up stuff about the person themselves.
No amount of attacking the made-up motivations of 'pride-mites' justifies cure as a sensible alternative. You have to justify cure on its own grounds, just as AlanTuring challenged the justification of cure.
To seek to evade cure is simply evading human rights. Everyone has the right to make choices and this is a protected liberty. Those seeking to evade choices are stepping over the line to dictate the choices of others and even in awareness. The simple removal of the word cure can be argued as a limitation to a modality of awareness which is a protected liberty and right so as to be limiting to potential funding which is the goal of some pride organizations for other issues like abortion. I call it for how it is and cure has nothing to do with abortion in of itself. Cure however is about removing difficulty so as to remedy it. No amount of biased political stubbornness can remove the common sense of this issue for the sake of other issues.
_________________
The peer politics creating intolerance toward compassion is coming to an end. Pity accusations, indifferent advocacy against isolation awareness and for pride in an image of autism is injustice. http://www.autismselfadvocacynetwork.com
AlanTuring
Deinonychus
Joined: 3 Jul 2011
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 302
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota, USA
09 Sep 2011, 3:20 pm
ci - Sticking to the issue, I have only one question for you:
Which of the variety of cures or 'autie-prevention' that I listed in my recent post do you support?
Identify them by number.
1. Genetic counselling for would-be parents to discuss whether they should have children at all. [needs genetic markers]
2. Discarding eggs or sperm that carry genes for autism. [need non-destructive genetic analysis, genetic markers]
3. Perform genetic engineering on fertilized eggs to alter the DNA. [far beyond our current capabilities, need to know what to change]
4. Destroy in-vitro embryos that exhibit markers prior to implantation. [needs genetic markers]
5. Identify embryos or fetuses likely to be autistic in utero and abort them [needs genetic or other markers]
6. Perform genetic engineering on post-natal autists. [far beyond our current capabilities, need to know what to change, would destroy current mind]
_________________
Diagnosed: OCD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Dysthemia
Undiagnosed: AS (Aspie: 176/200, NT: 37/200)
High functioning, software engineer, algorithms, cats, books
09 Sep 2011, 3:38 pm
Seems to be more about abortion and the prevention of life which is related. Whereas cure in original meaning is about removing specific hardships but in context that might be part of genetics but do not represent the entire genetic similarity. As others have said autism is a good and bad thing as far as disabilities go. There are the good and then there is the bad aspects which limit quality of life. I'd hope that science can understand what is very specifically causing quality of life disabilities and help with that while leaving intact the non-disability aspects that comprise true human diversity.
Again the right to treatment and potential cure of disabilities people experience is a protected liberty. Other can use that same kind of science for abortion politics and to enable enact abortion rights. All of the abortion issues and prevention of life issues which are the same have to do with abortion politics and not treatment rights for individuals with disabilities.
It's very cut and dry to me.
_________________
The peer politics creating intolerance toward compassion is coming to an end. Pity accusations, indifferent advocacy against isolation awareness and for pride in an image of autism is injustice. http://www.autismselfadvocacynetwork.com
AlanTuring
Deinonychus
Joined: 3 Jul 2011
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 302
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota, USA
09 Sep 2011, 3:46 pm
ci - Your refusal to answer a specific question has been noted.
This puts to bed all of the 'cure' nonsense.
_________________
Diagnosed: OCD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Dysthemia
Undiagnosed: AS (Aspie: 176/200, NT: 37/200)
High functioning, software engineer, algorithms, cats, books
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| WP Christmas Party 2024 |
31 Dec 2024, 1:12 am |
| What do you think about YT's The Aspie World? |
16 Feb 2025, 5:22 pm |
| I wish we had an aspie earring |
25 Feb 2025, 12:35 pm |
