INTENSITY²
Start here => Free For ALL => Topic started by: Christopher McCandless on December 24, 2009, 06:52:56 PM
-
Read this:
Unnatural selection?
14 December 2009
By Helen Keeler
Writer and actress
Appeared in BioNews 538
I had wanted to donate my eggs to a woman with fertility problems ever since having children of my own. I frequently tell my three children that I always wanted to be a mother and that every day they make my dreams come true. How wonderful it would be to help make someone else's dreams come true too.
Earlier this year, I approached the four hospitals offering fertility treatment within a 40 mile radius of where I live, explaining my family history. Three of them rejected me immediately. The fourth hospital invited me to attend an appointment with a counsellor, who recommended I be accepted. I was given another appointment to have the necessary extensive blood tests; the results were all fine. At a third appointment, I met a doctor who told me she had a couple in mind to match me with. Shortly after this, I received an email telling me the hospital had now decided they could no longer use my eggs.
There was one reason for all these rejections: my eleven-year-old daughter has Asperger syndrome (AS). She experiences difficulties with communication, social interaction and coordination. In addition, she suffers from panic attacks and her anxiety is at times debilitating. She's also a warm-hearted, thoughtful person and a gifted mathematician; in fact, she achieves above age expectancy in every academic area. Her sense of humour and understanding of language are developing apace; when I told her I'd been rejected as an egg donor, she asked me with a wry smile if that meant she was a bad egg. Only one other relation has an autism diagnosis, a young adult with AS in my extended family who is studying for a degree and holding down a job.
My experience has prompted me to think about this issue in many ways. A starting point is that it's ironic that inclusion and acceptance of people with disabilities has reached the point where there is legislation to protect their rights, while simultaneously doctors are trying to prevent them from being born. Disabled people are, in many cases, capable of great achievements. Should we be using perceived disability to tip the balance against them in fertility treatment? It is human nature to play to our strengths. This is not just something that high-achieving disabled people do, it is something we all do. Recently someone said to me, 'Is there no end to your talents?' I thought, now there's a person who hasn't heard me sing. Like everyone, I have many failings; I choose not to showcase them. Possible disadvantages cannot be weighed against potential talents when contemplating the impact of disability in this abstract way.
While it could be said that prospective recipients of donor eggs would be unlikely to accept them from someone with AS in their family history, I don't think this justifies not offering the choice. This was perhaps the aspect of my experience that caused me the most frustration and sadness. It would be unthinkable for a doctor to tell me that I was not allowed to conceive naturally due to my family history of AS, so why is it acceptable for doctors to make this decision on behalf of those who need assistance conceiving? There is an acute shortage of altruistic egg donors; in rejecting me the message is that it is better to be childless than to have a child with AS. I would disagree most ardently with this premise.
The fact that scientific progress has led to this situation means that an ethical and philosophical debate is necessary. Do we really know what's best? In millions of years of evolution, AS has not been eradicated. While some might say there are greaters numbers of people now with AS than ever before because of improved understanding and diagnosis - a theory that I would not necessarily dispute - it could also be said that we have evolved as a species to have an increasing number of people with AS. In other words, people with AS have been naturally selected, so maybe we need them in our species in a way we are yet to fully comprehend.
The concept of neurodiversity asserts that atypical ways of thinking are simply at a different point on the same scale as the majority of people. This implies that AS is an extreme version of normal. When my daughter struggles, she does so considerably, however when she flies, she soars. I wonder if it is either possible or desirable to breed out these extreme states from our species.
The bottom line is that both human beings and AS are too complex for this to be a straightforward choice between whether it is better for a person to be born who has AS or another person to be born who hasn't.
The NAS make a rather succent response here: http://www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=2074
In short - anyone thinking of donating sperm / eggs, your time is limited. I encourage you all to take the earliest opportunity.
-
Guess everyone will have to do it the old fashioned way :missionary:
-
Guess everyone will have to do it the old fashioned way :missionary:
Its inefficient though - the cuckoo knows best.
-
the last thing we want is more little aspies in the world
why create more suffering?
if someone wants a kid and can't get it in them or get it in their woman the normal way, go and adopt one
:2thumbsup:
-
I want more in the world they are easier to get along with
-
Guess everyone will have to do it the old fashioned way :missionary:
Its inefficient though - the cuckoo knows best.
Inefficient?
In what way? Apart from people having trouble conceiving that is.
Or are you thinking about sperming the world?
-
Guess everyone will have to do it the old fashioned way :missionary:
Its inefficient though - the cuckoo knows best.
Inefficient?
In what way? Apart from people having trouble conceiving that is.
Or are you thinking about sperming the world?
If say 100 or so Aspie males were to walk into UK sperm banks and each make a donation, not only does it take them just an afternoon, but when they get caught, the media coverage could be quite explosive.
-
If a dozen or so aspies walked into a bank tomorrow and started an armed siege, not only does it just take an afternoon, but when they get caught, the media coverage could be quite explosive.
-
Guess everyone will have to do it the old fashioned way :missionary:
Its inefficient though - the cuckoo knows best.
Inefficient?
In what way? Apart from people having trouble conceiving that is.
Or are you thinking about sperming the world?
If say 100 or so Aspie males were to walk into UK sperm banks and each make a donation, not only does it take them just an afternoon, but when they get caught, the media coverage could be quite explosive.
What if they don't get caught. And, very hypothetically, those hundred men have very effective sperm, resulting in a thousand ASD babies. Babies for big part born in families without any idea of ASD. With no quirky relatives. Major part of a thousand babies born in an environment that will mean utter seclusion for them. Is that worth it? And then, on top of that, their social parents, and the kids themselves, realising after a few years, that they exist because of some action, started on some ASD forum, to get more ASD awareness.
Sorry, you're dealing with people here. Parents who will be at a loss about their child. Children estranged from their parents with who they share nothing of their quirkyness. Cruel plan of action. Very cruel.
And what if they do get caught. Hell talk about stigmatising people with ASD. From then on, people will connect Aspergers with this group of a hundred men, trying to sneak their sperm into a sperm bank. And it will not go down well. It will only harm the cause you say you stand for.
-
If a dozen or so aspies walked into a bank tomorrow and started an armed siege, not only does it just take an afternoon, but when they get caught, the media coverage could be quite explosive.
It has the drawback of the coverage being useless, 1000 less aspies don't get born and we dont get a dozen or so aspies locked up for a few years, going more loony and coming out deluded about their testicular fortitude and how they are making the world a better place.
My method is better, don't you think?
-
Guess everyone will have to do it the old fashioned way :missionary:
Its inefficient though - the cuckoo knows best.
Inefficient?
In what way? Apart from people having trouble conceiving that is.
Or are you thinking about sperming the world?
If say 100 or so Aspie males were to walk into UK sperm banks and each make a donation, not only does it take them just an afternoon, but when they get caught, the media coverage could be quite explosive.
What if they don't get caught. And, very hypothetically, those hundred men have very effective sperm, resulting in a thousand ASD babies. Babies for big part born in families without any idea of ASD. With no quirky relatives. Major part of a thousand babies born in an environment that will mean utter seclusion for them. Is that worth it? And then, on top of that, their social parents, and the kids themselves, realising after a few years, that they exist because of some action, started on some ASD forum, to get more ASD awareness.
The thing is, its only really the middle classes who will have these children. In the long run, a good chunk of them will realise their potential, making things better for the rest of us. By the way, most of them won't get caught before donating, its later on 2-3 years down the line.
Sorry, your dealing with people here. Parents who will be at a loss about their child. Children estranged from their parents with who they share nothing of their quirkyness. Cruel plan of action. Very cruel.
A few thousand people wanting society to adapt to their situation - absolutely brilliant. The same obsessively normal people having to confront and fight this reality. Even more fantastic.
And what if they do get caught. Hell talk about stigmatising people with ASD. From then on, people will connect Aspergers with this group of a hundred men, trying to sneak their sperm into a sperm bank. And it will not go down well. It will only harm the cause you say you stand for.
It starts a fantastic debate, which is very winnable in our favour. All we have to do is make it about our humanity. In fact, its one that would be nearly impossible to lose. From what I gather, some influential people in the NAS (having spoken to them face to face) thought it was a fantastic idea when I mentioned it to them in passing.
-
I disagree strongly. No need to reiterate my objections I think. You only look at effect on awareness, be it positive or negative. I do want to look at the humans involved. Not only the parents and babies. Also people on the spectrum.
I would be more ashamed to come out after a massive action like that.
-
Guess everyone will have to do it the old fashioned way :missionary:
Its inefficient though - the cuckoo knows best.
Seems to work for me >:D
-
More aspies know each other now, due to the internet. So there should be an increase in aspies being made as a result of relationships started online.
-
I disagree strongly. No need to reiterate my objections I think. You only look at effect on awareness, be it positive or negative. I do want to look at the humans involved. Not only the parents and babies. Also people on the spectrum.
I would be more ashamed to come out after a massive action like that.
The funny thing is that this approach has already been road tested and none of your objections emerged. You do realise the consequences of winning the debate would mean at least adequate support for everyone with AS and reasonable access to opportunities.
And yes, even if those 1000 children lived awful lives, another few hundred thousand or so in this country wont be. I am of course saying that most of those 1000 people will have happy lives, like most people who are born.
-
A hundred aspie men, sneaking their sperm into a sperm bank, with the purpose of spreading ASD, could very well be the big reason to screen for ASD in early pregnancies as soon as a test like that is available.
Who would want to parent a kid that could be grow up to something that moronic? And should they be excused for that behaviour, because of the condition they try to spread?
I could not blame people promoting an early testing after something like that happened.
A thing like this will very likely backfire.
-
A hundred aspie men, sneaking their sperm into a sperm bank, with the purpose of spreading ASD, could very well be the big reason to screen for ASD in early pregnancies as soon as a test like that is available.
Who would want to parent a kid that could be grow up to something that moronic? And should they be excused for that behaviour, because of the condition they try to spread?
I could not blame people promoting an early testing after something like that happened.
A thing like this will very likely backfire.
Assuming they can find doctors to perform those abortions. In fact if they spin around and attempt to do that as a retaliation, it would be fantastic. We would wake up to a solid cause and an organised movement - basically everything we need and want over a small period of time.
-
Guess everyone will have to do it the old fashioned way :missionary:
Its inefficient though - the cuckoo knows best.
Inefficient?
In what way? Apart from people having trouble conceiving that is.
Or are you thinking about sperming the world?
If say 100 or so Aspie males were to walk into UK sperm banks and each make a donation, not only does it take them just an afternoon, but when they get caught, the media coverage could be quite explosive.
I looked into sperm donation a while back, and sperm banks in the UK are very picky about who they accept. You can't just walk in off the street and ejaculate in a cup, and you have to commit to making multiple donations over a 6 month period, if I remember correctly.
-
Guess everyone will have to do it the old fashioned way :missionary:
Its inefficient though - the cuckoo knows best.
Inefficient?
In what way? Apart from people having trouble conceiving that is.
Or are you thinking about sperming the world?
If say 100 or so Aspie males were to walk into UK sperm banks and each make a donation, not only does it take them just an afternoon, but when they get caught, the media coverage could be quite explosive.
I looked into sperm donation a while back, and sperm banks in the UK are very picky about who they accept. You can't just walk in off the street and ejaculate in a cup, and you have to commit to making multiple donations over a 6 month period, if I remember correctly.
You can avoid telling them about having AS - yes it might involve a few trips, but I doubt their safeguards would be difficult to get past if such an attempt were to be organised.
Of course we could be more clever and just encourage people we know who might have AS to donate. For example by sending leaflets carefully to the right people or leaving them in the right places, we could solicit enough donations to make an impact.
-
Guess everyone will have to do it the old fashioned way :missionary:
Its inefficient though - the cuckoo knows best.
Inefficient?
In what way? Apart from people having trouble conceiving that is.
Or are you thinking about sperming the world?
If say 100 or so Aspie males were to walk into UK sperm banks and each make a donation, not only does it take them just an afternoon, but when they get caught, the media coverage could be quite explosive.
I looked into sperm donation a while back, and sperm banks in the UK are very picky about who they accept. You can't just walk in off the street and ejaculate in a cup, and you have to commit to making multiple donations over a 6 month period, if I remember correctly.
You can avoid telling them about having AS - yes it might involve a few trips, but I doubt their safeguards would be difficult to get past if such an attempt were to be organised.
Of course we could be more clever and just encourage people we know who might have AS to donate. For example by sending leaflets carefully to the right people or leaving them in the right places, we could solicit enough donations to make an impact.
So when are you going to get busy jerking off into a cup and show us all how it's done?
-
Guess everyone will have to do it the old fashioned way :missionary:
Its inefficient though - the cuckoo knows best.
Inefficient?
In what way? Apart from people having trouble conceiving that is.
Or are you thinking about sperming the world?
If say 100 or so Aspie males were to walk into UK sperm banks and each make a donation, not only does it take them just an afternoon, but when they get caught, the media coverage could be quite explosive.
I looked into sperm donation a while back, and sperm banks in the UK are very picky about who they accept. You can't just walk in off the street and ejaculate in a cup, and you have to commit to making multiple donations over a 6 month period, if I remember correctly.
You can avoid telling them about having AS - yes it might involve a few trips, but I doubt their safeguards would be difficult to get past if such an attempt were to be organised.
Of course we could be more clever and just encourage people we know who might have AS to donate. For example by sending leaflets carefully to the right people or leaving them in the right places, we could solicit enough donations to make an impact.
So when are you going to get busy jerking off into a cup and show us all how it's done?
:laugh:
Why would I need to show you all that way - look here instead:
http://www.donorsiblingregistry.com/startribune.php
Just as an example, there have been other cases I hear...
-
Guess everyone will have to do it the old fashioned way :missionary:
Its inefficient though - the cuckoo knows best.
Inefficient?
In what way? Apart from people having trouble conceiving that is.
Or are you thinking about sperming the world?
If say 100 or so Aspie males were to walk into UK sperm banks and each make a donation, not only does it take them just an afternoon, but when they get caught, the media coverage could be quite explosive.
I looked into sperm donation a while back, and sperm banks in the UK are very picky about who they accept. You can't just walk in off the street and ejaculate in a cup, and you have to commit to making multiple donations over a 6 month period, if I remember correctly.
You can avoid telling them about having AS - yes it might involve a few trips, but I doubt their safeguards would be difficult to get past if such an attempt were to be organised.
Of course we could be more clever and just encourage people we know who might have AS to donate. For example by sending leaflets carefully to the right people or leaving them in the right places, we could solicit enough donations to make an impact.
So when are you going to get busy jerking off into a cup and show us all how it's done?
:laugh:
Why would I need to show you all that way - look here instead:
http://www.donorsiblingregistry.com/startribune.php
Just as an example, there have been other cases I hear...
What I'm trying to say is, you are all talk, no action there. At least I'm getting results.
-
Guess everyone will have to do it the old fashioned way :missionary:
Its inefficient though - the cuckoo knows best.
Inefficient?
In what way? Apart from people having trouble conceiving that is.
Or are you thinking about sperming the world?
If say 100 or so Aspie males were to walk into UK sperm banks and each make a donation, not only does it take them just an afternoon, but when they get caught, the media coverage could be quite explosive.
I looked into sperm donation a while back, and sperm banks in the UK are very picky about who they accept. You can't just walk in off the street and ejaculate in a cup, and you have to commit to making multiple donations over a 6 month period, if I remember correctly.
You can avoid telling them about having AS - yes it might involve a few trips, but I doubt their safeguards would be difficult to get past if such an attempt were to be organised.
Of course we could be more clever and just encourage people we know who might have AS to donate. For example by sending leaflets carefully to the right people or leaving them in the right places, we could solicit enough donations to make an impact.
So when are you going to get busy jerking off into a cup and show us all how it's done?
:laugh:
Why would I need to show you all that way - look here instead:
http://www.donorsiblingregistry.com/startribune.php
Just as an example, there have been other cases I hear...
What I'm trying to say is, you are all talk, no action there. At least I'm getting results.
Indeed your approach is getting some very good results on the reproduction front. But I assure you I am busy trying to get the right people in the right places for such a plan to happen. Even if my contributions are discrete at present.
-
The funny thing is that this approach has already been road tested and none of your objections emerged. You do realise the consequences of winning the debate would mean at least adequate support for everyone with AS and reasonable access to opportunities.
And yes, even if those 1000 children lived awful lives, another few hundred thousand or so in this country wont be. I am of course saying that most of those 1000 people will have happy lives, like most people who are born.
:duh: Where the fuck did you get that idea into your head?
-
The funny thing is that this approach has already been road tested and none of your objections emerged. You do realise the consequences of winning the debate would mean at least adequate support for everyone with AS and reasonable access to opportunities.
And yes, even if those 1000 children lived awful lives, another few hundred thousand or so in this country wont be. I am of course saying that most of those 1000 people will have happy lives, like most people who are born.
:duh: Where the fuck did you get that idea into your head?
Most people are at least content, otherwise there would be a lot more revolutions and the sorts in this society. It is very difficult to sustainably run a society in which the majority are miserable, they nearly always quickly fall down.
-
Let them. I can't stand most aspies, so the thought of more self-important dickheads like Soiledarse and Bgkfgkdld being born would wreck my head.
I don't want children for this reason. It'll probably be like amanda baggs, but with hairy tits. :aff:
-
Guess everyone will have to do it the old fashioned way :missionary:
Its inefficient though - the cuckoo knows best.
Inefficient?
In what way? Apart from people having trouble conceiving that is.
Or are you thinking about sperming the world?
If say 100 or so Aspie males were to walk into UK sperm banks and each make a donation, not only does it take them just an afternoon, but when they get caught, the media coverage could be quite explosive.
I looked into sperm donation a while back, and sperm banks in the UK are very picky about who they accept. You can't just walk in off the street and ejaculate in a cup, and you have to commit to making multiple donations over a 6 month period, if I remember correctly.
You can avoid telling them about having AS - yes it might involve a few trips, but I doubt their safeguards would be difficult to get past if such an attempt were to be organised.
Of course we could be more clever and just encourage people we know who might have AS to donate. For example by sending leaflets carefully to the right people or leaving them in the right places, we could solicit enough donations to make an impact.
So when are you going to get busy jerking off into a cup and show us all how it's done?
:laugh:
Why would I need to show you all that way - look here instead:
http://www.donorsiblingregistry.com/startribune.php
Just as an example, there have been other cases I hear...
It is not more than expected that there have been aspie donors. But that is something different than becoming donor with the main purpose to spread ASD over the population.
I hate it when someone tries to frame me into something. Were I a mum with the idea that I had been conned into carrying a child with a condition, because of that condition, I would hate the donor. Not because of his condition, but because of the way he used me. And I think I would not be the only one.
Having it spelled out before me, from the beginning, would have been a completely different thing.
-
Here's a video of my cat and my dog opening their christmas presents:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es1VEz0QJ9Q
-
Guess everyone will have to do it the old fashioned way :missionary:
Its inefficient though - the cuckoo knows best.
Inefficient?
In what way? Apart from people having trouble conceiving that is.
Or are you thinking about sperming the world?
If say 100 or so Aspie males were to walk into UK sperm banks and each make a donation, not only does it take them just an afternoon, but when they get caught, the media coverage could be quite explosive.
I looked into sperm donation a while back, and sperm banks in the UK are very picky about who they accept. You can't just walk in off the street and ejaculate in a cup, and you have to commit to making multiple donations over a 6 month period, if I remember correctly.
You can avoid telling them about having AS - yes it might involve a few trips, but I doubt their safeguards would be difficult to get past if such an attempt were to be organised.
Of course we could be more clever and just encourage people we know who might have AS to donate. For example by sending leaflets carefully to the right people or leaving them in the right places, we could solicit enough donations to make an impact.
So when are you going to get busy jerking off into a cup and show us all how it's done?
:laugh:
Why would I need to show you all that way - look here instead:
http://www.donorsiblingregistry.com/startribune.php
Just as an example, there have been other cases I hear...
It is not more than expected that there have been aspie donors. But that is something different than becoming donor with the main purpose to spread ASD over the population.
I hate it when someone tries to frame me into something.
Where do you think that behaviour comes from? It is learned, is it not? The real question is from whom and why - and the answer to that question is from society, from the impositions of the collective.
Were I a mum with the idea that I had been conned into carrying a child with a condition, because of that condition, I would hate the donor. Not because of his condition, but because of the way he used me. And I think I would not be the only one.
Having it spelled out before me, from the beginning, would have been a completely different thing.
Those people frame us all into situations and a society ill suited to us without batting an eyelid. You need to start showing some compassion to those who deserve it, rather than trying to prop up an ever more feeble argument. You just balk at the cause because, god forbid, it might actually involve some change. Of course, you miss the small detail that its most likely going to be good change for ourselves.
Just another point I missed, we are people, not a condition or epidemic to be spread. Its no different to a black man "infecting" a white woman with a child who might happen to have darker skin, god forbid...
-
Here's a video of my cat and my dog opening their christmas presents:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es1VEz0QJ9Q
Are they suffering? Should they not have been born?
-
Here's a video of my cat and my dog opening their christmas presents:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es1VEz0QJ9Q
Are they suffering? Should they not have been born?
Well my brother in that video is very likely aspie (has selective mutism and is being assessed for ASD)
I would much rather focus on improving the lives of already-existing kids with difficulties rather than trying to make more
-
Guess everyone will have to do it the old fashioned way :missionary:
Its inefficient though - the cuckoo knows best.
Inefficient?
In what way? Apart from people having trouble conceiving that is.
Or are you thinking about sperming the world?
If say 100 or so Aspie males were to walk into UK sperm banks and each make a donation, not only does it take them just an afternoon, but when they get caught, the media coverage could be quite explosive.
I looked into sperm donation a while back, and sperm banks in the UK are very picky about who they accept. You can't just walk in off the street and ejaculate in a cup, and you have to commit to making multiple donations over a 6 month period, if I remember correctly.
You can avoid telling them about having AS - yes it might involve a few trips, but I doubt their safeguards would be difficult to get past if such an attempt were to be organised.
Of course we could be more clever and just encourage people we know who might have AS to donate. For example by sending leaflets carefully to the right people or leaving them in the right places, we could solicit enough donations to make an impact.
So when are you going to get busy jerking off into a cup and show us all how it's done?
:laugh:
Why would I need to show you all that way - look here instead:
http://www.donorsiblingregistry.com/startribune.php
Just as an example, there have been other cases I hear...
It is not more than expected that there have been aspie donors. But that is something different than becoming donor with the main purpose to spread ASD over the population.
I hate it when someone tries to frame me into something.
Where do you think that behaviour comes from? It is learned, is it not? The real question is from whom and why - and the answer to that question is from society, from the impositions of the collective.
Were I a mum with the idea that I had been conned into carrying a child with a condition, because of that condition, I would hate the donor. Not because of his condition, but because of the way he used me. And I think I would not be the only one.
Having it spelled out before me, from the beginning, would have been a completely different thing.
Those people frame us all into situations and a society ill suited to us without batting an eyelid. You need to start showing some compassion to those who deserve it, rather than trying to prop up an ever more feeble argument. You just balk at the cause because, god forbid, it might actually involve some change. Of course, you miss the small detail that its most likely going to be good change for ourselves.
Just another point I missed, we are people, not a condition or epidemic to be spread. Its no different to a black man "infecting" a white woman with a child who might happen to have darker skin, god forbid...
Those people frame us, so......? Trying to be like "Those people?"
The cause I balk at?
I would rather see it happening from a completely different angle. A couple wanting kids and not able to conceive themselves, with an aspie male involved. Give them the choice if they want, for an aspie donor. Make it visible. Make it visible that parents want a kid that matches them. That shares their quirkyness, if they want to.
In stead of deceiving lots of parents who have no idea, just for this 'noble' cause, set up a database with aspie donors. Where a regular sperm bank can make use of, or where couples with ASD can pick a donor to take with them to hospital. Make it transparent, make it visible. Show what you are doing. That might make a change that is visible. That will be questioned, so what, nothing new there, no need to stop because of that. Being questioned is when you get the chance to give answers.
If you want change, it is time that things become visible and transparent.
Would I have gone for an ASD donor? You know, I had huge problems to get pregnant. And it had to do with semen quality. And we have discussed sperm-donation. And only would have wanted it from someone as quirky as the dad of my kids. I know who I would have asked. And now that I know about autism, chance that the one I would have asked is on the spectrum is quite big.
So come on Hadron. Tell me where I am afraid. You seem the one afraid. Going undercover, when there is no pogrom towards people on the spectrum (yet).
ASD is a disability. But it is not making life less worth than not ASD life. It does make it more difficult. And not only because of society. And there is no need to ban ASD people from getting kids if they want to. But forcing people to get ASD kids in the sly way you promote, I think it is disgusting.
-
Ever since learning about Asperger's Syndrome (and more to the point, learning that it might have something to do with me personally) a small portion of my thinking has been taken up with the great "why" of it: Surely autism spectrum disorders are not the universe's idea of a cruel random joke? That there must be some deep purpose for these things to exist? That there must be a reason why NTs beget Aspies and vice versa? That last point makes me doubt that Aspies are cuckoos in the nest of humanity — it seems that we are humanity, after all.
My immediate reaction to Hadron's stealth-sperm-donation idea is that coercion and trickery are not good ways to make friends and influence people.
There's a post brewing in my head, but it isn't ready yet.
-
Here's a video of my cat and my dog opening their christmas presents:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es1VEz0QJ9Q
Are they suffering? Should they not have been born?
Well my brother in that video is very likely aspie (has selective mutism and is being assessed for ASD)
I would much rather focus on improving the lives of already-existing kids with difficulties rather than trying to make more
You make it sound like the two issues are separate - I advocate here making more of us in this fashion because it improves the lot of those of us who are already here.
-
Guess everyone will have to do it the old fashioned way :missionary:
Its inefficient though - the cuckoo knows best.
Inefficient?
In what way? Apart from people having trouble conceiving that is.
Or are you thinking about sperming the world?
If say 100 or so Aspie males were to walk into UK sperm banks and each make a donation, not only does it take them just an afternoon, but when they get caught, the media coverage could be quite explosive.
I looked into sperm donation a while back, and sperm banks in the UK are very picky about who they accept. You can't just walk in off the street and ejaculate in a cup, and you have to commit to making multiple donations over a 6 month period, if I remember correctly.
You can avoid telling them about having AS - yes it might involve a few trips, but I doubt their safeguards would be difficult to get past if such an attempt were to be organised.
Of course we could be more clever and just encourage people we know who might have AS to donate. For example by sending leaflets carefully to the right people or leaving them in the right places, we could solicit enough donations to make an impact.
So when are you going to get busy jerking off into a cup and show us all how it's done?
:laugh:
Why would I need to show you all that way - look here instead:
http://www.donorsiblingregistry.com/startribune.php
Just as an example, there have been other cases I hear...
It is not more than expected that there have been aspie donors. But that is something different than becoming donor with the main purpose to spread ASD over the population.
I hate it when someone tries to frame me into something.
Where do you think that behaviour comes from? It is learned, is it not? The real question is from whom and why - and the answer to that question is from society, from the impositions of the collective.
Were I a mum with the idea that I had been conned into carrying a child with a condition, because of that condition, I would hate the donor. Not because of his condition, but because of the way he used me. And I think I would not be the only one.
Having it spelled out before me, from the beginning, would have been a completely different thing.
Those people frame us all into situations and a society ill suited to us without batting an eyelid. You need to start showing some compassion to those who deserve it, rather than trying to prop up an ever more feeble argument. You just balk at the cause because, god forbid, it might actually involve some change. Of course, you miss the small detail that its most likely going to be good change for ourselves.
Just another point I missed, we are people, not a condition or epidemic to be spread. Its no different to a black man "infecting" a white woman with a child who might happen to have darker skin, god forbid...
Those people frame us, so......? Trying to be like "Those people?"
Goodness - I am just telling you not to waste effort enforcing a right that you can't be bothered to defend when it comes to giving it to yourself. Its a bit like being a staunch proponent of democracy, then never bothering to cast your vote.
Of course there are other rights which disproportionately favour everyone else - e.g. the right not to be offended, which only works one way. Do you want me to list others?
The cause I balk at?
I would rather see it happening from a completely different angle. A couple wanting kids and not able to conceive themselves, with an aspie male involved. Give them the choice if they want, for an aspie donor. Make it visible. Make it visible that parents want a kid that matches them. That shares their quirkyness, if they want to.
Someone tried to do something similar to that a few years ago, he ended up being branded a Nazi. Look up Robert Klark Graham if you want to know more.
Instead of deceiving lots of parents who have no idea, just for this 'noble' cause, set up a database with aspie donors. Where a regular sperm bank can make use of, or where couples with ASD can pick a donor to take with them to hospital. Make it transparent, make it visible. Show what you are doing. That might make a change that is visible. That will be questioned, so what, nothing new there, no need to stop because of that. Being questioned is when you get the chance to give answers.
I can already be questioned publically - my point is that it is far more effective for myself and others like me to be doing it from the TV studio and furthering the wider cause rather than having a one on one fringe debate.
If you want change, it is time that things become visible and transparent.
Would I have gone for an ASD donor? You know, I had huge problems to get pregnant. And it had to do with semen quality. And we have discussed sperm-donation. And only would have wanted it from someone as quirky as the dad of my kids. I know who I would have asked. And now that I know about autism, chance that the one I would have asked is on the spectrum is quite big.
The point is that the clinics now would say no, if this was done openly.
So come on Hadron. Tell me where I am afraid. You seem the one afraid. Going undercover, when there is no pogrom towards people on the spectrum (yet).
Where are you not afraid? You are way too cowardly to do what is neccesary, choosing instead to hide behind everyone elses collective moral judgements and diktats.
ASD is a disability. But it is not making life less worth than not ASD life. It does make it more difficult. And not only because of society. And there is no need to ban ASD people from getting kids if they want to. But forcing people to get ASD kids in the sly way you promote, I think it is disgusting.
ASD is only a disability because everyone else chooses to make it one. It is time that steps are taken by ourselves to free ourselves from this situation. Or has everyone now lost their pride and self-respect?
-
The funny thing is that this approach has already been road tested and none of your objections emerged. You do realise the consequences of winning the debate would mean at least adequate support for everyone with AS and reasonable access to opportunities.
And yes, even if those 1000 children lived awful lives, another few hundred thousand or so in this country wont be. I am of course saying that most of those 1000 people will have happy lives, like most people who are born.
:duh: Where the fuck did you get that idea into your head?
Most people are at least content, otherwise there would be a lot more revolutions and the sorts in this society. It is very difficult to sustainably run a society in which the majority are miserable, they nearly always quickly fall down.
That wasn't a typo, then. You really believe the majority of people live happy lives and/or are content. :facepalm2:
-
The funny thing is that this approach has already been road tested and none of your objections emerged. You do realise the consequences of winning the debate would mean at least adequate support for everyone with AS and reasonable access to opportunities.
And yes, even if those 1000 children lived awful lives, another few hundred thousand or so in this country wont be. I am of course saying that most of those 1000 people will have happy lives, like most people who are born.
:duh: Where the fuck did you get that idea into your head?
Most people are at least content, otherwise there would be a lot more revolutions and the sorts in this society. It is very difficult to sustainably run a society in which the majority are miserable, they nearly always quickly fall down.
That wasn't a typo, then. You really believe the majority of people live happy lives and/or are content. :facepalm2:
I believe the majority of people believe that they live happy lives or are content. Whether they actually do so is another matter.
-
I think it would be better that aspie children be born to as least 1 aspie parent. If 2 NT parents got an aspie child from donated sperm, then they would just try and make their kid NT or something.
-
I think it would be better that aspie children be born to as least 1 aspie parent. If 2 NT parents got an aspie child from donated sperm, then they would just try and make their kid NT or something.
What makes you think 1 or 2 Aspie parents would not try to do likewise - especially if undiagnosed.
-
I think it would be better that aspie children be born to as least 1 aspie parent. If 2 NT parents got an aspie child from donated sperm, then they would just try and make their kid NT or something.
What makes you think 1 or 2 Aspie parents would not try to do likewise - especially if undiagnosed.
Are you being serious?
Are you trolling here or are you just naturally this stupid?
-
ASD is only a disability because everyone else chooses to make it one. It is time that steps are taken by ourselves to free ourselves from this situation. Or has everyone now lost their pride and self-respect?
OK, just an example, explain, where does society come in here:
I am hypersensitive, I can feel the difference between hot and cold. No issues there. I have no problems with my hypersensitivity.
While I am cooking, it happens more than once, that I want to lift a pan from the stove. I feel it is hot, but I don't process in time what it means. So, I take the pan from the stove bare handed, while feeling it is hot. And I get burned.
Where did society make this happen?
Don't come with the story that it is "just" a co-morbid thing. It is part of me, part of why I am on the spectrum.
-
ASDs are disorders.
Making aspies as Phlexor has done, they will be raised by an aspie dad in a stable, happy family by someone who knows what it is like to be aspie = cool.
Making aspies whose future will be uncertain, who knows how unhappy they might be = not cool.
-
Making aspies = bad idea in general
I mean look at the people on this site :tinfoil:
-
Making aspies = bad idea in general
I mean look at the people on this site :tinfoil:
;D I got balls of steel!
-
Making aspies = bad idea in general
I mean look at the people on this site :tinfoil:
I'm Fucking Awesome! Yeah look at me! :zoinks:
-
Making aspies = bad idea in general
I mean look at the people on this site :tinfoil:
Admit it, we are irresistible. :eyelash:
-
I think it would be better that aspie children be born to as least 1 aspie parent. If 2 NT parents got an aspie child from donated sperm, then they would just try and make their kid NT or something.
What makes you think 1 or 2 Aspie parents would not try to do likewise - especially if undiagnosed.
Are you being serious?
Are you trolling here or are you just naturally this stupid?
I can think of plenty of examples where that has happened actually, sometimes worse than NT's doing it. You forget that there are plenty of Aspies obsessively running around insisting everyone be exactly normal.
-
ASD is only a disability because everyone else chooses to make it one. It is time that steps are taken by ourselves to free ourselves from this situation. Or has everyone now lost their pride and self-respect?
OK, just an example, explain, where does society come in here:
I am hypersensitive, I can feel the difference between hot and cold. No issues there. I have no problems with my hypersensitivity.
While I am cooking, it happens more than once, that I want to lift a pan from the stove. I feel it is hot, but I don't process in time what it means. So, I take the pan from the stove bare handed, while feeling it is hot. And I get burned.
Where did society make this happen?
Don't come with the story that it is "just" a co-morbid thing. It is part of me, part of why I am on the spectrum.
And who decided the best way of cooking would be a pan on a stove. I am pretty sure that if we controlled the design processes, you would not be burning your hands on a stove. The irony is that we dream up most of the technology, then NT's end up adapting it to suit themselves (and it becoming a pain in the arse for us to use - there are numerous obvious examples here)
-
Making aspies = bad idea in general
I mean look at the people on this site :tinfoil:
Because the internet is a nice random sample of people with Aspergers....
-
ASD is only a disability because everyone else chooses to make it one. It is time that steps are taken by ourselves to free ourselves from this situation. Or has everyone now lost their pride and self-respect?
OK, just an example, explain, where does society come in here:
I am hypersensitive, I can feel the difference between hot and cold. No issues there. I have no problems with my hypersensitivity.
While I am cooking, it happens more than once, that I want to lift a pan from the stove. I feel it is hot, but I don't process in time what it means. So, I take the pan from the stove bare handed, while feeling it is hot. And I get burned.
Where did society make this happen?
Don't come with the story that it is "just" a co-morbid thing. It is part of me, part of why I am on the spectrum.
And who decided the best way of cooking would be a pan on a stove. I am pretty sure that if we controlled the design processes, you would not be burning your hands on a stove. The irony is that we dream up most of the technology, then NT's end up adapting it to suit themselves (and it becoming a pain in the arse for us to use - there are numerous obvious examples here)
Who decided on using visible letters on signs, making the world disabling for people who are blind.
Society is making blindness a disability, and being deaf, and having no legs, and lots of other disabilities.
If you think it through, you are right, but if you want to change it for all, there is no society left, not one that can take care of people with a challenge either.
-
ASD is only a disability because everyone else chooses to make it one. It is time that steps are taken by ourselves to free ourselves from this situation. Or has everyone now lost their pride and self-respect?
OK, just an example, explain, where does society come in here:
I am hypersensitive, I can feel the difference between hot and cold. No issues there. I have no problems with my hypersensitivity.
While I am cooking, it happens more than once, that I want to lift a pan from the stove. I feel it is hot, but I don't process in time what it means. So, I take the pan from the stove bare handed, while feeling it is hot. And I get burned.
Where did society make this happen?
Don't come with the story that it is "just" a co-morbid thing. It is part of me, part of why I am on the spectrum.
And who decided the best way of cooking would be a pan on a stove. I am pretty sure that if we controlled the design processes, you would not be burning your hands on a stove. The irony is that we dream up most of the technology, then NT's end up adapting it to suit themselves (and it becoming a pain in the arse for us to use - there are numerous obvious examples here)
Who decided on using visible letters on signs, making the world disabling for people who are blind.
Society is making blindness a disability, and being deaf, and having no legs, and lots of other disabilities.
Fortunately the easiest solution in those two cases is cure and will probably be a reality 10-20 years down the line. In our case, that isn't what we are after for the most part.
If you think it through, you are right, but if you want to change it for all, there is no society left, not one that can take care of people with a challenge either.
We don't need to go as far as abolishing society, just transforming it.
-
Making aspies = bad idea in general
I mean look at the people on this site :tinfoil:
would that include you?
-
ASD is only a disability because everyone else chooses to make it one. It is time that steps are taken by ourselves to free ourselves from this situation. Or has everyone now lost their pride and self-respect?
OK, just an example, explain, where does society come in here:
I am hypersensitive, I can feel the difference between hot and cold. No issues there. I have no problems with my hypersensitivity.
While I am cooking, it happens more than once, that I want to lift a pan from the stove. I feel it is hot, but I don't process in time what it means. So, I take the pan from the stove bare handed, while feeling it is hot. And I get burned.
Where did society make this happen?
Don't come with the story that it is "just" a co-morbid thing. It is part of me, part of why I am on the spectrum.
And who decided the best way of cooking would be a pan on a stove. I am pretty sure that if we controlled the design processes, you would not be burning your hands on a stove. The irony is that we dream up most of the technology, then NT's end up adapting it to suit themselves (and it becoming a pain in the arse for us to use - there are numerous obvious examples here)
Who decided on using visible letters on signs, making the world disabling for people who are blind.
Society is making blindness a disability, and being deaf, and having no legs, and lots of other disabilities.
Fortunately the easiest solution in those two cases is cure and will probably be a reality 10-20 years down the line. In our case, that isn't what we are after for the most part.
The cases where blind people have been 'cured' are not that promising. Brains adapt to the options people have. Blind people have a different way of 'viewing' the world. They make up for it by things not visually challenged people do not use. There are examples of 'cured' blind people who want to return to blindness, because the change is something that they cannot adapt to.
And what about people that are genetically prone to be very small. Or very tall. Do they need to be modified. Or will we have everything adapted to them.
Even when focussing only on ASD. People on the spectrum are so different. What is a good thing for one may confuse the other. I don't think society can be adapted to ASD wishes completely, simply because there is not one need that covers all.
That does not take away the need for adaptations. And they can be small, and don't have to change too much for the whole of society. Still having a clear positive impact for many on the spectrum.
In regular classes some small adaptations to cover needs of ASD and AD(H)D kids happen to be beneficial for most kids. So its a win situation beyond expectation. Only to be discovered after changing the structure of teaching to benefit the kids that needed it the most.
And this year, for the first time, a change had been made in the StNic rituals on TV in the Netherlands. We have a different StNic than most of you. He arrives the weekend after November 11. Is on lots of shows till his feast on December 5th. And then, miraculously disappears for a year. The disappearing without being mentioned was hard to deal with for a lot of kids on the spectrum. Especially for them, this year there was coverage of StNic leaving the country, back to Spain. And it will not only have been watched by ASD kids.
-
Oh, deaf community takes a pride in their own culture. And there is a lot of resistance against a cure forced on them.
It is not all that simple. People want to be taken as valuable human beings the way they are. And they are right.
-
ASD is only a disability because everyone else chooses to make it one. It is time that steps are taken by ourselves to free ourselves from this situation. Or has everyone now lost their pride and self-respect?
OK, just an example, explain, where does society come in here:
I am hypersensitive, I can feel the difference between hot and cold. No issues there. I have no problems with my hypersensitivity.
While I am cooking, it happens more than once, that I want to lift a pan from the stove. I feel it is hot, but I don't process in time what it means. So, I take the pan from the stove bare handed, while feeling it is hot. And I get burned.
Where did society make this happen?
Don't come with the story that it is "just" a co-morbid thing. It is part of me, part of why I am on the spectrum.
And who decided the best way of cooking would be a pan on a stove. I am pretty sure that if we controlled the design processes, you would not be burning your hands on a stove. The irony is that we dream up most of the technology, then NT's end up adapting it to suit themselves (and it becoming a pain in the arse for us to use - there are numerous obvious examples here)
Who decided on using visible letters on signs, making the world disabling for people who are blind.
Society is making blindness a disability, and being deaf, and having no legs, and lots of other disabilities.
Fortunately the easiest solution in those two cases is cure and will probably be a reality 10-20 years down the line. In our case, that isn't what we are after for the most part.
The cases where blind people have been 'cured' are not that promising. Brains adapt to the options people have. Blind people have a different way of 'viewing' the world. They make up for it by things not visually challenged people do not use. There are examples of 'cured' blind people who want to return to blindness, because the change is something that they cannot adapt to.
And what about people that are genetically prone to be very small. Or very tall. Do they need to be modified. Or will we have everything adapted to them.
You are clutching at straws here. Most of these examples are hypothetical and relate to a different cause anyway - physical disabilities. Chances are that most of these people are going to be cured in the near future.
Even when focussing only on ASD. People on the spectrum are so different. What is a good thing for one may confuse the other. I don't think society can be adapted to ASD wishes completely, simply because there is not one need that covers all.
There is a very simple general solution which covers it - the abolition of social expectations and appropriate punishments for those who try to enforce them. Over time it mostly solves the problem.
That does not take away the need for adaptations. And they can be small, and don't have to change too much for the whole of society. Still having a clear positive impact for many on the spectrum.
In regular classes some small adaptations to cover needs of ASD and AD(H)D kids happen to be beneficial for most kids. So its a win situation beyond expectation. Only to be discovered after changing the structure of teaching to benefit the kids that needed it the most.
You realise the old system benefitted us massively right? If I were born 40 years older, I would literally be walking straight through, the system having cut away all the morons who are now let up with me. We need a general solution, not adaptations here are there.
And this year, for the first time, a change had been made in the StNic rituals on TV in the Netherlands. We have a different StNic than most of you. He arrives the weekend after November 11. Is on lots of shows till his feast on December 5th. And then, miraculously disappears for a year. The disappearing without being mentioned was hard to deal with for a lot of kids on the spectrum. Especially for them, this year there was coverage of StNic leaving the country, back to Spain. And it will not only have been watched by ASD kids.
Good quite frankly. It is about time that we recognise that change isn't the enemy, we just need to be in control of it. I like change myself - again the system needs to be changed to stop the moronic majority controlling and enacting it.
-
Oh, deaf community takes a pride in their own culture. And there is a lot of resistance against a cure forced on them.
It is not all that simple. People want to be taken as valuable human beings the way they are. And they are right.
Deaf culture is about as legitimate as Autistic Culture - its made up and does not represent the majority of that grouping. It has no legitimacy.
-
Making aspies = bad idea in general
I mean look at the people on this site :tinfoil:
would that include you?
lol Actually, yes. One of the reasons I would never have my own genetic offpsring is because I wouldn't want to bring another autistic kid into the world
-
There is a very simple general solution which covers it - the abolition of social expectations and appropriate punishments for those who try to enforce them. Over time it mostly solves the problem.
Well, here we agree. In the goal that is. Not in the way how to get there.
For me it means the abolition (not by force, because that won't work) of all kinds of ridiculous social expectations. Including disabilities like blindness and deafness. Including sexual orientation varieties. Including gender-queerness. A society with an open mind to differences. That could be a society where ASD people have a better chance of finding a place for themselves.
When I read you it is as if you strive for a kind of brave new world, filled with 'normal' people. Disabled people cured. Genderbenders and sexually different oriented people repenting and turning away from their 'aberrations'. And in this perfectly 'normal' world you expect that people will make major adaptations for this one very diverse group of people on the spectrum. That will not happen. Firstly, I think it is impossible to create this 'normal' society. Secondly, assuming it could be done, there would be no mercy or respect for the group of people they could not mould into normal.
There is a very simple general solution which covers it - the abolition of social expectations and appropriate punishments for those who try to enforce them. Over time it mostly solves the problem.
Again, I agree with you here, though taking it as broadly as possible. Work on a society that is not afraid to accept diversity.
-
Making aspies = bad idea in general
I mean look at the people on this site :tinfoil:
would that include you?
lol Actually, yes. One of the reasons I would never have my own genetic offpsring is because I wouldn't want to bring another autistic kid into the world
Do you value yourself less than others?
-
No but I wouldn't want to bring someone else into the world knowing they were likely to experience some of the problems I had when I was growing up too. Even with an AS parent, a lot of those problems will still be there, and I don't wanna be responsible for knowingly doing that to a kid. If I was gonna have kids, I would consider adopting an aspie, but I wouldn't create another one when there's a very high chance it will suffer.
-
There is a very simple general solution which covers it - the abolition of social expectations and appropriate punishments for those who try to enforce them. Over time it mostly solves the problem.
Well, here we agree. In the goal that is. Not in the way how to get there.
For me it means the abolition (not by force, because that won't work) of all kinds of ridiculous social expectations.
You won't be able to do it by asking people nicely. What I propose is using the average persons stupidity against them, not open warfare. But there are other kinds of force.
Including disabilities like blindness and deafness. Including sexual orientation varieties. Including gender-queerness. A society with an open mind to differences. That could be a society where ASD people have a better chance of finding a place for themselves.
Some battles are far more important than others - my argument has always been lifestyle choices need to be relegated to the bottom of the pile, where they belong in this. Some of us have no choice about the matter and associating with those groups trivialises our own cause.
When I read you it is as if you strive for a kind of brave new world, filled with 'normal' people. Disabled people cured. Genderbenders and sexually different oriented people repenting and turning away from their 'aberrations'. And in this perfectly 'normal' world you expect that people will make major adaptations for this one very diverse group of people on the spectrum. That will not happen. Firstly, I think it is impossible to create this 'normal' society. Secondly, assuming it could be done, there would be no mercy or respect for the group of people they could not mould into normal.
If you look at history, this is the plan which has been tried again and again, with a fair amount of success for the perpetrators. Aceepting all diversity as you put it will just lead to disorder, which will almost inevitably resolve itself in a manner not to our suiting and we end up back at square one.
There is a very simple general solution which covers it - the abolition of social expectations and appropriate punishments for those who try to enforce them. Over time it mostly solves the problem.
Again, I agree with you here, though taking it as broadly as possible. Work on a society that is not afraid to accept diversity.
Taking on human nature is no easy task - we have to work with it. There are easier battles which we can actually win, why take this one? Changing the societal structure to a social meritocracy, with the added proviso that the right not to be offended is a weakness to be combatted would probably get us what we want.
-
No but I wouldn't want to bring someone else into the world knowing they were likely to experience some of the problems I had when I was growing up too. Even with an AS parent, a lot of those problems will still be there, and I don't wanna be responsible for knowingly doing that to a kid. If I was gonna have kids, I would consider adopting an aspie, but I wouldn't create another one when there's a very high chance it will suffer.
In which case, what are you doing about the wider problems there are out there? Things I gather are being done about the situation, granted they are not good enough, but at least there is progress.
I should add, everyone has their problems growing up, AS and NT alike.
-
There is a very simple general solution which covers it - the abolition of social expectations and appropriate punishments for those who try to enforce them. Over time it mostly solves the problem.
Well, here we agree. In the goal that is. Not in the way how to get there.
For me it means the abolition (not by force, because that won't work) of all kinds of ridiculous social expectations.
You won't be able to do it by asking people nicely. What I propose is using the average persons stupidity against them, not open warfare. But there are other kinds of force.
OK, agreed, I meant force in the sense of legislation, and I don't think that will help. 'Force' in the way of making clear that we exist, and won't disappear by wishful thinking or denial, yes, I agree on that.
Including disabilities like blindness and deafness. Including sexual orientation varieties. Including gender-queerness. A society with an open mind to differences. That could be a society where ASD people have a better chance of finding a place for themselves.
Some battles are far more important than others - my argument has always been lifestyle choices need to be relegated to the bottom of the pile, where they belong in this. Some of us have no choice about the matter and associating with those groups trivialises our own cause.
Not true. You deny people coming up for their own TGLB rights. It's not that you think it should come later than your own rights. It is as if you think people from the GLBT movement want to keep your from claiming your rights to be. They don't. Their focus is different than yours. Because they start at what is bothering them in their life when it comes to be accepted by society. And of course I do disagree strongly with you that it is a lifestyle choice to be gay or transgender. But that's nothing new.When I read you it is as if you strive for a kind of brave new world, filled with 'normal' people. Disabled people cured. Genderbenders and sexually different oriented people repenting and turning away from their 'aberrations'. And in this perfectly 'normal' world you expect that people will make major adaptations for this one very diverse group of people on the spectrum. That will not happen. Firstly, I think it is impossible to create this 'normal' society. Secondly, assuming it could be done, there would be no mercy or respect for the group of people they could not mould into normal.
If you look at history, this is the plan which has been tried again and again, with a fair amount of success for the perpetrators. Aceepting all diversity as you put it will just lead to disorder, which will almost inevitably resolve itself in a manner not to our suiting and we end up back at square one.
Not accepting all diversities. Some are downright dangerous or harmful. But lots of diversity is not harmful at all, only makes the world a less rigid place for people who do not fit 'normality'. I sometimes think the world has never strived towards 'normality' and uniformity as in the last few decades. There is a very simple general solution which covers it - the abolition of social expectations and appropriate punishments for those who try to enforce them. Over time it mostly solves the problem.
Again, I agree with you here, though taking it as broadly as possible. Work on a society that is not afraid to accept diversity.
Taking on human nature is no easy task - we have to work with it. There are easier battles which we can actually win, why take this one? Changing the societal structure to a social meritocracy, with the added proviso that the right not to be offended is a weakness to be combatted would probably get us what we want.
What do you mean with social meritocracy. Are you going to bring in a hierarchy of people who are more valuable than others?
-
There is a very simple general solution which covers it - the abolition of social expectations and appropriate punishments for those who try to enforce them. Over time it mostly solves the problem.
Well, here we agree. In the goal that is. Not in the way how to get there.
For me it means the abolition (not by force, because that won't work) of all kinds of ridiculous social expectations.
You won't be able to do it by asking people nicely. What I propose is using the average persons stupidity against them, not open warfare. But there are other kinds of force.
OK, agreed, I meant force in the sense of legislation, and I don't think that will help. 'Force' in the way of making clear that we exist, and won't disappear by wishful thinking or denial, yes, I agree on that.
Legislation works as long as its not direct.
Including disabilities like blindness and deafness. Including sexual orientation varieties. Including gender-queerness. A society with an open mind to differences. That could be a society where ASD people have a better chance of finding a place for themselves.
Some battles are far more important than others - my argument has always been lifestyle choices need to be relegated to the bottom of the pile, where they belong in this. Some of us have no choice about the matter and associating with those groups trivialises our own cause.
Not true. You deny people coming up for their own TGLB rights. It's not that you think it should come later than your own rights. It is as if you think people from the GLBT movement want to keep your from claiming your rights to be. They don't. Their focus is different than yours. Because they start at what is bothering them in their life when it comes to be accepted by society. And of course I do disagree strongly with you that it is a lifestyle choice to be gay or transgender. But that's nothing new.
Quite frankly I don't care whether they are good intentioned or not, my concern is the fact that they detract from the cause. Worse still, they are damaging a lot of people on the spectrum, especially as we know that someone thought it would be clever to copy some aspie traits and include it as a part of "gay culture". Its a problem that we need to recognise and resolve, rather than bury our own heads in the sand. It brings me along to another home truth, our own people are in the way just as much if not more than NT's are. Again something which needs to be recognised and dealt with.
When I read you it is as if you strive for a kind of brave new world, filled with 'normal' people. Disabled people cured. Genderbenders and sexually different oriented people repenting and turning away from their 'aberrations'. And in this perfectly 'normal' world you expect that people will make major adaptations for this one very diverse group of people on the spectrum. That will not happen. Firstly, I think it is impossible to create this 'normal' society. Secondly, assuming it could be done, there would be no mercy or respect for the group of people they could not mould into normal.
If you look at history, this is the plan which has been tried again and again, with a fair amount of success for the perpetrators. Aceepting all diversity as you put it will just lead to disorder, which will almost inevitably resolve itself in a manner not to our suiting and we end up back at square one.
Not accepting all diversities. Some are downright dangerous or harmful. But lots of diversity is not harmful at all, only makes the world a less rigid place for people who do not fit 'normality'. I sometimes think the world has never strived towards 'normality' and uniformity as in the last few decades.
People have to have limits and they need to be chosen carefully. Given the average moron more freedom does not sound like a good idea, especially given how badly they squander how much freedom they are given. They need less rather than more. People need to earn their freedom. My objection has always been that society won't even make a fair game in which I can earn my own freedom. In the meantime, other groups are getting it on a plate.
There is a very simple general solution which covers it - the abolition of social expectations and appropriate punishments for those who try to enforce them. Over time it mostly solves the problem.
Again, I agree with you here, though taking it as broadly as possible. Work on a society that is not afraid to accept diversity.
Taking on human nature is no easy task - we have to work with it. There are easier battles which we can actually win, why take this one? Changing the societal structure to a social meritocracy, with the added proviso that the right not to be offended is a weakness to be combatted would probably get us what we want.
What do you mean with social meritocracy. Are you going to bring in a hierarchy of people who are more valuable than others?
There is no way in which I can post an entire political ideology here. But in short, it involves rewarding people for their talents whilst not unduly penalising them for their weaknesses, including the right to a fair fight. A good book to read on it is this one - it has a nice section on it:
http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9780745627731
-
Some battles are far more important than others - my argument has always been lifestyle choices need to be relegated to the bottom of the pile, where they belong in this. Some of us have no choice about the matter and associating with those groups trivialises our own cause.Not true. You deny people coming up for their own TGLB rights. It's not that you think it should come later than your own rights. It is as if you think people from the GLBT movement want to keep your from claiming your rights to be. They don't. Their focus is different than yours. Because they start at what is bothering them in their life when it comes to be accepted by society. And of course I do disagree strongly with you that it is a lifestyle choice to be gay or transgender. But that's nothing new.
Quite frankly I don't care whether they are good intentioned or not, my concern is the fact that they detract from the cause. Worse still, they are damaging a lot of people on the spectrum, especially as we know that someone thought it would be clever to copy some aspie traits and include it as a part of "gay culture". Its a problem that we need to recognise and resolve, rather than bury our own heads in the sand. It brings me along to another home truth, our own people are in the way just as much if not more than NT's are. Again something which needs to be recognised and dealt with.
I disagree strongly here. The aspie traits you see copied by the gay movement have been there, way before there was even a diagnosis of Aspergers. It is not harming the rights of people on the spectrum when people with a variation in sexual orientation get the rights they should have.
When I read you it is as if you strive for a kind of brave new world, filled with 'normal' people. Disabled people cured. Genderbenders and sexually different oriented people repenting and turning away from their 'aberrations'. And in this perfectly 'normal' world you expect that people will make major adaptations for this one very diverse group of people on the spectrum. That will not happen. Firstly, I think it is impossible to create this 'normal' society. Secondly, assuming it could be done, there would be no mercy or respect for the group of people they could not mould into normal.
If you look at history, this is the plan which has been tried again and again, with a fair amount of success for the perpetrators. Aceepting all diversity as you put it will just lead to disorder, which will almost inevitably resolve itself in a manner not to our suiting and we end up back at square one.
Not accepting all diversities. Some are downright dangerous or harmful. But lots of diversity is not harmful at all, only makes the world a less rigid place for people who do not fit 'normality'. I sometimes think the world has never strived towards 'normality' and uniformity as in the last few decades.
People have to have limits and they need to be chosen carefully. Given the average moron more freedom does not sound like a good idea, especially given how badly they squander how much freedom they are given. They need less rather than more. People need to earn their freedom. My objection has always been that society won't even make a fair game in which I can earn my own freedom. In the meantime, other groups are getting it on a plate.
Life is not fair. Where you born in a wealthy family as a NT boy with good brains and all other things helping you further in life, you would have faced a world that was friendlier towards you. Same is true for a lot of people, not only for people on the spectrum. Envy will not help. Resentment will not help. Noticing it, and trying to make some changes, either for yourself, or for people that come after you may make a difference.
There is a very simple general solution which covers it - the abolition of social expectations and appropriate punishments for those who try to enforce them. Over time it mostly solves the problem.
Again, I agree with you here, though taking it as broadly as possible. Work on a society that is not afraid to accept diversity.
Taking on human nature is no easy task - we have to work with it. There are easier battles which we can actually win, why take this one? Changing the societal structure to a social meritocracy, with the added proviso that the right not to be offended is a weakness to be combatted would probably get us what we want.
What do you mean with social meritocracy. Are you going to bring in a hierarchy of people who are more valuable than others?
There is no way in which I can post an entire political ideology here. But in short, it involves rewarding people for their talents whilst not unduly penalising them for their weaknesses, including the right to a fair fight. A good book to read on it is this one - it has a nice section on it:
http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9780745627731
Could you give a short resume of what your ideas of meritocracy are?
-
Some battles are far more important than others - my argument has always been lifestyle choices need to be relegated to the bottom of the pile, where they belong in this. Some of us have no choice about the matter and associating with those groups trivialises our own cause.Not true. You deny people coming up for their own TGLB rights. It's not that you think it should come later than your own rights. It is as if you think people from the GLBT movement want to keep your from claiming your rights to be. They don't. Their focus is different than yours. Because they start at what is bothering them in their life when it comes to be accepted by society. And of course I do disagree strongly with you that it is a lifestyle choice to be gay or transgender. But that's nothing new.
Quite frankly I don't care whether they are good intentioned or not, my concern is the fact that they detract from the cause. Worse still, they are damaging a lot of people on the spectrum, especially as we know that someone thought it would be clever to copy some aspie traits and include it as a part of "gay culture". Its a problem that we need to recognise and resolve, rather than bury our own heads in the sand. It brings me along to another home truth, our own people are in the way just as much if not more than NT's are. Again something which needs to be recognised and dealt with.
I disagree strongly here. The aspie traits you see copied by the gay movement have been there, way before there was even a diagnosis of Aspergers. It is not harming the rights of people on the spectrum when people with a variation in sexual orientation get the rights they should have.
Aspergers existed when they decided to copy them, does it matter if it existed as a definition or not? Their rights are coming at our expense, this is a fact you need to recognise. Not to mention the damage the situation is doing to people on the spectrum.
When I read you it is as if you strive for a kind of brave new world, filled with 'normal' people. Disabled people cured. Genderbenders and sexually different oriented people repenting and turning away from their 'aberrations'. And in this perfectly 'normal' world you expect that people will make major adaptations for this one very diverse group of people on the spectrum. That will not happen. Firstly, I think it is impossible to create this 'normal' society. Secondly, assuming it could be done, there would be no mercy or respect for the group of people they could not mould into normal.
If you look at history, this is the plan which has been tried again and again, with a fair amount of success for the perpetrators. Aceepting all diversity as you put it will just lead to disorder, which will almost inevitably resolve itself in a manner not to our suiting and we end up back at square one.
Not accepting all diversities. Some are downright dangerous or harmful. But lots of diversity is not harmful at all, only makes the world a less rigid place for people who do not fit 'normality'. I sometimes think the world has never strived towards 'normality' and uniformity as in the last few decades.
People have to have limits and they need to be chosen carefully. Given the average moron more freedom does not sound like a good idea, especially given how badly they squander how much freedom they are given. They need less rather than more. People need to earn their freedom. My objection has always been that society won't even make a fair game in which I can earn my own freedom. In the meantime, other groups are getting it on a plate.
Life is not fair. Where you born in a wealthy family as a NT boy with good brains and all other things helping you further in life, you would have faced a world that was friendlier towards you. Same is true for a lot of people, not only for people on the spectrum. Envy will not help. Resentment will not help. Noticing it, and trying to make some changes, either for yourself, or for people that come after you may make a difference.
In this case they do - if we clearly identify the problem and the people causing it, then it can be expediently and robustly dealt with. The mistake is that the wrong freedoms have been given the wrong people. The mistake needs reversing and quickly.
There is a very simple general solution which covers it - the abolition of social expectations and appropriate punishments for those who try to enforce them. Over time it mostly solves the problem.
Again, I agree with you here, though taking it as broadly as possible. Work on a society that is not afraid to accept diversity.
Taking on human nature is no easy task - we have to work with it. There are easier battles which we can actually win, why take this one? Changing the societal structure to a social meritocracy, with the added proviso that the right not to be offended is a weakness to be combatted would probably get us what we want.
What do you mean with social meritocracy. Are you going to bring in a hierarchy of people who are more valuable than others?
There is no way in which I can post an entire political ideology here. But in short, it involves rewarding people for their talents whilst not unduly penalising them for their weaknesses, including the right to a fair fight. A good book to read on it is this one - it has a nice section on it:
http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9780745627731
Could you give a short resume of what your ideas of meritocracy are?
Not easily - I don't have a nice executive summary lying around unfortunately. When I get time I am sure I can write a nice little manifesto. Even if it would be slightly self indulgent
-
Some battles are far more important than others - my argument has always been lifestyle choices need to be relegated to the bottom of the pile, where they belong in this. Some of us have no choice about the matter and associating with those groups trivialises our own cause.Not true. You deny people coming up for their own TGLB rights. It's not that you think it should come later than your own rights. It is as if you think people from the GLBT movement want to keep your from claiming your rights to be. They don't. Their focus is different than yours. Because they start at what is bothering them in their life when it comes to be accepted by society. And of course I do disagree strongly with you that it is a lifestyle choice to be gay or transgender. But that's nothing new.
Quite frankly I don't care whether they are good intentioned or not, my concern is the fact that they detract from the cause. Worse still, they are damaging a lot of people on the spectrum, especially as we know that someone thought it would be clever to copy some aspie traits and include it as a part of "gay culture". Its a problem that we need to recognise and resolve, rather than bury our own heads in the sand. It brings me along to another home truth, our own people are in the way just as much if not more than NT's are. Again something which needs to be recognised and dealt with.
I disagree strongly here. The aspie traits you see copied by the gay movement have been there, way before there was even a diagnosis of Aspergers. It is not harming the rights of people on the spectrum when people with a variation in sexual orientation get the rights they should have.
Aspergers existed when they decided to copy them, does it matter if it existed as a definition or not? Their rights are coming at our expense, this is a fact you need to recognise. Not to mention the damage the situation is doing to people on the spectrum.
How is it copying, if the original is not identified. And are you sure those traits are solely true for people on the spectrum? I disagree strongly with you again. It's a cluster of traits that identifies someone as being on the spectrum. It is not a cluster of traits that are only visible in spectrumites.
When I read you it is as if you strive for a kind of brave new world, filled with 'normal' people. Disabled people cured. Genderbenders and sexually different oriented people repenting and turning away from their 'aberrations'. And in this perfectly 'normal' world you expect that people will make major adaptations for this one very diverse group of people on the spectrum. That will not happen. Firstly, I think it is impossible to create this 'normal' society. Secondly, assuming it could be done, there would be no mercy or respect for the group of people they could not mould into normal.
If you look at history, this is the plan which has been tried again and again, with a fair amount of success for the perpetrators. Aceepting all diversity as you put it will just lead to disorder, which will almost inevitably resolve itself in a manner not to our suiting and we end up back at square one.
Not accepting all diversities. Some are downright dangerous or harmful. But lots of diversity is not harmful at all, only makes the world a less rigid place for people who do not fit 'normality'. I sometimes think the world has never strived towards 'normality' and uniformity as in the last few decades.
People have to have limits and they need to be chosen carefully. Given the average moron more freedom does not sound like a good idea, especially given how badly they squander how much freedom they are given. They need less rather than more. People need to earn their freedom. My objection has always been that society won't even make a fair game in which I can earn my own freedom. In the meantime, other groups are getting it on a plate.
Life is not fair. Where you born in a wealthy family as a NT boy with good brains and all other things helping you further in life, you would have faced a world that was friendlier towards you. Same is true for a lot of people, not only for people on the spectrum. Envy will not help. Resentment will not help. Noticing it, and trying to make some changes, either for yourself, or for people that come after you may make a difference.
In this case they do - if we clearly identify the problem and the people causing it, then it can be expediently and robustly dealt with. The mistake is that the wrong freedoms have been given the wrong people. The mistake needs reversing and quickly.
It is possible to realise that life sucks and is not fair, without resentment. Without envy. And it is the realising that it could be different that is motivating, not resentment. It's true in individual life, and I think it is true in life beyond the personal realm too. There is a very simple general solution which covers it - the abolition of social expectations and appropriate punishments for those who try to enforce them. Over time it mostly solves the problem.
Again, I agree with you here, though taking it as broadly as possible. Work on a society that is not afraid to accept diversity.
Taking on human nature is no easy task - we have to work with it. There are easier battles which we can actually win, why take this one? Changing the societal structure to a social meritocracy, with the added proviso that the right not to be offended is a weakness to be combatted would probably get us what we want.
What do you mean with social meritocracy. Are you going to bring in a hierarchy of people who are more valuable than others?
There is no way in which I can post an entire political ideology here. But in short, it involves rewarding people for their talents whilst not unduly penalising them for their weaknesses, including the right to a fair fight. A good book to read on it is this one - it has a nice section on it:
http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9780745627731
Could you give a short resume of what your ideas of meritocracy are?
Not easily - I don't have a nice executive summary lying around unfortunately. When I get time I am sure I can write a nice little manifesto. Even if it would be slightly self indulgent
I'll wait for that then. Too lazy, and not motivated enough by your link to go and get the book.
-
Oh, deaf community takes a pride in their own culture. And there is a lot of resistance against a cure forced on them.
It is not all that simple. People want to be taken as valuable human beings the way they are. And they are right.
Deaf culture is about as legitimate as Autistic Culture - its made up and does not represent the majority of that grouping. It has no legitimacy.
So, if you were deaf, would you be starting a campaign to hunt down people with intact hearing and puncture their eardrums?
-
No but I wouldn't want to bring someone else into the world knowing they were likely to experience some of the problems I had when I was growing up too. Even with an AS parent, a lot of those problems will still be there, and I don't wanna be responsible for knowingly doing that to a kid. If I was gonna have kids, I would consider adopting an aspie, but I wouldn't create another one when there's a very high chance it will suffer.
In which case, what are you doing about the wider problems there are out there? Things I gather are being done about the situation, granted they are not good enough, but at least there is progress.
I should add, everyone has their problems growing up, AS and NT alike.
But in general they are still content and happy.
Or, at least they think they are.
Right?
::)
-
Some battles are far more important than others - my argument has always been lifestyle choices need to be relegated to the bottom of the pile, where they belong in this. Some of us have no choice about the matter and associating with those groups trivialises our own cause.Not true. You deny people coming up for their own TGLB rights. It's not that you think it should come later than your own rights. It is as if you think people from the GLBT movement want to keep your from claiming your rights to be. They don't. Their focus is different than yours. Because they start at what is bothering them in their life when it comes to be accepted by society. And of course I do disagree strongly with you that it is a lifestyle choice to be gay or transgender. But that's nothing new.
Quite frankly I don't care whether they are good intentioned or not, my concern is the fact that they detract from the cause. Worse still, they are damaging a lot of people on the spectrum, especially as we know that someone thought it would be clever to copy some aspie traits and include it as a part of "gay culture". Its a problem that we need to recognise and resolve, rather than bury our own heads in the sand. It brings me along to another home truth, our own people are in the way just as much if not more than NT's are. Again something which needs to be recognised and dealt with.
I disagree strongly here. The aspie traits you see copied by the gay movement have been there, way before there was even a diagnosis of Aspergers. It is not harming the rights of people on the spectrum when people with a variation in sexual orientation get the rights they should have.
Aspergers existed when they decided to copy them, does it matter if it existed as a definition or not? Their rights are coming at our expense, this is a fact you need to recognise. Not to mention the damage the situation is doing to people on the spectrum.
How is it copying, if the original is not identified. And are you sure those traits are solely true for people on the spectrum? I disagree strongly with you again. It's a cluster of traits that identifies someone as being on the spectrum. It is not a cluster of traits that are only visible in spectrumites.
What traits?
-
Some battles are far more important than others - my argument has always been lifestyle choices need to be relegated to the bottom of the pile, where they belong in this. Some of us have no choice about the matter and associating with those groups trivialises our own cause.Not true. You deny people coming up for their own TGLB rights. It's not that you think it should come later than your own rights. It is as if you think people from the GLBT movement want to keep your from claiming your rights to be. They don't. Their focus is different than yours. Because they start at what is bothering them in their life when it comes to be accepted by society. And of course I do disagree strongly with you that it is a lifestyle choice to be gay or transgender. But that's nothing new.
Quite frankly I don't care whether they are good intentioned or not, my concern is the fact that they detract from the cause. Worse still, they are damaging a lot of people on the spectrum, especially as we know that someone thought it would be clever to copy some aspie traits and include it as a part of "gay culture". Its a problem that we need to recognise and resolve, rather than bury our own heads in the sand. It brings me along to another home truth, our own people are in the way just as much if not more than NT's are. Again something which needs to be recognised and dealt with.
I disagree strongly here. The aspie traits you see copied by the gay movement have been there, way before there was even a diagnosis of Aspergers. It is not harming the rights of people on the spectrum when people with a variation in sexual orientation get the rights they should have.
Aspergers existed when they decided to copy them, does it matter if it existed as a definition or not? Their rights are coming at our expense, this is a fact you need to recognise. Not to mention the damage the situation is doing to people on the spectrum.
How is it copying, if the original is not identified. And are you sure those traits are solely true for people on the spectrum? I disagree strongly with you again. It's a cluster of traits that identifies someone as being on the spectrum. It is not a cluster of traits that are only visible in spectrumites.
If you reproduce another book and submit it as your own, despite having not having read it, you are still committing plagarism. This plagarism is damaging to the original author and in normal circumstances would be corrected. It needs correcting in this case.
I shouldn't have to keep reminding you that other peoples lifestyle choices do not trump our legitimate cause and rights. More importantly the LGBT cause is not only undermining our right to be respected, but it is undermining the self respect of many of our collegues and comrades.
When I read you it is as if you strive for a kind of brave new world, filled with 'normal' people. Disabled people cured. Genderbenders and sexually different oriented people repenting and turning away from their 'aberrations'. And in this perfectly 'normal' world you expect that people will make major adaptations for this one very diverse group of people on the spectrum. That will not happen. Firstly, I think it is impossible to create this 'normal' society. Secondly, assuming it could be done, there would be no mercy or respect for the group of people they could not mould into normal.
If you look at history, this is the plan which has been tried again and again, with a fair amount of success for the perpetrators. Aceepting all diversity as you put it will just lead to disorder, which will almost inevitably resolve itself in a manner not to our suiting and we end up back at square one.
Not accepting all diversities. Some are downright dangerous or harmful. But lots of diversity is not harmful at all, only makes the world a less rigid place for people who do not fit 'normality'. I sometimes think the world has never strived towards 'normality' and uniformity as in the last few decades.
People have to have limits and they need to be chosen carefully. Given the average moron more freedom does not sound like a good idea, especially given how badly they squander how much freedom they are given. They need less rather than more. People need to earn their freedom. My objection has always been that society won't even make a fair game in which I can earn my own freedom. In the meantime, other groups are getting it on a plate.
Life is not fair. Where you born in a wealthy family as a NT boy with good brains and all other things helping you further in life, you would have faced a world that was friendlier towards you. Same is true for a lot of people, not only for people on the spectrum. Envy will not help. Resentment will not help. Noticing it, and trying to make some changes, either for yourself, or for people that come after you may make a difference.
In this case they do - if we clearly identify the problem and the people causing it, then it can be expediently and robustly dealt with. The mistake is that the wrong freedoms have been given the wrong people. The mistake needs reversing and quickly.
It is possible to realise that life sucks and is not fair, without resentment. Without envy. And it is the realising that it could be different that is motivating, not resentment. It's true in individual life, and I think it is true in life beyond the personal realm too.
Envy just happens to be useful as a tool here to get things done. It is about fairness and as a group of people it is a value we generally abide by. Some people have jumped the queue at our expense and the door may well close before we reach it. It is a matter of pulling them back out and putting ourselves in our rightful place.
There is a very simple general solution which covers it - the abolition of social expectations and appropriate punishments for those who try to enforce them. Over time it mostly solves the problem.
Again, I agree with you here, though taking it as broadly as possible. Work on a society that is not afraid to accept diversity.
Taking on human nature is no easy task - we have to work with it. There are easier battles which we can actually win, why take this one? Changing the societal structure to a social meritocracy, with the added proviso that the right not to be offended is a weakness to be combatted would probably get us what we want.
What do you mean with social meritocracy. Are you going to bring in a hierarchy of people who are more valuable than others?
There is no way in which I can post an entire political ideology here. But in short, it involves rewarding people for their talents whilst not unduly penalising them for their weaknesses, including the right to a fair fight. A good book to read on it is this one - it has a nice section on it:
http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9780745627731
Could you give a short resume of what your ideas of meritocracy are?
Not easily - I don't have a nice executive summary lying around unfortunately. When I get time I am sure I can write a nice little manifesto. Even if it would be slightly self indulgent
I'll wait for that then. Too lazy, and not motivated enough by your link to go and get the book.
Its a good read in general on anything surrounding equality. You could do a request at your local library, not sure how easy it is over where you live, but here its cheap and easy.
-
Oh, deaf community takes a pride in their own culture. And there is a lot of resistance against a cure forced on them.
It is not all that simple. People want to be taken as valuable human beings the way they are. And they are right.
Deaf culture is about as legitimate as Autistic Culture - its made up and does not represent the majority of that grouping. It has no legitimacy.
So, if you were deaf, would you be starting a campaign to hunt down people with intact hearing and puncture their eardrums?
How does this compare at all?
-
If you reproduce another book and submit it as your own, despite having not having read it, you are still committing plagarism. This plagarism is damaging to the original author and in normal circumstances would be corrected. It needs correcting in this case.
I shouldn't have to keep reminding you that other peoples lifestyle choices do not trump our legitimate cause and rights. More importantly the LGBT cause is not only undermining our right to be respected, but it is undermining the self respect of many of our collegues and comrades.
So, what did they copy that is 'ours'?
Prone to suicidal thoughts and attempts?
Prone to depression?
Standing out, because of not fitting in?
Being bullied?
Being beaten into a pulp?
Being stigmatised?
Not being elected for a job?
Being taken for mentally insane/instable?
Tell me what they took.
I don't see it.
All the above things are true for many people that do not fit in snugly in the bell jar of normality.
And I disagree with your idea of plagiarism too. It is impossible to write a word or think a thought without checking that no-one else on the globe thought or wrote a very similar thing. And co-incidences just happen.
-
Oh, deaf community takes a pride in their own culture. And there is a lot of resistance against a cure forced on them.
It is not all that simple. People want to be taken as valuable human beings the way they are. And they are right.
Deaf culture is about as legitimate as Autistic Culture - its made up and does not represent the majority of that grouping. It has no legitimacy.
So, if you were deaf, would you be starting a campaign to hunt down people with intact hearing and puncture their eardrums?
How does this compare at all?
There is the parallel of you wanting to increase the number of people on the spectrum by deceit, and PMSElle's idea of increasing the number of deaf people by using violence.
Would be funny seeing you pushing for a cure for deaf people, while a group of genetically deaf men manages to sneak in their sperm in a hand full of sperm banks. ( I am against both things b.t.w., both the pushing for a cure, and the sneaking in of the sperm )
-
If you reproduce another book and submit it as your own, despite having not having read it, you are still committing plagarism. This plagarism is damaging to the original author and in normal circumstances would be corrected. It needs correcting in this case.
I shouldn't have to keep reminding you that other peoples lifestyle choices do not trump our legitimate cause and rights. More importantly the LGBT cause is not only undermining our right to be respected, but it is undermining the self respect of many of our collegues and comrades.
So, what did they copy that is 'ours'?
Prone to suicidal thoughts and attempts?
Prone to depression?
Standing out, because of not fitting in?
Being bullied?
Being beaten into a pulp?
Being stigmatised?
Not being elected for a job?
Being taken for mentally insane/instable?
Tell me what they took.
I don't see it.
You and I know it was more subtle than that (as in they were copying mannerisms), but yes they are responsible in part for the problems you outlined above.
All the above things are true for many people that do not fit in snugly in the bell jar of normality.
And I disagree with your idea of plagiarism too. It is impossible to write a word or think a thought without checking that no-one else on the globe thought or wrote a very similar thing. And co-incidences just happen.
My definition is the standard one, asides it is more than copying one line or so here and there from a book. By all means, tell people otherwise and carry on deluding yourself.
-
Oh, deaf community takes a pride in their own culture. And there is a lot of resistance against a cure forced on them.
It is not all that simple. People want to be taken as valuable human beings the way they are. And they are right.
Deaf culture is about as legitimate as Autistic Culture - its made up and does not represent the majority of that grouping. It has no legitimacy.
So, if you were deaf, would you be starting a campaign to hunt down people with intact hearing and puncture their eardrums?
How does this compare at all?
There is the parallel of you wanting to increase the number of people on the spectrum by deceit, and PMSElle's idea of increasing the number of deaf people by using violence.
Yeah and the difference between being deaf and autistic is not massive. Especially in terms of the positives (which by the way we don't need to invent a culture in order to get them!)
Would be funny seeing you pushing for a cure for deaf people, while a group of genetically deaf men manages to sneak in their sperm in a hand full of sperm banks. ( I am against both things b.t.w., both the pushing for a cure, and the sneaking in of the sperm )
They can do it if they like. The difference is that if we did it, the reaction would be in our favour.
-
I think the discussion is over then.
I sincerely wonder what traits have been copied.
Mannerism, well look at little children, mannerisms can be there long before there is any label attached to the child.
So I don't see where the kid copied it. And how it is that the kid copied it willfully, though maybe not knowing, from an Aspie he never saw.
This is magic that goes beyond my wildest imagination.
So, I call it a day, unless you can make it clear to me.
-
OK, one more post.
Just because I can't resist.
Hip hip Hurray!! You have located the source of much of the misery happening to people on the spectrum. So, what did they copy that is 'ours'?
Prone to suicidal thoughts and attempts?
Prone to depression?
Standing out, because of not fitting in?
Being bullied?
Being beaten into a pulp?
Being stigmatised?
Not being elected for a job?
Being taken for mentally insane/instable?
Tell me what they took.
I don't see it.
You and I know it was more subtle than that (as in they were copying mannerisms), but yes they are responsible in part for the problems you outlined above.
Being responsible in part for all the problems I listed is a crime indeed.
Prove it, and go to the authorities with your findings. You know you need to do that, to save us all. [/sarcasm]
-
OK, one more post.
Just because I can't resist.
Hip hip Hurray!! You have located the source of much of the misery happening to people on the spectrum. So, what did they copy that is 'ours'?
Prone to suicidal thoughts and attempts?
Prone to depression?
Standing out, because of not fitting in?
Being bullied?
Being beaten into a pulp?
Being stigmatised?
Not being elected for a job?
Being taken for mentally insane/instable?
Tell me what they took.
I don't see it.
You and I know it was more subtle than that (as in they were copying mannerisms), but yes they are responsible in part for the problems you outlined above.
Being responsible in part for all the problems I listed is a crime indeed.
Prove it, and go to the authorities with your findings. You know you need to do that, to save us all. [/sarcasm]
So rather than engage in legitmate debate, yet again you decend into facetitousness. I cannot say that I expected any better, but still it just shows a lack of maturity from you.
-
You refuse to answer my sincere questions.
Easy to call my sarcasm immature.
-
You refuse to answer my sincere questions.
Easy to call my sarcasm immature.
Sincere questions require a serious basis. You have none, or any kind of understanding as to what needs to be done. I on the other hand have been spending my time gathering a good range of political experience, so at least have some idea what needs to be done. Or even manage to recognise the problems.
-
Screen away too late for me :laugh: It's our duty to pass on those genes
-
^ Done, and done. I've spammed a coupla copies of myself into the world already, and chances are pretty good that they'll do the same. :zoinks:
In general I think it's better when an Aspie child is raised by the people that sired/bore it. Less confusion, more insight and understanding. Unless the point is to make the lives of Aspies so desperate, so rock-bottom miserable that they see no choice but to rise up in revolt against their so-called NT oppressors? Reducing our lives to a mere political cause does all of us a disservice. And I reiterate: NTs beget Aspies, and Aspies beget NTs. Separatism isn't the answer.
-
^ Done, and done. I've spammed a coupla copies of myself into the world already, and chances are pretty good that they'll do the same. :zoinks:
In general I think it's better when an Aspie child is raised by the people that sired/bore it.
That is said by every traditionalist in general - the idea that a child should be automatically be brought up by their biological parents is applied to NT and Aspie alike, for the most part.
Less confusion, more insight and understanding. Unless the point is to make the lives of Aspies so desperate, so rock-bottom miserable that they see no choice but to rise up in revolt against their so-called NT oppressors? Reducing our lives to a mere political cause does all of us a disservice. And I reiterate: NTs beget Aspies, and Aspies beget NTs. Separatism isn't the answer.
Goodness, no. The plan is to ensure we all get a better start in life. Though I think the debate about our humanity which it would spark would be very beneficial.
-
You refuse to answer my sincere questions.
Easy to call my sarcasm immature.
I've found that when arguing with Chris McC, it's generally a good idea to ask him to be as specific as possible as early on as you start to see any room for subjective interpretation. It gets you to the "Oh christ, he's too full of shit to bother with" part of the argument a lot quicker. :thumbup:
-
You refuse to answer my sincere questions.
Easy to call my sarcasm immature.
I've found that when arguing with Chris McC, it's generally a good idea to ask him to be as specific as possible as early on as you start to see any room for subjective interpretation. It gets you to the "Oh christ, he's too full of shit to bother with" part of the argument a lot quicker. :thumbup:
Well so far, I do find it intriguing how Hadron thinks to be politically successful. He doesn't seem to want to find allies in other groups of people that are not excepted in main-stream normality. And he is extremely successful in showing a great contempt for the people he claims to represent.
The way he is behaving looks more like the ways of a religious zealous sectarian cult leader, than the ways of a politician. But, that is not that distant from the ways of a 'political' leader who wants to impose his ideas by all means.
-
You refuse to answer my sincere questions.
Easy to call my sarcasm immature.
I've found that when arguing with Chris McC, it's generally a good idea to ask him to be as specific as possible as early on as you start to see any room for subjective interpretation. It gets you to the "Oh christ, he's too full of shit to bother with" part of the argument a lot quicker. :thumbup:
Well so far, I do find it intriguing how Hadron thinks to be politically successful. He doesn't seem to want to find allies in other groups of people that are not excepted in main-stream normality.
If we do that in the way that you are suggesting, then we have no cause. We have to distinguish ourselves in order to gain legitimacy, otherwise we will just get portrayed as another awkward squad.
And he is extremely successful in showing a great contempt for the people he claims to represent.
I know who will be useful and who won't be. Over time, others will gain self-respect. Which fundementally any Aspie cause has to be about: respect.
The way he is behaving looks more like the ways of a religious zealous sectarian cult leader, than the ways of a politician. But, that is not that distant from the ways of a 'political' leader who wants to impose his ideas by all means.
We are not the mainstream - how is being just another smooth politician going to help things along?
-
You refuse to answer my sincere questions.
Easy to call my sarcasm immature.
I've found that when arguing with Chris McC, it's generally a good idea to ask him to be as specific as possible as early on as you start to see any room for subjective interpretation. It gets you to the "Oh christ, he's too full of shit to bother with" part of the argument a lot quicker. :thumbup:
You throw up a ridiculous burden of proof which you could never satistfy yourself, then go up and say because I have not satisfied it, we should stick to the status quo. That is not arguing or debating, its merely hiding behind the current form of social laws and diktats.
-
You refuse to answer my sincere questions.
Easy to call my sarcasm immature.
I've found that when arguing with Chris McC, it's generally a good idea to ask him to be as specific as possible as early on as you start to see any room for subjective interpretation. It gets you to the "Oh christ, he's too full of shit to bother with" part of the argument a lot quicker. :thumbup:
Well so far, I do find it intriguing how Hadron thinks to be politically successful. He doesn't seem to want to find allies in other groups of people that are not excepted in main-stream normality.
If we do that in the way that you are suggesting, then we have no cause. We have to distinguish ourselves in order to gain legitimacy, otherwise we will just get portrayed as another awkward squad.
And he is extremely successful in showing a great contempt for the people he claims to represent.
I know who will be useful and who won't be. Over time, others will gain self-respect. Which fundementally any Aspie cause has to be about: respect.
The way he is behaving looks more like the ways of a religious zealous sectarian cult leader, than the ways of a politician. But, that is not that distant from the ways of a 'political' leader who wants to impose his ideas by all means.
We are not the mainstream - how is being just another smooth politician going to help things along?
[sidenote]Says the man who's major complaint about Ari Ne'eman is that he does not look dashing on a couch.[/sidenote]
And no, I'm not talking about smooth politicians.
You seem to think top down. And you forget about people acting grassroot.
-
You refuse to answer my sincere questions.
Easy to call my sarcasm immature.
I've found that when arguing with Chris McC, it's generally a good idea to ask him to be as specific as possible as early on as you start to see any room for subjective interpretation. It gets you to the "Oh christ, he's too full of shit to bother with" part of the argument a lot quicker. :thumbup:
Well so far, I do find it intriguing how Hadron thinks to be politically successful. He doesn't seem to want to find allies in other groups of people that are not excepted in main-stream normality.
If we do that in the way that you are suggesting, then we have no cause. We have to distinguish ourselves in order to gain legitimacy, otherwise we will just get portrayed as another awkward squad.
And he is extremely successful in showing a great contempt for the people he claims to represent.
I know who will be useful and who won't be. Over time, others will gain self-respect. Which fundementally any Aspie cause has to be about: respect.
The way he is behaving looks more like the ways of a religious zealous sectarian cult leader, than the ways of a politician. But, that is not that distant from the ways of a 'political' leader who wants to impose his ideas by all means.
We are not the mainstream - how is being just another smooth politician going to help things along?
[sidenote]Says the man who's major complaint about Ari Ne'eman is that he does not look dashing on a couch.[/sidenote]
Its his performance on it which worries me - he doesn't show any strength or legitimate conviction. Nor would he charm the masses. We need someone more like a toned down Louis Farrakhan if we want things done.
And no, I'm not talking about smooth politicians.
You seem to think top down. And you forget about people acting grassroot.
Yes well, you want a leader who follows, where as I tend to prefer a leader who leads.
-
You refuse to answer my sincere questions.
Easy to call my sarcasm immature.
I've found that when arguing with Chris McC, it's generally a good idea to ask him to be as specific as possible as early on as you start to see any room for subjective interpretation. It gets you to the "Oh christ, he's too full of shit to bother with" part of the argument a lot quicker. :thumbup:
Well so far, I do find it intriguing how Hadron thinks to be politically successful. He doesn't seem to want to find allies in other groups of people that are not excepted in main-stream normality.
If we do that in the way that you are suggesting, then we have no cause. We have to distinguish ourselves in order to gain legitimacy, otherwise we will just get portrayed as another awkward squad.
And he is extremely successful in showing a great contempt for the people he claims to represent.
I know who will be useful and who won't be. Over time, others will gain self-respect. Which fundementally any Aspie cause has to be about: respect.
The way he is behaving looks more like the ways of a religious zealous sectarian cult leader, than the ways of a politician. But, that is not that distant from the ways of a 'political' leader who wants to impose his ideas by all means.
We are not the mainstream - how is being just another smooth politician going to help things along?
[sidenote]Says the man who's major complaint about Ari Ne'eman is that he does not look dashing on a couch.[/sidenote]
Its his performance on it which worries me - he doesn't show any strength or legitimate conviction. Nor would he charm the masses. We need someone more like a toned down Louis Farrakhan if we want things done.
And no, I'm not talking about smooth politicians.
You seem to think top down. And you forget about people acting grassroot.
Yes well, you want a leader who follows, where as I tend to prefer a leader who leads.
I want things to change.
And am way too stubborn to just play follow a leader (with a plan that he fails to communicate effectively).
-
You refuse to answer my sincere questions.
Easy to call my sarcasm immature.
I've found that when arguing with Chris McC, it's generally a good idea to ask him to be as specific as possible as early on as you start to see any room for subjective interpretation. It gets you to the "Oh christ, he's too full of shit to bother with" part of the argument a lot quicker. :thumbup:
Well so far, I do find it intriguing how Hadron thinks to be politically successful. He doesn't seem to want to find allies in other groups of people that are not excepted in main-stream normality.
If we do that in the way that you are suggesting, then we have no cause. We have to distinguish ourselves in order to gain legitimacy, otherwise we will just get portrayed as another awkward squad.
And he is extremely successful in showing a great contempt for the people he claims to represent.
I know who will be useful and who won't be. Over time, others will gain self-respect. Which fundementally any Aspie cause has to be about: respect.
The way he is behaving looks more like the ways of a religious zealous sectarian cult leader, than the ways of a politician. But, that is not that distant from the ways of a 'political' leader who wants to impose his ideas by all means.
We are not the mainstream - how is being just another smooth politician going to help things along?
[sidenote]Says the man who's major complaint about Ari Ne'eman is that he does not look dashing on a couch.[/sidenote]
Its his performance on it which worries me - he doesn't show any strength or legitimate conviction. Nor would he charm the masses. We need someone more like a toned down Louis Farrakhan if we want things done.
And no, I'm not talking about smooth politicians.
You seem to think top down. And you forget about people acting grassroot.
Yes well, you want a leader who follows, where as I tend to prefer a leader who leads.
I want things to change.
Dont we all? But some changes are more important than others.
And am way too stubborn to just play follow a leader (with a plan that he fails to communicate effectively).
You know the subfertuge type strategies are the only ones which are going to work right - for precisely that reason. We only need 10,000 or so people who will do what they are told to get things done, not individuals who think they no best and decide to do whatver the hell they like.
-
You know the subfertuge type strategies are the only ones which are going to work right - for precisely that reason. We only need 10,000 or so people who will do what they are told to get things done, not individuals who think they no best and decide to do whatver the hell they like.
I disagree about the deceptive strategies.
I do see things changing, because of things happening from the base. And there is more going on in communicating between people than you realise. It's not about individuals deciding to do whatever the hell they like. There is open communication. It's happening low profile, so maybe you don't notice it. But it makes that things are changing in schools, in jobs, in supportive agencies. Small changes, but happening. And spreading.
You show contempt for the people here on this board disagreeing with you.
Many of us try in daily life to make this world a better place for our children, ouir friends and ourselves. Not by randomly doing things. But by communicating with the people we have to deal with. Time and time again. And by not being the only ones doing that. There is some self-organising thing going on, and you seem not to have the eyes to see and to believe that. So you discard all actions that are not according to your great subterfuge plan as silly, meaningless or even counter-productive. And then refuse to listen further, because you want to establish a leadership with obedient followers that won't ask questions.
-
You know the subfertuge type strategies are the only ones which are going to work right - for precisely that reason. We only need 10,000 or so people who will do what they are told to get things done, not individuals who think they no best and decide to do whatver the hell they like.
I disagree about the deceptive strategies.
I do see things changing, because of things happening from the base. And there is more going on in communicating between people than you realise. It's not about individuals deciding to do whatever the hell they like. There is open communication. It's happening low profile, so maybe you don't notice it. But it makes that things are changing in schools, in jobs, in supportive agencies. Small changes, but happening. And spreading.
I am more than aware of that, in fact I have been very involved in that kind of stuff. But you are misguided if you think that it is going to fundementally change things, there are simply not enough of us for that strategy to have any hope of working. All it will do is change the ignorant into those who think they know - essentially sending us backwards. The only sort of place where this strategy is likely to work is in communities which have a greater proportion than usual with Aspergers, for example universities. But even that can backfire...
You show contempt for the people here on this board disagreeing with you.
I don't show contempt for mere disagreement - unless that disagreement is simply copying the party line and using it against me. Society is fundamentally wrong, and yes I am contemptious of those who use it to back up their arguments. At least I have the self-respect to think for myself, a self-respect most of our lot seem to have lost these days.
Many of us try in daily life to make this world a better place for our children, ouir friends and ourselves. Not by randomly doing things. But by communicating with the people we have to deal with. Time and time again. And by not being the only ones doing that. There is some self-organising thing going on, and you seem not to have the eyes to see and to believe that. So you discard all actions that are not according to your great subterfuge plan as silly, meaningless or even counter-productive. And then refuse to listen further, because you want to establish a leadership with obedient followers that won't ask questions.
No, you just overate a weak approach to the point of deluding yourself that it is going to work. Historically our lot have had great infleunce by far better methods, I simply propose to use them.
-
Historically our lot have had great infleunce by far better methods, I simply propose to use them.
Examples please of how our lot have had great influence by far better methods that improved things for our lot.
Examples of the ones of our lot doing those things, and of the methods please. And then I would like to know what they improved too.
-
Historically our lot have had great infleunce by far better methods, I simply propose to use them.
Examples please of how our lot have had great influence by far better methods that improved things for our lot.
Examples of the ones of our lot doing those things, and of the methods please. And then I would like to know what they improved too.
Why not educate yourself on our history, rather than expecting me to do it for you. Start with Fitzgerald's book's on the topic, they serve as a good introduction.
In the meantime, admit that your methods are in general not going to solve anything, rather than trying to deflect back onto me. At least admit you haven't researched AS properly and stop trying to hide behind weak arguments based on society.
-
Historically our lot have had great infleunce by far better methods, I simply propose to use them.
Examples please of how our lot have had great influence by far better methods that improved things for our lot.
Examples of the ones of our lot doing those things, and of the methods please. And then I would like to know what they improved too.
Why not educate yourself on our history, rather than expecting me to do it for you. Start with Fitzgerald's book's on the topic, they serve as a good introduction.
In the meantime, admit that your methods are in general not going to solve anything, rather than trying to deflect back onto me. At least admit you haven't researched AS properly and stop trying to hide behind weak arguments based on society.
You make the claims, you can back them up, or not. If you want to be a politician, in public, or behind the scenes, you will have to learn how to bring the subject to the people you want to reach.
So, the task is yours if you want to convince people. You won't get followers if you tell everyone with a question to go and look it up in a book.
-
Historically our lot have had great infleunce by far better methods, I simply propose to use them.
Examples please of how our lot have had great influence by far better methods that improved things for our lot.
Examples of the ones of our lot doing those things, and of the methods please. And then I would like to know what they improved too.
Why not educate yourself on our history, rather than expecting me to do it for you. Start with Fitzgerald's book's on the topic, they serve as a good introduction.
In the meantime, admit that your methods are in general not going to solve anything, rather than trying to deflect back onto me. At least admit you haven't researched AS properly and stop trying to hide behind weak arguments based on society.
You make the claims, you can back them up, or not. If you want to be a politician, in public, or behind the scenes, you will have to learn how to bring the subject to the people you want to reach.
So, the task is yours if you want to convince people. You won't get followers if you tell everyone with a question to go and look it up in a book.
Why do that when I can begin by preaching to the already nearly converted, who actually recognise the facts and would do stuff to demonstate them (e.g. make the mass sperm donation that this thread is about and prove me right). Its a far more effective method in the meantime.
As for claims, look at your ones. You seem to have this pie in the sky notion that if we all spread the Good News, everyone will believe it and be happy. Face it, your method has been debunked. Now admit to it, rather than continue to miss the point entirely.
-
Historically our lot have had great infleunce by far better methods, I simply propose to use them.
Examples please of how our lot have had great influence by far better methods that improved things for our lot.
Examples of the ones of our lot doing those things, and of the methods please. And then I would like to know what they improved too.
Why not educate yourself on our history, rather than expecting me to do it for you. Start with Fitzgerald's book's on the topic, they serve as a good introduction.
In the meantime, admit that your methods are in general not going to solve anything, rather than trying to deflect back onto me. At least admit you haven't researched AS properly and stop trying to hide behind weak arguments based on society.
You make the claims, you can back them up, or not. If you want to be a politician, in public, or behind the scenes, you will have to learn how to bring the subject to the people you want to reach.
So, the task is yours if you want to convince people. You won't get followers if you tell everyone with a question to go and look it up in a book.
Why do that when I can begin by preaching to the already nearly converted, who actually recognise the facts and would do stuff to demonstate them (e.g. make the mass sperm donation that this thread is about and prove me right). Its a far more effective method in the meantime.
As for claims, look at your ones. You seem to have this pie in the sky notion that if we all spread the Good News, everyone will believe it and be happy. Face it, your method has been debunked. Now admit to it, rather than continue to miss the point entirely.
Happy preaching for the nearly converted.
Here it might be metaphorical pearls for the metaphorical swine indeed.
Hope your sperming plan fails massively.
-
Historically our lot have had great infleunce by far better methods, I simply propose to use them.
Examples please of how our lot have had great influence by far better methods that improved things for our lot.
Examples of the ones of our lot doing those things, and of the methods please. And then I would like to know what they improved too.
Why not educate yourself on our history, rather than expecting me to do it for you. Start with Fitzgerald's book's on the topic, they serve as a good introduction.
In the meantime, admit that your methods are in general not going to solve anything, rather than trying to deflect back onto me. At least admit you haven't researched AS properly and stop trying to hide behind weak arguments based on society.
You make the claims, you can back them up, or not. If you want to be a politician, in public, or behind the scenes, you will have to learn how to bring the subject to the people you want to reach.
So, the task is yours if you want to convince people. You won't get followers if you tell everyone with a question to go and look it up in a book.
Why do that when I can begin by preaching to the already nearly converted, who actually recognise the facts and would do stuff to demonstate them (e.g. make the mass sperm donation that this thread is about and prove me right). Its a far more effective method in the meantime.
As for claims, look at your ones. You seem to have this pie in the sky notion that if we all spread the Good News, everyone will believe it and be happy. Face it, your method has been debunked. Now admit to it, rather than continue to miss the point entirely.
Happy preaching for the nearly converted.
Here it might be metaphorical pearls for the metaphorical swine indeed.
Hope your sperming plan fails massively.
So again, you fail to debate. How predicatable.
Now admit that your approach is proved to be doomed to fail and that we need another one. Go on, admit you are wrong.
-
Historically our lot have had great infleunce by far better methods, I simply propose to use them.
Examples please of how our lot have had great influence by far better methods that improved things for our lot.
Examples of the ones of our lot doing those things, and of the methods please. And then I would like to know what they improved too.
Why not educate yourself on our history, rather than expecting me to do it for you. Start with Fitzgerald's book's on the topic, they serve as a good introduction.
In the meantime, admit that your methods are in general not going to solve anything, rather than trying to deflect back onto me. At least admit you haven't researched AS properly and stop trying to hide behind weak arguments based on society.
You make the claims, you can back them up, or not. If you want to be a politician, in public, or behind the scenes, you will have to learn how to bring the subject to the people you want to reach.
So, the task is yours if you want to convince people. You won't get followers if you tell everyone with a question to go and look it up in a book.
Why do that when I can begin by preaching to the already nearly converted, who actually recognise the facts and would do stuff to demonstate them (e.g. make the mass sperm donation that this thread is about and prove me right). Its a far more effective method in the meantime.
As for claims, look at your ones. You seem to have this pie in the sky notion that if we all spread the Good News, everyone will believe it and be happy. Face it, your method has been debunked. Now admit to it, rather than continue to miss the point entirely.
Happy preaching for the nearly converted.
Here it might be metaphorical pearls for the metaphorical swine indeed.
Hope your sperming plan fails massively.
So again, you fail to debate. How predicatable.
Now admit that your approach is proved to be doomed to fail and that we need another one. Go on, admit you are wrong.
Not going to admit that.
The percentage of people on the spectrum is that low that the world will never be all about 'us'.
Society is based on averages. And for about 70% of the people that works well enough. For 30% it doesn't.
Society will always be based on averages. Question is how open society is and will be for people who do not fit in snugly.
Because I do not want to throw society in itself over, you think my approach is doomed to fail. But my target is different than yours. So, your judgement on my doom is a false one.
-
Historically our lot have had great infleunce by far better methods, I simply propose to use them.
Examples please of how our lot have had great influence by far better methods that improved things for our lot.
Examples of the ones of our lot doing those things, and of the methods please. And then I would like to know what they improved too.
Why not educate yourself on our history, rather than expecting me to do it for you. Start with Fitzgerald's book's on the topic, they serve as a good introduction.
In the meantime, admit that your methods are in general not going to solve anything, rather than trying to deflect back onto me. At least admit you haven't researched AS properly and stop trying to hide behind weak arguments based on society.
You make the claims, you can back them up, or not. If you want to be a politician, in public, or behind the scenes, you will have to learn how to bring the subject to the people you want to reach.
So, the task is yours if you want to convince people. You won't get followers if you tell everyone with a question to go and look it up in a book.
Why do that when I can begin by preaching to the already nearly converted, who actually recognise the facts and would do stuff to demonstate them (e.g. make the mass sperm donation that this thread is about and prove me right). Its a far more effective method in the meantime.
As for claims, look at your ones. You seem to have this pie in the sky notion that if we all spread the Good News, everyone will believe it and be happy. Face it, your method has been debunked. Now admit to it, rather than continue to miss the point entirely.
Happy preaching for the nearly converted.
Here it might be metaphorical pearls for the metaphorical swine indeed.
Hope your sperming plan fails massively.
So again, you fail to debate. How predicatable.
Now admit that your approach is proved to be doomed to fail and that we need another one. Go on, admit you are wrong.
Not going to admit that.
The percentage of people on the spectrum is that low that the world will never be all about 'us'.
Apart from the evidence that we happen to have infleunced most world events to quite a degree. You miss that argument off. Of course when its provable concretely, we could all be in serious trouble, given some of the names likely to be on the list.
Society is based on averages. And for about 70% of the people that works well enough. For 30% it doesn't.
Society will always be based on averages. Question is how open society is and will be for people who do not fit in snugly.
Its also why Terrorism works - you cannot downtrod a minority for too long as increasingly small groups have the means to fight back. Of course I am not suggesting that as an approach, even though some great collegues of ours have tried it. But take a step down or two and look at other means of disrupting a society. Again they rely on a small committed core and tend to be very effective methods if applied right.
Because I do not want to throw society in itself over, you think my approach is doomed to fail. But my target is different than yours. So, your judgement on my doom is a false one.
Any goal or target involving the betterment of those on the spectrum isn't going to be achieved by your methods. At best, your approach is simply going to change people to those who don't know to those who don't know very much but think they know. The latter can be worse in many circumstances, for obvious reasons. If anything, awareness may well have made things a lot worse, especially for higher functioning individuals.
-
Oh, and for changes happening, without deceptive methods.
I've been an active member of a church for a long time. When I was a child, only men were allowed in functions there. Women were obedient. Gay love was seen as an abomination. Everything was neatly following strict rules that had been there for ages and ages.
In 25 years everything changed. Not by deception. But by changing it from within. There has been some civil disobedience, sure. But not something to mess with the lives of people the way you propose with your sperming of the mainly NT population.
Now there are a lot of woman in functions. And a lot of people from the GBLT community too.
A church is a small society with a similar rigidity and reluctance to change as the secular society. I've seen how it happened, I've been a part of it. And I have hope for changes when it comes to the valuing of people with a diagnosis in a fair way.
-
Its also why Terrorism works - you cannot downtrod a minority for too long as increasingly small groups have the means to fight back. Of course I am not suggesting that as an approach, even though some great collegues of ours have tried it. But take a step down or two and look at other means of disrupting a society. Again they rely on a small committed core and tend to be very effective methods if applied right.
I would not be surprised if you were to be charged for terroristic acts, would you succeed to sneak in ASD sperm in massive amounts in spermbanks and get caught.
You are willing to mess on a very fundamental basis with the lives of thousands of people then.
I ask you again, why not set up an alternative sperm bank. Get publicity for that. Don't act covert, but open. Claiming the right of infertile couples with an ASD partner to want children from donors that have the quirkyness/ASD in common with the social parent to be.
-
Oh, and for changes happening, without deceptive methods.
I've been an active member of a church for a long time. When I was a child, only men were allowed in functions there. Women were obedient. Gay love was seen as an abomination. Everything was neatly following strict rules that had been there for ages and ages.
In 25 years everything changed. Not by deception. But by changing it from within. There has been some civil disobedience, sure. But not something to mess with the lives of people the way you propose with your sperming of the mainly NT population.
Now there are a lot of woman in functions. And a lot of people from the GBLT community too.
A church is a small society with a similar rigidity and reluctance to change as the secular society. I've seen how it happened, I've been a part of it. And I have hope for changes when it comes to the valuing of people with a diagnosis in a fair way.
The problem again here is numbers. How many people claim to be LGBT compared to Aspie? They barely managed it with 10% of the population without using some millitant methods. Nor was it done from inside the Church, but from outside pressure. They wrecked the Church's standing in the process, which is having some rather unintended consequences in the UK for one. I am an atheist and I really think overall, it has been more damaging to our society in the long run, especially given the way it was done. When the wider populace realise this, guess who they are going to blame.
Even more difficult, our cause is very difficult to grasp by the layman, for the reason AS is a lot more complicated than shagging your own sex. Your approach has no chance of working for this and a mulititude of other reasons.
If you want an example of a very small group which has been millitant and successful, look at animal rights or the ecomentalists. Their success is something we can emulate, but on a larger scale.
-
Its also why Terrorism works - you cannot downtrod a minority for too long as increasingly small groups have the means to fight back. Of course I am not suggesting that as an approach, even though some great collegues of ours have tried it. But take a step down or two and look at other means of disrupting a society. Again they rely on a small committed core and tend to be very effective methods if applied right.
I would not be surprised if you were to be charged for terroristic acts, would you succeed to sneak in ASD sperm in massive amounts in spermbanks and get caught.
You are willing to mess on a very fundamental basis with the lives of thousands of people then.
I ask you again, why not set up an alternative sperm bank. Get publicity for that. Don't act covert, but open. Claiming the right of infertile couples with an ASD partner to want children from donors that have the quirkyness/ASD in common with the social parent to be.
Goodness the aim would be to get caught, in fact eventually we would have to be. If they try and martyr us in that sort of fashion, it would really make my day - in fact being charged with terroristic acts would be a perfect result, if you think about the publicity that would follow it, the copycats with new schemes and the movement which would emerge. But I don't think things will roll quite that perfectly, much as I would like them too. I doubt the state would charge us with anything, though a court case would be fantastic if we could get one.
-
Its also why Terrorism works - you cannot downtrod a minority for too long as increasingly small groups have the means to fight back. Of course I am not suggesting that as an approach, even though some great collegues of ours have tried it. But take a step down or two and look at other means of disrupting a society. Again they rely on a small committed core and tend to be very effective methods if applied right.
I would not be surprised if you were to be charged for terroristic acts, would you succeed to sneak in ASD sperm in massive amounts in spermbanks and get caught.
You are willing to mess on a very fundamental basis with the lives of thousands of people then.
I ask you again, why not set up an alternative sperm bank. Get publicity for that. Don't act covert, but open. Claiming the right of infertile couples with an ASD partner to want children from donors that have the quirkyness/ASD in common with the social parent to be.
Goodness the aim would be to get caught, in fact eventually we would have to be. If they try and martyr us in that sort of fashion, it would really make my day - in fact being charged with terroristic acts would be a perfect result, if you think about the publicity that would follow it, the copycats with new schemes and the movement which would emerge. But I don't think things will roll quite that perfectly, much as I would like them too. I doubt the state would charge us with anything, though a court case would be fantastic if we could get one.
Do you take notice of the fact that you would be affecting the lives of many people with this. And that it may turn out to be a horrible thing for some of the ASD babies and the totally not ASD parents? Parents having no idea? Or maybe even hating the cuckooed kid, because of the sneaky way it became theirs? Do you think telling a kid, damaged because of your actions is going to be ok when you say you did it for the greater good?
Did you follow a course of ethics somewhere in your curriculum?
-
Its also why Terrorism works - you cannot downtrod a minority for too long as increasingly small groups have the means to fight back. Of course I am not suggesting that as an approach, even though some great collegues of ours have tried it. But take a step down or two and look at other means of disrupting a society. Again they rely on a small committed core and tend to be very effective methods if applied right.
I would not be surprised if you were to be charged for terroristic acts, would you succeed to sneak in ASD sperm in massive amounts in spermbanks and get caught.
You are willing to mess on a very fundamental basis with the lives of thousands of people then.
I ask you again, why not set up an alternative sperm bank. Get publicity for that. Don't act covert, but open. Claiming the right of infertile couples with an ASD partner to want children from donors that have the quirkyness/ASD in common with the social parent to be.
Goodness the aim would be to get caught, in fact eventually we would have to be. If they try and martyr us in that sort of fashion, it would really make my day - in fact being charged with terroristic acts would be a perfect result, if you think about the publicity that would follow it, the copycats with new schemes and the movement which would emerge. But I don't think things will roll quite that perfectly, much as I would like them too. I doubt the state would charge us with anything, though a court case would be fantastic if we could get one.
Do you take notice of the fact that you would be affecting the lives of many people with this. And that it may turn out to be a horrible thing for some of the ASD babies and the totally not ASD parents? Parents having no idea? Or maybe even hating the cuckooed kid, because of the sneaky way it became theirs? Do you think telling a kid, damaged because of your actions is going to be ok when you say you did it for the greater good?
Did you follow a course of ethics somewhere in your curriculum?
Point #1 Your method has no chance of working, which you have yet to acknowledge or accept. Therefore:
#2 You are going to (a) need a new method or (b) going to give up.
#3 In the meantime, lots of peoples lives are being very negatively effected by the status quo, which given you haven't a plan for dealing with #2(a), you are going for #2(b). In the mean time, well predictably lots of people with ASD are being perpetually screwed over.
#4 I don't regard myself as damaged goods, nor do I regard people with ASD's in such a fashion. Grow some self-respect, please.
#5 Look at the results of Robert Klark Graham's project (which was more or less the same thing in terms of the donors he was soliciting) and discover that all the stuff you say is going to happen, didn't happen to those kids.
Oh and don't give me ethics lectures, I left church a long time ago and preaching at me that I am a sinner or whatever isn't going to work. It isn't like your religion hasn't killed a good few million for the greater good, on the other hand I am after a negative score. Go figure.
-
LOL,
There is more ethics than religious ethics.
Go check your library, or courses at uni.
-
Oh, and 'damaged'.
I was not talking about the way the kid is born.
But, children can get damaged badly by their parents, or environment.
I know you like to work with resentment.
Kids suffering from resentment that the parents harbour can get damaged badly.
-
More aspies know each other now, due to the internet. So there should be an increase in aspies being made as a result of relationships started online.
That would concur with Prof. Baron-Cohen's hypothesis that the rise in ASD may be partly due to more aspies meeting and :missionary:
-
Its also why Terrorism works - you cannot downtrod a minority for too long as increasingly small groups have the means to fight back. Of course I am not suggesting that as an approach, even though some great collegues of ours have tried it. But take a step down or two and look at other means of disrupting a society. Again they rely on a small committed core and tend to be very effective methods if applied right.
I would not be surprised if you were to be charged for terroristic acts, would you succeed to sneak in ASD sperm in massive amounts in spermbanks and get caught.
You are willing to mess on a very fundamental basis with the lives of thousands of people then.
I ask you again, why not set up an alternative sperm bank. Get publicity for that. Don't act covert, but open. Claiming the right of infertile couples with an ASD partner to want children from donors that have the quirkyness/ASD in common with the social parent to be.
I think that's a really good idea to start an alternative egg and sperm donor program like that sperm bank for geniuses so people (whether they have an ASD or not) who want to conceive a child have a choice whether they want a higher chance of having a more intelligent but possibly autistic child. I would welcome such a child, but I think it's unfair to both the child and his/her prospective parents to sneak in your eggs and sperm by lying to the prospective parents. They ask you to disclose all sorts of information when you make a donation, and I think the questions deserve honest answers.
-
I'm confused, Hadron. First you say this:
We only need 10,000 or so people who will do what they are told to get things done, not individuals who think they no best and decide to do whatver the hell they like.
Then you say this:
At least I have the self-respect to think for myself, a self-respect most of our lot seem to have lost these days.
And then later on, you say this:
At best, your approach is simply going to change people to those who don't know to those who don't know very much but think they know. The latter can be worse in many circumstances, for obvious reasons. If anything, awareness may well have made things a lot worse, especially for higher functioning individuals.
Well, which is it? Do we get to be self-respecting, and to think for ourselves? Or just have faith in you, or some other charismatic leader :) , to tell us the right thing to do? It's called democracy. It isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternatives.
-
LOL,
There is more ethics than religious ethics.
Go check your library, or courses at uni.
Try sets of ethics which are not dictated by a society - then I might actually think something of it.
-
Oh, and 'damaged'.
I was not talking about the way the kid is born.
But, children can get damaged badly by their parents, or environment.
I know you like to work with resentment.
Kids suffering from resentment that the parents harbour can get damaged badly.
And be a lot more effective 20 years down the line when they all sign up for our cause, following your argument to its natural end.
-
I'm confused, Hadron. First you say this:
We only need 10,000 or so people who will do what they are told to get things done, not individuals who think they no best and decide to do whatver the hell they like.
Then you say this:
At least I have the self-respect to think for myself, a self-respect most of our lot seem to have lost these days.
And then later on, you say this:
At best, your approach is simply going to change people to those who don't know to those who don't know very much but think they know. The latter can be worse in many circumstances, for obvious reasons. If anything, awareness may well have made things a lot worse, especially for higher functioning individuals.
Well, which is it? Do we get to be self-respecting, and to think for ourselves? Or just have faith in you, or some other charismatic leader :) , to tell us the right thing to do? It's called democracy. It isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternatives.
There is no contradiction. The first post refers to those who think they know, but are merely copying society, they haven't truely thought it about it themselves. By contrast, I have spent a lot of time carefully finding my own answers. Post 3 refers to NT attitudes, if you look at it in its correct context and I see plenty of evidence of that effect.
-
Its also why Terrorism works - you cannot downtrod a minority for too long as increasingly small groups have the means to fight back. Of course I am not suggesting that as an approach, even though some great collegues of ours have tried it. But take a step down or two and look at other means of disrupting a society. Again they rely on a small committed core and tend to be very effective methods if applied right.
I would not be surprised if you were to be charged for terroristic acts, would you succeed to sneak in ASD sperm in massive amounts in spermbanks and get caught.
You are willing to mess on a very fundamental basis with the lives of thousands of people then.
I ask you again, why not set up an alternative sperm bank. Get publicity for that. Don't act covert, but open. Claiming the right of infertile couples with an ASD partner to want children from donors that have the quirkyness/ASD in common with the social parent to be.
I think that's a really good idea to start an alternative egg and sperm donor program like that sperm bank for geniuses so people (whether they have an ASD or not) who want to conceive a child have a choice whether they want a higher chance of having a more intelligent but possibly autistic child. I would welcome such a child, but I think it's unfair to both the child and his/her prospective parents to sneak in your eggs and sperm by lying to the prospective parents. They ask you to disclose all sorts of information when you make a donation, and I think the questions deserve honest answers.
If you check carefully, as long as you actually believe in yourself as a human being, then there is no need to lie on the forms, whilst still not revealing that you have AS.
-
Well so far, I do find it intriguing how Hadron thinks to be politically successful. He doesn't seem to want to find allies in other groups of people that are not excepted in main-stream normality. And he is extremely successful in showing a great contempt for the people he claims to represent.
The way he is behaving looks more like the ways of a religious zealous sectarian cult leader, than the ways of a politician. But, that is not that distant from the ways of a 'political' leader who wants to impose his ideas by all means.
You know, come to think of it, he DOES act very much like a wannabe cult leader. What I find hilarious is that that didn't occur to me... but wondering if he was slightly psychotic did. Very similar thought and argument style. :laugh:
I think he is very naive, lacks empathy, has a sense of entitlement, and is extremely egotistical. If not for the first part he would probably be quite the potential politician. He is, I think, too focused on how he wants things to be to see how they would be. For example, an obvious flaw in his thinking is that he assumes that people with ASDs would automatically want to join his cause. He assumes this despite posting about his 'cause' on an ASD forum and not getting anywhere near universal support.
-
LOL,
There is more ethics than religious ethics.
Go check your library, or courses at uni.
:plus: :pwned:
-
Well so far, I do find it intriguing how Hadron thinks to be politically successful. He doesn't seem to want to find allies in other groups of people that are not excepted in main-stream normality. And he is extremely successful in showing a great contempt for the people he claims to represent.
The way he is behaving looks more like the ways of a religious zealous sectarian cult leader, than the ways of a politician. But, that is not that distant from the ways of a 'political' leader who wants to impose his ideas by all means.
You know, come to think of it, he DOES act very much like a wannabe cult leader. What I find hilarious is that that didn't occur to me... but wondering if he was slightly psychotic did. Very similar thought and argument style. :laugh:
I think he is very naive, lacks empathy, has a sense of entitlement, and is extremely egotistical. If not for the first part he would probably be quite the potential politician.
When it comes down to it, its never my arse getting burned, its someone elses instead. As a politician I have experience and am effective. I get things done without bullshitting.
He is, I think, too focused on how he wants things to be to see how they would be. For example, an obvious flaw in his thinking is that he assumes that people with ASDs would automatically want to join his cause. He assumes this despite posting about his 'cause' on an ASD forum and not getting anywhere near universal support.
I only need a small minority to join and respect me, in the beginning. The internet contains a lot of people who have a vested interest in no change, so I expect little support from some quarters to begin with.