Genetic Screening for Aspergers

[Christopher McCandless]

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.

[Christopher McCandless]

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.

['andersom']

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?

[Christopher McCandless]

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

['andersom']

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?

[Christopher McCandless]

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

['andersom']

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.

[El]

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?

[El]

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?
 

[El]

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?

[Christopher McCandless]

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.

[Christopher McCandless]

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?

['andersom']

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.

['andersom']

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 )

[Christopher McCandless]

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.