My comment to Autism Speaks

Post Reply New Topic

Organizations and companies listen to constructive criticism and provide proper answers or solutions, to avoid the disastrous results that occur from word of mouth from disastisfied customers.

I haven't seen a protest over food at a restaurant, likely they would of shut down well before it got to that point. Word of mouth is bad enough.

Civil protests are a method of constructive criticism; name calling and bashing is not something that is allowed by ASAN at the protests that have occured in the past.

Bashing with offensive language, on a website where that sentiment is shared, is of little consequence, other than drawing attention to the fact that autism speaks exists, for those that don't understand what it is. If it is used where it is not welcome it is simply ignored or deleted.

Whether or not an organization is a cult or one feels like a term used to describe it is an offensive term, is influenced not only by fact but also by opinion.

My understanding from the research I have done is there is no objective evidence that autism speaks is a cult, so in my opinion to call it a cult is bashing the organization, per my understanding of the normal definition of cult and bashing.

It appears you are waiting for evidence to provide an opinion on it. I suppose I could wait forever for someone else to provide that evidence; since I have searched and have found no reasonable evidence, I stand by my opinion that calling autism speaks a cult is bashing the organization.

If there was any empirical evidence that autism speaks was a cult, it is extremely unlikely that the organization would attain the Better Business Bureau endorsement that it holds, or the endorsement that it holds from independent organizations that monitor charities.

Someone would likely have made a reasonable complaint by now, considering there are over 300 million people in the US. That in itself is enough evidence for me.

There is no available evidence that I can find that anyone in the entire mainstream media has ever reported a reasonable complaint that autism speaks is a cult, which means if there is bizarre or abnormal behavior evidenced by the organization, no one in the media has noticed it, and no reasonable reports of it have been reported to the media.

An opinion is an idea that can be supported by facts aghogday. I'd rather that you would actually try and not simply say that something is unreliable simply because it is an opinion. If you can't bring an argument that doesn't support the OP's opinion in such case I'd rather that you'd not play a semantics game.


Reporting proof isn't proof. I don't trust anecdotal evidence from one source, especially one source that defends autism speaks all the time.


I wouldn't say that autism every day isn't cultic. Since you and Tambourine-man have been going on about it like mad hoppers i'd like to see some evidence of what autism speaks is actually like from people who aren't you two.


Argumentum ad verecundiam. I don't care about more anecdotal evidence. What I want to see if whether it is true or not that members from autism speaks are indeed acting with cult-like obsession or not.


Argumentum ad numerum. And here is a complaint about it, that its members act like they are in a cult. THe first thing you do is throw a tif.

More shameless argumentum ad verecundiam, and this time with the media. I don't really care what has or has not been reported by the media and anyone with five brain cells should agree that what is true is more important than what is talked about by the media.

My response was to your initial question, what bashing. If you don't agree with my opinion that is fine. I stand by it from the evidence I have found. The OP has a right to his opinion, and I stand by his right to his opinion.

He asked if it was a good argument, and I disagreed, because I believe that constructive criticism is more effective than offensive language when one is trying to make a point. He may not see it as potentially offensive language to the audience that he intended the message to on the Autism Speaks facebook page, but from an objective standpoint it definitely is for those that visit that site that respect the organization.

If you think the people that visit that Autism Speaks facebook site in support of each other, and the organization are a cult, I suggest you visit and form your own opinion. I have perused the comments there and the only indication I see are kind people that care about their kids and loved one's with autism and want to see them have the best life possible.

Then if you can, attempt to put yourself in their shoes, and imagine how you would view a comment like that if someone came in stating that autism speaks does no good and is a cult.

The response there to his comment was none, if it had been presented in a constructive manner a discussion on his valid points might have ensued.

I think that making a point is more effective than euphemism when trying to make a point. Cult can be used as an accurate definition. I have already said this several times. Do not bore me with your argumentum ad infinitum.


Motivation speculation again. You don't know what he intended. The best we can guess is that he wanted to call the people present what he felt that they were, no matter whether it may have offended them or not.


Confusing good intentions with good deeds is a serious logical fallacy. What matters more than what they say is what they do. From what I can see they are all very chirpy, all smiling about their concrete stereotype and peddling ideas of holistic medicine and general paranoia about behaviours that seem to have no easily explained reason, apparently.

They aren't cult-like from what it seems. They live in a bubble-world.

I think that making a point is more effective than euphemism when trying to make a point. Cult can be used as an accurate definition. I have already said this several times. Do not bore me with your argumentum ad infinitum.


Motivation speculation again. You don't know what he intended. The best we can guess is that he wanted to call the people present what he felt that they were, no matter whether it may have offended them or not.


Confusing good intentions with good deeds is a serious logical fallacy. What matters more than what they say is what they do. From what I can see they are all very chirpy, all smiling about their concrete stereotype and peddling ideas of holistic medicine and general paranoia about behaviours that seem to have no easily explained reason, apparently.

They aren't cult-like from what it seems. They live in a bubble-world.

That certainly describes some of the parents I have encountered. My pet hate; that whole low GI, Gluten free BS..drives me nuts. I accept some kids have a problem in that area..but the great bulk don't surely.

As I said, it is my opinion that Autism Speaks is not a cult based on the evidence that I have seen, therefore to use the term cult against the people there or the organization could be reasonably seen as a term to bash the organization. This doesn't mean that everyone is going to agree with my opinion.

I didn't suggest the folks on the site have all the correct answers about autism, but as you seem to agree they don't seem cult-like.

Again, I wasn't suggesting I understand what the Ops opinion is on whether or not autism speaks is a cult, and he has a right to his opinion. Stating he may not understand something as offensive, is not an assertion that I know one way or another, whether or not he thinks the phrase is offensive.

I don't doubt that some people believe it when they say that autism speaks is a cult, evil, or a NAZI organization, but it makes these terms no less offensive and seen no less as ones that bash the organization for those that support it, and hold the opinion that all three characterisations are not accurate.

To put it as clear as I can the Op's relationship to the statement "autism speaks is a cult", has no bearing, in this case on my opinion that it is a phrase that is seen as one to bash the organization. Just as it would have no bearing if he made a statement that the organization is evil or a NAZI organization, because in my opinion, and obviously for those that support the organization, they are phrases likely seen as ones to bash the organization, regardless of who states the phrases, because taken at face value they are demeaning phrases

What? Just because something is your opinion doesn't mean it can't be challenged or called wrong. Geez.

No, I don't actually. I think it is quite cultic. Don't stuff words in my mouth.

Argumentum ad infinitum.

Here is what you said about the folks on the autism facebook site two posts up, as quoted below. I said "you seem to agree they don't seem cult-like". Below as bolded and compared to my bolded statement you said "They aren't cult-like from what it seems".

The issue is that they don't seem cult-like superficially, but the fact is that they are demonstrating ideas that are cult-like. I should really be more clear. Furthermore my assumption was that you were talking about Autism Speaks members in general, and looking at other forums, past events, and the current deafening silence there is evidence of it being a medical cult or having medical cultists in its midst.

Thanks for clarifying your point. Autism Speaks doesn't support all the ideas that some of the folks that support the organization support. Some of the supporters still support vaccines as a cause of autism and are mad at autism speaks for supporting vaccines.

Autism Speaks also doesn't professionally reccommend herbal remedies or whatever some alternative therapy someone might come up with in a discussion. This is all isolated stuff that applies to people's opinions that happen to be discussing them on the forums. If Autism Speaks recommended this type of stuff that was out of the cultural norm or bizarre there might be some kind of argument that the organization itself is cultlike, but there is no evidence the organization supports it.

The Op was speaking directly to the organization in his assertion that it was a cult. There is really no evidence of any organized effort of a cult within the organization itself, and so objectively speaking when a statement is made that autism speaks is a cult, it doesn't hold up to evidence, and is derogatory in tone.

In this light, I personally compare Autism Speaks to Opus Dei.

- Autism Speaks has the US government's support, while Opus Dei has the Vatican's support.
- Both Autism Speaks and Opus Dei are under fire for their controversial policies and standpoints.
- Autism Speaks is reviled by some autistics, while Opus Dei is reviled by some Christians.

I couldn't think about any further comparisons, but will think of more as I move along.

I know I've been reading The Da Vinci Code too much, but I am looking forward to the day that Autism Speaks's real-life demise would be like Opus Dei's downfall in the novel; turned down by their supporting governments, in the most humiliating ways possible.

Autism speaks is underfire from their current supporters for supporting vaccine. The five or six autistic people saying something bad about them on the internet at any point in time, for politically incorrect actions that happened several years ago doesn't have nearly the negative impact on the organization as the actual supporters that have left it as a result of autism speaks supporting vaccine usage. They number in the hundreds and were providing actual financial support. Even the grandaughter of the founders expressed dissent against the organization for supporting vaccines.

In general though, the public supports vaccine usage and understands that is a life or death issue for all children in the US, so it doesn't threaten the organization's demise. If they were to to dismiss vaccines as unsafe, that could threaten the organization's demise, but the organization has hired properly qualified folks, to ensure that these type of mistakes that might lead to downfall don't happen.

Aye, but the fact is that vaccines are not the only problem. Nearly all of autism speak's members are involved in autism but are rarely autistics, and they all chatter about various therapies, many of which are pseudoscientific.

There's lots of evidence that it is. The only argument that it isn't is a half-decade.

There is only evidence that some of the supporters support pseudoscientific ideas, these aren't ideas that the autism speaks organization supports or recommends, so it is no indictment of anything regarding the organization itself. The US is a place for free speech, unless there is something offensive on discussion forums it is normally allowed. However if Autism Speaks recommended it on their website as an organization, that would be a different situation altogether.