Why is Autism Speaks considered to be an evil organization?

Post Reply New Topic

While I disagree with some of the approaches that the organization uses, underneath that, I see an organization with a extremely noble message, albeit slightly different than the one I would promote. In order to articulate my message, I'm going to ask a rhetorical question.

Why would you tolerate a weakness if it could be utterly annihilated? What I mean is, why would Aspies or neurotypicals accept a flaw that they have if they can utterly annihilate it through advanced technology? I believe that any strengths that are inherent with being an Aspie should not be eliminated, but of course the weaknesses associated with being an Aspie should be eliminated. Why would you want poor social skills if you could use a technology to give you average social skills at least? Why would you want poor coordination if you could utterly annihilate it? Why would any of these traits be preferred if they could be outright eliminated?

Again, I do believe that Aspies should have their strengths left intact. If anything, I believe that their strengths should be amplified and their weaknesses should be utterly annihilated so that we can create a new race of supreme human beings. They would have great social intuition and be able to effortlessly make friends, but would be completely aware of how shallow, vapid and manipulative social customs are and be able to take advantage of them with ease. They would have excellent motor skills needed for writing, driving and bicycle riding, but wouldn't necessarily need to be a physical person. They would have advanced bodies that could heal from any condition completely without a single bit of damage left and would have intellect on par with Bill Gates or Albert Einstein at the very least.

In short, why are people against the elimination of weaknesses?

Because they want to eliminate autism as a whole. There is no way to only have strengths with no weaknesses. Society doesn't work that way. We all have our own strengths and weaknesses, regardless of our neurology. Your plan to make everyone "superior beings" wouldn't work, sorry.

How would you know that until you try? We must never give up, because we have less of a chance of reaching the Holy Grail if we don't try to trek to the nearly impenetrable city of Camelot after all.

Even if this could work, it wouldn't be good for our society. We would still be the minority, and minorities are not part of the majority. Like I said, it would probably distance us more than help us have "average social skills". I don't believe we should be superior to everyone else. Maybe we could be treated the same. Not better.

But why tolerate weakness when there's a feasible means of eliminating it? Why would you choose to have weaknesses if there was a medical means of annihilating them? Besides, in this hypothetical scenario where the improved beings are the minority and envied, at least they would have no weaknesses and only superior traits. Weaknesses do not have to be a part of a person, if we can find means of eliminating them. While I understand that until then it's very hard to remove some weaknesses in any person, Aspie or NT, when we create the means to, who wouldn't want to eliminate any undesirable trait in themselves?

Well, for one, there is no way to eliminate a person's weaknesses in the first place. The reason we need weaknesses is a result of evolution: more specifically survival of the fittest. Humans are not 100% good by nature, and we all have bad sides to us. I don't want to see autistic people become better than everyone else because one, we dong deserve that, and two, the majority wouldn't tolerate that. No person can have no weaknesses; and if they think they don't have any; then that's their weakness.

Well in that case, what if we eliminated weaknesses in all people whether Aspies or Neurotypicals? There is no "can't" in life, not until someone endlessly tries to do something and perfect themselves. Why is acceptance of weakness considered to be a good thing and devotion to elimination of weakness considered to be bad?

The world isn't a "good" place. Therefore, we cannot ever get rid of all the suffering and pain that people go through. Acceptance of weakness means acknowledging this fact, and being at peace with the fact that some people suffer. We will never get rid of suffering because the world isn't a good place. If there was a way to eliminate suffering, than we wouldn't be able to do it because the world is a "bad" and sinful place.

Eh, I still believe that while most would not be capable of doing so due to their lack of science knowledge, there would be a select few who are capable of flaw elimination. Acceptance is the troll on the path to acceptance who disguises himself as your friend but really prevents you from reaching the land of progression that the city of Camelot is. We must run past the troll and not be manipulated by him.

The city of Camelot doesn't exist. The path of acceptance you talk about leads to nowhere. Autism Speaks goal is to find a cure for all the characteristics of autism; good and bad. Like Temple Grandin said, we can't eliminate the "autism gene". Autism cannot be separated into good and bad- it's a full package. It has been fun arguing with you, though .

I meant to say the "path to elimination of negative traits" by the way. And I know Camelot doesn't exist, it's a metaphor for how challenging it would be to eliminate all negative traits, since Camelot is a mythical city and therefore practically impossible to reach. What if there was an organization with my message instead?

^^ this. Strength and weakness are interdependent. I would rather have a mix of weak points and strong points than be all average points. Normal ... bleck.

Though I originally proposed that people on the ASD would simply have their weaknesses eliminated and their strengths amplified so they could be better than most humans. How is that "normal" or indicative of conformity?

I know Camelot doesn't exist and I was just making the point that your metaphor doesn't exist. If there was an organization with your message, I don't think most people would get it. It's a confusing plan to want to basically split autism in two; good and bad. I think we will always have weakness, minority, and suffering in the world, and no new technology or special surgery can ever change that. Your idea is interesting and seems tempting, but it would never work.

Because it takes away from what AS actually is. It is a disorder, and while it should be celebrated and accepted, it should not be placed on a pedestal or made the opposite of what it is. Your idea would not work in the long run.

They are considered weaknesses because they are a variant of the norm. It was just a word. Try not to get hung up on it and miss my main point There is no dark without light blah blah blah ... blind people usually have exceptional hearing ... etc. I don't think we can have our strengths without the weaknesses. Besides, if we could eliminate the weaknesses we would be able to eliminate weaknesses in humanity as a whole. And that is a very very slippery slope and a much larger and longer discussion that I don't want to get involved it at this time (though perhaps at another). In short. Aspies make the world a richer place because the are just as they are!