"What Makes us Human" - what do *you* think?

Post Reply New Topic

We are human, don't let one person (no matter how much respect you have for them) stop you from knowing the truth. Human is human, it is a fact, it doesn't change based on differences in neurology, physical appearance, vocabulary or knowledge of human nicety.

If anyone treats themselves as less than human, it opens the way for others to treat them that way. Zeraeph you wouldn't call a blind person (or a deaf person) not human, a blind person can't respond to non-verbal communication (a deaf person can't read tone of voice) and can't learn body language. We can at least learn, that doesn't make us better than blind/deaf people or worse, or better or worse than any other person on this planet.

A lesson that I'm slowly learning is that people treat others as they are permitted to by that person. It's not the full explaination, their own viewpoints also influence their behaviour but a person clearly stating "I won't allow myself to be treated that way" can influence some people to change their behaviour.

What makes us human as a race? The ability to destroy the environment in seconds for a profit. The ability to kill fellow humans in large masses in a short amount of time simply for being the wrong race or religion. We allow the weak, different, and the old to be tormented. We use advances in technology to kill our fellow man more efficiently. We know these things are wrong but we still do them or allow them to happen that is what makes us human.

The ability to accept the differences of others is what makes us human. Those who would single out someone for torment and ridicule is another sign of humanity. If they are willing to dehumanize you they would have no problem in eliminating you. First they say you have no feelings or a soul it helps the future death camp guards who will be responsible for your extermination to not feel so bad when they carry out their crimes against humanity. Why do you think autism speaks puts out so many comercials showing autistic children driving their parents crazy. They want to find a way to screen for autism before birth so the unborn child could be aborted without protest by the parents. Who wouldn't eliminate a screaming nightmare child. I wonder how many parents would abort an unborn potentially autistic baby if it could be the next Einstein or Gates. They never want to show that side of autism.

Last edited by Todesking on 19 Jun 2011, 12:37 pm, edited 8 times in total.

I saw at once the parallel with blind and deaf people...it just horrified me some more.

Don't worry...after a day or two, and finally breaking the silence and discussing it with friends, whose gut reactions were pretty much like yours and mine...reason kicked in, and told me to recognise that it was my longstanding faith in Prof Fitzgerald that was misplaced, and my initial reaction of shame and confusion was just an echo of the abused child I once was nearly half a century ago.

Strange, though I sent him a (polite) email challenge, I began by apologising for bothering him...before informing him in no uncertain terms that he was absolutely wrong, and why. It never occurred to me to make it clear that he does not have my permission to treat me this way.

Which is halfway to the state of mind of the young Aspies who made the program, who just swallowed it whole, without question, thrilled to bits that he would contribute at all, which all reinforces their already desperately low self esteem.

Yeah, basically. Being human is genetic. Everything else is ideological and potentially harmful - often actually harmful.

What makes us human is the ability to reason abstractly and the meta-awareness of own thoughts and actions.
Aspies can do both.
Therefore, Aspies are human.
QED

Honestly, I don't think he meant the quote to be taken literally. It's too much of an extreme view. I can't seem to place an alternate interpretation on it but dehumanizing someone on the basis of social interaction is way too far out there to believe.

So true Todesking, and a good part of the reason why I feel I ought to be changing my namne to "Renfield" and switching to a diet of live flies for the amount of times I have endorsed this person in the past.

Does this mean that someone who suffers TBI and loses things ceases to be human? What of someone who never had it? Were they ever human? Is it possible to create a humanity criteria like this that is not in some way ableist?



I don't know, very similar formulations are frequently used to describe us again and again. Isn't there a better way to say it that doesn't suggest we aren't human?

That was my first thought, and why I emailed him a very polite challenge, almost assuming I would get one of his famous, largely unpunctuated, one liners along the lines of:

"...i had no idea it sounded so bad..."

But not a word

Even if you take it as a definition of a social abstraction of humanity it is just as awful.

The question "what makes us human" is actually code for "what makes humans better than animals?". The real motivation behind this question is the person's own deep seated insecurity and the need to construct beliefs that inculcate feelings of superiority. The irony is that a truly superior being would not need to convince itself of its superiority, especially through such narcissistic pandering to the ego.

I would think even someone with TBI would be able to do the two things mentioned above. Maybe they wouldn't manifest as such in their behaviour, but I would think that these mental processes would still be there, albeit to a lesser degree.

Evidently being hunan as the quoted author definines is based exclusivly upon the funtion of "mirror neurons"(good lay definition in "be different").
However i will say that in his own poorly phrased manmir he does rais a valid point.

I spent all but a few months of my life ignorent if why people rejected me. Does this means i want to change who i am, no , but it does make me want to change how others percive me.
Lets take mirror neurons as an example. NTs respond to emotional displays in kind. Ie u look mad so i am too or u smile so i smile too. Now with some effort to pay attenrion u can teach urself to mirror others back(at least on the surface). Moreso by paying attention to this concept u can help set the stage of ur interactions with NTs. By approaching them with a friendly smile it makes it more likely to be greated withthe same.
We cant expect the rest of the world to up and change for us, but we can change how the world persieves us and in doing so we have a better chance of seeing change.

I'm not so sure of that from what I've read, but I'll go with it. How about someone in a coma? Does a comatose person cease to be human?

I think the definitions are too abstract when a simple concrete criteria is available.

Hmmm...

With a name like "The Misunderstood" I believe the radio broadcast was meant to increase awareness of AS and the intended audience was probably NTs. How would an NT interpret the statement within its context of the radio broadcast? I think maybe he was trying to hit on an emotion. Social interaction is so basic to NTs that they may identify with the statement equating their humanity with it. Was there a better way of saying it? Probably so. Hindsight is 20/20. Why didn't he respond to the email? IDK... maybe he's busy? Maybe he got a lot of requests and he responded on a website somewhere?

Unless I hear the statement from someone advocating rounding people up and placing them in camps or the context of the statement is hateful, I'm going to assume it wasn't intended that way.

Saying "this thing that autistic people can't easily do makes us human" is not equivalent to "we should round them all up and place them in camps," so I don't understand what your objection is.

The thing is, it's a problem, that so many like to use something like "These things that make us human are outside the autistic experience" because whatever their intentions they're saying autistic people lack some important element of the human experience that actually defines us as human, and since characterizing people with disabilities as inhuman or subhuman is hardly new, they would do well to find better ways to make their points without invoking some mythical essential "humanness" that we supposedly lack.

Here's a definition of human: A bipedal mammal. Usually born and stay mostly hairless, two eyes beside each other, a nose underneath, a mouth underneath that. Two arms and two legs. Can be any colour between a dark black/brown to a pale white/pink with variations on body hair and eye colour.

What do you think Verdandi?