This video is just disgraceful to the autistic community.
RushKing
Veteran
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States
SyphonFilter
Veteran
Joined: 7 Feb 2011
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 2,161
Location: The intersection of Inkopolis’ Plaza & Square where the Turf Wars lie.
20 Dec 2011, 4:25 pm
puddingmouse wrote:
CockneyRebel wrote:
Those parents who murder their special needs children are going to have to answer to God one day. This is why I hope that assisted suicide and euthanasia never becomes legal.
Assisted suicide has nothing to do with this topic (because it's people wanting to kill only themselves) - and nor does God.
You don't need to bring up God to prove that killing people is wrong. The issue here is whether or not it's wrong to talk about killing people. Bringing God into that discussion doesn't help, either.
20 Dec 2011, 4:28 pm
SyphonFilter wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
CockneyRebel wrote:
Those parents who murder their special needs children are going to have to answer to God one day. This is why I hope that assisted suicide and euthanasia never becomes legal.
Assisted suicide has nothing to do with this topic (because it's people wanting to kill only themselves) - and nor does God.
You don't need to bring up God to prove that killing people is wrong. The issue here is whether or not it's wrong to talk about killing people. Bringing God into that discussion doesn't help, either.
When CockneyRebel and Samsonrocks mentioned God (it's inevitable that someone will in these kinds of debates).
_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.
SyphonFilter
Veteran
Joined: 7 Feb 2011
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 2,161
Location: The intersection of Inkopolis’ Plaza & Square where the Turf Wars lie.
20 Dec 2011, 4:38 pm
puddingmouse wrote:
SyphonFilter wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
CockneyRebel wrote:
Those parents who murder their special needs children are going to have to answer to God one day. This is why I hope that assisted suicide and euthanasia never becomes legal.
Assisted suicide has nothing to do with this topic (because it's people wanting to kill only themselves) - and nor does God.
You don't need to bring up God to prove that killing people is wrong. The issue here is whether or not it's wrong to talk about killing people. Bringing God into that discussion doesn't help, either.
When CockneyRebel and Samsonrocks mentioned God (it's inevitable that someone will in these kinds of debates).
Verdandi
Veteran
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
20 Dec 2011, 10:43 pm
TheSunAlsoRises wrote:
I agreed to disagree. You were the one who came back and posted links to try to prove a point i dont agree with. Parents who are raising disabled children get tons of sympathy and compassion BUT they get very little help from the greater society at large. While i don't agree with or condone the actions of the parents, i have compassion and understanding in regards to 'what' may have drove them to commit an act of destruction.
That's BS. From the article I linked that described how the compassionate descriptions of Robert Latimer's motivations led to a sharp increase in so-called mercy-killings over the next several years (the increase was, by the way, 45%), was also this paragraph:
Quote:
So-called mercy killings, in which the altruistic reason is related to an illness, injury, or disability, make up only about 3% of child homicides (Richards, 2000), but experts in criminal psychology suggest that these cases hide a deeper and darker motivation. According to criminology's most authoritative classification of homicides, "most often, the real motivation for mercy killing has little to do with the offender's feelings of compassion and pity for the victim" (Douglas, Burgess, Burgess, & Ressler, 1992, p. 111). The authors, FBI profilers and criminologists, consider the deeper motivation for mercy killing to be a pathological need for "power and control" (p. 111). Acts of violence typically require two factors. First, there is an instrumental motivation, such as control or desire to be free of responsibility for a child. Second, there must be a disinhibiting factor, such as the belief that it is for the child's good, to release potentially homicidal parents from normal inhibition (Sobsey, 1994). The social endorsement of mercy killing therefore acts as a disinhibiting factor to those who may have instrumental motivations, but might otherwise be restrained by inhibition.
Or in other words: The mercy killing motivation is a rationalization to make the murder seem morally okay to the murderer.
Quote:
Speaking of pre-written scripts, there seems to be one going around that automatically villifies a parent for garnering any amount of sympathy from society. One of the biggest complaints floating around this board is the high level of sympathy and compassion that parents of Autistic children receive from society. Unfortunately, this point of view isn't simply a characteristic of Autism; It's a reflection of society. Quite a few of you are just like your neuro-typical counter-parts, selfish and self absorbed.
This too is BS. No one's complaining that parents don't deserve sympathy and compassion. What is frustrating to a lot of people is that this sympathy and compassion doesn't seem to be typically extended to the children, who are constantly characterized as problems and little more. And also, to adults who lose access to many necessary services upon reaching adulthood. When I first started really reading about autism (which was actually back in 2003) the idea of autistic adults rarely came up. That's been improving over the years, but is still in fairly bad shape.
But anyway, there isn't an argument that's going to make me sympathetic to murderers. It's not going to happen. I don't care about the circumstances that allegedly drove them to kill someone. That's BS. These murders are planned out ahead of time, and thus there's plenty of time for the killers to back down and change their mind or look for help before they do something irrevocable. Robert Latimer turned down a permanent placement for his daughter 12 days before the murder saying that he had other plans. Are you seriously going to insist that these are the actions of people driven to extremes, with nowhere to turn, who just decided to plan an elaborate murder or occasional murder-suicide? And that they deserve compassion for murdering their own children because life was so hard? Well, at least most of them are still alive, unlike their children.
You're arguing that the parents are doing this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_passion
When in fact, they're doing this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premeditated_murder
It may help to understand the difference.
20 Dec 2011, 10:58 pm
Verdandi wrote:
TheSunAlsoRises wrote:
I agreed to disagree. You were the one who came back and posted links to try to prove a point i dont agree with. Parents who are raising disabled children get tons of sympathy and compassion BUT they get very little help from the greater society at large. While i don't agree with or condone the actions of the parents, i have compassion and understanding in regards to 'what' may have drove them to commit an act of destruction.
That's BS. From the article I linked that described how the compassionate descriptions of Robert Latimer's motivations led to a sharp increase in so-called mercy-killings over the next several years (the increase was, by the way, 45%), was also this paragraph:
Quote:
So-called mercy killings, in which the altruistic reason is related to an illness, injury, or disability, make up only about 3% of child homicides (Richards, 2000), but experts in criminal psychology suggest that these cases hide a deeper and darker motivation. According to criminology's most authoritative classification of homicides, "most often, the real motivation for mercy killing has little to do with the offender's feelings of compassion and pity for the victim" (Douglas, Burgess, Burgess, & Ressler, 1992, p. 111). The authors, FBI profilers and criminologists, consider the deeper motivation for mercy killing to be a pathological need for "power and control" (p. 111). Acts of violence typically require two factors. First, there is an instrumental motivation, such as control or desire to be free of responsibility for a child. Second, there must be a disinhibiting factor, such as the belief that it is for the child's good, to release potentially homicidal parents from normal inhibition (Sobsey, 1994). The social endorsement of mercy killing therefore acts as a disinhibiting factor to those who may have instrumental motivations, but might otherwise be restrained by inhibition.
Or in other words: The mercy killing motivation is a rationalization to make the murder seem morally okay to the murderer.
Quote:
Speaking of pre-written scripts, there seems to be one going around that automatically villifies a parent for garnering any amount of sympathy from society. One of the biggest complaints floating around this board is the high level of sympathy and compassion that parents of Autistic children receive from society. Unfortunately, this point of view isn't simply a characteristic of Autism; It's a reflection of society. Quite a few of you are just like your neuro-typical counter-parts, selfish and self absorbed.
This too is BS. No one's complaining that parents don't deserve sympathy and compassion. What is frustrating to a lot of people is that this sympathy and compassion doesn't seem to be typically extended to the children, who are constantly characterized as problems and little more. And also, to adults who lose access to many necessary services upon reaching adulthood. When I first started really reading about autism (which was actually back in 2003) the idea of autistic adults rarely came up. That's been improving over the years, but is still in fairly bad shape.
But anyway, there isn't an argument that's going to make me sympathetic to murderers. It's not going to happen. I don't care about the circumstances that allegedly drove them to kill someone. That's BS. These murders are planned out ahead of time, and thus there's plenty of time for the killers to back down and change their mind or look for help before they do something irrevocable. Robert Latimer turned down a permanent placement for his daughter 12 days before the murder saying that he had other plans. Are you seriously going to insist that these are the actions of people driven to extremes, with nowhere to turn, who just decided to plan an elaborate murder or occasional murder-suicide? And that they deserve compassion for murdering their own children because life was so hard? Well, at least most of them are still alive, unlike their children.
You're arguing that the parents are doing this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_passion
When in fact, they're doing this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premeditated_murder
It may help to understand the difference.
It's funny how you seem to reappear when i have logged off and you think I'm gone.
I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt and leave you to your opinion BUT it appears I cant do that.
What's BS, is you posting information from another previous debate and presenting it as your original work, spontaneously gathered.
I'm back, this time to stay.
TheSunAlsoRises
20 Dec 2011, 11:20 pm
Verdandi wrote:
TheSunAlsoRises wrote:
I agreed to disagree. You were the one who came back and posted links to try to prove a point i dont agree with. Parents who are raising disabled children get tons of sympathy and compassion BUT they get very little help from the greater society at large. While i don't agree with or condone the actions of the parents, i have compassion and understanding in regards to 'what' may have drove them to commit an act of destruction.
That's BS. From the article I linked that described how the compassionate descriptions of Robert Latimer's motivations led to a sharp increase in so-called mercy-killings over the next several years (the increase was, by the way, 45%), was also this paragraph:
Quote:
So-called mercy killings, in which the altruistic reason is related to an illness, injury, or disability, make up only about 3% of child homicides (Richards, 2000), but experts in criminal psychology suggest that these cases hide a deeper and darker motivation. According to criminology's most authoritative classification of homicides, "most often, the real motivation for mercy killing has little to do with the offender's feelings of compassion and pity for the victim" (Douglas, Burgess, Burgess, & Ressler, 1992, p. 111). The authors, FBI profilers and criminologists, consider the deeper motivation for mercy killing to be a pathological need for "power and control" (p. 111). Acts of violence typically require two factors. First, there is an instrumental motivation, such as control or desire to be free of responsibility for a child. Second, there must be a disinhibiting factor, such as the belief that it is for the child's good, to release potentially homicidal parents from normal inhibition (Sobsey, 1994). The social endorsement of mercy killing therefore acts as a disinhibiting factor to those who may have instrumental motivations, but might otherwise be restrained by inhibition.
Or in other words: The mercy killing motivation is a rationalization to make the murder seem morally okay to the murderer.
Quote:
Speaking of pre-written scripts, there seems to be one going around that automatically villifies a parent for garnering any amount of sympathy from society. One of the biggest complaints floating around this board is the high level of sympathy and compassion that parents of Autistic children receive from society. Unfortunately, this point of view isn't simply a characteristic of Autism; It's a reflection of society. Quite a few of you are just like your neuro-typical counter-parts, selfish and self absorbed.
This too is BS. No one's complaining that parents don't deserve sympathy and compassion. What is frustrating to a lot of people is that this sympathy and compassion doesn't seem to be typically extended to the children, who are constantly characterized as problems and little more. And also, to adults who lose access to many necessary services upon reaching adulthood. When I first started really reading about autism (which was actually back in 2003) the idea of autistic adults rarely came up. That's been improving over the years, but is still in fairly bad shape.
But anyway, there isn't an argument that's going to make me sympathetic to murderers. It's not going to happen. I don't care about the circumstances that allegedly drove them to kill someone. That's BS. These murders are planned out ahead of time, and thus there's plenty of time for the killers to back down and change their mind or look for help before they do something irrevocable. Robert Latimer turned down a permanent placement for his daughter 12 days before the murder saying that he had other plans. Are you seriously going to insist that these are the actions of people driven to extremes, with nowhere to turn, who just decided to plan an elaborate murder or occasional murder-suicide? And that they deserve compassion for murdering their own children because life was so hard? Well, at least most of them are still alive, unlike their children.
You're arguing that the parents are doing this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_passion
When in fact, they're doing this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premeditated_murder
It may help to understand the difference.
You are incapable of seeing any perspective outside those that do NOT personally effect YOU. ON this very thread, you behaved extremely indignant because i dared to mention the elderly in the same breath as the disabled when attempting to make a point in this discussion. Why ? I could have continued to hammer the point across and found numerous links in which the elderly have been killed under similar circumstances as disabled children BUT i choose to leave it, alone. I could see your point of view, not simply because you were right BUT because i recognize THAT you have one outside MY OWN. I was able to understand THAT because YOU have personally dealt with the situation, you have an opinion, as true to you, as valid to you, as relevant to you, outside my own. I understood at THAT moment THAT no amount of links, quotes, and sources could change YOUR mind regardless of how IT may appeared to my so-called objective observations.
What you are doing has nothing to do with Autistic traits; I know the difference. You're being manipulative. You have failed miserably to prove your point based on logic because you think in the LITERAL, personal point of view. I mean, people are coming out of the wood work trying to tell you nicely that your arguments are poor.
TheSunAlsoRises
20 Dec 2011, 11:40 pm
The_Perfect_Storm wrote:
I don't mind what they are saying, from what I've seen so far. But why are they saying it in front of the kids? They don't need to hear that sh**..
This does offer quite a bit of insight into what many parents might be feeling. And what they are feeling is perfectly natural. Their children are defective, and the whole reason for having them in the first place is pretty much gone. Any hopes and dreams they had for their child before the diagnosis are near-impossible. It's selfish, but it's a natural response.
At least they are being honest. No one wants to have a disabled child.
opal wrote:
What gets me is that if their child had deafness, or blindness or cerebral palsy, or mental illness, or all of the above, there would be an outcry if this sort of video was made. But because they have autism, it's somehow ok?
Could you imagine if the Delizios, for example got up there and said" o my kid has been in 2 seperate car accidents, and had burns to 70% of her body and lost a hand and both feet, but poor little ME - I have to look after her???"
The parents should not be ignored. Any full time carer has it tough. It's a huge a commitment.
This does offer quite a bit of insight into what many parents might be feeling. And what they are feeling is perfectly natural. Their children are defective, and the whole reason for having them in the first place is pretty much gone. Any hopes and dreams they had for their child before the diagnosis are near-impossible. It's selfish, but it's a natural response.
At least they are being honest. No one wants to have a disabled child.
opal wrote:
What gets me is that if their child had deafness, or blindness or cerebral palsy, or mental illness, or all of the above, there would be an outcry if this sort of video was made. But because they have autism, it's somehow ok?
Could you imagine if the Delizios, for example got up there and said" o my kid has been in 2 seperate car accidents, and had burns to 70% of her body and lost a hand and both feet, but poor little ME - I have to look after her???"
The parents should not be ignored. Any full time carer has it tough. It's a huge a commitment.
i can slightly see what you are saying, but I dont understand why you are taking that side, it seems you are turning a blind eye to the other side. Case in point, your reply to opal just seems to completely negate the essence of what opal said. You just arent giving the right weight to parenthood, or holding parents to much of a standard.
no s**** it would be hard taking care of someone with any sort of difficult position, but you are the parent, you are the person who had a choice in the matter of become a parent, where-as a child had no choice in the event of coming into existence. you made that choice for them. Raising even a 'normal' child is not easy, you should be prepared for that if make the decision to have sexual intercourse with another human. It seems like pretty straightforward logic to me. Even if the child is the result of a contraceptive error, you have 9 months to get your act together. And if you are going into the game with expectations that parenthood SHOULD be a certain way, you are fecking idiot.
Harsh as that may be I feel it is quite infallible. To reiterate, to have a child, you must CHOOSE to have sex with someone. The child, whatever degree of normalcy, disability, or difference, had no choice in the matter. If you dont think you can hack certain potentialities of creating a child, go get sterilized. The End.
20 Dec 2011, 11:43 pm
TheygoMew wrote:
Miss-Understood. Have a heart? I don't think that lady is really poor and can't afford at least some choices in where her daughter goes. This is your first post here to defend the parent, interesting. Can you actually have a heart for the child that had to hear her own mother say that or do you think not speaking means not hearing? Videos like this encourage parents to think it's okay to treat their autistic children badly or to say what you want in front of them.
The parents could be setting positive examples so society will understand your children but instead, you've fallen for the pity me scheme. Is that the only way a charity can make their money? Exploit the children, make them out to be monsters and the parents something to be pitied? Most parents that have come in here follow this pity me routine. This shows how gullible people really are.
Making assumptions about where her daughter could possibly go to school... are you kidding??? You have no clue about that. Yes, I understand the child had to hear her mother say that about wanting her to end their lives, and when she is older hopefully her mum will explain how it was ridiculously hard to get services for her when she was young and that it never meant she didn't love her... and apologise. I guess you never say anything wrong?
Of course I understand not speaking doesn't mean not hearing. My eldest doesn't speak, I know he understands. I will continue to tell people what he needs in front of him, I will let them know what he can't do to get help for him to learn those things. I don't think that's offensive. It's not done to make him feel stupid or worthless, but to get him help.
How else will charities like AS make money? There have to show how it is... if you think this is made up, it isn't. Any day at my place is like that. Any day at my son's school is like that. They aren't making the kids out to be "monsters", is that how you see them? I want them to make money, tons of it and research their butts off to find a CURE for Autism. My oldest son needs it, his quirky and happy little brother doesn't- he will do fine.
I, for one, don't want pity. I want people to think, hmmmm.... That's not good enough, I'll donate to that or to pressure govt. to do more to help. Pity won't help.
So good- don't give me your pity, although you do have mine.
20 Dec 2011, 11:54 pm
TheSunAlsoRises wrote:
What you are doing has nothing to do with Autistic traits; I know the difference. You're being manipulative. You have failed miserably to prove your point based on logic because you think in the LITERAL, personal point of view. I mean, people are coming out of the wood work trying to tell you nicely that your arguments are poor.
TheSunAlsoRises
TheSunAlsoRises
Truthfully, Verdandi is the one of the two of you who actually seems to be
a) making what statement she is making clear and
b) making arguments that support that statement rather than falling to well known fallacy of attacking the person rather than making an argument about the statement.
If you want to be taken seriously, you should make a post saying what you're arguing (which I think is something like "It is understandable that people feel sympathy for others without feeling the actions where acceptable" (if it is that then I find that a reasonable statement but you've not made it even clear if that's what you're trying to argue)), and then only describe why you feel that way without making any attacks towards Verdandi or anyone else.
I understand what Verdandi's side is. I don't understand what yours is. I don't even think you're arguing about the same issue but you've not made what you're trying to claim clear enough to even know if that's true.
21 Dec 2011, 12:10 am
miss-understood wrote:
TheygoMew wrote:
Miss-Understood. Have a heart? I don't think that lady is really poor and can't afford at least some choices in where her daughter goes. This is your first post here to defend the parent, interesting. Can you actually have a heart for the child that had to hear her own mother say that or do you think not speaking means not hearing? Videos like this encourage parents to think it's okay to treat their autistic children badly or to say what you want in front of them.
The parents could be setting positive examples so society will understand your children but instead, you've fallen for the pity me scheme. Is that the only way a charity can make their money? Exploit the children, make them out to be monsters and the parents something to be pitied? Most parents that have come in here follow this pity me routine. This shows how gullible people really are.
Making assumptions about where her daughter could possibly go to school... are you kidding??? You have no clue about that. Yes, I understand the child had to hear her mother say that about wanting her to end their lives, and when she is older hopefully her mum will explain how it was ridiculously hard to get services for her when she was young and that it never meant she didn't love her... and apologise. I guess you never say anything wrong?
Of course I understand not speaking doesn't mean not hearing. My eldest doesn't speak, I know he understands. I will continue to tell people what he needs in front of him, I will let them know what he can't do to get help for him to learn those things. I don't think that's offensive. It's not done to make him feel stupid or worthless, but to get him help.
How else will charities like AS make money? There have to show how it is... if you think this is made up, it isn't. Any day at my place is like that. Any day at my son's school is like that. They aren't making the kids out to be "monsters", is that how you see them? I want them to make money, tons of it and research their butts off to find a CURE for Autism. My oldest son needs it, his quirky and happy little brother doesn't- he will do fine.
I, for one, don't want pity. I want people to think, hmmmm.... That's not good enough, I'll donate to that or to pressure govt. to do more to help. Pity won't help.
So good- don't give me your pity, although you do have mine.
This about sums up my point of view.
IF i ever reach a position of prominence, one of my main agendas would be to offer a program which allowed people with Autism to be a paid- volunteer(it sound like a contradiction but the details can be sorted out) working for an organization(based on a particular interest(s) or simply by trying new things).
Also, I believe too many Autistics do NOT have a PERSONAL understanding of Autism outside their own experiences instead they simply have an INTELLECTUAL one; there is a big difference between the two. I would like to see those with and without Autism spend a few weeks shadowing a caregiver of someone with Autism or someone with Autism. People who are on the spectrum will be paired with families of children on a different part of the spectrum then they are.
TheSunAlsoRises
Last edited by TheSunAlsoRises on 21 Dec 2011, 12:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
21 Dec 2011, 12:11 am
Verdandi wrote:
In front of her child, on camera at all. It's best saved for therapy or privacy.
Yes, I agree, but what do you do if you have no privacy, and can't afford a therapist? For real. It can get that bad. What do you do? Just hold it in and never talk about it? Really bad things can happen when people do that. I've experienced first hand the results from that. My own mother held things in for many years. When it did come out, it wasn't by choice, but through illness, and that had a much worse affect on me than what would have happened had she chosen to talk about things, even if i had heard it.
_________________
I'm not likely to be around much longer. As before when I first signed up here years ago, I'm finding that after a long hiatus, and after only a few days back on here, I'm spending way too much time here again already. So I'm requesting my account be locked, banned or whatever. It's just time. Until then, well, I dunno...
21 Dec 2011, 12:16 am
Tuttle wrote:
TheSunAlsoRises wrote:
What you are doing has nothing to do with Autistic traits; I know the difference. You're being manipulative. You have failed miserably to prove your point based on logic because you think in the LITERAL, personal point of view. I mean, people are coming out of the wood work trying to tell you nicely that your arguments are poor.
TheSunAlsoRises
TheSunAlsoRises
Truthfully, Verdandi is the one of the two of you who actually seems to be
a) making what statement she is making clear and
b) making arguments that support that statement rather than falling to well known fallacy of attacking the person rather than making an argument about the statement.
If you want to be taken seriously, you should make a post saying what you're arguing (which I think is something like "It is understandable that people feel sympathy for others without feeling the actions where acceptable" (if it is that then I find that a reasonable statement but you've not made it even clear if that's what you're trying to argue)), and then only describe why you feel that way without making any attacks towards Verdandi or anyone else.
I understand what Verdandi's side is. I don't understand what yours is. I don't even think you're arguing about the same issue but you've not made what you're trying to claim clear enough to even know if that's true.
I have made a statement similar to the one that you suggested awhile ago BUT it was ignored.
As far as being taken seriously, i let my posts stand on their own in regards to content, context, and insight.
I did not begin the personal attacks. She did. And, i do NOT know your personal relationship with Verdandi so your opinions have no weight with me.
Truthfully
TheSunAlsoRises
Verdandi
Veteran
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
21 Dec 2011, 12:26 am
MrXxx wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
In front of her child, on camera at all. It's best saved for therapy or privacy.
Yes, I agree, but what do you do if you have no privacy, and can't afford a therapist? For real. It can get that bad. What do you do? Just hold it in and never talk about it? Really bad things can happen when people do that. I've experienced first hand the results from that. My own mother held things in for many years. When it did come out, it wasn't by choice, but through illness, and that had a much worse affect on me than what would have happened had she chosen to talk about things, even if i had heard it.
Talking about killing a child in front of that child is abusive. Are you saying you never ever have a chance to say anything without a child being present? No opportunities to discuss it in e-mail or on the phone or after they've gone to bed? There are a lot of things you can say in front of your children that can reflect your frustration without going there.
21 Dec 2011, 12:33 am
TheSunAlsoRises wrote:
I have made a statement similar to the one that you suggested awhile ago BUT it was ignored.
The only point I saw you make a clear statement similar to that it was responded to and somewhat understood that you could do that. It's where I got that you were trying to say something similar to that from, but with the rest of the posts, I really couldn't pull some of them together to make sense. Is that actually what you're trying to say? Is that actually what you're trying to say in all your posts? Some of them I was just completely unable to follow.
Quote:
As far as being taken seriously, i let my posts stand on their own in regards to content, context, and insight.
Your call, but I can tell you that you have been using very blatant fallacies. Attacking the person you're arguing with might be a common debate tactic but it doesn't support your side at all, in fact I find it weakens it.
However half of why I said this was in order to actually try to get you to put what you think into a clear concise post so I can actually have an idea of how some of what you're saying relates at all to other statements you're making.
Quote:
I did not begin the personal attacks. She did.
From what I saw I wouldn't agree with this, but maybe you read something as an attack that I didn't read as an attack. If you want to tell me where you feel the attacks started feel free to tell me.
However, either way personal attacks were and are inappropriate, no matter who it was from or to and even if someone else started it.
Quote:
And, i do NOT know your personal relationship with Verdandi so your opinions have no weight with me.
We're just two members on these forums. I don't know Verdandi outside of here. I'd react in the same way if other people were in this situation.
I will admit that I feel in some ways more connected to Verdandi than many others on these forums because her posts are some of the ones that have helped me understand myself drastically better since I became active (along with Callista, penseive, and some others). However, this is just that she these are people who have similar enough types of autism that it allows me to understand myself better via comparison and via them sharing their growing knowledge of themselves.
But really, I just don't like people attacking others rather than supporting what they're trying to argue. I'd been watching this discussion/argument for a while, not wanting to get involved but it hit the point where I felt that something needed to be said because it had gotten out of hand.
21 Dec 2011, 12:38 am
MrXxx wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
In front of her child, on camera at all. It's best saved for therapy or privacy.
Yes, I agree, but what do you do if you have no privacy, and can't afford a therapist? For real. It can get that bad. What do you do? Just hold it in and never talk about it? Really bad things can happen when people do that. I've experienced first hand the results from that. My own mother held things in for many years. When it did come out, it wasn't by choice, but through illness, and that had a much worse affect on me than what would have happened had she chosen to talk about things, even if i had heard it.
Holding it in and not talking about it is bad. Talking about killing a child is still not acceptable, especially when there is no apology to that child with explanation about the frustration after.
Discussing hard things needs to happen, sometimes this needs to involve the child even when the child shouldn't be involved. Going that far is still not acceptable.
I don't necessarily know what solutions are (and I plan to actively look into this before I ever have a child, knowing the likelihood of having one on the spectrum), but I have seen things that give grants out for parents of autistic kids to pay for the parents to get therapy to help them with the challenges. I find this a really good idea.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Starting Community College In Sept |
Today, 9:24 pm |
| Quiet Reflections on a Growing Polyamorous Community |
15 Jul 2025, 2:57 pm |
| SCOTUS Delivers Major Setback for Transgender Community |
20 Jun 2025, 11:03 am |
| Why Trump has Ghana's LGBTQ+ community on high alert |
20 Apr 2025, 3:27 pm |
