If There Was a War Between NTs & Autistics.......

Post Reply New Topic

Well, if you really want to get into the specifics of race, there are only three in a genetic sense: Caucasian (black and white), Mongoloid (black and white), and Negro (Black).

The idea of ethnic groups comes primarily from where they are geographically located and their particular culture, religion, etc.

Brain structure on the otherhand is usually the same among all people regardless of race or ethnicity, since the genes regarding brain size and brain structure are mostly the same for all people. People with autism are actually missing quite a few copies of those genes; here is a link from NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=8926283

In short, anybody regardless of race or ethnicity can have autism. That's why I don't consider autism a race or minority in any sense.

And people can be more than one race.. or at least can fall in between genetically.

What I dont understand is that you just get through saying that genetically there are three races of people (either, either, or) but if someone suggests a second set of genetic race determinates to further subcatagorize you immediately dismiss it.

Is race determined by genetics or not? Caucasian (NT/ASD), Mongoloid (NT/ASD), and Negro (NT/ASD) making the total 6.

All of them are genetically unique so whats the problem?

I would have no choice! I would HAVE to be on the autistic side. My weaknesses are ones most autistics have, and I have been treated badly by NTs all the same.

and this right here about the bullying I see as defective behavior on the NT's part. You're just minding your own business right?

I would stand neutral.
I don't believe in war.

Fraya has a point. I dunno if it's a good one, but it's a point. I don't think you can limit genocide to Caucasian genocide, Mongoloid genocide, and Negro genocide. The genocidal people certainly don't. The difference between ethnicity and brain structure is limited as well, in the context of wiping out genes. Hitler wanted to kill off the mentally ret*d, too. I'd consider that genocide, regardless of the dictionary definition.

Look at the root. Ethnocide? Racicide? Genocide.

Last edited by ev8 on 04 Oct 2007, 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, if you are so intent on using labeling everything based on genetics then you can have potentially tens of thousands of races, since individually people do differ slightly genetically.

The reason they are usually grouped that way is because those three groups are the ones that have any significant difference with relation to their particular environment. Note that these are just the main groups; in Africa there are more "genetically diverse" humans because very few of them left the African continent during human migration.

Here is a much more concise information on the dynamics of human genetics: http://www2.wwnorton.com/college/anthro ... come.shtml

Right so were talking only about major genetic differences that cause a significant difference in their physical attributes.

Considering autism is an inherited genetic disorder that causes a major physical difference in brain structure why doesn't it count?

How much difference is enough? Who decides?

Well, since it is agreed that autism is a genetic disorder of some sort, then how does it qualify as a race. As I said before, the genetics of race are quite different then those of brain structure. Race is determined with by comparing genetics of a particular group of people in an environment or geographical location and comparing them to other groups. People of any race, ethnicity, geographical location, etc, can also have autism too since the genes involving that are the same for everybody. Are you reading the links I'm providing?

Yes I am but I still don't see what geographical location has to do with anything.

If you leave the area your race is said to originate from you are no longer part of that race?

And its only called a disorder by people who think if your body doesn't work like theirs does yours must be broken.. just like having dark skin would have been considered a disorder by European explorers.

And why do you keep insisting that just because you are of one race you cant also be of another? I see african-american/caucasian hybrids on nearly a daily basis.

I would have to fight for the Autie cause, though I know we would be slaughtered. On the off-chance of us winning (perhaps some Aspies with obsessions for military tactics would help out?) I would be rather stuneed, but hopeful that we would not degenerate into reactionary anti-NT policies, but instead permit everyone to be involved in rebuilding. I would of course be rather confused, but optimistic that scientific aptitude or other special abilities might come to be more highly prized than they are now.
For Fraya and RadiantAspie... let's please stop debating over the technical definition of genocide. Fraya initially commented on the psychos from Cure Autism Now wanting to eliminate autism through prenatal testing and selective abortion. Whether or not this meets the literal definition of genocide, it strikes many as such because you are proposing to kill off a particular group of people based on your own conceptions of their presumed inferiority. Whether or not this technically constitutes genocide, it is wrong.

I tell you what, after we get rid of the NTs lets kill all the nigras and joos.
Marvelous :this is my elitist face:


edit: and lets not forget the muslims.

YEP! I am not asking for handouts, raising taxes, getting grants, etc... MANY are more involved in my business than I am in everyone elses business put together. But what is your point?

But you have yet to show that the people who consider autism a disorder (e.g. doctors, psychologists, etc) are wrong. So far, all evidence is against you.

The European explorers who thought that difference in skin color was a disorder did not base their assumptions on empirical evidence or anything of the sort, rather they assumed that they were inferior because they did not have the power to resist them, which is a rather baseless assumption.
Your analogy fails in this case.

The point is, if you aren't harming other people, why should they harm you?

And your basing your assumptions that its a disorder on the opinions of professionals. If a professional says its true it must be true because they are a professional.. logic failure.

I have yet to see any empirical evidence that shows that autism is a malfunction.. a harmful mutation and nothing more.