Time to stand up against anti-cure

Post Reply New Topic

ci, I'm not as concerned with the abortion issue as you seem to think I am. I only stated that is where the fear comes from - the common fear - not my personal fear.

Again, I am all for research to help us all. Research that may help future generations is a wonderful, noble cause but there is little that it is going to do for those of us already here.

And our opinions on all of this are just that, opinions. The people with the money make the decisions on what will and will not be researched and quite honestly I think they could care less what we, as a population, think about their decisions. And, that right there is a whole other topic...

Autism is a complex disability with many implied casual links. How can research help if it does not know the cause? Well the opinions I have in the applied sense are opinions but are based on political facts. So as a rule I use them to determine social biases. I may not personally like what I say and I may agree with what others say but science is about finding the truth. Psychology and relating social manifestions are scientific based. I have my methodologies.

Ultimately I need to have meetings with people and have met with a few and still some are to be properly arranged. I ask questions, ask for honesty and it is a social related scientific endeavor. Autism politics I believe can be very beneficial and very harmful to quality of life. I believe I am protecting myself and others from manipulation and special interest at times. For many sub-subjects I simply cannot make an absolute determination but the delima is made more clear.

There is no denying the complexity of autism. At least science agrees on that point. I too believe they need to identify the cause - right now they are working off of theories alone. And, it is possible, that science will not totally understand autism until they fully understand the brain - which they definitely do not. so , yes, I agree that there is a WHOLE LOT of research that needs to be done.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'political facts'. I'm a layman here, ci. That sounds like advocate speak to me! I wasn't aware that politics created anything 'factual'.

I think you are trying to say that you are looking for people's opinions in order to advocate more effectively. (please correct me if I'm wrong...) If you are interested in gathering data on the social manifestations, it may be advantageous to ask more questions rather than pointing out the flaws in people's reasoning. Approaching the exorcise with the scientific method rather than openly debating the subject you are trying to research.

I interpret your posts as requests to share opinions - that you want to know what other people think, feel and know. I think some other people have been under that same impression as well. I think you passion and dedication to advocacy is admirable and, beleive it or not, I'm trying to be supportive here! But, it seems, no matter how hard I try, we just do not seem to understand one another. And that's okay... not everyone can. I hope you don't fault me for trying.

Facts of positions and common beliefs. This is regardless as to if you are laying down or a female or a male. (layman)



I have already gathered that information and I'm trying to influence for a more positive outcome. I feel if the issues are well understood and when educating inciting reaction I can evolve approach. It is my opinion that advocacies are not optimal nor probable of positive outcome with some of them. Yet it depends on the issue and context. I want to be able to actively engage it in an educated fashion in real-life macro media. I've already achieved and achieved again and again local media it's time to go further and I believe some of these politics like that have proven already to come to me instead of my attempting to stir them.



I understand the big picture and understand the micro causal you and others fairly well because for many years I tried to depend on such online advocacy for other reasons. Regrettably the issues may get in the way of other progress indirectly and sometimes this has to do with very high functioning individuals attempting to persuade certain perspectives or else it's not politically correct. Some pride advocates are some nasty folks as well. I want to know why, its a political risk management thing and also I want to understand as much about it as possible to understand why professionals behave as they do in relation to it. Professionals can be very submissive to pride advocate philosophies and it may not always be in the best interest of protecting people in need of social services in preservation of that.

Professionals can be stuck between a rock and a hard place as the saying goes. Becoming part of their job to mitigate correctness and revise awarenesses and my belief is it is not always in the best interest of those who are in real need vs. much higher functioning individuals with social sensitivities.

So my interaction here I'd consider in the field experience and experimentation as well as when applicable implementation. When should dignity be applicable and when does it not supersede other rights and so on. Why are some issues so very important when those issues that seem so important can be used for other interest in mainstream politics?

I think I finally see the light... I think I understand where I wasn't understanding you.

I think it may come down to approach. Have you heard the saying; "It easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar."?

I admire your dedication to advocating for a better life for all of us. I can see where the reactionary thoughts and beliefs of the high functioning could possibly impede the possibilities for those much more affected on the spectrum. But, rather than going head to head in an issues debate, it may be more effective to discuss the issue from the perspective your audience is approaching it from.

If someone gets offended at the word 'disease', try and find out why then offer a different perspective. If someone is offended for emotional reasons, tossing back arguements of pure logic and reason can be seen as confrontational or as a verbal attack. The person you are trying to engage shuts down or gets angry because they do not feel they have been heard and that their feelings are being discounted as unimportant. If someone is discussing from an emotional standpoint, you need to try and reason with them from an emotional standpoint.

You are reasoning from a logical, academic standpoint - all of my well thought out, carefully reasoned responses seem like rhetoric to you because I'm not being factual. You feel I am not addressing the issue at all or even trying to be evasive by not speaking in facts and statistics. It's akin to speaking two different languages, in a way.

In that light, I think most of the people who have engaged you on this subject actually agree with many of your points, although, trying to change minds on the 'fear of abortion as eugenics' is going to be a very tough battle indeed.

I think I understand your issue with 'pride advocates', as you call them. Every issue has a very outspoken group them. The media and mainstream politics are influenced by them for one very simple reason... they are outspoken. They make the most noise on an issue. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. 'Pride advocates' by definition are speaking from emotion. They speak from the heart. Logic, reason and compromising facts aren't going to sway what their gut tells them is right. And that doesn't necessarily make them wrong in any way. Their needs are just different from the professional communities needs.

Advocates are like the worlds best chess players - they can anticipate five moves ahead and play to an opponents weak spots. And this is not a simple, clear or concise issue you are tackling.

More power to you my friend.

Well kind of. My brain just goes to rationalizing typically and I think for a long time the pride folks rejected it but that's how my brain works. I strongly suspect the emotional stuff has run it's course in advocacy and is running out of steam. Once a bit of rationalism finds it's way people will have the knowledge to balance some of it out. It's not that they are stupid it's just easy to try to appease emotions in the moment. We will see how this evolves in the end.

LOL - never underestimate the power of DRAMA!

Drama has evaded progress for some time. That's all I remember of the pride stuff. Making mountains out of mole hills and so on. It's not that it is entertaining it's wasting to me. Sucks the damn positivity and constructive progress right out of the sphere of influence.

DRAMA is both an form of entertainment (especially if you live near the beach in Jersey) and also a highy contagious social disease reviled in theory but rarely in practice!

Unfortunately, without the dog and pony show, many issues would never see the light of day via media attention.

Yes I know that's part of my study. Like a mind virus those damn ideas spread and infect folks. I want to know how to spread them, how they effect the psyche and launch them upon will. I've done a few here on this forum and they have manifested elsewhere. This is a new kind of psycho-surgery, it's called psychosocial surgery. The pull my finger ones tend to have a rude result but I intend well.

Its like they think where mutans and they wont to take away our power im 100% against the cure i like being a aspie

If you are not substancially disability then you don't understand and if you are not aware of the reality of those profoundly disabled you don't know any better. It's your damn right of course to not want to be cured or choose to be cured. Anti-cure however seeks to prevent research for a cure to be developed with a myriad of ways and means. You seem like a human rights person that respects choice.

I think it is time for a radical paradigm shift. Certainly autistic individuals can benefit from treatment but the treatment does not necessarilly have to change who they are. Rather treatments help them interact socially with the world. In the future virtual reality therapy will help autistic people cope with their social challenges. However in a virtual world society can be programmed and simulated not to be offended by autistic behavior. In the real world this is very difficult because society resists change. In a virtual utopian world change is normal and love is unconditional. What you are really treating is not autism but rather depression.

That's why I bring up society needs a cure as well.

I would really like to be cured, but I wouldn't be the same. I would rather have friends then be smart??? People without Autism and Aspergers can be smart and have friends, so I choose cure I hate having aspergers, but I do enjoy the skills??? Hmmm.....

Ci, I want to try an experiment with you. It may help us understand your point, as well as pare down the unnecessary tangential issues.

Write a reply as normal, and then hyperlink the first appearance of each important word (cure, treatment, rights, disability, etc) to an accepted lexicographic source.

The next person who replies, does the same. Except that before addressing your argument itself, they point out where they think you are using words outside of their defined meaning, or in several senses at several points.

When you reply, you do the same to their post.

I am curious just how much of this argument consists of the participants trying to use different definitions, and how much consists of actual disagreement. Making the denotations explicit would help quite a bit in understand just how you are using the word "cure" and how others are using it.

Note that this approach is equally likely to embarrass any party with evidence that while they use a word in one sense at point A, they use it in a different sense at point B. This is the logical fallacy of equivocation. It does not imply one is intentionally trying to distort the meanings of the words used, but only that there exists a confusion which is almost certain to mitigate even the best attempts to understand each other.

This confusion happens to the best of us. One reason is that too often, we superimpose our expectations as to what the rebuttal to our point is, over the actual rebuttal offered. We expect the other to read our argument and say X, and instead they say Y, but we then try to read X's meaning into what they said. This can happen even more often if, as is the case here, both parties are passionately discussing fervently held beliefs.

As John Stuart Mill said, a man who knows only one side of an issue knows little at that. It is simply unnecessary to argue against an imaginary opponent when a real one is actually engaging you. This requires that one set aside one's expectations of what the other will say (expectations which arose out of one's own thinking), and actually observe what they do say (displaying conclusions not arising out of one's own thinking).

Want to try it?