Stop Bashing Autism Speaks!

Post Reply New Topic

[/quote]

*facepalms* This isn't black-and-white thinking. Most of these are association fallacies. It's obvious that you don't know what black and white thinking is.

Last edited by Gedrene on 26 Oct 2011, 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Are you actually going to parse between my sentences in order to say what you need or are you going to just keep dumping shedloads of text on here that only half-relates to what I say? Brevity is wit? I have had to cut down your gargantuan oversized posts right now several times

If it's true for all of them then you can say it's true for all of them? That you can't establish many examples true to them only shows how amazingly over-generic the diagnostic system is.


Not that a deficit in abstract reasoning is actually ever given as part-and-parcel in autism and to say so is a wholly massive lie.


Erm I don't know what you are talking about because it's very clear that abstract reasoning is something we do just as well as anyone else. How you manage to from tambourine wrongly talking about black-and-white thinking to metaphors from ci is beyond me. Your posts are gigantic distraction devices.



Ohohohoh! Now he's making an underhanded comment about me possibly having it. Fantastic. Decided to try and suggest that it was correct to say what I may or may not have? Nothing like some convenient explanation. You originally said this:

And that pretty much says that you thought I didn't.

Not that you should anyways.

I said this:

I have already been over this aghogday. Don't be crude and try and stick back in some suggestion. I know what it is.




WRONG. Part and parcel has only such a meaning. It never had any other meaning and the only way one could avoid the fact that part and parcel meant integral was by lying to themselves, which obviously two people have.


Part and Parcel (or part-parcel)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/part_and_parcel
(idiomatic) An integral or essential piece; that which must be done or accepted as part of something else. Regular maintenance is part and parcel of owning a car.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... cel-of-sth
to be a necessary feature of a particular experience, which cannot be avoided

http://thesaurus.com/browse/part-parcel
Definition: an essential part

So are you going to try skipping around the fact that when Tambourine meant Part-and Parcel that he certainly meant integral to autism and thus all autistics?



It isn't that at all. Communication deficits, unusual displays of organisation or obsession and slow development of speech are considered the hallmarks of autism. We all know that.



So you try and throw an official standpoint at me and you end up showing something that contradicts itself. Why should I believe it? One cannot have higher intellectual ability and at the same time not be good at abstract reasoning. Or are you going to fudge fact again?



And? I have unverifiable proof that the majority of us, if you didn't have a blinkered view, think that autism speak's wrongdoing outweighs any good that they do. Don't try and change what I said. I know what it appears like to you but I think the majority view is that autism speaks' attempts to do good or actual good deeds are outweighed heavily by the evidence that they have done bad. The world does not revolve your opinions. I was correcting you as to the reason why people aren't open-armed to autism speaks.



Erm, I'd actually say that millions upon millions of people of NTs must then must be autistic because they willingly believe in complete ideological beliefs. Say, you have never met a political extremist? Because guess what, they think in black-and-white.


For them the actual organisation itself is negative, not all their actions.


aghogday, you don't seem to understand. I am part of the middle-ground. I am the man who dangles between Zeraeph and you. Between AlanTuring and Tambourine-Man. And I am still suspicious and unconvinced and with good reason.

If I get to answering the other thing then I'll put it in another post.

Last edited by Gedrene on 26 Oct 2011, 6:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

The expression 'part and parcel' is not as decisive as it might sometimes seem, or as the definition might seem to say..it depends on the context so it can mean something like 'comes with' which is not really a definitive thing, but a general statement.
If he had said 'unequivocally always features' then it would be clearer, but..he didn't and I don't think that's what he meant.

Wrong, again.
Part and parcel has only such a meaning of definitive and absolute and unavoidable. It never had any other meaning and the only way one could avoid the fact that part and parcel meant integral was by lying to themselves.


Part and Parcel (or part-parcel)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/part_and_parcel
(idiomatic) An integral or essential piece; that which must be done or accepted as part of something else. Regular maintenance is part and parcel of owning a car.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... cel-of-sth
to be a necessary feature of a particular experience, which cannot be avoided

http://thesaurus.com/browse/part-parcel
Definition: an essential part



You don't think. I do think it is what he meant. However unlike your evaluation I can back up what I say with fact.

I just heard an advertisement for an Autism Speaks walk-a-thon of some sort and it mentioned people "on the Autism spectrum" - so I find that wording very encouraging. The fact that it's a spectrum of all different shades is what needs to be focused on in terms of awareness, in my opinion.

So I was happy about that

There is a problem with spectrum I think. I think it's glossing over the fact that to be honest autism I hink may consist of different issues that have been clumped together. It's more like a waste-paper basket than a puzzle.

I agree with that, I think there's a reason that so many people "on the spectrum" are so different. Sure personal differences is some of it but I think there are multiple underlying causes with similar presentation. But until the medical community pinpoints some actual issues instead of a collection of symptoms or revises their veiwpoint on autism, we're all in it together.

That's neither here nor there, though.

I still appreciate the advertisment I mentioned earlier because my experience with the general public has indicated that they don't have much of a concept of HFA or anything other than LFA. If Autism Speaks can start rasing some awareness about other parts of the spectrum (as it is currently viewed), I will be greatful for that.

This is a bit pointless. I have clarified that I do not think all self-advocates suffer from black and white thinking.

I consider myself to be a self-advocate, yet I recognize the dangers of black and white thinking. Obviously, I do not believe that all self-advocates think in black and white all the time.

Hyper focus, perseveration, sensitivity to perceived criticism and tangential thinking are also considered to be "part and parcel" (notice the quotations) to the autism diagnosis. These are evidenced in abundance here.

An autistic savant is rare but never the less is an autistic individual. You stated rainman doesn't have an autistic guy in it because one of the individuals Hoffman studied doesn't have autism. That is not correct. He studied other individuals that were autistic savants as provided in the evidence, beyond Kim Peek or his friend Bill Sackter.

As stated in the evidence the orginal screenplay had nothing to do with autism, but it was decided that autistic savants would be studied to portray an autistic savant instead of a savant without autism. The second screenplay approved and used in the movie did indeed portray an autistic person. Regardless of whether or not it was a autistic person with a rare accompanying condition it was still an autistic person.

I wondered in the other thread if you could acknowledge this, instead of acknowledging it you still state that it is a misconception that "Rainman" was autistic in your quote above. I provided evidence that Raymond the character in the movie "Rainman" was accurately portrayed as an autistic savant; can you provide evidence that this is not true?

I believe Dustin Hoffman gave a very accurate portrayal of ONE potentially autistic individual. No, I'm not much like Raymond, but that doesn't mean I'm autistic and he isn't.

I see similarities between myself and the character, however. Raymond was based IN PART on Peek. His character was influenced by many autistics who were studied.

You say that now. That's good. But why did you and aghogday try to defend it by saying that part and parcel isn't what it is? I wouldn't have minded if you changed your tack, but why defend it by saying that part and parcel doesn't mean integral, that it doesn't suggest all?






I know you didn't. You never said that until now and I never claimed it. You said that autism was part-and-parcel with black and white thinking and for that reason you suggest the intellectual argumentation of self-advocates was impaired and I was saying was that this was wrong. Both you and aghogday then tried to jump backwards through a hoop by saying that part and parcel didn't mean integral, even though that's the only meaning part and parcel ever had. Even more damning is that you put yourself behand autism speaks, a cure group. I don't mind cure groups but all you talk about is how Autism Speaks has changed all the time. That isn't self-advocacy. That isn't saying we can overcome by force of will.


Oh here we go, more informed traits that are probably supposed to be directed at me because I responded to his injustice with dogged determination. So much for black and white thinking and not being able to understand metaphor.
This was not perceived criticism, it was real discrimination. You called all self-advocates incapable of thinking correctly because they think in black and white terms. That's just a plain ad hominem attack.
It's ironic how desperate you are getting in trying not to be perceived as wrong. You infer that I have both hyper focus and tangential thinking. Two things which are mutually exclusive and are symptoms of disorders which are not linked. I have talked about your injustice all this time. That I have come back to it again and again is not hyper focus, it's called perseverence. That thing you blacken by calling it a trait as if its a bad thing by calling it perseveration.
I don't care whether you use quotations. That doesn't change the meaning of the word unless you were trying to be sarcastic, which is ironic because none of what you said above is part and parcel with autism. unless you were trying to make an ad hominem attack again, which you are.

I tell you what is highly correlated with psychopathy though: A lack of remorse and a tendency to deceitfulness.

People can misunderstand what phrases mean without intentionally lying, you know.

I think it is most likely that Tambourine-Man and aghogday had a misconception of what the phrase "part and parcel" meant. I might have been inclined to agree with them at first based on the common usage of this phrase but after researching it (as well reading as the links you posted) you are correct, Gedrene. I don't think either of them are trying to decieve or back track. I think it was a simple misunderstanding.

Er no. Actually two. There's one other guy as well, who was apparently diagnosed as ret*d but actually had normal intelligence. You even say his name below too and you then say only one. Do you fact check your own posts for inconsistencies? It might have saved a lot of trouble. Goes to show how incompetent people are themselves when it comes to the mentally challenged.


And your idea is that because he spent hours of research studying autistics according to a website with no source links to it and furthermore given the fact that at the time Kim Peek was also diagnosed with autism I am somehow to instantly believe you? How many of those people I wonder in those tapes actually had autism?


It was a common misconception of the time that autistics were often savants. See Kim Peek as an example of this. A savant thought to be autistic. Appears it was actually FG syndrome.


Now you are loading the dice by saying he was autistic despite the fact that this is in doubt. It's obvious what's going on here. An autistic person is not an 'it'.


More loading of the dice. You aren't even trying to make an argument. You are just saying that he isn't autistic because one source said Hoffman looked at tonnes of videos of autistic people even though at the time Kim Peek was considered autistic. Sort of puts a damper on everything. I only acknowledge something that is true. Don't try and use the word acknowledge when it's obvious I have more reason to say that your belief about Rainman isn't true.


I have provided reasons why your 'evidence' is faulty.

That's why I used kiddy gloves to begin with. But the straw that broke the camel's back was by those two constantly affirming that part and parcel didn't mean integral when it was the only definition that part and parcel has.


Aye, but that then doesn't give tambourine-man the right to refer to hyperfocus and tangential thinking being 'clearly displayed' when the only person he was talking to at the time was me.
So much for me thinking black and white when I pick up that inference. Does tambourine-man have the right to just rattle off things that are 'clearly demonstrated' whilst not only making an ad hominem attack that's underhanded and catty but also using Ipsum dixit?

I don't know anything about any of the other stuff you're talking about so I have no comments on those. I'm just saying that it appeared they misunderstood the meaning phrase "part and parcel." Such a statement doesn't automatically mean I have an opinion on any other points in this converstation. If I do, I'll let you know.

He said this and it was directed at me.

It's ad hominem. He's claiming I have all these negative characteristics even though two of them conflict, one isn't even spelt correctly so obviously it sounds like stuff is being made up here and he's saying that black and white is sensitivity to perceived criticism when it isn't. It's his fault that he protected it. It's also catty, snarky. I shouldn't take this, especially if we both know that his interpretation of what was said was wrong.