Page 10 of 14 [ 213 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

dalurker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 514
Location: NY

01 Feb 2009, 5:07 pm

Chuck wrote:
dalurker wrote:
...
Quote:
Most people understands what someone wants if they point at something...

That's not enough to communicate sufficiently. Nobody wants to be reduced to the indignity of only being able to point to things to communicate.


This is how Einstein communicated when he first arrived in America. And he did it effectively, and with good humor.


Why do you try to refute me with an irrelevant example? I may not deserve any respect, but my arguments do.



Chuck
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,662
Location: with you :)

01 Feb 2009, 6:11 pm

dalurker wrote:
... I may not deserve any respect, but my arguments do.

If you have come here with open mind, in the spirit of sharing and contrasting ideas and thoughts with others who hold different points of view, in an effort to examine their ideas and to re-evaluate your own, you have my respect. I try to continually do the same. Examining one's belief system's clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, and fairness is a lifelong process, and not easy. I respect where you are on that journey if you are actively engaged in that process. If, however, you are here merely arguing and making yourself angry, you are doing yourself no good, and I do not respect argument for the sake of argument only. I would still respect you as an individual, a fellow sentient being who travels with me on life's journey, but would hope for you a better path. I may not agree with a person's arguments, ideas, or belief system, but I still respect their right to believe whatever they wish, so long as they do not try to impose that belief system on others (including myself), or try to control others with it. If I see that your ideas will lead to the harm of others, and it is in my power to prevent such harm, I will intercede. I wish you well, and hope you take time for reflection on this matter.



Naturella
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 186

01 Feb 2009, 7:13 pm

dalurker wrote:
ed wrote:
dalurker and Naturella, do you both feel that the two boys who are the subject of this topic should be taken to Mexico to have a doctor there squirt some stem cells into their brains? A simple yes or no would be sufficient. :D


Nope. I doubt there is any evidence backing up such a treatment at this time.

I do not believe they would really do that to anybody. Frankly, the web page itself seems to me like a scam (asking for donations). but I cannot be sure, and , frankly I do not have the intention to go ALL THE WAY and take any responsiblity for the kids. Just sending them letters - only would make it worse. So, I trust other parents to be wise enough, and I do hope that nobody does any harm to the kids (if they exist).
But my point in this topic - is the objection to the OP, that assumed that most autistic are against cure, and that cure is inherently bad (no matter good or bad science it involves).



Silvervarg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 787
Location: Sweden

01 Feb 2009, 7:34 pm

dalurker wrote:
DeaconBlues wrote:
Dalurker, you seem to be determined to assign your own wants, needs, desires, and priorities on other people. Are you truly incapable of conceiving of a meaningful life that does not fit your (rather narrow) criteria? You mentioned Amanda Baggs earlier - if she were restricted to a speech-only paradigm, she could not have, as you state, entered college at the age of 13. Intellect cannot be seen, if no communication is possible, and if we restrict ourselves to speech as the only valid mode of communication, Ms Baggs (who is, as I understand it, very nearly completely nonverbal) would not have been able to accomplish any of the things she has.

I do wonder why you become so angry when presented with counter-arguments - is it that you recognize that your argument is invalid, but do not wish to concede this point, or are there deeper issues at work here?

My wants aren't only my wants. I know that many other people want what I want, and some get it. Such priorities, needs, etc. are also wanted by many people. Many individuals are proud of having their capabilities, and would be devastated if they lost them; the same capabilities you pretend don't matter. Who doesn't want to have basic abilities? Who wouldn't like receiving basic and other abilities after not having them? Tell me that if you can. I don't conceive of a decent lifestyle that doesn't fit my criteria, which aren't narrow. Why is it so much to ask to entitle people to at least have basic abilities? Amanda Baggs wasn't nonverbal at 13. I'm not talking about speech as much as I'm talking about language and its use. I consider language as a high priority.

I hate counter-arguments regarding this matter because I think they're very oppressive. I become very angry because of the tremendous importance of the issues being discussed, and because those like you want things to remain awful. No sane person could think my argument is invalid. Why don't you consider my points instead of pretending that usual perceptions of reality don't apply to situations that can be characterized as very unfortunate and unfair? I'm sick of you trying to isolate my intentions from those of society by implying that my wants are only wants of mine.

It greifs me to see such compassion drown in ignorance, false hope and lack of insight about personal motives.


_________________
Sing songs. Songs sung. Samsung.


Nan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Mar 2006
Age: 68
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,795

01 Feb 2009, 7:41 pm

You can't argue rationally with a fundamentalist, Sinsboldly. They need (for whatever reason) to believe as they do and the more you try to provide other intellectual options for them to examine, the more threatened they will become, and, typically, the more angry. The more angry they become, the more tightly they will cling to their original thoughts. They inevitably tend to start feeling as if the world is "against" them which will lead to nothing useful in the long run of things. (Or, at least, that's how I've seen it play out for years.)

Given the wide disparity in education levels and the apparent reading comprehension abilities running through this board, and given paragraph 1, above, it's pointless to continue trying to present alternate concepts - there are people in this discussion are not capable of processing them. It would appear from several of the responses that in spots in this thread at least a few individuals didn't understand what was written, filling in what they guessed was the deep content and missing it badly. In at least one place, it was obvious they were clueless as to what the message sent was entirely. If they can't see it, you can't discuss it.

Best to just leave them to stew and to live in the world they've built for themselves. If they ever get any actual power in the world, which is doubtful, Chuck'll take care of it. :lol:

By the way, if I were analyzing this entire thread (not that ~I~ am prone to over-analyzing discussions :wink: ) and going on a hunch (and just a hunch) I'd say you were arguing with at least one autistic person who feels that life would be better if s/he were just "normal" and who hasn't got a real clue what "normal" might entail. Or, perhaps, someone who would like to be considered, or is afraid they are, autistic, as even with the downsides it might explain why their life isn't as they'd like it to be. And, thus, once a fix is found....

Whatever. I'd say give it a rest, this horse has been beaten to death. :lol: :roll:



Naturella
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 186

01 Feb 2009, 7:48 pm

Silvervarg wrote:
Naturella wrote:
We also assume, what every possible human science assumes : that language (a system of abstact symbols) is what distinguishes a person from an animal. That this ability to embark on this level of abstraction - is called intellect.

This is not correct, deaf people, unable to speak with words becouse they've never heard the sounds are still humans. (Ok, we are all animals, that's a fact, since we are primates.)
.


What have deaf people to do with what I said???? Do you mean that deaf people are deprived of the system of abstract symbols that I called language? hah, I am sure you are equalling a language to the means of interaction.. oh boy! isn't that depressing?!

Silvervarg wrote:
Naturella wrote:
By the way The field of this absurd argument is called sofistics. You can prove basically everything, all depending on the initial assumptions.

This too is incorrect: Nothing based on assumtions can ever be proven. To prove something you'll need evidence.

That is because you have hardly studied any real math.. let alone logic. Your understanding of the word "proof " is too narrow. So, I think we have too different education and speak different languages. The level of abtraction you employ in your reasoning is too low.
You understanding of words is too primitive. i am sorry I messed with you. I really should not have. There is too much difference in how we reason.



Last edited by Naturella on 01 Feb 2009, 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Naturella
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 186

01 Feb 2009, 7:57 pm

Nan wrote:

Given the wide disparity in education levels and the apparent reading comprehension abilities running through this board, and given paragraph 1, above, it's pointless to continue trying to present alternate concepts - there are people in this discussion are not capable of processing them. It would appear from several of the responses that in spots in this thread at least a few individuals didn't understand what was written, filling in what they guessed was the deep content and missing it badly. In at least one place, it was obvious they were clueless as to what the message sent was entirely. If they can't see it, you can't discuss it.

I would leave alone my capability of processing and education. In any case, I bet my education is not worse then yours.
I pretty well understood what you wrote in your post. Your idea that autistic are happy in their own way is immature and implies that autistic are other spieces, sort of like pets which was said earlier.
And your analogy between autistic and the discrimination of black people is so pathetic and trite and irrelevant, that I decided that it was not even worth commenting on.



sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

01 Feb 2009, 9:29 pm

Naturella wrote:
Nan wrote:

Given the wide disparity in education levels and the apparent reading comprehension abilities running through this board, and given paragraph 1, above, it's pointless to continue trying to present alternate concepts - there are people in this discussion are not capable of processing them. It would appear from several of the responses that in spots in this thread at least a few individuals didn't understand what was written, filling in what they guessed was the deep content and missing it badly. In at least one place, it was obvious they were clueless as to what the message sent was entirely. If they can't see it, you can't discuss it.

I would leave alone my capability of processing and education. In any case, I bet my education is not worse then yours.
I pretty well understood what you wrote in your post. Your idea that autistic are happy in their own way is immature and implies that autistic are other spieces, sort of like pets which was said earlier.
And your analogy between autistic and the discrimination of black people is so pathetic and trite and irrelevant, that I decided that it was not even worth commenting on.


Naturella,
You do know you are discussing this subject with Autistic people, don't you? Do you know that I almost 60 years old and so is Nan? We are both Autistic - Asperger's Syndrome, to be specific. Do you think we know something about being Autistic? Since we have lived in the NT world for all of those 60 years do you think we know something about NTs too? You are writing like you are not taking any of this into consideration.

Merle


_________________
Alis volat propriis
State Motto of Oregon


Silvervarg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 787
Location: Sweden

02 Feb 2009, 6:39 am

dalurker wrote:
I don't know. I guess they are.

And with this guess as a basis, would you be prepared to kill their personalitys, so they will be able to hear?

Naturella wrote:
Silvervarg wrote:
Naturella wrote:
We also assume, what every possible human science assumes : that language (a system of abstact symbols) is what distinguishes a person from an animal. That this ability to embark on this level of abstraction - is called intellect.

This is not correct, deaf people, unable to speak with words becouse they've never heard the sounds are still humans. (Ok, we are all animals, that's a fact, since we are primates.)
.

I am sure you are equalling a language to the means of interaction..

Yes.


Quote:
(a system of abstact symbols)

Abstract
Something that can only be experienced through thoughts; not real; Difficult to understand.
Opposite: Concrete
something you can see and touch; real.

Please explain, I'll try with logic while you do.
Sound? X A lot of animals use sounds to communicate.
Gesture (body language)? X Nope, they does that too.
Facial expression? X Common among monkies.
Smell? X We don't use that much.
Alphabet? V This is a none verbal way of communicating.

The inability to read and/or write makes you less human?

Quote:
Silvervarg wrote:
Naturella wrote:
By the way The field of this absurd argument is called sofistics. You can prove basically everything, all depending on the initial assumptions.

This too is incorrect: Nothing based on assumtions can ever be proven. To prove something you'll need evidence.

That is because you have hardly studied any real math.. let alone logic. Your understanding of the word "proof " is too narrow. So, I think we have too different education and speak different languages. The level of abtraction you employ in your reasoning is too low.
You understanding of words is too primitive. i am sorry I messed with you. I really should not have. There is too much difference in how we reason.

Proof:
Clearly showing something is true.

What other meanings does the word have?

And no math I've ever encounterd will say that ~X*~Y = V can be solved to a number based aswer, all we can get a possible answers, not a exact number. Yet, you're telling me right now is that "V" can be only 20 and will allways be 20, becouse that's what you think it is.
And that's neither math nor logic.

No, you shouldn't mess with me, becouse I steamroll your arguments. :)


_________________
Sing songs. Songs sung. Samsung.


Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

02 Feb 2009, 7:49 am

I still demand a cure! I just do not think Autistics are the worst problem.

Autism as defined cannot be applied to any who have any mental illness or neurological problem.

Normal people are not screened for mental illness, or neuological defect.

Only Autistics are Certified to be free of such conditions.

Mental illness is very common, I have heard one in seven, and of course it spreads.

It is dealt with, controlled but not cured.

Mental illness is taken as an excuse for behavior, with treatment as needed.

Of those who are not mentally ill, about 3% of the population is currently involved with the prison and parole system, and many more on probation. Some constant 20,000,000.

They are not autistic, neurologically impaired, nor mentally ill, they are perfectly healthy normal criminals. Treatment is very expensive and does not seem to work.

Many more do not come to anyone's notice, but drink a quart of Vodka a day.

Between the mentally ill, criminals, and drunks, that is 33% of the population, and you have to consider that of the rest, many are in grammer school or nursing homes.

Autistics make up 0.66% of the population, 1 in 150, with perhaps 1/4 in need of residential care and support.

00.165% of the population.

I am pro cure, but do not think that autism is the place to start.

The danger is it is mostly a social impairment, which if it could be reversed, would still leave people who thought and processed information in a different way being able to engage and tell every one about their interests. I think this would lead to more normal people in prison.

As for social costs, lives not worth living, bringing pain and suffering to others, the prison system is residential care for that problem, and it does not slow the process.

I have my doubts that any autism cure could do more than is being done, working to make autistics capable of social interaction, and annoying others. The mute were the ones that survived.

If it was possible to make them normal, and they suddenly became like everyone else, well, the Aspie faction is smart, verbal, and claims they have been picked on and oppressed. They are very likely to become social like sociopaths, using it for manipulation, and feeling no identity with the herd.

Next comes the magic pill. It cures autism, if you take four a day. It wakes up the brain, makes you social, able to read others, be outward focused, and would sell on the black market for $100 a pill.

We could get rich before it was bootlegged in China, as part of the People's Brain Development Program.

With me it is coffee, strong, black, several pots a day. By myself I could do well without pills, but if a double dose would help me pick up girls in night clubs, that is an incentive for abuse.

So my view is a cure for autism would do the world a lot of damage and little good.

But I am still pro cure. The place it can do the most good is with the normal.

The Autistic problem is with impulse control, they may think it but not act on it.

The Normal problem is with impulse control, it is illegal, immoral, but they might get away with it.

Truely, murders act for the same reason as teen girls shop lift, lack of impulse control and the thrill. The thrill is addictive, and by the time they are caught, for they get dumber as they seek more thrills, they have left a long trail of damage behind.

With some it is gambling, they get a thrill from winning, and then lose everything.

Drink, drugs, taking risks. It is not the act, they are all different, it is the thrill that drives them beyond common sense.

The autistic are low achivers in the field. sitting and spinning the wheel of a toy car, Lego, video games, Wrong Planet. I saw a great change in my life when I bought a motorcycle at 15. New thrills that fired up my brain. It lead to more motorcycle riding. For some reason that thrill buzz helped me fit in with the world.

I can see why other thrill seekers rob banks, shoot people down during the getaway, blow it all on hookers, drink, drugs, then do it again. I can see it, but I do not approve.

In conclusion, everybody is seeking the release that thrills cause. Lack of it causes autism and crime sprees.

The right cure would fill that chemical place, autistics would rise, normals would not be driven, and the world would be a better place.

It is somewhere in there, like the endorphins that cause the runners high, I think it is the one cure for a broad range of human problems.

"Cure them, Cure them all!"



dalurker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 514
Location: NY

02 Feb 2009, 2:55 pm

Silvervarg wrote:
dalurker wrote:
I don't know. I guess they are.

And with this guess as a basis, would you be prepared to kill their personalitys, so they will be able to hear?

The lack of hearing ability isn't a personality.



Silvervarg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 787
Location: Sweden

02 Feb 2009, 4:12 pm

dalurker wrote:
Silvervarg wrote:
dalurker wrote:
I don't know. I guess they are.

And with this guess as a basis, would you be prepared to kill their personalitys, so they will be able to hear?

The lack of hearing ability isn't a personality.

8O ... :cry:

Please read again and answer the question correctly.


_________________
Sing songs. Songs sung. Samsung.


Silvervarg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 787
Location: Sweden

02 Feb 2009, 4:16 pm

Edit: ... Stupid computor... :?


_________________
Sing songs. Songs sung. Samsung.


Last edited by Silvervarg on 03 Feb 2009, 3:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

ed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 79
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

02 Feb 2009, 4:17 pm

:bounce:



dalurker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 514
Location: NY

02 Feb 2009, 4:20 pm

Silvervarg wrote:
8O ... :cry:

Please read again and answer the question.


Your questions don't make any sense. I'm not going to answer it.



Silvervarg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 787
Location: Sweden

02 Feb 2009, 4:36 pm

dalurker wrote:
Silvervarg wrote:
8O ... :cry:

Please read again and answer the question.


Your questions don't make any sense. I'm not going to answer it.


Let me rephrase:

Would you cure their deafness, if by doing so, you destroyed the precious personality by alter their way of thinking and their understanding of their previous actions.

Do you understand the question?


_________________
Sing songs. Songs sung. Samsung.