"Autism Speaks" Response to Autistic Input

Post Reply New Topic

I don't see an issue with any public criticism, as long as it can be reasonably evidenced. Vilification in the sense that some still harbor bad feelings against the organization for actions they didn't agree with in the past, is acceptable as a personal opinion, although I personally am not one that holds that opinion.

Using statements and presenting them as facts that misrepresent what the organization is doing, such as the organization does nothing positive for autistic individuals is simply not true, easily refuted with evidence, and therefore a fallacious statement that misrepresents what the organization does. If one clarifies it as personal opinion, I see it as acceptable. Would you agree that it is not acceptable to make categorical fallacious statements presented as fact, after proven incorrect with validated evidence, about the actions of the organization?

Everything you stated seems acceptable as opinion; I see value in the organizational mission where you don't see value, that is just a difference of opinion.

The only issue I have, that you have not been guilty of in any of your statements, in my opinion, is when someone continues to categorically state a fallacious statement as fact about the organization after provided validated evidence the statement is not true.

My only specific suggestion of support of autistic people has been to provide constructive criticism for the organization, to improve it, if they care to. I've never suggested that anyone in this forum should provide any financial support to any specific organization.

One cannot argue another person out of hatred with logic many times. If someone hates a perspective even if it cares and views a disorder label as what hold people back which is sensible those that want to make it out to be simply a difference will interpret it differently. They will take any little thing and make a big deal out of it. Yet should it be done to them acts of victim-hood are the progression! It's been quite fascinating some of the responses to the techniques I've used here. They might be surprised about about just how many people with autism their philosophies they are out of touch with whom they say many of us agree with them about. The other tactics used to attempt to get some of us to support the pride movement has been we've just wanted pity, we play sick and we want others to feel sorry for us. When the above combines with a perspective in an individual what you got is TRUE hatred and disability bigotry.

As far as Autism Speaks while I would never produce a video like I Am Autism you got to think about the intended audience. Some of them feel really guilty about costing tax-payers money. It's a hatred used against families at times. To them they are fighting for treatment to improve the outcomes of their children and sometimes admitting others think poorly and even in ways of hatred about the costs to society means to feel better about it by using the mode of thinking reflective to that target group of cost haters to get support. The video can be perceived in many ways but ultimately it made hating people with autism due to costs unacceptable on the personable level which could have been their intention and they took a PR shot for it for our best interest. I'd personally like nothing better then to not cost anyone money and be a burden to no one but that video was some crazy PR voodoo.

Then why do you present it that way?

Yes they can. Aspie48

Grammar

Hypocrite

Grammar

Yes, like Argumentum ad nauseam. That's a technique you use. That and speculation fallacies.

Grammar, also you're talking about yourself without knowing it.

Which doesn't exist...

You're still whining about pity and compassion when it has been nothing to do with what anyone has said on here. Also Grammar.


Yeah, the miserable fear-mongering dicks that they are. Think of the paranoid parents!

Well guess what ci, some of those people advocating this 'pride' as you call it are trying to stop that.

No entendemos

But they wont find a better outcome to improve the lives of their children ci. You can't fix what isn't broke no matter how much you want to wish it.

Lawl, crazy Voodoo. I couldn't have put it better myself actually. Well done ci.

Last edited by Gedrene on 15 Aug 2011, 8:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Good point...I think it took at least three, remarkably verbose, posts to get to the point where the blanket validation of "Autism Speaks" by "the rest of the world", to which we must all submit, in fact, hinged entirely on the standard hyperbole in two brief TV news clips...

Look at the posts I just created. I am using another technique to divide movements into micro-fractions in their social models. The idea has been to in fact used some of the same strategies used by propagandist in develop fraction beliefs against those same beliefs. It's a far cry from hypocritical as months back I explained what I was doing. The technique being used is like fertilizer to a plant whereas plants grow so does social evolution of issues as I'm just instigating the process but only within a singular sphere of influence.

As far as grammar quite it. The only reason you mention grammar is because you know there is little I can do about that. Your just trying to pick at me when you know because of my disability I cannot as of yet do any better. Feel better about yourself because you can do grammar better and that makes your writing superior enough and you insecure enough to point it out to feel your better then I? Aside from calling people r-words you have a knack for proclaiming your superiority intellectually other ways. I will keep on writing my mind and if you cannot accept the grammar differences between you and I you can keep it to yourself.

I have never presented that the research evidence was conclusive, all my statements are here for review, if you can find any case that I did, you are welcome to quote me here. If you can't find any evidence that I did present the research as conclusive, I will appreciate it if you refrain from misrepresenting my statements.

If you can provide, evidence where I have presented the research as conclusive, I will be glad to correct it, because as someone that understand science, I clearly understand that the research is suggestive, and may lead to further research.

I have also provided links to details of the research that clearly indicate it is not conclusive.

My point in bringing it up in the first place, is that it is considered accomplished research in the study of Autism that has the potential of positively influencing the lives of many Autistic people. Autism Speaks had a part in funding the research so that is objectively speaking a positive action. The screening checklist is already available free online.

Again here are my statements regarding the research:



The early screening checklist is already available online for free, as stated in the article it has been shown to successfully detect autism 75% percent of the time, as evidenced by professional diagnosis after the screening checklist is used. It is a screening tool that may lead to conclusive diagnosis, that allows early intervention, and the potential for an autistic child to have a greater opportunity to fulfill their personal potential.

Notice the words may. That doesn't mean conclusive.

I didn't say the research was groundbreaking or revolutionary, I clearly indicated the media presented it that way. And I have presented information from both studies, that people can weigh for themselves, if they like.

...and in other posts you claimed that to query any of your "7 points" was to deny what "the rest of the world" accepted...for which you cited two TV news clips as conclusive evidence...

My specific clarification of that statement already provided is here, it was not my intent to suggest that everyone saw the reports of the research, and I never stated that the research was conclusive.



You suggested that positive actions of the organization were imaginary. My point here was that evidence of positive actions exist, and they are available for people to see as reality. You can continue to personally disagree that they are positive actions, as well as anyone else that maintains that position after reviewing the research, however it is clear that that there are others in the world that don't see it that way, including some autistic people.

Above and beyond evidence that the organization is providing positive research that has the potential to positively influence the lives of autistic people, the 1.6 million dollars in aid to autistic people, is factually a positive influence in the lives of some autistic people that have occured in the past, are occuring now, and are planned for the future, by the Autism Speaks organization.

You can speak for yourself but you can't convince those children that are receiving those benefits and enjoying them that they aren't positive benefits in their life that Autism Speaks has provided to them.

The fact is, that can't be refuted, is that Autism Speaks is providing actions that are positive in the lives of some autistic people. If you want to call the moon green, I can't dispute your personal opinion, because that would be your opinion. If you were to insist that it was green for everyone, that would be a problem. That's the problem of opinion vs. a categorical statement of fact that can easily be refuted.

You can only insist that black is white for so long before everybody starts to notice that, to the contrary, it is, in fact, black, and your credibility is not what it could be.

I've clearly accepted middle ground that everything the organization has done is not positive, and that improvements are needed, along with the fact that the organization has done some good things for autistic people that are clearly evidenced as fact.

You on the other hand only see the organization as doing negative things, and will not accept them as doing anything positive.

Objectively, speaking your take on this is rigid black and white thinking, considering that you will not accept the clear evidence that the organization provides 1.6 million dollars of aid to autistic people as a positive action for some autistic people.

I wonder if you can specifically answer this question? Are the scholarships provided by autism Speaks for disadvantaged autistic children to attend Summer camps a positive action? If you can say yes, and admit it is true, it will convince me that you are capable of correcting one of your statements, when evidence is presented to the contrary, and are flexible enough to accept facts that refute yours when presented. Otherwise it seems indicative of black and white thinking to me.

THis wasn't about scholarships and that isn't black and white thinking. Black and white thinking is insisting there are only two choices when there are always more. I don't know why you twisted this from the original argument you were making though.

No, they are a negative one, because autistic children fare badly in group situations where their difficulties are exacerbated...a whole summer camp could easily constitute a "cruel and unusual punishment" as anyone who knew the first thing about autism would know.

That is not "black and white thinking" just realism.

Personally I disagree. I don't seem to have any of these difficulties with you people.

I'm bemused. Who are the "you people" you are referring to?

So far as "Summer Camps" are concerned, Zeraeph is entirely correct - in general, they could be regarded as a punishment...

Q. How can we make you people to be more neurotypically social?
A. I know... let's force you into close contact with one another.

Ah, but then you are not stuck at summer camp with us.