Autism A Risk To National Security?

Post Reply New Topic

I think people with ASD don't conform mentally so if they don't agree with policies they could be reluctant leaders of some sort. But I do believe America is setup like a fascist dictatorship. A lot of issues about foreign policy or our military is taboo and that shouldn't be the case in a functional democracy. So I think people with autism are generally more prone to not conforming, and that could be problematic to the state. They through a lot of hippie dissidents into insane asylums in the 60s, how many of them had ASD? I think these statements are rooted entirely on reality.

Instead of being insulted at everything and imagining into what I say when I am sharing reasons why others percieve autism as a national security risk no matter what political party they are with try to rationalize it. Your not helping the intelectual process by simply accusing me of what I observed. It's called thinking out loud, thinking for myself, picking apart the topic and there is much more to the topic then what you have set aside to feel put down by. Sure this topic if I was witness to it would make me feel bad but I am used to seeing bumper stickers like "Work Harder - People on Welfare Depend On You" by rednecks or off the wall radical radio show hosts I hear wanting to remove benefits. It comes down to a cultural awareness and integration problem. The reason why online advocacy has failed, will continue to fail and the politics of counter hate will do more damage then good is it fails to be open-minded, honest and non-confrontational in ways that allow progress.

If you think about it what progress will come from making others afraid of you and people like me by being insulted if they dare think and have an opinion. Calling people ignorant, bigots and all the other N.T bashing is flushing your political views down the toilet. Me and others are embarrassed about the online politics and frankly I want nothing more then to say well that's not me please don't think I believe like them.

You folks cause allot of problems and it's beginning to effect real peoples lives in social progress.I'm not afraid to confront it. In fact I'm the perfect person to confront the so called sarcastics of hurt feelings and the spreading of persecutory lies as if everyone hates people with autism at times. Sure inequality exists but the approach is way off and I do not accept that these irresponsible, politically immature and socially hostile advocates represent me in any way. Causing more harm then good and anyone that thinks outside of the bubble is "one of them" like the N.T's.

Things are changing.

Nathan Young

Only in IF's. The focus on only the negative will find only the negative. Hippies and the 60's to me are more of a joke. The mental health system has changed allot and I have nothing to do with the mental health system. In fact the Lanterman ACT in California exists primarily for removing people with DD from institutions and into the community.

Alright so I am going to go with multiple perspectives of autism in context to this subject. This in spite of people wanting to feel “ok” with themselves, maybe their children and the social clique peer pressure online of acceptance and non-pity (extreme non-acceptance of the disability others express of it). Fact is no one knows what causes autism and theories range from it being a natural variation of humanness, an epidemic of unknown causes, pollution altering the development of life in the womb and well I'll make one up and just say aliens from outer space have modified the human DNA to find some kind of humor in this topic.

Of Purely Negative Origins and Views.

Autism is a national security risk of unknown origins affecting 1 in 110 people being born. The costs of autism throughout the lifetime are much higher then individuals without autism as the costs compared to non-disabled individuals is in the negatives due to non-productivity compared to the average citizen. Autism in this context is perceived as a disability of unknown origin increasing in those diagnosed with it and lets presume not just because of an increase in awareness solely.

Critical assessment must assume the worse in one or more scenarios in order to prevent the most dangerous outcome. Potentially the national increase in costs continues to rise due to increases in the cases of autism and this would cause harm to the economy and the sustainability of our society. This of course is without any change in the cultural expectations to include individuals with autism in the work place and streamlining costs in the educational system(s). True people without autism cost money to but it is bias that does not give in what so ever due to the abortion issue and relating pride politics.

So assuming the worse case scenario regardless of religion, morality and political correctness for those that can understand these words whom do have autism such as myself autism must be prevented. This means the development of a prenatal test to potentially intervene earlier in the development of an individual and to as well as offer abortion to parents not prepared for a special needs child.

What is the national security risk in the negative perspectives?

1. Tax payer costations.

2. Autism effecting people who have no choice in the matter to have or not have autism when developing in the womb. In this context autism is an unknown agent harming our nations children.

3. Just like obesity which was not perceived politically correct the ability for those with autism on average compared to those without autism and obesity are not able to defend the country as good as those without these "conditions".

On a Purely Positive Origin and View of Autism.

Religious and naturalists view points but not all view points thereof see autism as a natural human and evolutionary (or gods creation) trait of characteristics. It is a human difference society has not accepted and is purely intolerant of. Anyone may as well add to this part. So on a National Security concept based context autism is not a threat to children who may possibly be born with it but it is societies intolerance of this difference that is a threat to the human difference.

It's not a technicality, it's a matter of compassion. A society that sees certain citizens as disposable or burdens is an immature society.

From a cultural perspective for sure. This topic is multifaceted and I'm exploring as I am going. An anti-establishment strategy is a battle that simply cannot be won in public relations. To much of establishment helps to be seen as hurting but sure aspects of which are also negative. It is important to make establishment the friend in the struggle for inclusion, integration and equality. That's why I clearly define the cultural prognoses as being better and a differing context in my analysis. However in any approach that includes abortion as an issue its going to create problems. In my public relations on radio, T.V news at times and in print media that entices inclusion a more positive view of people that have differences is manifest for the benefit of inclusion. I never confront other advocacy organizations, science, religion and or pre-natal testing. These issues are a certain risk to an equality agenda.

ok so i should not be offended.you still refuse to answer how we are a national security risk and what can we do to change a not be a quote "security risk"end of quote.what is the point of your post,i still dont get it

I have explained time and time again why autism by some is perceived as a national security risk. Do you want my personal opinion or do you want the same thing I have already stated over and over again? It comes down to you, me and others are not technically the national security risk but autism is which we had no control over to choose to have it. Again national security risk does not mean I am choosing to be the risk.

I think it is a lack of a cultural acceptance and lack of compassionate outreach due to a lack of awareness for inclusion and diversity that is the root national security risk in this context because we are that we are. Autism itself cannot be the absolute reason for the national security risk as a whole just as the same as Down Syndrome folks less it is someone with malicious intents politically defining this. No one with these disabilities can be by profile considered a national security threat as an individual for having autism for malicious reasons. I just feel anything after this is repeating myself. Just keep an open mind concerning the conceptology of national security.

I am going to bed now.

Nathan Young

so your not saying autism is a security risk,you are acknowedging people who do see us as a national security risk.so your just relaying your perception of other people's thoughts.i have the feeling people often minimalize trivialize people with autism talk like were silly or trivial people.i have never felt people were afraid of us,but i understand and respect your post now and thank you for the clarification.sincerly and cordualy, vtsavant

I am saying both but national security is a vague plight others had mentioned first. Autism differs from ageing because ageing happens to everyone and is expected whereas autism is lifelong. Autism exists much like a gamble and an individual does not choose to have autism but the perceptions of autism differ and as a diagnoses varies in severity thus functionability. If I was to use this model of national security and autism being of unknown origins and perceived as increasing it is a threat to national economic stabilities in one or more scenarios but equally in this strict mode of analysis the lack of the macro cultural adaptation to the difference is a risk to economic stabilities due to a lack of diversity. I don't believe the national security perspective is even atypical but autism is perceived as an economic and human health concern. Strictly in the cultural and societal mode of thinking we leave the realm of pathology and relating professions and into social politics and typical diversity progressions.

I have never ran into anyone that would disrespect what I say. There is a healthy respect for what I say in important "elite" like circles. I suppose if I was being rude to get attention in intent I would expect to be ignored. Again California law requires service providers, professionals and otherwise receiving funding to follow the Lanterman ACT which includes respect, dignity and humane care. While autism as a label and not a person can be viewed in the national security context it to can be political as a concept to further the respect, dignity and equality agenda. If folks can't think past the assumed insults they are going to loose out on capitalizing on the typical goof ups of the mainstream social and political atmosphere. When this is done so on purpose to avoid progress least in potential it is suspect by me.

I highly suggest like I've said to others on the forum is lick your wounds of insult at times and get along.

Using perceived negative political manifestions to your advantage strategically will find victory over that of politics of purely anti-establishmental pursuits.

Thinking the so called "normal" and "typical" people are the enemy, oppressors and so on is self-destructive and easily assumed because of coinciding psychosocial developmental similarities and is popular enough to cause harm which it has.

Frankly I am disappointed by the polls results in this topic. Despite bias critical reasoning is essential to deriving fact. National security may be an anxiety producing and required mechanism of psychological concern in the survival of the fittest but still yet it's model is quite logically clear and indifferent to emotional sensitivities.

Facts:

Autism is a risk to national security in two core ways.

Note: I have autism

1. Those born with it don't choose it and it harms their outcomes and quality of life on average.

2. Costation is a national stability factor resulting in the reduced ability to defend the nation.

Autism differs from other controversal national security concerns like and because.

1. Obesity. The ability to defend the nation against invasion is prevented by this health concern in comparision to other nations or indifferently compared to those more fit. Obsesity however is not always a choice and can also be a chosen lifestyle. I to am overweight.

2. Smoking. Smoking is a choice and reduces the fitness of individuals. True military used to hand them out to troops on the battle field. I also smoke.

3. Chewing bubble gum then chocking on it resulting in death reduces the total number of people availible to defend the country against invasion.

4. War is part of the human condition and so war and the human condition is the core national security risk.

----

I suppose the poll was a tricky proposition but most fell for the emotional cope out.

Are we talking about America in general or in other countries?

In Singapore, the sentiment on the ground is quite I would say anti-Aspie. Our society cannot tolerate those that are different. Even our government is apathetic to the plight of the mentally ill, not much less autistic individuals. Most of us are forced to hide our conditions. Declaring our conditions lead to loss of job, insurance.etc

Many Aspies in Singapore especially guys whom have dropped out of the conscription who will be forced to declare have left the country.

The national security conceptology is indifferent to human sensitivities or public discourse. It is a mode of analysis that in some context can make a peanut a risk to national security but I won't explain how as it can be mal-interpreted. Now a publics intolerance for instance for certain is a national security concern because it leads to furthered tax-payer obligations and if those obligations are not met violate international human rights law. Calling autism a national security concern for any nation therefor is equally the risk of the conditions existence and those without it but not at all the fault of someone with autism as it was not the result of choice. Any further elaboration into the political realm is a conflict of interest and becomes to complicated.

in Singapore for example in US democracy terms would seem like some dictatorship like in Tunisia. Our media is controlled by the government and oppositions are imprisoned and tortured. Singapore has one of the world's longing serving political prisoner on Earth.

Singaporeans are brought up in a "sheep" mentality. Aspies by and large are natural rebels or shepherds, as I can see from the vitality of Wrongplanet and the suppressed anger of Aspies in Singapore. If the ruling party doesn't like rebellions, they would see Aspies as troublemakers indeed. In Singapore, public protests are banned so is public speaking without a permit, many opposition leaders who tried to speak up for mental disabilities or even small matters have been imprisoned.

My specialty is not this subject. I cannot speak with regards to it. At times wrong ideas protest and other times not but that is up to the observer. At least people can protest where I live. I have a different way of protesting then with signs but with reasoning. I am sorry you experience this in your country and hope that you can safely make changes.

Safely? I probably be in jail posting about Singapore in this light here.