I'm heartbroken by all the pessimism on here

Post Reply New Topic

Ugh, stop calling things science.

That's an interesting belief. For those individuals that think Aspergians are non-existent or start calling it a milder, or watered down version of Autism, I strongly believe we should round them all up and put them in a containment zone, away from civilization... Preferably under sea level.



lol
It's as I feared, you just think everyone else has a problem.
No, Microsoft word doesn't have the ability to detect fallacy, nonsense, or stupidity.
I'm not going to waste my time reiterating and repeatedly explaining concepts like ad nauseam and shotgun argumentation. I've already explained it sufficiently, and why it's dishonest, you can keep bumbling around for as long as you please.
The part where you talked about yourself in the 3rd person was quite, troubling.


For everyone else, here's some definitive definitions of hate group:

FBI: "primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization."

SPLC: "those having beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group
(AKA, part of the conspiracy against the innocent Autism Speaks)

Over the summer, someone accused my lab of being a hate group for doing autism research, and also assumed that the lab must be affiliated with autism speaks (no, it is not). They also accused me of hiding something about the lab, such as the unfact that it is affiliated with autism speaks (no, it is not). They also accused the fMRI facility of being a hate group for allowing research groups to do autism research using the fMRI.

Thanks for clarifying, but with ALL due respect, a non-profit volunteer organization run by one of the most respected corporate CEO's ever to serve in the U.S., is as far from so-called hate group as any organization in the U.S. per any definition that I for one have ever seen of the phrase hate group.

And yes, no doubt some of them are at that point of hating some folks online who express slander against kind and caring parents of Autistic folks who get paid and other parents of Autistic folks who get no pay at all for supporting the organization AND AUTISTIC FOLKS in ways of work AND volunteerism, TO THE tune of hundreds of thousands of CARING VOLUNTEERS.

Personally, I think it is disgusting, but that is just my personal opinion, as I've had mucH MUCH more on my REAL LIFE plate in my life, than something like that to imagine IN WHATEVER WAY YOU ARE THINKING IT IS TRUE.

JUST look and learn from the two responses above, if you like.

Was that related to any specific concern Bytbnyr? I know there is the scientific concern expressed by some that the brain may function in a far more holistic way than other fMRI researchers claim, ie that the strictly mechanistic view that "this part does this" and "that part does that" as the whole of the story does not sit comfortably with those who ask whether fMRI can really assess the totality of function. I think to an extent both camps have something valuable to offer, though currently each perspective seems to consider itself to be exclusively right....

Why do you think that to call Autism Speaks a hate group means that one is part of a conspiracy? A conspiracy against the most powerful autism charity in the world? And one conceived of by autistic people? How 'bout that? ahogday, I appreciate your benevolence towards this group and I'm sure it's coming from sincerity, but I think you are being too trusting in this case.

Perhaps you should try reading some definitions then.



Except it's not slander. One of the criteria of defamation (which slander falls under) is that it has to be something that's false. So if I say, for example, Speaks is a hate group that's choc full of bigots, that doesn't come under slander.



That's correct, well done. Not fact, not evidence, just conjecture.



No doubt you think organisations like Autism Speaks aren't complicit when it comes to that sort of response, it even seems like you're implying that the people that are speaking out against Speaks are to blame, that's the sickening part.

Happy Holidays.. i'm moving on to GREENER pastures now..;)

The sun IS finally coming out of hibernation for me to day. ;)

And a Happy New year too.....WITH SMILES 2:)

YES.. this place can truly be heartbreaking in more ways than one.. to answer the question of the OP.

I visit, but HELL no I do not live here, TG.

There's a shock. Lol. Nanananana. I can't hear you.

Yes.. and smiles to you sincerely with winks2..:););)

Seriously though, no one has tainted my mind against Autism Speaks. I am reacting to what I have seen in their media.

I don't care for it either. :)

But marketing never did or DOES work on me. ;)

This is mostly a reaction to aghogday posts.

Preferring lack of human interaction is not disease. Certain co-morbids are a disease. But I have seen nothing from them that their search for cure is targeting co-morbids only. It is all about "autism" as a whole.

Because Autism Speaks is not openly violent and uses the language of love at times does not mean they are not a hate group. They re bright people. You can't have the success they have had without being very bright. So I have a hard time believing that they do not understand the implications of finding something prevent someone from being born or if they have been born curing them of their autism. But even if they are doing what they are doing without realizing the consequences they remain a threat to autistics in general because of their rhetoric and they specifically they are a threat to people who do not want to be cured.

I addressed the DSM and Gillberg's criteria at the bottom of page 1 of this thread http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=272888

My reaction to this is all of this is just sad.

And a symptom of the OP.

So after hearing sound, reasonable, and logical arguments, you then remark that they're "just sad"?
Are you kidding me.

He's in his happy place. Personally I'd rather be Socrates dissatisfied. Lol