Aspergian Liberation Organization (ALO)

Page 7 of 8 [ 121 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Longshanks
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Feb 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 558
Location: At an undisclosed airbase at Shangri-la

14 Mar 2012, 12:32 pm

TheSunAlsoRises wrote:

Longshanks wrote:

TheSunAlsoRises wrote:

Longshanks wrote:

TheSunAlsoRises wrote:

Longshanks wrote:

hyperlexian wrote:

i don't think anyone in this thread has argued for affirmative action for women.

I believe that TheSunAlsoRises has in a posting supra.

Longshanks

Actually, i was implying a large number of majority men benefited from affirmative action because their wives( qualified as minorities under Affirmation action). Said men... started small businesses and made bids on lucrative government contracts using their wives as fronts.

*oh did i mention Affirmative Action was one of my special interests.

TheSunAlsoRises

Orthodoxly argued. I will agree that a small portion of men have benefited. I will disagree with the numbers on that however, based on GAO reports.

Longshanks.

The GAO report would not be accurate. Business contracts and business ventures would be legally in the name of women(wives). When I speak of majority men(i speak of those men belonging to the dominate culture); i am not speaking of the wide spread engagement of such practices. YET, it had become a problem.

TheSunAlsoRises

Not accurate? How? How would you know? What have they missed? You've made no supporting argument. Name your sources.

Longshanks

How would you not know ? Just because a paper trail is NOT left behind does NOT make it NOT exist.

I recognize THAT some who seek college admission will use a particular ethnic minority status THAT is far removed from their current status BUT there is not accurate account of that, either.

TheSunAlsoRises

Okay. Have you actually sat down, like I have, and read through a 2,000 page government report? These reports list their sources and back up their numbers. My goodness, it just dawned on me - someone is actually disputing the numbers of the Obama Admistration! Oh, music to my conservative ears! You just made my day!

You're more than welcome to dispute that - which is fine when you have material proof. I see speculation - not proof. The GAO has a website, and yes it may take a few days to filter through the various reports, but they are there. The US Department of Labor has similar reports. You may cast doubt, but the doubt is nothing more than doubt until there is material proof that their numbers are wrong. On that basis, I have to lean toward the findings of the GAO and the Department of Labor until someone brings me documentary proof. Until then, I have no problem with agreeing to disagree. It's nothing personal. We just disagree.

Longshanks

_________________
Supporter of the Brian Terry Foundation @ www.honorbrianterry.com. Special Agent Brian Terry (1970-2010) was murdered as a direct result of Operation Fast & Furious - which Barry O won't discuss - wonder why?

TheSunAlsoRises
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,039

14 Mar 2012, 12:54 pm

Longshanks wrote:

TheSunAlsoRises wrote:

Longshanks wrote:

TheSunAlsoRises wrote:

Longshanks wrote:

TheSunAlsoRises wrote:

Longshanks wrote:

hyperlexian wrote:

i don't think anyone in this thread has argued for affirmative action for women.

I believe that TheSunAlsoRises has in a posting supra.

Longshanks

Orthodoxly argued. I will agree that a small portion of men have benefited. I will disagree with the numbers on that however, based on GAO reports.

Longshanks.

Not accurate? How? How would you know? What have they missed? You've made no supporting argument. Name your sources.

Longshanks

First, I want to congratulate you on being a first year law student. I enjoyed our discourse with regards to ADA and Affirmative Action. I also commend you on having read through a 2,000 page government report; a government report that gives you verifiable statistics on legitimate business practices meeting certain standards of scrutiny.

I'm quite sure, no i am absolutely positive, that we will have a discussion, again.

We can agree to disagree with it duly noted that you have verifiable statistics questioning my assertion.

TheSunAlsoRises

Longshanks
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Feb 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 558
Location: At an undisclosed airbase at Shangri-la

14 Mar 2012, 1:46 pm

hyperlexian wrote:

oh, no.... i mean have you been discriminated against because of your AS? you are proposing that there should be affirmative action for aspies, so i was asking if you had any experience in that area. but what you have offered is interesting.

logically, if you were discriminated against because of affirmative action, then you could not have sued and won. because affirmative action is backed by law, if an employer chooses someone on that basis you would not have had a case against them. clearly you must have been unfairly discriminated against, but it could not have been a result of affirmative action. if an employer hires someone else who is equally qualified but happens to be a member of another race or gender, they would have the legal backing to do that, so they must have preferentially hired someone when they did not have the legal right to do so.

what i am not quite understanding here is that you went so far as to go to court over being discriminated against, and yet... you are advocating that aspies should be hired over NTs, which creates an identical situation. if you believed it was not fair for someone to be hired instead of you because of race or gender, then i am failing to see why it would be fair to create the same situation for NTs who are getting passed over in favour of aspies. it's a double standard.

Okay, I see where you're going now. But this still gets complex. Let's start off with the first paragraph you offer and work our way down so I don't confuse anyone including myself.

AS - No and possibly in future tense. No in the sense that the diagnosis is only recent and thus cannot be used legally because "retroactive" or, in legal latin "ex post facto" facts like diagnosis are not allowed into court - at least in the US. I'm not aware of all of the rules of evidence in the Canadian System - it may be different in your area of jurisdiction. Possibly in future tense because, while I need to make it to Lt. Col. before I go higher, obviously, should I make it (and I have to survive a year in my current billet to receive the promotion) once the military was informed of my diagnosis, I was informed that it could limit my chances of promotion beyond that rank. And now we get into some tedious details that I'm going to try to reduce to "Reader's Digest" caliber so as not to bore anyone.

Generals and full colonels deal with politicians, statesmen, and foreign dignitaries a great deal of the time. As I am sure that you are aware, it's no longer a world where statesmen say to the generals "Okay - we don't have a war right now, go play in the sandbox with your troops." Generals and full colonels need to be statesmen and politically saavy in and of itself. To be so, one must be able to recognize the social nuances that we aspies have touble with - and in that kind of setting recognizing inuendo is a constant necessity. If even a single inuendo is missed, it could launch an unnecessary international crisis. A famous example occurred the first year of the Reagan Administration. Just before a press conference, President Reagan made the joke, "Folks, we've outlawed the Soviet Union. We launch cruise missles in 20 minutes." The Soviet response was to mobilize for nuclear war and we came very close to it - all because of a ill timed and ill thought communication. I love what Reagan did for our country, but I'm not so blind as to not recognize a mistake when I see it. For some odd reason, I see more and more people turn a blind eye with the current president - and as a military man that concerns me - but that's another story!

Aspies are handicaped in the area of socialization - and while there is training to help us out in that area, even the best training can fail. And that is what is blocking me because everyone has a psychological profile and certain criteria must be met to advance to the next rank. I was told that had I been diagnosed, say 20 years earlier, I would not have made it to the officer ranks. I too, while I'm good - or so I've been told, have made mistakes - a couple almost cost the lives of a couple of my men. I recovered quickly enough to see the situation and issue counterorders to withdraw the men - but it was only by the grace of God that it worked out okay. Any NT could have - and some have - made such mistakes. Still - that profile with the new info will more than likely bar me from an eagle or a star.

Paragraph 2: Logically, you make a valid argument. What counter-acts the argument is the question of constitutionality. If a law is ruled unconstitutional - it's null and void. And that is the apporach my lawyer and I used - and it worked - to a degree. We argued that affirmative action was in and of itself unconstitutional on the grounds of reverse discrimination. We won - in part. During the discovery process our evidence, our case law, and our arguments were so irrefutable that the state government involved wound up paying a settlement to avoid going to trial. To this day I can't get into specific details because of the settlement agreement. But soon other white males and their attorneys started to see the writing on the wall and soon several more states began experiencing the same thing - only these guys didn't settle. They went straight to court and won. What encouraged them to go on was the fact that my state blinked. Why I didn't go to court and settled instead was simple: Their offer was just shy of what I wanted - and by settling I showed that I was "reasonable" and thus not "blackballed" to as great a degree as those who followed me.

But we cannot loose sight of how the law has evolved: The various courts have ruled that while the "idea" of affirmative action is not in and of itself illegal, "how" it was implimented. This is why affirmative action may not disappear in our lifetimes. But it may very well go by the wayside in the end because for every implimentation scheme that is thought up, a suit eventully follows when someone finds out - no matter how hard HR personnel try to cover it up - that they've been discriminated against.

Third paragraph. Yes, it's contradictory. I concur. It is a double standard - in a sense. But, as I've stated before - aspies are discriminated against for their social weaknesses - not their cognative weaknesses. Most have higher to genious level IQ's and most generally have better training - unlike many I have seen minority and female NT's in the defense contractor industry who couldn't tell an M1-Abrams tank from Schwinn bicycle. Oh yes, I've seen it get that bad! But there are some aspies out there who really improved both equipment quality and cost savings. In that sense, employers really would benefit.

My dear wife may be another example where AA doesn't work. She's only 4'8". Way below the physical standards for a woman to join the armed forces. But, with the help of a Democratic Senator, she got a waiver and got in. She needed physical asssistance to pass basic training. For example - the regulation depth of a foxhole was way beyond her lack of height, so sandbags were provided so that she could fire her weapon. That doesn't happen in combat. When she went for the wall - on which you must climb with the help of a rope, her DI had to get on all fours so she could use him as a "stepping stool" to reach the rope. Again, if you have to rope climb in a combat situation, you will more than likely not have that luxury. She couldn't drive a duce and a half because she was too short. And when combat did occur, her lack of stature was a factor that almost cost the lives of her entire unit because it limited her capability of handling certain physical tasks - a fact well hidden for obvious reasons. Yes, I love my wife - she is my soulmate. But I'm not one to look at the world through rose-colored glasses either. Certainly, I'm proud of her service. But I'm also aware of how problematic it was.

In sum, it's controversial and oh yes, arbitrary. But if affirmative action must exist, then so be it. That being the case, why should aspies not benefit?

Longshanks

Longshanks
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Feb 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 558
Location: At an undisclosed airbase at Shangri-la

15 Mar 2012, 5:03 pm

TheSunAlsoRises wrote:

Longshanks wrote:

hyperlexian wrote:

on what basis were you discriminated against, and how would your situation be different now if that discrimination didn't happen? you painted a picture of someone who is extremely successful.

This will be my last post for the night. I've got an early morning. There have been two occasions with a civilian company where I was discriminated against because of affirmative action. There have also been a couple of civilian government positions I've applied for where the same thing happened. I won a lawsuit involving one of them. It was the only time I sued anyone. But the violation was so blatant - I felt it had to be done. Others followed after mine. It took place in the early nineties. In fact, my case was one of the ones that started swinging the pendulum the other way.

Yeah, I've had successes - in uniform. I started enlisted. Made it to major. I've been commended - even decorated. But at heart I'm like Cincinnatus, the Roman general who preferred the quiet of civilian life over the battlefield. And my body is aging. I'm sure you rmember Maximus Decimus Meridius, played by Russell Crowe in Gladiator. I can identify a lot with him. I'm married to a combat vet. She's a doll. She fought in Panama. We both have had flashbacks. We've held each other in our arms - both knowing the price we've paid to keep our country safe. People who aren't military have no idea what price we pay. They haven't been around to hear the whimpering in one's sleep, feel the cold sweats, relive the torment. It cost me my business to serve. That hurt too.

I was discharged in Sept. 2011. Fourteen days later, they bring me back in. It's reserve, not regular. They came to me. But I shall outlive my usefulness and then be done again. Cincinnatus is someone everyone should read about. He really knew what service and honor were all about. He was a statesman and a general. Had a lot of victories and then retired to his farm. Then, Rome entered a devastating war. With two armies surrounded and cut off, a messenger was sent to the man's farm - a centurion. "Cincinnatus! Put on your toga! You're needed in Rome!" So he went. He was made dictator. He put on his tunic, his armor and took up the sword. He led a third army to rescue the other two. Then, after returning to a Roman triumph, he humbly laid down his gold laurels, resigned his title, and went back to farming. Neat guy.

Well, enough of my rumblings. Besides, I hear my wife. I'll hold her, and she'll realize that she's home, and that we're still together. I started life an athiest. Was born and raised one. Became a Christian at 30. My wife - she's living proof of a God that loves me. She's quite a gift - a soulmate. As are our kids and grandkids. Have a good night.

Longshanks :salut:

I know what happened i can see IT. The way you speak of reverse discrimination and the way you categorized ethnic minorities.......told me a lot. BUT. i don't blame YOU one BIT. IF I had done all the things society had told me i needed to do in-order to be a productive member and a less qualified individual( on multiple levels got a position i was qualified for); i would be unhappy about it, too. I think people are getting tired of paying for something in the past that they were not directly involved in. A poor economy and limited resources has made life difficulty for working class/middle class families. period. As a consequence, people are demanding equal access and a semblance of fairness in a country that is suppose to serve ALL.

I understand.

TheSunAlsoRises

Thank you. You are gracious.

TheSunAlsoRises
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,039

15 Mar 2012, 8:52 pm

DoneOver wrote:

TheSunAlsoRises wrote:

In regards to ADA, I refer to Autism (as ASDs); the spectrum is no longer separated so this changes everything, my friend. Once again, IF Autism is considered a specific disability( cover under ADA) then it is going to be extremely tough for Autistics to get a minority status under Affirmative Action.

And IF autistics are in totality labelled as disabled then that will be nothing but pure ignorance.

Last edited by TheSunAlsoRises on 15 Mar 2012, 10:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

TheSunAlsoRises
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,039

15 Mar 2012, 8:53 pm

Longshanks wrote:

TheSunAlsoRises wrote:

Longshanks wrote:

hyperlexian wrote:

on what basis were you discriminated against, and how would your situation be different now if that discrimination didn't happen? you painted a picture of someone who is extremely successful.

Thank you. You are gracious.

It's all good, man.

TheSunAlsoRises

TheSunAlsoRises
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,039

16 Mar 2012, 8:33 am

DoneOver wrote:

TheSunAlsoRises wrote:

And IF autistics are in totality labelled as disabled then that will be nothing but pure ignorance.

The DSM-V breaks Autism down into severity levels. These severity levels will more than likely determine what kind of services an Autist qualifies for. The last time I checked, services and financial resources were allocated to those with disabilities and not neurological differences.

We are one big happy family, now. LoL.

TheSunAlsoRises

So essentially the DSM V has pidgeonholed us by using the idea of spectrum against us?

The DSM V has taken the categories ( Autistic Disorder, Aspergers Syndrome, PDD-NOS, and Childhood Disintergrative Disorder) which were under the umbrella of Pervasive Developmental Disorders and combined them. This created one category (Autism Spectrum Disorder) broken into levels of severity. The changing of the formal psychiatric definition of Autism will have profound effects socially, medically ,and legally. It pretty much solidified in my opinion THAT Autism will be looked upon as a disability despite the range of abilities present in the individual.

In my opinion, the Autism Spectrum of Today will be markedly different from the one twenty years from now IF DSM-V is still in effect. Reports say, the objective of new changes in the DSM-V was to Nip it in the Bud. In my opinion, these new changes will accomplish this goal.

No wonder it has gotten a lot of flak for being arbitrary and pointless.

It may be arbitrary and pointless BUT it's what's being officially used to diagnose Autism. The DSM-V is what is used in the medical establishment and courts of law to determine outcomes. However, how you chose to define Autism is up to you.

Also as for that 'last time I checked comment', don't patronise people PLEASE.

I find my comment no more patronizing than your initial comment to me. I simply answered in kind with my brand of humor.

You know very well that autism is such an ill-defined and bigoted concept at times that insisting that giving services to autistics as somehow meaning they are disabled doesn't ignore the fact that quite a few don't receive services and that there are alternatives to finding them services.

With all due respect, Disability and SSI checks are given to people with Disabilities. Services such as physical therapy, speech therapy, occupational therapy, home service care etc are given to persons with disabilities. The few who do not need services and find alternatives to them are typically on which end of the spectrum ? referred to as whom in the past ?

Listen, Autism has been the domain of parents for years. In recent years, a large number of High functioning Autistics and Aspergians have come forward to speak on issues directly related to their own personal experiences as Aspies. What do you think will inevitably happen by creating an AUTISM Spectrum Disorder category without a formal mention of Aspergers ?

I agree with all of what you say BUT i have to deal with the reality of the situation and the current trends that i see approaching.

TheSunAlsoRises

Longshanks
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Feb 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 558
Location: At an undisclosed airbase at Shangri-la

16 Mar 2012, 3:03 pm

TheSunAlsoRises wrote:

DoneOver wrote:

TheSunAlsoRises wrote:

And IF autistics are in totality labelled as disabled then that will be nothing but pure ignorance.

This is just a side bar - no pun intended. As of yet no court decisions involving AS have involved the DSM-V. It will be interesting to see how they treat all of this.

Longshanks

TheSunAlsoRises
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,039

16 Mar 2012, 4:56 pm

Longshanks wrote:

TheSunAlsoRises wrote:

DoneOver wrote:

TheSunAlsoRises wrote:

And IF autistics are in totality labelled as disabled then that will be nothing but pure ignorance.

This is just a side bar - no pun intended. As of yet no court decisions involving AS have involved the DSM-V. It will be interesting to see how they treat all of this.

Longshanks

It will be interesting, indeed. But, first i have decide whether i want to deal with a cat lady or NOT; on the heals, of Alex warning of personal attacks

TheSunAlsoRises

vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

16 Mar 2012, 5:11 pm

out of curiosity,what does a cat lady or something have to do with alex and warnings on personal attacks

_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined

TheSunAlsoRises
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,039

16 Mar 2012, 5:50 pm

TheSunAlsoRises wrote:

Quote:

DoneOver wrote:

Quote:

And IF autistics are in totality labelled as disabled then that will be nothing but pure ignorance.

TheSunAlsoRises wrote:

Quote:

DoneOver wrote:

Quote:

Your careful, and self-effacing tone of appearance doesn't mean a thing if you then don't give satisfactory or sensible answers. I hope you remember that.

TheSunAlsoRises wrote:

Quote:

My tone of appearance ? IF i do not give satisfactory or sensible answers to whom ? I'm here to give my opinion just like anyone else and i answer to no one. IF I'm not mistaken, you replied to me with what appears to be a stone to grind. It was obvious from the moment you made your flippant comment with regard to ignorance and the totality of disabilities on the spectrum. I believe that was your attempt at feign indignity.

DoneOver wrote:

Quote:

So essentially the DSM V has pidgeonholed us by using the idea of spectrum against us?

TheSunAlsoRises:

Quote:

The DSM V has taken the categories ( Autistic Disorder, Aspergers Syndrome, PDD-NOS, and Childhood Disintergrative Disorder) which were under the umbrella of Pervasive Developmental Disorders and combined them. This created one category (Autism Spectrum Disorder) broken into levels of severity. The changing of the formal psychiatric definition of Autism will have profound effects socially, medically ,and legally. It pretty much solidified in my opinion THAT Autism will be looked upon as a disability despite the range of abilities present in the individual.

In my opinion, the Autism Spectrum of Today will be markedly different from the one twenty years from now IF DSM-V is still in effect. Reports say, the objective of new changes in the DSM-V was to Nip it in the Bud. In my opinion, these new changes will accomplish this goal.

DoneOver wrote:

Quote:

This doesn't explain anything. All you're saying is that it has taken the idea of different and distinct issues and differences a person may have and combined them in to an overgeneralised diagnosis.

TheSunAlsoRises:

Quote:

And, taking distinct categories and making them into generalized categories on the Autism Spectrum will result IN what ? What will be the effects ? I conveyed what i intended to with my statement and answer. All you did, was re-iterate my question to an answer i have already provided. IF it's not to your liking, you will get over IT or NOT.

DoneOver wrote:

Quote:

No wonder it has gotten a lot of flak for being arbitrary and pointless.

TheSunAlsoRises:

Quote:

It may be arbitrary and pointless BUT it's what's being officially used to diagnose Autism. The DSM-V is what is used in the medical establishment and courts of law to determine outcomes. However, how you chose to define Autism is up to you.

DoneOver wrote:

Quote:

This doesn't mean anything because if the medical establishment of the united states makes such a point then it runs counter to how the spectrum idea works, the reality on the ground and the absolute denial of any parts of the spectrum (especially aspergers) as being difference and not disability simply because they are thrown together with low-functioning autism.

TheSunAlsoRises:

Quote:

Autism is overwhelmingly looked upon and treated in the medical community as a disability with some researchers acknowledging a few areas of abilities. Where Autism is looked upon as being a difference and not a disability is primarily among Autists and those within the Autism community( outside researchers/scientist). As such, a move to separate Autism into categories based upon severity levels only serves to reinforce the concept of disabilities across the entire spectrum.

TheSunAlsoRises

Last edited by TheSunAlsoRises on 16 Mar 2012, 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TheSunAlsoRises
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,039

16 Mar 2012, 5:51 pm

vermontsavant wrote:

out of curiosity,what does a cat lady or something have to do with alex and warnings on personal attacks

Jesting vermontsavant, simply jesting.

TheSunAlsoRises

TheSunAlsoRises
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,039

16 Mar 2012, 6:30 pm

DoneOver wrote:

Quote:

Also as for that 'last time I checked comment', don't patronise people PLEASE.

TheSunAlsoRise wrote:

Quote:

I find my comment no more patronizing than your initial comment to me. I simply answered in kind with my brand of humor.

DoneOver wrote:

Quote:

Then you think you are above the possibility of patronising people just because you insist that it's YOUR way of being funny. That's not good enough. It's self-centred.

TheSunAlsoRises:

Quote:

No. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm actually saying I found you're initial comment to be patronizing also BUT i tried to add some levity BY using humor. As far as, all of this ranting about, 'it's not good enough' and 'it's self centered'; you need to take time out and have a civil discussion with the person that you are truly mad with. I could care less about your personal opinions of me; they are petty, controlling and quite insignificant.

DoneOver wrote:

Quote:

You know very well that autism is such an ill-defined and bigoted concept at times that insisting that giving services to autistics as somehow meaning they are disabled doesn't ignore the fact that quite a few don't receive services and that there are alternatives to finding them services.

TheSunAlsoRises:

Quote:

With all due respect, Disability and SSI checks are given to people with Disabilities. Services such as physical therapy, speech therapy, occupational therapy, home service care etc are given to persons with disabilities. The few who do not need services and find alternatives to them are typically on which end of the spectrum ? referred to as whom in the past ?

DoneOver wrote:

Quote:

The first sentence is a tautology which tries to distract from the facts that some who are called autistic are very much capable of integrating in to society if only society did not insist on saying that they were disabled based on their own biases. You are being completely irrational when you use such circular logic.

TheSunAlsoRises:

Quote:

It was done to reinforce THE indisputable FACTS that the people(in this particular circumstance) who receive disability checks and medical resources are considered disabled. BUT, in your quest to disprove something THAT is obviously true; you use illogical reasoning based on emotionalism. There is no bias here. Those across the spectrum, even the proponents of differences, receive disability assistance too.

Autism has been the domain of parents for years. In recent years, a large number of High functioning Autistics and Aspergians have come forward to speak on issues directly related to their own personal experiences as Aspies. What do you think will inevitably happen by creating an AUTISM Spectrum Disorder category without a formal mention of Aspergers ?

I agree with all of what you say BUT i have to deal with the reality of the situation and the current trends that i see approaching.

DoneOver wrote:

Quote:

The reality of the situation? You are insisting that your pyoty-scientific view of the world is correct when it is not. You are insisting that aspergians just lay down and call themselves disabled. [u]You are not trying to help aspies or autistics. You are simply insisting that because they are different to NTs they must become like NTs, no matter the circumstances

TheSunAlsoRises:

Quote:

I'm giving my unfiltered opinion on how i think certain situations in the Autistm community are going to play out. Nothing in my posts allude to Aspies laying down. What i am proposing IS, what will happen IF Autists do nothing.

You will never find a post in which I encourage anyone to become a NT.

TheSunAlsoRises

Last edited by TheSunAlsoRises on 16 Mar 2012, 7:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Cornflake
Administrator

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 73,316
Location: Over there

16 Mar 2012, 6:40 pm

TheSunAlsoRises, please try to respond to posts using the "quote" button.

Bolding sections of text as you're doing means that readers have to refer back to the original posts to find out who you're quoting - or if you're just emphasizing something in your own comment.

_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.

TheSunAlsoRises
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,039

16 Mar 2012, 6:56 pm

DoneOver wrote:

Quote:

By removing aspergers from the equation you infer that parents are trying to suppress aspie discontent of parent-led or supported cartels and organisations. Your words sound like something an NT parent from Autism Speaks would say, not containing substance at all, simply insisting that their selfish ways 'are the way things have to be'.

It's the very kind of belief that makes aspies think that they are better than NTs sometimes.

Nope. I'm saying a removal of a people completely from a diagnostic category, who were the main opponents of a group, may inherently benefit said group. Parents have little control into what stays in or goes out of the DSM-V yet it's possible for them to STILL benefit.

The little snide remarks THAT you think you can make BUT try to hold me accountable to... is quite all right.

God willing, I'm going to be here a very very long time participating on this forum

TheSunAlsoRises

Last edited by TheSunAlsoRises on 16 Mar 2012, 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TheSunAlsoRises
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,039

16 Mar 2012, 7:01 pm

Cornflake, will do.

My text are not high-lighted and the other person texts are in bold.
I am having dialogue with only one person.

Also, i'm having trouble with the quote button.

My Apologies.

TheSunAlsoRises

Page 7 of 8 [ 121 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Jump to:

Aspergian Liberation Organization (ALO) Post Reply New Topic

Aspergian Liberation Organization (ALO)