Opinions on pro-cure/anti-cure for class assignment

Post Reply New Topic

He was talking about curing left-handed people seriously and I was trying to ask him whether it was an analogy. He was advocating killing off left-handed people. I didn't presume because I have seen more insane things on the internet before. If he really is advocating this then he's a butcher for spurious reasons.

Culture doesn't mean anything is more sane. It just means people are putting fingers in their ears and saying "PRECEDENT PRECEDENT PRECEDENT"

It was the epileptic at one point an time that was considered a witch, a demon, and/or insane. Society was considered sane in fulfilling their duty to burn them at the stake. At that time there was no other precedent.

If someone in society did this today they would be considered insane. But, in the past it wouldn't be considered insane. That part is determined by what is culturally acceptable.

They were wrong to do this. A major screw up. Thank goodness for science, or people might still be doing it.

In other countries genital mutilation of women is considered acceptable and sane. In those countries there is also no other precedent.

Here in the US, it would be cause for a psychological examination.

Does our society think it is right for this to happen in those other countries? No it is a horrible atrocity against women, that is our ethical standard. In those countries it is an atrocity for those that must succumb to it, but considered a way of life, ethical, and a normal part of culture that is considered completely sane.

Autism with co-morbidities has been around much longer than it has been identified, as such. Now psychology has identified characteristics of a phenotype shared by more.

The confusion is what does and what does not need a cure. The left handed part, in this case is an analogy for the part of autism that apparently cannot be cured.

Lau's answer was clarification that it was an analogy, as well as Inventor's answer about Ned Flanders. So was my answer related to Ned Flanders, as well as Inventor's last post, and this one as well.

You had it figured out, you just weren't sure, there is nothing wrong with that.

An analogy is not always designed for concise communication, but to instead, at times to allow one to think deeper about a subject.

That is part of society, now that has changed. Many people no longer have the patience to read more than a sentence or two, about any one subject, to gain the opportunity for deeper thinking and understanding.

That's not just an opinion, scientific research is ongoing at Harvard to understand this cultural phenomenon better.

i dont ask this question as a moderator and im totaly cool with these posts.out of personal curiosity.what do the last few posts have to do with autism,cure or disabilty cure

And I am saying that precedent doesn't define what is right and wrong. You believe that what is right and wrong is somehow inextricably bound to what scoiety knows. That's a combination of Argumentum ad numerum and Argumentum ad verecundiam plain and simple. If anyone has burnt an epileptic on the stake they are a murderer plain and simple.
An unwillingness to find a sane solution is no excuse.

It is good that you agree with this at present but is was wrong even back then. Good and evil, right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable exist independently of what human beings think. Its chief modifier is circumstance. Though these people believed in demons I would still consider it heinous by any standard no matter what self-sanctimonious ignorance they lived in.

To be simply put I don't like people making absurd inferences like that. I assume he was being sarcastic but I don't feel I have the confidence to simply read other's minds. That's why I ask. it's their fault if they don't then confirm it. And of course Inventor has yet to confirm.


Just because somebody thinks something and that it is considered authoritative by society doesn't make it right. Plain and simple wrong is wrong. Morality is not relativistic. There's always a right way and an unacceptably wrong way. The only thing that changes morality are conditions. What are the conditions and the circumstances? That changes mores.

To say that immoral things are sane just because it is a norm is absurd. All bad things, hypocrisy, cruelty, and such, are self-destructive in some way. The law of unintended consequences mandates that any evil norm requires suffering on the part of people who are innocent no matter the time or the place.

Acceptance in the differences seen in humanity, from a social perspective rather than the biological perspective considering the differences as an inherent disability, is a point of contention between those that see a necessity of cure vs those that don't see the research for a cure as either ethical or sensible in some disabilities, including autism.

The analogy of left-handedness, can provide that type of understanding for those that understand left-handedness better than the broader phenotype of autism; both are related to potential differences in brain function, but autism is not understood as well by the general public as left handedness is.

It's a good analogy to understand why some don't see a cure as either viable or sensible.

However, with Autism there are co-morbid occuring conditions that some have that go well beyond any concern for the specific characteristics of left-handedness. This makes it a complex issue for what research is necessary and what research is not necessary.

My personal opinion is to leave it up to the those that specialize in these areas of research; they are trained for years in their areas of specialty and know more than I could ever hope to know. If there are ethical concerns, our culture determines the limits of what is acceptable research and treatment through our system of government. It's our way of voicing our individual and group concerns.

My analogies of the treatments of epileptics in the past and genital mutilation in the present in other countries illustrate just how much culture determines what are acceptable practices.

And, how it is good that we have both science and a fairly egalitarian culture and government system in our country, to provide both the research and cultural limitations for the general welfare of the population.

It's not a perfect system, but it works much better than it did in the past, because of advances in science and a culture and government that is more of an egalitarian one.

An example is the Tuskegee experiment with Poor Black Americans and Veneral Disease. When that program was instituted black individuals were not considered the same part of an egalitarian culture as whites were. Women in some other countries that practice genital mutilation are still not considered as part of an egalitarian culture.

We have improved in this area, so today such an experiment on blacks would not be an acceptable area of research in the government as it was in past years. My understanding is that program ended in the early 70's, so we haven't been out of the dark ages that long, as far as enabling egalitarian rights among those in society, in restricting unethical research.

Those concerns of the past remain concerns of the present. Hopefully our culture will remain a civilized one that keeps moving toward an egalitarian way of life, that accepts the rights of all individuals, including autistic ones both enabled and disabled.

It has to do with the perception of what is right and wrong. Also inventor possibly used left-handedness as a metaphor for how people treat autistics. The idea is that left-handedness is a minority. Autism is a minority. The only reason people like us a are persecuted is because we are a minority and Inventor supposedly is using left handedness as an allegory for autism to mock the persecution that occurs, or may be even just persecution in general.

He could just be being serious. There is a good reason why. People have made more insane comments than inventor did if he was being serious and were serious. Take conspiracy theorists.

It's not a personal judgement on my part, it is a factual statement that society and culture determines what is acceptable among human beings as a social unit, and people will do some horrible things if it is part of the expectation of the parameters of one's personal culture. Whether it be society as a whole, or a peer group.

If one is part of the culture where the behavior is accepted, particularly in countries where atrocities like female genital mutilation occur, it is all they know of their human existence, so unless another understanding is provided they carry on dutifully in their horrid practices.

It's a relative thing. We went into a war with Iraq, with the assumption that it was a noble thing to do, because we were told it was the noble thing to do. That is questioned now, but regardless of whether or not the intention was noble or not, Hundreds of thousands of innocent people died. That's an acceptable part of the cultural norm of war, when there is justified cause.

If the intention was not noble, it was indeed a horrid thing to do, but those within the culture accepted their marching orders and complied with what was seen as acceptable, legal, and the morally correct thing to do.

The cultural reason that women are genitally mutilated in other countries, is to control reproductive freedom to better ensure that one's offspring is one's offspring. It's a patriarchal system of thinking, but a cultural one that is accepted in that particular society as a normal part of life.

At this conversation we have the ability to see over cultural norms to form our own ethical and moral standards of what is right and wrong, both as individuals, groups, and society as a whole, and describe it as sane or insane as we see fit.

When one is under the cultural norm, they dutifully carry on with their behaviors, seeing it as what is required in life, regardless of how painful it may be to engage in those behaviors both for themselves and others.

There is no black and white in how humans perceive what is right or wrong. And the only natural restraints that exist in creating pain others, is the inherent part of our social animal instinct that looks out for the good of the group in which we exist. Culture shapes this into an infinite potential of manifestations, good for some bad for others, that become acceptable within the group.

I personally don't think there should be much question of Inventor's intent in his analogy by now. He clarified it in his last post:

Inventor wrote:

Your example is a bad one because it was based on lying to the public and depended on the force of authority for people to be tricked in to making war on a regime for a lie. it shows quite clearly that you have fallen in to the pangloss trap. You try to justify these bad things by saying that it was acceptable at the time. if people actually knew the truth and did not wallow in ignorance however it wouldn't be acceptable Those who died have died for a lie and the leaders of that war have not been punished on the most fripperous of grounds.

It's like you are saying that because someone has done something wrong, just because of argumentum ad numerum it's somehow acceptable for the time. Yet this is false. Morality is not dependent upon people. It is dependent upon circumstances and the circumstances show that those who led the USA and UK to war should be tried for war crimes.


And I say if their norm is bad they are cowardly or ignorant for not considering and doing the truth. They ignore the injustice because society has allowed them too and the reason why it continues is because there is a vested interest in doing this thing, whether it be to feel right without actually trying to be right or because a norm helps their position or simply because they are afraid of reprisal.

No matter what one says only a fool would think that something is acceptable just because there is a precedent behind it. Your explanation about FGC is already heavily disputed as a veritable barbarism undertaken by force against women and feminists would most certainly grow angry that you tried to justify it and for good reason. FGC occurs because it's a tradition that people blindly follow and because people can't actually do the difficult and right thing and actually deal with rape in their country judiciously. It also occurs because it is a sign of submission, a sick idea.

Regardless if the war in Iraq was justified or not 100's of thousands of innocent people died; that is the cultural norm of war. Most people do accept this, as ethically acceptable, that are part of the warring nation, because it is part of the cultural norm.

Some don't accept it, regardless of the reason for war, some for religious reasons, that's a different cultural norm. The fact that politicans do have the ability to start wars for alternative reasons than are given, makes it worse, but the fact remains whether the war is justified or not 100's of thousands of innocents do die, because in the case of war it is considered a cultural norm of the majority.

I am not not justifying those innocent people's deaths regardless of justification of war, but no matter what my personal opinion might be on it one way or another, it is a cultural norm that is accepted by the majority.

What this means is wrong results from what is considered right depending on whom one talks to in the human experience, the circumstance, or the culture.

I agree in general, that morality is not because of people; that is the point I am trying to make, It is mostly because of circumstance and culture, it depends on what is seen as acceptable both in culture and circumstance; there are not too many clear cut inherent human rules, that discriminate cultural requirements.

I personally don't think that FGM is acceptable or justifiable, however those that live in the countries that control it do. It is part of a patriarchal culture, and while I like an egalitarian one, Patriarchal societies and cultural norms of submission still do exist in the world for millions of individuals.

Violations of submission lead to death in Middle Eastern countries. Yes, I think it's sick beyond my comprehension, however those that live in the culture and control it consider it a moral, ethical, and legal responsibility.

The real reason why people die in wars because they wouldn't be wars if people didn't die. They would be actions, fights, conflicts, but not wars.

If it is that people do wrong things anywhere and you are against them despite their precedent I hope you will join me in trying to subvery any evil norm or reform any evil way of doing things in any good way possible.

I'm against the actions of those that do harm to others, but I've been humbled enough by life not to judge others on a personal basis, because except for the grace of what is, I could be in their shoes.

That said, I support change, in any good way possible, that would make life better for those that are harmed by anyone.

That quote is not from me.

The left handers are Sinister, just as the right are Dexter.

Decimate as lau pointed out means one in ten. That does fit left handed.

It is an example of how word usage can panic the uneducated.

Epidemic, epi, a starting point, demic, going everywhere.

Compare Autism Epidemic to:

AIDS, restricted means of spreading, 60 Million dead and counting.

1918 Flu, older people were immune, most who died were under 25. 50 Million dead.

The Black Death, everyone, spread from city to city, three waves, most of Europe died.

Also, burning the left handed at the stake would produce full employment.

The left handed, a few misquoters, we would have a booming economy.

How is this different than Psychology trying for full employment by calling character types disabilities, who need their Witch Hunter skills?

To me it is like the massive buildup of police since the Civil Rights Era, to keep those darkeys in their place. Was there ever any threat of Blacks with machetes killing all the whites?

Politics amd Marketing, creating panic where there was none, to produce votes, purchases, by spreading misinformation.

The root of it is mostly power and jobs.

Exteriminate the Autistic Plague Epidemic, is calling for a final solution to something that was never a problem.

Psychology was busted for the largest drug scam ever, the largest fines ever, because they are marketers for Drug Companies, who were caught paying kickbacks to produce millions of new drug customers, for conditions that were never a problem before.

Children behaving like children, ADD, ADHD, Restless leg syndrome, and autism.

Research that shows peer reviewed results is fine, Drug Companies have been busted for rigging FDA trials, and only putting forth favorable reviews.

Trial Lawyers hired someone to say vaccines caused autism.

There is money in disability, big money, and their Press Releases do not stand up as Science.

Before Cure, we need some hard evidence on cause.

One quarter of the public have been convinced they are Depressed, and need a pill. That was great Marketing, Clinical Depression still has the same numbers, 7%.

Between the depression pills, and the kiddie pills, a third of the population lives in a drug induced reality. Since this started, Obesity, Diabeties, heart problems, have created even more of a pill market.

Nothing has been cured, more problems have been created.

No. Epi = upon/among, demos = the people. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/epidemic

I suspect you are thinking of "pandemic" (all the people) - a word that is, oddly, more descriptive of autism (if you leave out the disease connotation).

Yes, left-handedness is pandemic... as is running!

Most children do, fortunately, grow out of the pervasive developmental disorder "running" early in life. With suitable admonition, and a few canings, schools have generally managed to cure the majority of this anti-social behaviour.

Those individuals whose "running" is resistant to normal techniques, can be redirected into "sport" for their adolescent and early adult periods. Eventually, they do learn how to "walk". Indeed, these "sporties" may master "hobbling" earlier than some normal people.

I'm on the spectrum and I don't support a cure for ASDs. You can't cure something that's not a disease or an illness. I'm also a very proud lefty, as well and I shall write with my left hand with pride!

I'm moderately pro-neurodivesity because of the ethical issues in biology and psychology of that line of reasoning. However, you're poll is pretty much preaching to the choir since this is an autistic community. It would be like asking for a poll regarding the legalization of marijuana on NORML's forums or gun control on an NRA forum.

For the record I voted "pro cure, I am the parent of an ASD child".
Cure being a broad term, I don't believe there will be a cure as such as people imagine a complete change, but I believe there will be things that will help my son to talk again who once could.