Yoko Ono auctions art for anti-autism, pro-eugenics group.
03 Apr 2009, 7:02 pm
Anemone wrote:
MR, it doesn't matter what they think. What matters is what they do.
When reading things into what was said that weren't said -- which is the topic of discussion -- it does too matter what they, whoever they might be, think. People are claiming one thing, and giving entirely different evidence, and wrongly claiming the evidence supports their claim.
Now I had your claim about what their money goes too. If true, that's something different. I still don't agree that genetic research = eugenics. Not unless they wrongly think that it's a simple have it or don't based on genes. But, then, in that case, well, it's a different sort of case of assuming a perspective.
And, if they do think that way, they are wrong anyway. Wishing something (not that I think they are, but if they are) doesn't magically make it possible.
03 Apr 2009, 9:39 pm
http://www.bagism.com/
This seems like it would be a natural Aspie habitat.
Except that I couldn't get it to open.
Last edited by Tahitiii on 03 Apr 2009, 10:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ixtli
Snowy Owl
Joined: 17 Jan 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 169
Location: Some silly little island in Canada.
03 Apr 2009, 9:42 pm
MR:
Quote:
So, you admit I'm right, basically, yet still argue against me. "read between the lines" = projecting your own perspective.
No reason to assume they share that perspective. Which I did specify, but you chose not to quote. Nothing I said had to do with whether Autism Speaks considers autistics subhuman and soulless. That's not what I was replying to. Perhaps some do consider autistics subhuman and soulless. (Some doesn't mean all.) But that doesn't mean they promote or are interested in Eugenics against autism.
And something to keep in mind. Even if you are right that autism is mostly a genetic disorder, that doesn't mean they see it that way. Right or wrong, they don't have that same perspective. And, as I said, it's wrong to project your perspective on them. Doing that is taking what they say out of context and putting into a different context, which is unfair to them.
No reason to assume they share that perspective. Which I did specify, but you chose not to quote. Nothing I said had to do with whether Autism Speaks considers autistics subhuman and soulless. That's not what I was replying to. Perhaps some do consider autistics subhuman and soulless. (Some doesn't mean all.) But that doesn't mean they promote or are interested in Eugenics against autism.
And something to keep in mind. Even if you are right that autism is mostly a genetic disorder, that doesn't mean they see it that way. Right or wrong, they don't have that same perspective. And, as I said, it's wrong to project your perspective on them. Doing that is taking what they say out of context and putting into a different context, which is unfair to them.
Reading between lines != projecting a perspective. It can just as easily be thorough logical analysis. And every public matter does involve reading between the lines to some extent, so I'm not sure what you're expecting people to do here--do you want us to take statements like "Autism Speaks is dedicated to increasing awareness of autism spectrum disorders, to funding research into the causes, prevention and treatments for autism" etc. entirely at face value? Because they think highly of themselves, we should ignore our own misgivings (even though they have no autistic members and, as it happens, we're autistic so we might have a few things to add or amend)--is this what you're saying?
Take a look at this advertisement for Cure Autism Now, which is a part of Autism Speaks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_cJp714jXQ
Please--tell me how this doesn't outright call autistics soulless husks. And this is in keeping with the general image of autism that they promote.
Their research is mostly for prenatal testing; realistically, all that would do is lead to increased abortions. Actually *fixing* a brain is a tall order, especially when there's no clear definition of "broken." Resources are much better spent making life better for existing autistics and spreading a *proper* understanding of what autism really is. Plus they advocate chelation, a very dangerous process. They support the idea that autism is caused by vaccines, despite the bulk of scientific evidence and some recent court decisions to the contrary. Sure, then they may not think autism is genetic, but that doesn't have much to do with my position anyway. It's worse, in a sense, since they think we can be this way only because our brains are poisoned with heavy metals (although really a single vaccine contains less mercury etc. than one consumes in a day.)
Ultimately my concern is not whether they're good or well-intentioned people (surely that varies, though I have reservations about parents who would so thoroughly dehumanize their children) but whether they compose a decent charity that does good for the world and helps rather than hinders our cause. Autism Speaks, by promoting a one-dimensional and extremely negative image of autism and directing autism-related funding to eugenics-related research (which it is, because it seeks to determine who should be born based on an ideal of genetic fitness), dangerous treatments and quack theories, is a lousy charity.
03 Apr 2009, 10:43 pm
Ixtli wrote:
MR:
Reading between lines != projecting a perspective. It can just as easily be thorough logical analysis. And every public matter does involve reading between the lines to some extent, so I'm not sure what you're expecting people to do here--do you want us to take statements like "Autism Speaks is dedicated to increasing awareness of autism spectrum disorders, to funding research into the causes, prevention and treatments for autism" etc. entirely at face value? Because they think highly of themselves, we should ignore our own misgivings (even though they have no autistic members and, as it happens, we're autistic so we might have a few things to add or amend)--is this what you're saying?
Take a look at this advertisement for Cure Autism Now, which is a part of Autism Speaks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_cJp714jXQ
Please--tell me how this doesn't outright call autistics soulless husks. And this is in keeping with the general image of autism that they promote.
Their research is mostly for prenatal testing; realistically, all that would do is lead to increased abortions. Actually *fixing* a brain is a tall order, especially when there's no clear definition of "broken." Resources are much better spent making life better for existing autistics and spreading a *proper* understanding of what autism really is. Plus they advocate chelation, a very dangerous process. They support the idea that autism is caused by vaccines, despite the bulk of scientific evidence and some recent court decisions to the contrary. Sure, then they may not think autism is genetic, but that doesn't have much to do with my position anyway. It's worse, in a sense, since they think we can be this way only because our brains are poisoned with heavy metals (although really a single vaccine contains less mercury etc. than one consumes in a day.)
Ultimately my concern is not whether they're good or well-intentioned people (surely that varies, though I have reservations about parents who would so thoroughly dehumanize their children) but whether they compose a decent charity that does good for the world and helps rather than hinders our cause. Autism Speaks, by promoting a one-dimensional and extremely negative image of autism and directing autism-related funding to eugenics-related research (which it is, because it seeks to determine who should be born based on an ideal of genetic fitness), dangerous treatments and quack theories, is a lousy charity.
Quote:
So, you admit I'm right, basically, yet still argue against me. "read between the lines" = projecting your own perspective.
No reason to assume they share that perspective. Which I did specify, but you chose not to quote. Nothing I said had to do with whether Autism Speaks considers autistics subhuman and soulless. That's not what I was replying to. Perhaps some do consider autistics subhuman and soulless. (Some doesn't mean all.) But that doesn't mean they promote or are interested in Eugenics against autism.
And something to keep in mind. Even if you are right that autism is mostly a genetic disorder, that doesn't mean they see it that way. Right or wrong, they don't have that same perspective. And, as I said, it's wrong to project your perspective on them. Doing that is taking what they say out of context and putting into a different context, which is unfair to them.
No reason to assume they share that perspective. Which I did specify, but you chose not to quote. Nothing I said had to do with whether Autism Speaks considers autistics subhuman and soulless. That's not what I was replying to. Perhaps some do consider autistics subhuman and soulless. (Some doesn't mean all.) But that doesn't mean they promote or are interested in Eugenics against autism.
And something to keep in mind. Even if you are right that autism is mostly a genetic disorder, that doesn't mean they see it that way. Right or wrong, they don't have that same perspective. And, as I said, it's wrong to project your perspective on them. Doing that is taking what they say out of context and putting into a different context, which is unfair to them.
Reading between lines != projecting a perspective. It can just as easily be thorough logical analysis. And every public matter does involve reading between the lines to some extent, so I'm not sure what you're expecting people to do here--do you want us to take statements like "Autism Speaks is dedicated to increasing awareness of autism spectrum disorders, to funding research into the causes, prevention and treatments for autism" etc. entirely at face value? Because they think highly of themselves, we should ignore our own misgivings (even though they have no autistic members and, as it happens, we're autistic so we might have a few things to add or amend)--is this what you're saying?
Take a look at this advertisement for Cure Autism Now, which is a part of Autism Speaks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_cJp714jXQ
Please--tell me how this doesn't outright call autistics soulless husks. And this is in keeping with the general image of autism that they promote.
Their research is mostly for prenatal testing; realistically, all that would do is lead to increased abortions. Actually *fixing* a brain is a tall order, especially when there's no clear definition of "broken." Resources are much better spent making life better for existing autistics and spreading a *proper* understanding of what autism really is. Plus they advocate chelation, a very dangerous process. They support the idea that autism is caused by vaccines, despite the bulk of scientific evidence and some recent court decisions to the contrary. Sure, then they may not think autism is genetic, but that doesn't have much to do with my position anyway. It's worse, in a sense, since they think we can be this way only because our brains are poisoned with heavy metals (although really a single vaccine contains less mercury etc. than one consumes in a day.)
Ultimately my concern is not whether they're good or well-intentioned people (surely that varies, though I have reservations about parents who would so thoroughly dehumanize their children) but whether they compose a decent charity that does good for the world and helps rather than hinders our cause. Autism Speaks, by promoting a one-dimensional and extremely negative image of autism and directing autism-related funding to eugenics-related research (which it is, because it seeks to determine who should be born based on an ideal of genetic fitness), dangerous treatments and quack theories, is a lousy charity.
03 Apr 2009, 10:45 pm
I am with the folks here that are leary of Autism Speaks. What they are trying to accomplish seems sinister and short sighted.
First the sinister part: Aside from the prenatal autism Auswitch that prenatal testing implies, there is the issue of social conformity. The very nature of autism tends to disconnect one from the herd mind and frees one to act and think independantly of public oppinion. Auties and aspies are just hard to 'herd', hard to control and manipulate - they are unpredictable and the powers that be (so to speak) don't want a populace that can't be controled.
The sort sighted part: By being disconnected from the 'herd' mind auties and aspies are automatically, outside-the-box thinkers. It is notable that historical figures like Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are theorized to have been on the spectrum. They revolutionized physics when conventional thought deemed that all that could be known about the subject was known. I seriosly doubt that a social-conformity minded NT would have thought to thumb his nose at the authorities of his time and propose new and better ways to look at the world. By stamping out autism, humanity would deprive itself of some of the best innovators it has.
_________________
The river tells no lies - but, the dishonest man, standing near, will hear them. - Oma
I am not responsible for what I say - you are! I am only responsible for the words I speak. - me
04 Apr 2009, 12:01 am
solinoure wrote:
I am with the folks here that are leary of Autism Speaks. What they are trying to accomplish seems sinister and short sighted.
First the sinister part: Aside from the prenatal autism Auswitch that prenatal testing implies, there is the issue of social conformity. The very nature of autism tends to disconnect one from the herd mind and frees one to act and think independantly of public oppinion. Auties and aspies are just hard to 'herd', hard to control and manipulate - they are unpredictable and the powers that be (so to speak) don't want a populace that can't be controled.
The sort sighted part: By being disconnected from the 'herd' mind auties and aspies are automatically, outside-the-box thinkers. It is notable that historical figures like Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are theorized to have been on the spectrum. They revolutionized physics when conventional thought deemed that all that could be known about the subject was known. I seriosly doubt that a social-conformity minded NT would have thought to thumb his nose at the authorities of his time and propose new and better ways to look at the world. By stamping out autism, humanity would deprive itself of some of the best innovators it has.
First the sinister part: Aside from the prenatal autism Auswitch that prenatal testing implies, there is the issue of social conformity. The very nature of autism tends to disconnect one from the herd mind and frees one to act and think independantly of public oppinion. Auties and aspies are just hard to 'herd', hard to control and manipulate - they are unpredictable and the powers that be (so to speak) don't want a populace that can't be controled.
The sort sighted part: By being disconnected from the 'herd' mind auties and aspies are automatically, outside-the-box thinkers. It is notable that historical figures like Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are theorized to have been on the spectrum. They revolutionized physics when conventional thought deemed that all that could be known about the subject was known. I seriosly doubt that a social-conformity minded NT would have thought to thumb his nose at the authorities of his time and propose new and better ways to look at the world. By stamping out autism, humanity would deprive itself of some of the best innovators it has.
By stamping out autism, humanity would deprive itself of some of the best innovators it has.[/quote]
i agree. so, the quesiton is, if high functioning autism is a catalist for growth and improvement in humanity, is autism perhaps therefore a succinctly positive piece of evolution? could it be the part of us as homo sapiens that thinks outside the box, looks at things in new ways, innovates, dreams, discovers, imagines, creates in a more unique way? or could it be that there are both equally gifted individuals in the NT world, and we are just on a parallel field?
i tend to believe that autism is a genetic part of humaniity that has always been there, from the begining. but why? maybe it's God's plan to keep the NTs in check? lol
Imagine a world where autistics were the majority. Would we be having these discussions about what we should do to help these poor NTs? Would we be looking for a cure for them?
"Doctor, i just dont know what to do with my poor little child; all he wants to do is go outside and play with the other children! Most all of the other kids are busy with their studies and developing their interests; writing, creating, inventing, studying etc and they dont understand why lil johnny wants to spend time doing frivolous things, like gossiping and bragging and other meaningless endevours.... Can you help him????"
hahahaha
_________________
keep it real
Ixtli
Snowy Owl
Joined: 17 Jan 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 169
Location: Some silly little island in Canada.
04 Apr 2009, 12:12 am
OK MR, here's your first post:
Quote:
I think it's curious that I keep reading here how Autism Speaks wants to eradicate those with the genetic differences that related to autism, and, yet, I've never seen anything to verify that. And, yes, I've been to their website. I'm frankly not convinced that they are as bad as folks claim.
Besides that you're placing rather a lot of importance on a technicality, and you did earlier dispute me when I said Autism Speaks considers autistics soulless husks, I've already pointed out how they intend to effectively eradicate autistics, which is by research that would prevent the birth of most autistics (or are you taking the term "eradicate" more literally than that? And if so, how is your argument relevant to anything?), and I've already explained their negative (i.e. bad) image of autism and influence on autistics. So the organization is "as bad as folks claim."
04 Apr 2009, 1:13 am
f**k Autism Speaks. f**k them to hell. I agree with most people on this site: Autism shouldn't be eradicated. Hell if this was an autistic world, I would enjoy crushing the NT beetles, but alas that wouldn't be right although funny.
Gosh, they think we're the flies and they're the horses. Autism is needed in this world. Most of the famous people had autistic tendacies, and if they want to get rid of autism, well let's just say don't ask us when a nuclear war happens. Autism is needed to keep the Nts in check, and we're needed to create the unique innovations and art for society. So having said that, f**k Autism Speaks.
04 Apr 2009, 8:44 am
Ixtli wrote:
OK MR, here's your first post:
Besides that you're placing rather a lot of importance on a technicality, and you did earlier dispute me when I said Autism Speaks considers autistics soulless husks, I've already pointed out how they intend to effectively eradicate autistics, which is by research that would prevent the birth of most autistics (or are you taking the term "eradicate" more literally than that? And if so, how is your argument relevant to anything?), and I've already explained their negative (i.e. bad) image of autism and influence on autistics. So the organization is "as bad as folks claim."
Quote:
I think it's curious that I keep reading here how Autism Speaks wants to eradicate those with the genetic differences that related to autism, and, yet, I've never seen anything to verify that. And, yes, I've been to their website. I'm frankly not convinced that they are as bad as folks claim.
Besides that you're placing rather a lot of importance on a technicality, and you did earlier dispute me when I said Autism Speaks considers autistics soulless husks, I've already pointed out how they intend to effectively eradicate autistics, which is by research that would prevent the birth of most autistics (or are you taking the term "eradicate" more literally than that? And if so, how is your argument relevant to anything?), and I've already explained their negative (i.e. bad) image of autism and influence on autistics. So the organization is "as bad as folks claim."
No, you haven't shown that they plan to eradicate the genetic differences related to autism. You've only shown that you believe that.
04 Apr 2009, 10:19 am
mikegee wrote:
i agree. so, the quesiton is, if high functioning autism is a catalist for growth and improvement in humanity, is autism perhaps therefore a succinctly positive piece of evolution? could it be the part of us as homo sapiens that thinks outside the box, looks at things in new ways, innovates, dreams, discovers, imagines, creates in a more unique way? or could it be that there are both equally gifted individuals in the NT world, and we are just on a parallel field?
i tend to believe that autism is a genetic part of humaniity that has always been there, from the begining. but why? maybe it's God's plan to keep the NTs in check? lol
i tend to believe that autism is a genetic part of humaniity that has always been there, from the begining. but why? maybe it's God's plan to keep the NTs in check? lol
The genes associated with autism are found throughout the general population. When they don't combine in a particular person enough to cause impairment inhibiting survival and reproductive opportunities, they are often advantageous to it (due to being related to traits such systemizing and creativity) and, therefore, more likely to be propagated. A prenatal test for autism would be very difficult to devise and implement because of this and the multiple genes involved. And this is without taking account of environmental and epigenetic factors.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Large anti-Orban march in Budapest |
07 Apr 2024, 11:00 am |
| George RR Martin Calls out Anti-Fans |
10 Feb 2024, 10:33 am |
| Group Home |
08 Apr 2024, 6:16 pm |
| Shy Bladder Support Group |
14 Feb 2024, 4:57 pm |
