Article - Is Everyone On The Autism Spectrum?

Post Reply New Topic

if you don't mind being baned by these new blood thirsty MODS then I guess I cant stop you from being ass.dont complain like you were not warned if you do get baned

The irony is, I'm not being an ass, I'm standing up for my opinion and being insulted for it. What's more is, I'm not the only one that is dealing with this crap on this thread. Now, if the mods want to ban me for speaking my mind about this topic, which is what a discussion is about I might add, and in turn, defending myself upon being insulted, then I'd be more than happy to outline why this site would be a bad one for people to come to for any discussion whatsoever, because the majority of what I've seen on this site is opinionated discussions that have no real basis in fact being highlighted while real discussions involving logic and debate, as well as those who discuss them logically and factually, continue to be bashed in, the majority of which are in topics like these.
I've been here for 2 years, and in that time I've had more reason to leave than to stay, and for a long while I stopped posting anything meaningful whatsoever, because it always ends up like this topic does. In fact the only thing I've posted in again until very recently is a single topic that has no real point to it; 'bump when [insert random thing here]'. It would be of no great loss to me, if the mods banned me for standing up for myself and my opinions, and in doing so, they send a resounding "you can't stand up for yourself here" message to everyone else. I'd like to think they're more intelligent than that, but I guess we'll see, won't we?

Well I still think it's dismissive to say that everyone is on the spectrum. It is an autism spectrum ... so it means that everyone who has autism is on the spectrum, not everyone is on the spectrum.

I once confided in a boss that I'm autistic (a bad idea, I wouldn't recommend it.) She responded by saying that everyone's on the spectrum. Well everyone isn't. People who aren't have no idea what they are talking about and want to pretend that it's insignificant.

Exactly. And it's not a spectrum that just anyone can qualify for (and certainly not 'everyone' as some like to claim).
In addition to my statements on this topic, I take an exert from the following site: Click Me

That is the science behind the spectrum, they're neurodevelopmental disorders, meaning the brain is wired differently and that's why we're on the spectrum and deal with the issues that we do. Since not everyone has a neurodevelopmental disorder, not everyone is on the spectrum. That's the science, that's the proof, and the point I've been making all along people.
This isn't some random idea that popped into someone's head just to try to 'help', it's actual science, using factual data. No amount of wishful thinking will change that.

I didn't say you were the only one doing anything I just warned everyone

A lot of people have some mild autistic traits, but they also have a lot of social cognition, which precludes them from being autistic in my opinion. Sometimes, these people say that they are on the autism spectrum while displaying feats of social cognition that are not found in autistic people. I know a lot of people with mild autistic traits, and a few of them do say that they think they or others are on autism spectrum (I haven't heard anyone say this about eberryone though). I find that most of these people conceive of a diluted kind of autism in which the autistic traits are super mild, like they think that social cognition deficits is basically not knowing what to say in a conversation, while social cognition deficits in autism go much deeper and more fundamental than that.

They have their axes to grind, it's very subjective, it's not for them to define the whole spectrum by the husbands they chose to marry - but they do. They expect NT equal relating from their ASD spouses, and not getting it, they are blaming rather than taking a look at the overall dynamics. They don't get better they just get more bitter, and some seem to enjoy the latter rather too much somehow.

So basically, in your eyes, anyone that is critical of your opinion, is insulting you. To point out the obvious, criticism of your ideas, does not equate to insults.

You said something that is simple-minded and slow, and refuse to accept facts outright -- It's not an insult to point all these things out. I've not insulted you at all, I question the very simple things that you've said.

I am deeply concerned by your behaviour here. This ad hominem tirade of yours, accusing me of insulting you, is based purely on insinuation, and innuendo. And no, your accusations do not validate your opinions.




Citation needed.

Perhaps the problem lies with a very low standard for evidence. What you just linked, is not what science is, and it certainly isn't factual, especially when it contradicts 'actual' science, as you say.




Your opinions do not trump facts, nor are they the same as fact.

You just insulted him in an example of how you are not being insulting. lol

That link is the scientific definition of an ASD, if you want to ignore that, fine, I don't care.
It's funny that you say "your opinions do not trump facts" because you've given absolutely zero substance, and claimed that your opinions are factual, despite the fact that some of us know better than that.
Yet more to prove my point:
The DSM V criteria for diagnosing someone as having an ASD
Yet another site which actually has a ton of citations that link directly to actual scientific papers that are accepted by the scientific community

So, again, not everyone can be on the spectrum because not everyone would qualify for diagnosis under the criteria as specified by the DSM V, this is not a hard concept to understand, and it certainly cannot be ignored.
If you want to challenge science fact, with yet more semantics and unproven points, that's up to you, but you're only going to make yourself look foolish.


Indeed, I noticed that myself, which is so funny to me. But hypocrisy often enough reveals itself and exposes true ignorance.
The fact is Moromillas has been the one that has stated something that is simple-minded and slow, and even still refuses to accept facts outright (facts established by science I might add).


Edit: And I want to add that no, I do not think that. You have insulted my intelligence at least twice and that is what I was referring to. I could care less if you agree with me or not, facts are facts, they don't change or become something else just because "moromillas" says they do. To which end, you have yet to produce any evidence to support your claim, whereas I have produced evidence 3 times now to prove that you're wrong.

Last edited by Jaden on 07 Dec 2014, 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Polarised as this thread has become, there must be some degree of common ground here, small though it may be. Sometimes finding the points that are in agreement refocuses the discussion away from interpersonal conflict.. just saying...

I agree with what you're saying here, but I will never find common ground with someone who readily dismisses science in favor of personal opinion.

This reminds me of a quote:

See, what you're actually doing, is blindly believing something, because its given you the impression that it's scientific. Not unlike the creationist museums, for example, where they look at the bible and view it as scientific. It's quite sad really, that you're not capable of questioning this, when being inquisitive and questioning what's around you, is actually one of the cornerstones of science. Worse still, it's as I feared, you consider the definition and the diagnostic criteria of the DSM, as evidence for the DSM, without realising how circular that is. It reminds me of the most common circular argument; "God is real, because the bible tells me so."

First, you talk about wanting a real discussion and debate. Ok, you can't have that while you're shifting so thoroughly. If you're not painfully aware, I'm talking about the part where you say I've made a claim about the DSM, this is false. You see, the burden of proof does not work that way. The default position is not "AS is a disorder", you have to prove that it IS a disorder, and that the DSM is factual. Here's a tip: You can't. What you have provided, is painfully weak, and to have someone on wrongplanet proudly announce that as evidence, along with "I know better, I've been here for years" is embarrassing. Also, I'm really hoping I don't have to explain to you, in detail, why it's not evidence of DSM fact. Citation needed.

Also I explained to you why talking about your arguments, criticising them, and saying why they're bad is not an insult. I didn't insult your intelligence, you wrote those things yourself, remember? How there is absolute green light, and don't forget blue, therefore it validates my argument, what did you expect when you wrote this.

Here's my explanation again:

I do not think autism and neurotypical are 'opposites' like it all being one spectrum with autistic being on one end and neurotypical being on the other. Seems like they are just different neurologies so that is why I do not get the whole we're all on the same spectrum madness when it comes to things like autism.

What? autism is the name of the disorder....autism spectrum refers to anyone with autism or any other disorders considered to be autism spectrum like aspergers or PDD NOS for instance. A normal person with a couple traits that could be associated with autism is not the same as that person being on the autism spectrum....all mental disorders consist of normal human behaviors so normal people will have traits associated with various mental disorders some of the time...does not put them on the autism spectrum or any other disorder spectrum unless they have enough traits/symptoms for a diagnoses.

Also aspergian is not an official term of anything, its a silly term some people with aspergers use as an alternative way of saying it. I certainly don't want to be called that, Also how do you figure people would confuse the phrase 'people with aspergers' to mean 'disease carrying NT' I do not understand how you made that connection there.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding.

So are you saying that autism is not a disorder, but rather a common condition which, to varying degrees, everyone has?
Not sure if this is the case or not. But if it is so, then where one stands on the spectrum would have to be what is considered, not whether or not one is autistic, as this would be meaningless.