Anti-cure Cowardice?
01 Feb 2008, 6:26 am
anbuend wrote:
TLPG wrote:
If I recall she said she's probably PDD-NOS - which I've argued is the mid range of intelligence (average).
Please read what I write and stop attempting to represent me.
I'm sorry if that upset you, Anbuend, but it was certainly not my intention to "represent you" in any way. I did say "if I recall" and you were always (and will always) be free to correct me if I get any facts wrong.
anbuend wrote:
I was diagnosed as PDD-NOS for insurance reasons only
Oh OK. I saw that before but I wasn't sure what you meant by it which is why I missed it.
anbuend wrote:
Please quit defining me it's getting to the point of intolerability and I can't keep correcting you, especially as I have done so probably about twenty times by now in various places.
Whoa! Easy! OK - I saw at the end of your post that you are having issues at present, but please understand that I am only doing that because others (and you know who I mean) are also doing it completely wrong (fraud etc) and it's all I know how to do in order to pull them into line when neither you nor Anne are around to deflect it. Their attacks on you are a threat to the rest of us, especially if some loudmouth like Dan Olmsted gets ahold of it and does to you what he tried to do with the Amish (completely misrepresent them).
Now, OK - you may feel that I'm misrepresenting you. It's not intentional, and I apologise for any angst I may be causing you. That's the trouble with the idiots who are at the root of the problem. Their lies (IMO) require quick correction. I know first hand what a lack of correction can do to a person. Now I can't exactly ask you questions in the open in order to close any loopholes in my own knowledge of your situation - because that would be revealing way too much. So please understand that I am only trying to help.
Of course it also doesn't assist matters when other people bring the subject of you up to begin with (and I never did that in this thread for the record) and say things that I know are not correct.
anbuend wrote:
HFA isn't a real dx anyway. I mean, it's given, but it's not part of the diagnostic codes and certainly not used by the state in giving out services.
It is where I am! HFA is not classified as an intellectual disability, whereas LFA is. And the presence of an intellectual disability makes a big difference to access to services here. I've said that was wrong ever since I first found out that's how it worked.
anbuend wrote:
I'm not "autistic after all I've been through", I'm just autistic
I'm sorry if you read it that way, because that's not what I meant. My comment about "all you've been through" was in fact a reference to your misdiagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and what followed that, not your Autism. I've always said that you were always on the Spectrum, not just from a certain point in time.
Everyone on the Spectrum - no matter what point of it - was always on it. And always will be.
TheFace
Toucan
Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 273
Location: The Sweaty Palm of Michigan
01 Feb 2008, 6:43 am
anbuend wrote:
TLPG wrote:
If I recall she said she's probably PDD-NOS - which I've argued is the mid range of intelligence (average).
Please read what I write and stop attempting to represent me.
I was diagnosed as PDD-NOS for insurance reasons only (this was really common in the mid-1990s, I'm not going into everything here, but it happened to Roy Grinker's daughter at the same time as me for similar reasons and he got into the sociology of diagnostics back then -- my parents were actually told orally that I was autistic, and an idiot savant, but that insurance would think that meant "hopeless" so they'd write down "PDD-NOS", please just get it right and stop trying to tell me what and who I am I'm totally sick of you doing this). I fit the criteria for autism and am diagnosed with autism for a reason. Please quit defining me it's getting to the point of intolerability and I can't keep correcting you, especially as I have done so probably about twenty times by now in various places. And you're totally wrong about PDD-NOS (see this post, read thoroughly, and quit inferring), it's just a grab-bag, is often used inaccurately (as it deliberately was in my case, which was common back then, and still happens a lot today) and like autism has nothing to do with intelligence.
Quote:
Anyway, I think her physical issues will prevent the dropping of services where I live if she got an HFA DX.
HFA isn't a real dx anyway. I mean, it's given, but it's not part of the diagnostic codes and certainly not used by the state in giving out services. You have autism, Asperger, Rett, CDD, or PDD-NOS, those are the diagnoses that exist where I live and that's what will get you services. In order to get services you take a test that your staff rate you on what you are able to do. My staff put down what I was able to do and I got a score of 47 which is almost as low as you can get on the test, and that's how they do it. They don't do it by IQ, they do it by do you have a developmental disability, and then what can you or cannot you do.
As far as autism dx my parents and others who have known me since early childhood have gone through the autism criteria with doctors and in front of other professionals (including MIT professionals when I was asked to work with them) so many times over I'm not going to do it here, but it's happened, and please stop trying to squeeze me into your definitions of autism subtypes because it's getting pretty old and patronizing to boot that you don't just take my word for it or actually read my posts or anything, it's like you just say "I think she said" when I said something right in front of you yesterday that clarified everything and it would take you a few seconds to go back and look at it probably (unless I'm misestimating your abilities, which I might be, in which case I'm sorry for being rude, I'm just fed up with having to explain and utterly exhausted). I'm not "autistic after all I've been through", I'm just autistic, that's what was originally said to them out loud before most of "what I've been through" (it was practically the original direction that diagnostics took with me), and that's what another (relatively famous) autism professional urged my psychiatrist to put on paper. My psychiatrist and psychologist verified the diagnosis for SSI and an independent evaluator verified it for SSI again based on medical records obtained directly from doctors as well as stuff from my parents and from testing and interview of me. It was also verified for state services several times through similar methods. Like someone on one of the other threads said this is as verified as you get and I'm sick of people making up their own little stories about it. I've fit the criteria since I was a baby, otherwise they couldn't use the diagnosis because it isn't allowed to use it if you haven't fit it since you were under 3 or 4 or something. That means that they had to have proof from people other than me that I had delays or abnormal functioning or whatever the word is in various areas before that age and I did, and I also fit the criteria ongoing throughout childhood etc., I was just interpreted very differently than later and grew in different orders and ways than people want to expect.
And I'm sorry if I'm incoherent or rude. Really. I just don't know how to control it right now. My mind isn't fully back, having experienced an actual toxic gut-related reaction (which bore no resemblance to autism, and was pretty identical to delirium because that's what it was), and I just can't think well enough to keep correcting you so I'm just trying to ask you to stop, but I'm making frustration too visible and I can't figure out how to go back and erase it (yeah my brain is really messed up right now, yesterday I was still seeing people's heads disappear and stuff -- hospitals don't send you home well, they just send you home stable/not-too-delirious/not-about-to-die, and my body including my brain is totally trashed right now). I hope you and anyone else reading this will forgive me for any harshness.
Very Well Put!
_________________
My Blog - http://www.thezach.net/blog
My Online Store - http://www.thezach.net/store
The Nasty Truth About Autism Speaks - http://www.thezach.net/about/aspergers/aspeak
SleepyDragon
Veteran
Joined: 28 May 2007
Age: 68
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,829
Location: One f?tid lair or another.
02 Feb 2008, 8:47 am
elan_i wrote:
The Aspie positions I find most a sign of conceptual impoverishment, and a deficit of empathy, are the highly offensive objections to neurotypicals, such as that they are the ones that need to be cured, that the world would be better without them, that they are inferior, that their small talk activities and other interests are alien and lack value and a waste of time, that they are lower in evolutionary development, that auties and aspies are superior beings, etc.
One can agree that "NT-bashing", as described here, is distasteful and offensive - without characterising it as evidence of a personality disorder.
Neurotypicals beget aspies, and aspies beget neurotypicals. Identifying the one from the other is still a subjective, hit-and-miss proposition. Demonisation and crude caricatures are forms of overreaction. They add nothing to the discussion, no matter who is dishing them up.
To me it does not seem realistic or probable that auties and aspies might someday enact a dystopian, Planet of the Apes-style reversal wherein neurotypicals are bullied and oppressed. The central issues, in my view, remain control of one's body, informed consent to treatment, acceptance of diversity, and freedom of expression. These are basic liberties which ought not to be denied to anyone: on the spectrum, off the spectrum, or somewhere over the rainbow.
Being able to laugh at absurdity is also a help.
03 Feb 2008, 1:33 am
NewportBeachDude wrote:
Shelby, if you think I'm being a smart alec, hey, it's your choice. You said yourself that you don't pretend to be an expert. Good. Because you're not. And, you're definately not an expert on every child on this earth with Autism. My own included.
I do actually. Because you don't give your opinion, you just get up on a high horse and spout off "facts." Making a comment like "I think I know more about this than you" to someone you have never met, have no idea about their experience or qualifications, shows that you have already decided you are the avatar of all things autistic and will not listen to anyone else's opinion. You can state your opinion without being demeaning or condescending, and give proper respect to others.
NewportBeachDude wrote:
In my opinion, some kids regress. Some don't. That's not an expert opinion, but it's my own. You cannot lump every Autistic kid together and say that they all DO NOT regress, the same way you can't say they all DO. Autism is does not occur in every human being the same way and to say, "Something is not quite right with Jack," means nothing. As my above post says, some kids have delays from the start. But, there are those who don't. There are kids who exceed, then lose every ability they have to function. Autism is a complex disorder and the spectrum on "how, when, why" someone becomes Autistic is just as dynamic as the spectrum itself. You're an educator. You should know better.
The quote "something is not right with Jack" is something the NTs say. Ok, it's too broad for you but I think most people could understand what "Not quite right" means. Same with expressions like "Not playing with a full deck" or "A few sheep loose in the top paddock." I'm not sure if you are Aspie or just a parent, but I'll explain in clear terms as if you are an Aspie who does not understand language expressions: "Not quite right with Jack" means that Jack (who is a real 2 year old I work with) basically appears a "normal" child. He developed normally, walked at the right age, plays, has a few words. But something is "off."
Now "off" will be too broad for you so let me clarify. It means the child is not quite the same as the other children, but it's difficult to put a finger on it, especially to an NT. He talks, he walks, he plays...what is it? Now as an experienced person, I can tell you what "off" and "not quite right" are in relation to Jack. He plays alongside children, but he is not socialising. That in itself is not too odd, as many toddlers are still in solitary or parallel play. But put together with his other behaviours, something is off. He speaks, but yet if you really pay attention, he's not communicating much. He's repeating words and only in very specific circumstances. He's obsessed with cars - many boys are - but his speech really only centres around cars. He makes eye contact - but not really. He appears to look at you yet he's not really looking into your eyes. There's no connection. One of my staff, after I voiced my concerns about Jack, pulled him to her and said his name. He turned his head and looked sideways - exactly like her nephew who is autistic. Yet with Jack, none of his behaviours are severe and he doesn't present as a classically autistic child. Something is "not quite right." His mother has no idea he has these issues, and with no other children to compare him to his single word vocabulary at 2.5 does not seem odd. If he is diagnosed autistic, she will almost certainly be one to claim that it "suddenly struck, he developed normally before that!" Yet to the experienced eye, he was exhibiting signs earlier. And this is the problem - many parents do not know the signs, and many auties do appear to develop normally or at an advanced rate.
Your point that "go into any nursery and see toddlers doing ABCs etc" is completely bogus. The range of normal for 1 - 3 year olds is vast. I know a 12 month old who could count and recite ABCs. I know 3 year olds who barely put a sentence together and are not autistic in any way. Language delays on their own are not an indicator of autism as there are many other causes. So you tell me I'm not an expert on "every child with autism." I would put that right back on you, since you claim that you are the expert on toddlers and their development.
03 Feb 2008, 4:51 am
SleepyDragon wrote:
One can agree that "NT-bashing", as described here, is distasteful and offensive - without characterising it as evidence of a personality disorder.
Indeed.
Characterizing contrary opinions as automatic evidence of a disorder of any kind has always struck me as intellectually dishonest. One of the least accurate ways of using psychiatric labels is as a substitute for "I don't truly understand why someone thinks or behaves as he does," "I don't agree with her," or "I think this person is advocating something morally reprehensible." It prevents having to engage with what the person is saying and doing, and just shoves them off into a separate category where anything they say can be considered unreal and not worth listening to. And the conflating of psychiatric labels with "morally reprehensible" is what causes people who have psychiatric labels for other reasons to have to put up with being seen as dangerous, violent, etc. So going that route in a conversation is very harmful to a lot of people, both those with and without official labels.
_________________
"In my world it's a place of patterns and feel. In my world it's a haven for what is real. It's my world, nobody can steal it, but people like me, we live in the shadows." -Donna Williams
03 Feb 2008, 6:34 am
anbuend wrote:
SleepyDragon wrote:
One can agree that "NT-bashing", as described here, is distasteful and offensive - without characterising it as evidence of a personality disorder.
Characterizing contrary opinions as automatic evidence of a disorder of any kind has always struck me as intellectually dishonest. One of the least accurate ways of using psychiatric labels is as a substitute for "I don't truly understand why someone thinks or behaves as he does," "I don't agree with her," or "I think this person is advocating something morally reprehensible."
You both missed the simple point I made, and 'anbuend' you're criticism shows only a superficial and simplistic level of understand of my discussion, and as such a misunderstanding.
First I'll quote a main part of my last post, and will continue below it.
elan_i wrote:
I'm becoming more clear about why many with autism and Aspergers have an anti-cure position, and I consider their position to be much like the positions of many who have the different personality disorders -- most people with personality disorders vehemently argue against having any disorder, against any treatment, against being considered disordered, believe they are simply different, and so on. (This I believe is a major aspect of having a personality disorder, by definition. The person doesn't recognize it, doesn't seek treatment for it, and rejects it's diagnosis and treatment...most with personality disorders who seek medical attention do so for other reasons such as depression, anxiety, from the insistence of family, etc, and it is then that they are given the diagnosis, which they usually reject).
The Aspie positions I find most a sign of conceptual impoverishment, and a deficit of empathy, are the highly offensive objections to neurotypicals, such as that they are the ones that need to be cured, that the world would be better without them, that they are inferior, that their small talk activities and other interests are alien and lack value and a waste of time, that they are lower in evolutionary development, that auties and aspies are superior beings, etc. I find this the most obviously psychological response to the widespread discussion in medicine, science, etc, that autism and Aspergers are mental illnesses characterized by substantial and pervasive impairments in basic communicative, social, and behavioral abilities.
I think it would take a very humble and strong person to accept this diagnosis, accept efforts to treat this condition in a way that is agreeable to everyone, and, still, understand that we are valued not any less despite our disorder, and that having a disorder or illness or condition or whatever you want to call it, does not mean we are less human. Essentially no one in medicine or science thinks this, and for those in the public who do, they are themselves sick in their humanity. Responding to autism being considered a disorder and the subject of treatment and cure development by demonizing neurotypicals is unfortunate, and, only worsens things for those who do this, in the sense of adding to an adverse psychological make up, and being considered by others as being treatment-resistant, avoident, fearful, unaware, etc.
The Aspie positions I find most a sign of conceptual impoverishment, and a deficit of empathy, are the highly offensive objections to neurotypicals, such as that they are the ones that need to be cured, that the world would be better without them, that they are inferior, that their small talk activities and other interests are alien and lack value and a waste of time, that they are lower in evolutionary development, that auties and aspies are superior beings, etc. I find this the most obviously psychological response to the widespread discussion in medicine, science, etc, that autism and Aspergers are mental illnesses characterized by substantial and pervasive impairments in basic communicative, social, and behavioral abilities.
I think it would take a very humble and strong person to accept this diagnosis, accept efforts to treat this condition in a way that is agreeable to everyone, and, still, understand that we are valued not any less despite our disorder, and that having a disorder or illness or condition or whatever you want to call it, does not mean we are less human. Essentially no one in medicine or science thinks this, and for those in the public who do, they are themselves sick in their humanity. Responding to autism being considered a disorder and the subject of treatment and cure development by demonizing neurotypicals is unfortunate, and, only worsens things for those who do this, in the sense of adding to an adverse psychological make up, and being considered by others as being treatment-resistant, avoident, fearful, unaware, etc.
My discussion, and the focus of my original post and this thread, was to provide possible explanations for those who are anti-cure, and obviously as seen in my original post, many of these possible explanations are psychological explanations, that is, about factors that I believe may be underlying the anti-cure people's actual beliefs and statements. In addition to this, I provided some factors about science and medicine that are related to these possible psychological explanations.
One central aspect of these issues is that those with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are the one's with the diagnosis of mental illness, and I discuss the anti-cure objections that many with ASD make in the context of themselves having this diagnosis, and in the context of how they conceive of themselves with this diagnosis. Many with ASD, usually well after receiving their diagnosis, may decide to object to the diagnosis as being a disorder or disease, and may reject any treatment recommendations, and may reject the goal of a cure for this non-disorder. In this thread this is what I discuss - the possible reasons why many do this - and one possible reason is, it seems, similar to what occurs when people are diagnosed with personality disorders: they reject the diagnosis, reject treatment, reject themselves being considered disordered, and often will counter-attack others for claiming to be more "normal" than they. This is the evolution of the process. Contrary to what 'anbund' believes, I'm clearly not arguing something like that "the anti-cure Aspies have another disorder (personality disorder) because they have views about autism and treatment and neurotypicals I don't agree with." I'll re-quote 'anbund':
anbuend wrote:
Characterizing contrary opinions as automatic evidence of a disorder of any kind has always struck me as intellectually dishonest. One of the least accurate ways of using psychiatric labels is as a substitute for "I don't truly understand why someone thinks or behaves as he does," "I don't agree with her," or "I think this person is advocating something morally reprehensible."
Again, it's quite clear upon doing a minimally careful reading of my discussion in my original post, and post before this one, and what I wrote above, that I am not doing as 'anbuend' and 'sleepydragon' believe, but rather, I'm doing what I explained above in this post.
As an aside ... 'Anbuend' your notion of one being "intellectually dishonest" lacks sense. This along with your superficial and careless reading of the simple points I've made is unfortunate. Yet, you still seem very confident in making various allegations based on your superficial understandings. I've found it's always best to work hard to ensure that a full understand of the simple points is acquired before proceeding with criticisms, especially if the criticisms are of a psychological nature about the person presenting the ideas for discussion. Secondly, there is being dishonest, which would be to simply knowingly lie about various things, and then there is being biased, which would be to present ideas and discussion that has a demonstratable bias, and then their is being intellectually negligent or obtuse, which would be to neglect to consider obvious information or facts. None of these have been done. And, what you allege me to have done is the result of your careless reading of my discussion, as I pointed out above in this post.
As for bias, you may want to consider that you are being biased here, possibly, in not considering the main aspects of my discussion, and by persistently, at essentially every turn, trying to interpret my discussion as being the same-old-same-old anti-autism rhetoric, which it is obviously is not.
I don't believe the autism community is benefited from people in it responding to the pro-cure pro-treatment pro-Aspergers-is-a-disorder individuals in this careless manner. I think the anti-cure and anti-autism-is-a-disorder individuals have a lot of work to do to respond thoroughly and clearly to the widely accepted and thoroughly formulated conceptions of disorder, autism, and normal/neurotypical, and the related conceptions widely accepted in medicine, science, and most societies in the world in the past and currently of human well-being, rationality, happiness, fulfillment, human development, etc.
You also fail to understand that the observation of the condition of autism, and the diagnostic criteria, and the interest in treatment and cure has been done in science and medicine and society out of care and concern. You and others seem to interpret this activity as being done to harm those with autism - to get autistic people changed to normal because autistic people are disliked and not wanted.
03 Feb 2008, 6:35 am
I think there are very strong anti-cure arguments, but I've seen very little from activists like you 'anbuend' and others in the autism community. I think your arguments have little philosophical strength, that is, your ideas are undeveloped, and lack responses to what I mentioned above (the various conceptions I listed).
SleepyDragon
Veteran
Joined: 28 May 2007
Age: 68
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,829
Location: One f?tid lair or another.
03 Feb 2008, 8:00 am
elan_i wrote:
... widely accepted and thoroughly formulated conceptions of disorder, autism, and normal/neurotypical, and the related conceptions widely accepted in medicine, science, and most societies in the world in the past and currently of human well-being, rationality, happiness, fulfillment, human development, etc.
Widely accepted and accurate are not necessarily the same thing. Also, being on the autism spectrum does not preclude the experience of well-being, rationality, happiness, fulfillment and so on.
03 Feb 2008, 8:43 am
I haven't read all the posts in this thread, butI notice some discord.
In general I think if you want people to understand where you're coming from it's best to edit your thoughts carefully so that you keep your words to a minimum. Especially on the internet, hardly anyone reads and considers everything in a long post.
I find that people in general get too attached to words and cling to them and don't focus enough on the essence of what they mean. It makes for misunderstandings and unnecessary conflicts. With all the strong feelings that people have about this topic, it's hard to get people to listen to what you're saying unless you're able to articulate it very concisely. And you have to do that work yourself, nobody's going to do it for you. And once you've done it, nobody can take it away from you, because it's your own reasoning, based on your own feelings. That's powerful.
03 Feb 2008, 10:17 am
Shelby wrote:
NewportBeachDude wrote:
Shelby, if you think I'm being a smart alec, hey, it's your choice. You said yourself that you don't pretend to be an expert. Good. Because you're not. And, you're definately not an expert on every child on this earth with Autism. My own included.
I do actually. Because you don't give your opinion, you just get up on a high horse and spout off "facts." Making a comment like "I think I know more about this than you" to someone you have never met, have no idea about their experience or qualifications, shows that you have already decided you are the avatar of all things autistic and will not listen to anyone else's opinion. You can state your opinion without being demeaning or condescending, and give proper respect to others.
NewportBeachDude wrote:
In my opinion, some kids regress. Some don't. That's not an expert opinion, but it's my own. You cannot lump every Autistic kid together and say that they all DO NOT regress, the same way you can't say they all DO. Autism is does not occur in every human being the same way and to say, "Something is not quite right with Jack," means nothing. As my above post says, some kids have delays from the start. But, there are those who don't. There are kids who exceed, then lose every ability they have to function. Autism is a complex disorder and the spectrum on "how, when, why" someone becomes Autistic is just as dynamic as the spectrum itself. You're an educator. You should know better.
The quote "something is not right with Jack" is something the NTs say. Ok, it's too broad for you but I think most people could understand what "Not quite right" means. Same with expressions like "Not playing with a full deck" or "A few sheep loose in the top paddock." I'm not sure if you are Aspie or just a parent, but I'll explain in clear terms as if you are an Aspie who does not understand language expressions: "Not quite right with Jack" means that Jack (who is a real 2 year old I work with) basically appears a "normal" child. He developed normally, walked at the right age, plays, has a few words. But something is "off."
Now "off" will be too broad for you so let me clarify. It means the child is not quite the same as the other children, but it's difficult to put a finger on it, especially to an NT. He talks, he walks, he plays...what is it? Now as an experienced person, I can tell you what "off" and "not quite right" are in relation to Jack. He plays alongside children, but he is not socialising. That in itself is not too odd, as many toddlers are still in solitary or parallel play. But put together with his other behaviours, something is off. He speaks, but yet if you really pay attention, he's not communicating much. He's repeating words and only in very specific circumstances. He's obsessed with cars - many boys are - but his speech really only centres around cars. He makes eye contact - but not really. He appears to look at you yet he's not really looking into your eyes. There's no connection. One of my staff, after I voiced my concerns about Jack, pulled him to her and said his name. He turned his head and looked sideways - exactly like her nephew who is autistic. Yet with Jack, none of his behaviours are severe and he doesn't present as a classically autistic child. Something is "not quite right." His mother has no idea he has these issues, and with no other children to compare him to his single word vocabulary at 2.5 does not seem odd. If he is diagnosed autistic, she will almost certainly be one to claim that it "suddenly struck, he developed normally before that!" Yet to the experienced eye, he was exhibiting signs earlier. And this is the problem - many parents do not know the signs, and many auties do appear to develop normally or at an advanced rate.
Your point that "go into any nursery and see toddlers doing ABCs etc" is completely bogus. The range of normal for 1 - 3 year olds is vast. I know a 12 month old who could count and recite ABCs. I know 3 year olds who barely put a sentence together and are not autistic in any way. Language delays on their own are not an indicator of autism as there are many other causes. So you tell me I'm not an expert on "every child with autism." I would put that right back on you, since you claim that you are the expert on toddlers and their development.
Shelby, the only thing you want to do is argue. The bottom line is that you are not a Neurologist, Pediatrician, Developmental Physician, or an expert on every Autistic or Asperger kid on the face of this earth just because you work in a preschool or are a teacher. You're not privy to everyone's medical record and you don't know every Austistic kid's development on a personal basis. It only makes you know what you know based on your own personal experiences. Like me. If you don't believe in regression, that's your choice. But, don't argue with me about it because I've lived it and tens of thousands of other parents have also. There is no specific pathology for "off" and "off" can't be applied to all Autistic kids. If that were the case, we'd all self-diagnoses our kids from birth. Wait a minute, "Little Kenny is 'off!' He must have Autism."
I don't ride a high horse as you've accused me. Moving on...
Last edited by NewportBeachDude on 03 Feb 2008, 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
03 Feb 2008, 10:25 am
CockneyRebel wrote:
I think that you're angry, because most of us disagree with you.
I really don't think the OP is angry. Seems to me that there's anger on the side of anti-cure people who resent those who may want one or treatment for symptoms. It shouldn't be that way. Autistics should be allowed to chose cure or treatment without villification from those who don't want it. It's all choice. That's all. Why villify those who want one? It's their choice.
There's too much hostility inside the Autistic community. On the one side, you have parents looking for answers. On the other, you have Asperger adults who resent that. It's crazy, dude. As I said in another post, this might be the major reason why Autistic organizations should not include advocacy for Aspergers. They do not represent the wishes of the Asperger community. There should be separate organizations. For example, Autism Speaks and Asperger Speaks. That way, nobody gets their toes stepped on and Asperger people don't feel slighted by anti-cure supporters.
Peace.
03 Feb 2008, 2:13 pm
elan_i wrote:
I think there are very strong anti-cure arguments, but I've seen very little from activists like you 'anbuend' and others in the autism community. I think your arguments have little philosophical strength, that is, your ideas are undeveloped, and lack responses to what I mentioned above (the various conceptions I listed).
This seems to be directed mainly at anbuend, but does mention other activists and community members in its evaluation of the ideas expressed being underdeveloped and lacking responses to what elan_i has previously mentioned.
I think in my first response I went through all of the previously mentioned conceptions by number. Thus, I don't understand how you lack responses from the community. Is there any that I particularly missed or you feel needs more information/explanation?
Why do the arguments need "philosophical strength" as Autism and related issues fall into the field of psychology not philosophy? Could you explain what you mean by philosophical strengths? As I may be taking a more literal interpretation of the phrase then you, hence the confusion.
As for them being undeveloped, what are your criterea for a developed argument?
[i]{Mine are: carefully reasoned (makes a claim that is arguable, clear and well qualified/in context), well-supported (uses evidence: fact, statistic, text, authority, anectdote, case study, senerio), and considers the opposition (understanding and considering the argument against your argument and keeping an open mind). The five basic types of claims which could be included: policy, cause, value, interpretation and judgement. The argument can be organized several ways: chronology, most to least important, least to most important, classification, compare and contrast, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning. A developed argument aviods logical fallicies: generalizations, slippery-slope, straw man, failure to accept proof, either/or, slanting, ad hominen, sob story, circular definitions, chronology/causality, false analogy. All these criteria I learned in English Comp. my freshmen year of college and I find them to hold true.}[i]
Some could argue that your argument, as based on your opinons of what others feel that leads them to their opinion which is different than yours and how you interpret that on the basis of emotion, as being under-developed.
You also have certain fallicies in your argument. Such as: confusing fear(an emotion) with cowardice (a state of being, often related to fear but not alway the outcome of fear), making broad assumptions based on information you can not actually know for a fact, confusing types of disorders (Austism and related disorders which count as Pervasive Developement Disorders with Personality disorders which are a different grouping/type of disorders), attacking your opponents (calling them cowards and claiming they have a lack of courage), close mindedness in your approach (you look at one side and advidly point out that some of them label their opponents, but ignore the fact that some form another side do the same; you ignore or downplay the reasons offered by your oposion without even fully explaining why), you seem to imply that there are only two sides when its a lot more complicated than that, and your not useing or explaining good evidence in support of your views.
I also have a question about your post right above the post I've quoted and discussed. You seem to be separating autism and mental illness as if some autie/aspies have mental illness and some don't. What is your definition o mental illness? If its, as its commonly used simply a generic term for any neurological disorder or deficit, then it would include all auties/aspis as ASDs are neurological disorders. If you are refering to a specific disorder or set of disorders, not all would nessesarily be included depending on whether they have any comorbit conditions or not and what those comoribidities are. (The terms comorbid disorders or comorbidities simply mean two or more conditions/disorders accureing at the same time). You say the purpose of your original post "was to provide possible explanations for those who are anti-cure" why is this needed, can we not explain for ourselves, as the impliance is that we can't? You also claim that many presnted in your post are psychological explanations which you explain in this way "that is, about factors that I believe may be underlying the anti-cure people's actual beliefs and statements." Asid from the fact that your explaination is not the actual definition of a psychological explanation, what is your qualification for determining what the "underlying factors" of what people actually believe, and how do you know? What are these scientific and medicinal factors you claim to include?
03 Feb 2008, 3:21 pm
[quote="militarybrat"][/quote]
In your first response post, you did not provide your interpretation of the points in my original post and my subsequent posts. Nor did you provide any quotes to signify what you were addressing.
Many of your responses appear to miss the main points I made, but the first step would be what I mentioned above, and then I could address your response.
I provided the original post, and for those who respond, you should first provide an interpretation of my points, that is, an assessment of what you believe to be the points I made, and then after your interpretation, your direct responses to my points.
Again you didn't provide any interpretation of my points, nor any quotes/citations to my original post and subsequent post within any interpretation. And the same is the case for my most recent post, for which it appears you, like your first post, miss the main points I made.
As an aside, I think it is only psychological when people in the autism community merely turn the arguments that were first developed about autism back towards those who made the arguments, namely science and medicine. In doing this, they can avoid the conceptions themselves, namely the concepts of normal, abnormal, autism, neurotypical, well-being, rationality, etc, and simply take the finger being pointed at them and bend it back toward the finger pointers. A rather immature, and intellectually weak method of response. Purely psychological. "What you say about autism can be said of you" "You say I have a disease because I'm autistic...well I don't and maybe it's you that has the disease as a neurotypical, end of discussion" "Who is to say my autistic impairments are adverse to my well-being, or impairments at all, or that my life would be better without these so called impairments."
I'm tending to conclude that it's my impression that the people who are anti-cure anti-treatment anti-autism-is-a-disorder, which includes many with autism and many without autism, are so because, as I discussed in my original post, of the autistic persons lack of experience of anything else besides autism. There is no reference point for many with autism to refer to. No pre-autistic state. As for autistic people who are pro-cure pro-treatment and accept the conception of autism as an adverse illness, these people appear to have more advanced conceptual and imaginative abilities, that is, they can go beyond the limits of their experience and conceive of other possibilities, and have the courage to do so, and are not fearful about allowing for the possibilities of cure and treatment, and can courageously accept and understand the concept of autism as an adverse medical illness, and accept the efforts of others to help those with autism, and can understand what efforts are helpful and which are not (adverse medicines, gimmicks, etc), and can all the while maintain a strong conception of themselves as perfectly valuable human beings deserving of the same respect and rights as others.
I mention "the autistic persons lack of experience of anything else besides autism", and in a recent post I discussed that, nevertheless, there was a point of clear observable functioning prior to the onset of autism, which 'NewportBeachDude' discussed in more depth, and this is a central point of reference for those in science, medicine, and parents, to have a basis to work toward understanding what happened that caused the profound decrease in well-being from what they were once like...what caused the immense suffering to start, and how can it be lessened in any degree that is agreeable to everyone.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
|
Whats the cure for adhd?
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
22 Apr 2024, 2:02 pm |
| 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 |
