Aspie logo

Post Reply New Topic

My use of terroristic was anything but casual. .

Vandalism is violence
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence.
the use of physical force to harm someone, to damage property, etc.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... h/violence
Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
and the implied message was if you do not stop supporting
Terrorism is using violence to intimidate to further for a social/political cause

The probable implied message was if you keep on supporting Autism Speaks the level of violence against you will increase. If that was the case motivation was intimidation
Unless the attack was done out of pure anger no intimidation thought about, it was an act of terrorism.

We need to to get away from the media definition of terrorism that defines it only as Muslims killing a lot of people

And that's NOT a good thing. It's straight from the DSM for starters, ad verecundiam. It's a problem with the terminology, mild means mild, so they'll think "Oh, mild Autism, their struggles in life will be mild." When that's NOT accurate. Before that, it was called "childhood psychosis" or "childhood schizophrenia". What Hans Asperger did, wasn't a psychological review, but a very accurate analysis of Asperger's. This was a time when "euthanasia" of patients that couldn't recover was common. Hans Asperger, knew that if they couldn't understand the report, and thought something was wrong with them, the gestapo would come around, take them to a separate room, inject them, and they would be buried at the hospital there, and that would be the end of it. So, Hans, wrote on the report that we would make excellent code breakers. lol Ages before all this though, it was left handedness that was demonised. I don't think anyone will come around and inject me with something, but there are many other ways Aspergians are disenfranchised, and lots of areas where there's absolutely no parity. It's disconcerting that instead of moving forward and progressing as different types of people, we're back to, "there's something wrong with them".

That could have a lot to do with how people are identified as Asperger: the criteria are based on identification of dysfunction. So right out of the gate, you look at someone with the label "Asperger's" as having something inherently wrong with them.

For me then, it becomes really confusing. Aspergers, Autism, PDDNOS- a lot of the issues are rooted in neurology. It's not that there is something inherently "wrong" with the individual but because of difficulties with processing or other issues, functioning can be impaired. So... if you don't have those issues, you don't have many of the hallmarks of those disorders... than what is it you identify with?

I don't think there is something WRONG with me, identifying as HFA. I do think identifying that way makes it more clear that my brain works pretty differently from the average person, however and because of that given different situations I encounter difficulty navigating said situations.

If there were a way to identify individuals, or to establish criteria specifically that could determine who was on the spectrum [or who was Asperger] but with out coming from an angle of dysfunction, that might assist in what you are looking for...

But then I kind of wonder... what is the point there? And that is not meant to be a facetious question. I might just not get it.
There is a strong movement to focus on the general strengths that are seen more often in those with Asperger's [and HFA] however. IN the US at least, there are a lot of companies and tech orgs working on employment systems/recruiting programs specifically aimed at individuals on the spectrum [or with Asperger's, as you see fit] who benefit from and excel in such jobs and environments. They are specifically seeking out these individuals and a couple of my friends have been involved in such a program. One of them went through a pilot program and now works tech for the biggest healthcare org in Boston and has a great job with great supports, despite having little formal background prior.

anyway. slightly off topic.

i agree. ive also studied some german intelectuals and outsider art and stuff.i guess you could call it the culture of my people *chuckle*. but yeah, the fsct that we are going from aspergers to mild autism is definatly a step in the wrong direction.

To people that didn't know any better, such as Autism Speaks, sure they would view it as such, but not experts. No it wasn't considered a pervasive disorder, it was considered and is, a syndrome, characteristic patterns of behaviour, which is accurate. Disorder, is not accurate. When you say someone has a disorder, you're essentially saying that something is wrong with them, or that they're ill or even defective, and it's just not accurate.

No, my point is that it's not pervasive or unwelcome, not a disorder or a defect, and that organisations like APA claiming that it is, without a scrap of evidence, is utter BS. When it was written into the DSM, there wasn't a scientific analysis, not a critical analysis, no testing, no study, no nothing -- They still wrote it in, despite experts saying there's no evidence for it. How does the kingpin of the APA respond to all the criticism? Does he explain the scientific process involved? Does he explain any of the methodology? Does he explain why anything in there is even remotely valid? Of course not, his entire argument can be summed up with "The critics just hate psychology, they just want to hurt psychology." No, the APA are a pack of fraudulent bastards, and the DSM is a fantastic pile of toilet paper. My point, is that if people want to take that utter BS as fact, then they also need to be consistent and also view the bible as credible, and the cure for leprosy therein to be factual.

No proof to disprove decades or research, just a "my book told me so". To turn around and say I'm being uncivilized is just blindingly stupid. If someone were to describe you as something disparaging about who you are, touting BS as fact, exclaiming that it's BS and fallacy is absolutely the right response. "See? You can't have a conversation with them" as a response, is a joke.

I think eventually genetics and scans will replace the current diagnostic mist. Recently researchers identified different combinations of genes involved in schizophrenia. If the same thing happens with autism the spectrum could actually be divided scientifically. I suggest one of those divisions could be called Aspergers

That's fair, and I'd consider that. I would ask you to be held up to the same standard. I would be interested in reading the things that describe Asperger's specifically as a syndrome as opposed to a disorder [pervasive or no]. Makes sense to me.



I didn't say you were being uncivilized. It's entirely possible someone else did. So if you were referring to them it would be good if you could clarify.
No, I indicated you were giving me s**t. Which is accurate. Because you seemed to take what I presented as some sort of personal affront- which is edging on the ridiculous. You also painted everything as "BS", hardly a way to have a conversation.




Yeah... I'm wondering who said this. Because that kind of respoonse is a joke.
When people indicate things about YOU... they are actually indicating things about you as an individual. Like, if someone says YOU are behaving in an unreasonable and immature manner, making conversation difficult? That's actually that person expressing that they feel YOU, as an individual, are behaving in an unreasonable and immature manner, making conversation difficult. Not all of those who identify as Asperger. That would be a massive generalization. They are merely making commentary on your specific actions that you make decisions about and take responsibility for.

You are painting things in this ridiculous way- as if I [or others] leaped out in front of your train and threw ourselves on the proverbial tracks.

Not so.


I pointed this out because the point that I thought you had didn't actually seem to be opposing to mine. You didn't actually address any of the arguments or questions that I put forth. Essentially you just yelled back what you've been yelling. You don't have any response to what is being presented to you other than swears, head shaking and yelling. Your reasoning and debate is lacking- I propose questions and give points, you cherry pick one thing, misinterpret it and label it a fallacy.

I would consider that a bit funny, yes.

If you want to forward your cause, I have offered plenty of starting off points with which to do that even in this thread. Your constant responses of adolescent nature, refusing to respond to any of the positive or agreeable things that we probably see eye to eye on actually could lead one to wonder if you are really upset about disenfranchisement so much as just not being "special". You don't respond to any legitimate inquiry about your point of view and then just continue on with your "angry at the world" silliness.

If you want to get something done you can't just continually slam the door in peoples' faces.

Conveniently, you've skipped over all the parts where I actually agree with you and the others in this thread to one degree or another.
You seem to be angry and for reasons only know to you you seem to embrace that.- maybe find the actual people you should be angry at and find a way to be productive with that anger. Or you could sit around on the internet, using your larger-than-average vocabulary to tell everyone what they have to say is "BS".

In the least you do nothing to further your own cause, at the most you actually harm it.

Very well, here's a personalised description from Professor Tony Attwood, who has read every scrap of a literature on Asperger's, made it his life's work, and has met with countless people on the spectrum:

"I would like to provide a personalised description of Asperger?s Syndrome that also incorporates the person?s qualities as well as their difficulties. From my clinical experience I consider that children and adults with Asperger?s Syndrome have a different, not defective, way of thinking. The person usually has a strong desire to seek knowledge, truth and perfection with a different set of priorities than would be expected with other people. There is also a different perception of situations and sensory experiences. The overriding priority may be to solve a problem rather than satisfy the social or emotional needs of others. The person values being creative rather than co-operative. The person with Asperger?s syndrome may perceive errors that are not apparent to others, giving considerable attention to detail, rather than noticing the ?big picture?. The person is usually renowned for being direct, speaking their mind and being honest and determined and having a strong sense of social justice. The person may actively seek and enjoy solitude, be a loyal friend and have a distinct sense of humour. However, the person with Asperger?s Syndrome can have difficulty with the management and expression of emotions. Children and adults with Asperger?s syndrome may have levels of anxiety, sadness or anger that indicate a secondary mood disorder. There may also be problems expressing the degree of love and affection expected by others."


....WHAT? Are you kidding me? Oh, I'm confused am I, let's have a look at what you've been posting.


You accusing, inferring, (whatever you want to call it that tripe) that I'm just being angry or uncivilised, or just yelling and swearing, does NOT invalidate any of my points. That I used the word BS to allude to BS, does NOT invalidate any of my points.



This coming from the person going on an ad hominem tirade.



Stop being obtuse.

Tony Attwood didn't say Asperger's is not autism. Two of his books make it pretty clear that he considers it to be an autism spectrum disorder. One book is called "CBT to Help Young People with Asperger's Syndrome (Autism Spectrum Disorder) to Understand and Express Affection." The other is called "From Like to Love for Young People with Asperger's Syndrome (Autism Spectrum Disorder)."
http://www.tonyattwood.com.au/index.php/publications/by-tony-attwood/1186-cbt-to-help-young-people-with-asperger-s-syndrome-autism-spectrum-disorder-to-understand-and-express-affection
http://www.tonyattwood.com.au/index.php/publications/by-tony-attwood/1185-from-like-to-live-for-young-people-with-asperger-s-syndrome-autism-spectrum-disorder

That you think this is what I'm saying; This tells me you haven't understood a word of what I've said.



You have what he considers right there. But you're going to use the anecdote that he used a word, therefore thinks that?

"From my clinical experience I consider that children and adults with Asperger?s Syndrome have a different, not defective, way of thinking."

were not defective. knowing we are not is the first step to making things better. getting rid of aspergers was bassed on practicality, not scientific evidence. and although im in no way opposed to things being practical, aspergers isnt like classic autism in some very important ways, i think its important that there is a distinction, and i dont want kids to get told thay have mild autism, i want them to be able to be proud.

I completely disagree that you can't be proud of yourself if you have classic autism. It seems to me that since it's not your fault if you have autism, nobody should be ashamed of having it- yep even if the ones who can't communicate (gasp). I certainly hope that my children (who are classically autistic) feel pride and continue to feel pride in themselves. They have a lot to be proud of. That you think they don't, is pretty damn sad, if you want to know my opinion. Asperger's may be a distinct definition but classically autistic people are still HUMANS- and they deserve as every human does, to feel proud of themselves.

You are being contradictory. You say Asperger's is not a disorder but then acknowledge that it is autism (aka autism spectrum disorder)



Your "syndrome" was thought of as a disorder before it got changed in the DSM-V. The official diagnosis in the DSM-IV was Asperger's Disorder and it was widely recognized as a mild form of autism. I don't understand why you feel disenfranchised. Before the change, you had a mild form of autism. Now it is considered "mild autism". And it is mild compared to many others on the spectrum. The severity is relative to others, not based on how you feel.

No contradiction. The problem is your reading and comprehension skills.

I've explained why that terminology is a step backwards, and why proclaiming people to be a disorder with no evidence to speak of is both offensive and inaccurate, but it appears you've ignored what I've said.

Ok, how about you show some proof that it isn't a contradiction, rather than insulting people by saying they have problematic reading and comprehension skills? If you feel you've already explained it, restate it to make your point clear. If what they and others provided is not addressing your point, then it is likely your fault for not explaining yourself more clearly in the first place.

Now I am a bit confused on what you are trying to argue. You started out by saying that Asperger's is not a developmental disorder, but showed nothing to back up your statement. It only hurts your credibility to respond to someone's statement with, "Nope, you're wrong," but provide no evidence whatsoever. Even if you are correct, to me, and probably to others, it just seems like you are being hostile, which doesn't help you at all. Also, to be clear, I realize that you did provide some evidence, but not until way after your initial statement. I'm just saying it is kind of silly to start an argument by telling someone they are wrong, then assuming that they must prove it otherwise first, even though you were the one starting the argument.

Now it seems like you are changing your argument simply because your initial statement was proved to be false. All you said was that Asperger's is not a developmental disorder. But you still have yet to provide any solid evidence on this. You implied that Tony Attwood, a person highly experienced with Asperger's, does not consider it a disorder, as you used his statements to back your initial point. But he clearly does consider it to be a disorder, as he considers it to be mild form of autism, which is a disorder. All he says is that he believes it shouldn't be looked at as entirely negative, and that it should be viewed in a positive light, as there are good things about it too. That is his opinion of how he believes it should be viewed by others, not that he thinks it is not a disorder.

Maybe what you are saying is that you think it shouldn't be considered a disorder at all, because it is not bad, it's different. And that is true in some ways. But unless you ignore the social impairments and restrictive repetitive behaviors that are required in the diagnostic criteria in the first place, among other commonly associated problems like sensory processing issues, it still fits the definition of a disorder, and is widely considered to be one; otherwise, there wouldn't be a reason to diagnose it in the first place, it would just be a personality type. So your statement about people proclaiming it as a disorder "with no evidence to speak of" is totally unfounded. If there was "no evidence to speak of" to support it as being a disorder, then that means it wouldn't cause any significant problems for someone who has it, which is untrue. It is a disorder, whether or not you view it in a positive or negative way.

So I am still confused as to what point you are trying to prove. Maybe everything I said here has nothing to do with what you are thinking. But that means you are not being clear; it isn't anyone else's responsibility to try to decipher your vague and insulting statements, because you are the one trying to convince others of your point. If you could please describe what it is you are trying to argue in a rational way, and support your points with some actual evidence or solid logic, without insulting anyone's intelligence, I think people will be a lot more receptive to what you are saying.

This is where I stopped reading.

This is simply shifting. "I don't have to prove my ridiculous idea that AS people are defective! You have to prove what I say is wrong!" No, the burden of proof does not work that way. The "proof" that was given was the DSM, and other references to the DSM. That makes it easy, ad verecundiam, and that's the end of it.

That you would say something like this in the first place, knowing that it's offensive, is disturbing.

Again, no contradiction. The proof? Is right in front of your eyes, why not go back and read that proof you wanted. The contradiction doesn't exist, he didn't understand and merely made a straw man of what I said that contradicts, so yes, saying that's a problem with reading and comprehension is accurate, and not an insult. And you want me to restate what I've said? My fault? You're kidding right? See the thing is, I've already restated it, I've already explained it, and quite sufficiently. How many times shall I restate it then? Ad nauseam.