Page 4 of 4 [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

WelcomeToHolland
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 583

21 Sep 2014, 12:13 am

Moromillas,
It may be that I'm just a complete idiot with terrible comprehension skills (that's quite likely actually), but I do not understand what you're arguing. I also find it to be very contradictory and confusing. So much so, that I don't even know if I agree or not. I've been following this hoping to figure it out but failing.

Thing is, if this confusion from the people you're arguing with and myself is simply because they lack comprehension skills and are just overall idiots, then it's completely unreasonable for you to expect them to become less idiotic. If you actually want them to understand, the responsibility WOULD be on you to "dumb it down". If they're idiots, there's nothing they can do about that...

(DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying they ARE idiots necessarily- the 2nd paragraph is a general statement).

Edit: to change a pronoun


_________________
Mum to two awesome kids on the spectrum (16 and 13 years old).


L_Holmes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,468
Location: Twin Falls, ID

21 Sep 2014, 5:47 am

Moromillas wrote:
L_Holmes wrote:
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....


This is where I stopped reading.


So you ignored the majority of what I said, simply because I said that you showed nothing to back up your statement? Ok, I was technically wrong, the burden of proof doesn't fall on you at first. But it doesn't change the fact that you still haven't provided solid evidence for your original statement, quoted below:

Moromillas wrote:
DrHouseHasAspergers wrote:
But factually, Asperger's is a pervasive developmental disorder....

Except it isn't....

Interesting "facts" you have there.


DrHouseHasAspergers said Asperger's is a pervasive developmental disorder. You said it isn't. That is very clear. You also implied that what he was saying had no factual basis. You are right in the sense that since he was making the claim, he should back it with evidence first. I just assumed since what he said, that Asperger's is a pervasive developmental disorder, is a pretty commonly accepted idea, by professionals and otherwise, that you would provide something to show how it is not the case. So yes, I was technically wrong, because I thought something like that was kind of obvious and that therefore he didn't need to follow up his statement with all kinds of proof. My mistake.

Moromillas wrote:
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!"


Who said that AS people are defective? Did I say that? Did anyone on this thread say that? No. He said it was a pervasive developmental disorder. Is that equal to "defective" in your mind? If it is, then you just called everyone that is diagnosed with a pervasive developmental disorder defective, not me or anyone else.

Moromillas wrote:
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.


Quote:
Argumentum ad Verecundiam: (argument from authority) the fallacy of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his special field.

(http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html)

So what you are saying, if I am understanding correctly, is that appealing to the DSM in this case is an appeal to an authority that is outside of it's special field, it's area of expertise? The DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is not a good source for information on mental disorders? The DSM, which offers the standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders, used by mental health professionals throughout the United States, is not a good source to use when talking about what is and what isn't a mental disorder? No? Alright then.

Hey, here's a crazy idea: how about you show some damn proof that you know better than every single mental health professional in the U.S. who uses the DSM to diagnose mental disorders?

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


I said this before, but I will say it again. I never said anything about anyone being defective, because you are right, that is offensive. I would never use that word to describe people with Asperger's, or any other PDD for that matter. You are the one who is interpreting "pervasive developmental disorder" to mean "defective", not me. You are the one being offensive.

Moromillas wrote:
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.


I did read your supposed proof. I read everything that you wrote, all of which is vague, offensive, and contains many claims that the proof "is right in front of your eyes". Yet you are not pointing to any specific statements or "proof" at all, you are pointing at nothing and calling it proof, then telling me I need to take my time to reread everything that you said looking for this supposed proof. Red herring.

And according to you, you didn't even read everything I wrote to begin with; instead you blatantly ignored it. So before you start suggesting that I reread what you wrote, read what I wrote at least once. I have no inclination to take your suggestion if you are not even willing to read what I said in the first place.

Also, what straw man are you talking about? You said Asperger's isn't a PDD, plain and simple; you can see your quoted statement or go back and read the original yourself if you want to, it's right after my 1st paragraph or on the 1st page of this thread. DrHouseHasAspergers said it is a PDD, as well as SignOfLazarus, and both showed evidence supporting this argument on the 1st page of this thread. Here it is:

DrHouseHasAspergers wrote:
Moromillas wrote:
DrHouseHasAspergers wrote:
But factually, Asperger's is a pervasive developmental disorder....

Except it isn't....

Interesting "facts" you have there.


Asperger's is professionally recognised as a mild form of autism. Autism is a pervasive developmental disorder. Therefore, Asperger's is a pervasive developmental disorder.

"Asperger syndrome (AS) is an autism spectrum disorder..."
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/asperger/detail_asperger.htm

"Asperger?s syndrome is a developmental neurobiological disorder that is usually diagnosed in children after age three, characterized by severe deficits in social interactions and communicative abilities, and strange behaviors. The disorder falls under the umbrella term of autism spectrum disorders, which also includes five similar disorders, including autism, and pervasive developmental disorders not otherwise specified. Hans Asperger, a Viennese child psychologist, published the first definition of this disorder under the name of 'autistic psychopathy'."
http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/winter-2010/asperger?s-syndrome-and-the-autistic-spectrum-disorders-are-diagnostics-responsible-for-the-autism-?epidemic?#.VBOjIb9tJIA

"Asperger Syndrome is one of five ?Pervasive Developmental Disorders? (PDDs)."
http://www.yourlittleprofessor.com/autism-spectrum-disorders-retts-syndrome-childhood-disintegrative-disorder-autism-asperger-syndrome-pervasive-developmental-disorder/

*Edited for spelling.


And:

SignOfLazarus wrote:
Moromillas wrote:
DrHouseHasAspergers wrote:
But factually, Asperger's is a pervasive developmental disorder....

Except it isn't....

Interesting "facts" you have there.


Except it is.
Quote:
Asperger syndrome is a term applied to a condition characterized by persistent impairment in social interactions and by repetitive behavior patterns and restricted interests. Once generally regarded as a discrete disorder, it is categorized as a form of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in the American Psychiatric Association?s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5).[1]...


--- http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/912296-overview

Quote:
The DSM-IV currently identifies a set of Pervasive Developmental Disorders that are considered ?autism spectrum disorders? (ASDs). These include Autistic Disorder, Asperger?s Disorder, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS). The DSM-IV has been under revision for several years and a new edition, the DSM-V, will be released in 2013. Significant changes to the criteria and categories of ASDs are planned for the new edition. As a parent it is important that you be well informed, so we will review the proposed changes and their possible implications.


--- http://www.autism.com/news_dsmV


And yes, it is valid evidence if it is coming from the DSM, as I already explained above in my 4th paragraph. (See how I am directing you to evidence that backs my statements right along with the statement itself? Amazing, right? Makes for a lot less confusion, doesn't it?)

And saying that someone has bad reading and comprehension skills is a direct insult, not a statement of fact. Why? Because you don't know why he wrote what he did in the first place. Even if you had a perfectly clear and valid argument backed by solid evidence (which you do not), and he clearly started arguing at a straw man rather than your original statement [see above] (which he did not), that doesn't mean he is stupid. He could be intentionally doing so just to offend you and make you angry. He could have a lot of reasons for writing something on the internet, and you don't have a clue what they are; the only way you could know something like that is if you were all-knowing. But I guess that makes sense, because you seem to think that you are.

You've already restated your point, and explained it "quite sufficiently", you say? So tell me: why am I confused? Why did DrHouseHasAspergers think your argument was contradictory? Why does WelcomeToHolland find your argument so confusing, to the point that she says:

WelcomeToHolland wrote:
I don't even know if I agree or not.


That doesn't sound like you are being clear. It sounds like you are being very unclear, and blaming others for being too stupid or stubborn to understand. But if you don't get your point across, and we don't understand what you are trying to say, then no matter how much you tell us that you've already said it and it should be obvious, and continue insulting people and being hostile, the fact still remains that you convinced nobody of your point, regardless of whether it's our fault or yours.

So yes, it is YOUR responsibility to make YOUR argument clear; whether or not we listen to it at that point is our choice, and is not under your control. But if you don't make it clear and instead imply we are idiots with your condescending statements, well fine, you can do that if you want. You could even make your argument completely clear, and when we don't listen or understand still imply we are idiots. But that makes you the real idiot, because you just closed off any receptiveness other people may have had to your ideas. Agreeing with you at that point is like admitting that your insults are true too.

Clearly you aren't going to listen to me, nor will anyone else listen to you at this point, unless you decide to change your attitude. You no longer deserve any respect from others, because you have an attitude of disrespect. So it appears we've reached a stalemate. Unless you quit with this BS about how we are purposefully overlooking your supposedly clear and correct argument, then I am done trying to reason with you about this. Congratulations, you have accomplished absolutely nothing, and wasted your own time.


_________________
"It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important."

- Sherlock Holmes


Moromillas
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 455

21 Sep 2014, 8:02 pm

WelcomeToHolland wrote:
Moromillas,
It may be that I'm just a complete idiot with terrible comprehension skills (that's quite likely actually), but I do not understand what you're arguing. I also find it to be very contradictory and confusing. So much so, that I don't even know if I agree or not. I've been following this hoping to figure it out but failing.

Thing is, if this confusion from the people you're arguing with and myself is simply because they lack comprehension skills and are just overall idiots, then it's completely unreasonable for you to expect them to become less idiotic. If you actually want them to understand, the responsibility WOULD be on you to "dumb it down". If they're idiots, there's nothing they can do about that...

(DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying they ARE idiots necessarily- the 2nd paragraph is a general statement).


Basically, people are claiming that Asperger's is a disorder, and use the DSM to justify this, when the DSM is thoroughly found wanting. I don't really have to argue anything there, just say that the DSM doesn't cut the mustard.

If there was something to argue, it would be that not only is "disorder" offensive, but there's a problem with the terminology. "Mild Autism" can create apathy.



Moromillas
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 455

21 Sep 2014, 8:32 pm

L_Holmes wrote:
So you ignored the majority of what I said, simply because I said that you showed nothing to back up your statement? Ok, I was technically wrong, the burden of proof doesn't fall on you at first. But it doesn't change the fact that you still haven't provided solid evidence for your original statement,


You had best get used to it. Have a look at Holland's or my posts. See how they're not pages long, and they explain things quite eloquently. You don't need pages upon pages to explain something. If the pages were actually worth reading, that might justify it, but they're not, you're just posting nonsense, you're still trying to shift even.



SignOfLazarus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2014
Age: 957
Gender: Female
Posts: 540

22 Sep 2014, 12:59 am

If a person doesn't care to ever have their mind changed, it won't happen. Regardless of situation, reference, experience.
End of.


_________________
I don't know about other people, but when I wake up in the morning and put my shoes on, I think, "Jesus Christ, now what?"
-C. Bukowski


Moromillas
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 455

22 Sep 2014, 6:36 pm

SignOfLazarus wrote:
If a person doesn't care to ever have their mind changed, it won't happen. Regardless of situation, reference, experience.
End of.


Not true, you just need to stand up for yourselves, and speak the truth. There are examples where this has happened, where people that were considered lesser gained equality.

Sure there's always the quiet few that hold onto these vile stigmas, just need to wait for those people to die out unfortunately.



Protogenoi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 817

29 Sep 2014, 10:55 pm

Moromillas wrote:
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.


Moromillas, I understand what you are saying, and I'll address it soon in agreement.

First, pointing out the flaws in your audience isn't often effective and this isn't a situation where it would be effective I used to do that, and it took me a long time to figure out when and how to do it. Rhetoric is the art of finding the best means of persuasion for a particular audience. The term is often abused these days and the art isn't something that most of us on the spectrum tend to like either. I fail at being a rhetor because I don't like using pathos-type rhetoric. Pathos is the appeal to emotion. Calling them uneducated is ad hominem as it attacks their credentials, which is a part of their ethos. You may be correct with calling them uneducated, but correctness doesn't apply in this scenario.
Secondly, if they didn't really use a strawman on you, they used a redherring, and you fell for it hook, line, and sinker. The difference in this situation is that they didn't distort your words, they ignored them and used an irrelevant argument. The only way to argue against redherrings and strawmen is to say that they misunderstood and restate yourself with your original argument worded differently. Calling it out directly is taking the bait, which is why fallacies work so well in argumentation. I think it's annoying, but it's a limitation of human psychology.
A lot of people here have trouble understanding the nuances of what you are saying even though you believe that you are being overly verbose about it and spelling it out.

I will attempt now to explain your argument in terms that hopefully more people can understand.

The idea that aspergers is a disorder or a PDD, is an authoritative argument and more specifically later on as a case of the Ad Verecundiam logical fallacy. In other words, the argument that you dispute is attempting to establish a statistical syllogism using an appeal to authority.

Specifically, the Ad Verecuniam argument is used to cause shame by making appeal that just because someone lacks authority they don't have the right to discuss or that their opinions don't matter in the light of experts without qualifying why that is so. It is a form of chilling effect.
In this case, the DSM says so and the DSM must always be correct, therefore anyone who doesn't have the power of a degree in psychology or medicine does not have the right to dispute the claim of the DSM (and if they do, they are shamed.)
SignOfLazarus, and several others, clearly committed this fallacy unintentionally.

Your argument is that the psychologists behind the DSM and other diagnostic material are all "dago dazzlers" (a term meaning people who wave pretty pieces of paper in front of low level bureaucrats to make them look important.) You claim that the psychologists do not have first hand experience in the subject matter and therefore cannot make claims as to what it is to be that subject matter. He has argued that the DSM and those who wrote and follow it have no basis in their claim to authority. Thus any argument from them is an appeal to authority fallacy.

Citing the DSM or any other diagnostic material against him is doing absolutely nothing since it is the material itself in dispute. It does not refute Moromillas claim at all. All that is shown is a disagreement with Moromillas
Additionally, calling something a fact gives no credibility to the statement called a fact. As Orson Scott Card wisely said, "A fact is simply the opinion of the majority. A fact can be either true or false." In most cases the majority of the majority determining what is fact are not those who are experts in the subject in question. It is an appeal to the majority, another logical fallacy. Moromillas had a valid claim in calling them " interesting "facts"."
All other arguments against Moromillas had to do with terminology. However, how can he argue his position when all the terms are already against him? Quite simply, it is a topicality argument. DrHouseHasAspergers engages here in a topicality violation.
More blatantly however, it is a formal logical fallacy, and also a strawman.

And before I forget...
L_Holmes wrote:
Ok, how about you show some proof that it isn't a contradiction...

WelcomeToHolland wrote:
I've been following this hoping to figure it out but failing.

I hope that what I say helps you to understand. L Holmes, I think you understand Moromillas' position, but not his argument, I might explain why a little later on.

Moromillas claim follows thusly:
Quote:
All aspergers is autism.
Parts of Autistic spectrum are disorder
Therefore, aspergers may or may not be a disorder (this conclusion can manifest itself in many directions and at the individual level, but it does not logically follow that all aspergers is a disorder.)

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

or to simplify
Quote:
All aspergers is autism.
All of the Autistic spectrum is a disorder (fallacy of division)
Therefore, aspergers must be a disorder

DrHouseHasAspergers sees a contradiction because he has twisted and distorted Moromillas' claim. This is a strawman, although I assume it is unintentional.

The first claim: "All aspergers is autism" is accepted truth and a nonissue.
The second claim that all of autism is a disorder is the main issue here. Moromillas used an appeal to authority as evidence that it isn't. No one here seems to dispute that authority. However, to say that because the authority in question considers aspergers to be autism does not necessarily mean he considers it a disorder. This is the fallacy of equivocation. If you choose to argue with that angle, you need better testimonial evidence to nullify Moromillas' evidence.

Now my own argument. If you wish to disprove Moromillas by claiming the expertness of the authorities in quest, you must prove that they are entirely correct based on their empirical evidence. To make an appeal from their authority would be to follow the Asch Paradigm that those same authorities make claim of, thus making your reasoning begging the question or circular reasoning. :roll:

The real argument here is whether or not psychologists have the authority, right, and expertise to label us as they wish. Why should we accept their judgement? Do we have to accept their judgement? I have not addressed this at all. I have only addressed what everyone else has said. I might talk about this in another post, but I am nearly out of time for tonight.

Moromillas, and anyone else, please correct me if I am misinterpreting you.
As much as I love logically deconstructing arguments, it drains me rapidly.



DrHouseHasAspergers
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 310

30 Sep 2014, 8:57 pm

Protogenoi wrote:
Moromillas claim follows thusly:
Quote:
All aspergers is autism.
Parts of Autistic spectrum are disorder
Therefore, aspergers may or may not be a disorder (this conclusion can manifest itself in many directions and at the individual level, but it does not logically follow that all aspergers is a disorder.)

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

or to simplify
Quote:
All aspergers is autism.
All of the Autistic spectrum is a disorder (fallacy of division)
Therefore, aspergers must be a disorder

DrHouseHasAspergers sees a contradiction because he has twisted and distorted Moromillas' claim. This is a strawman, although I assume it is unintentional.

The first claim: "All aspergers is autism" is accepted truth and a nonissue.
The second claim that all of autism is a disorder is the main issue here. Moromillas used an appeal to authority as evidence that it isn't. No one here seems to dispute that authority. However, to say that because the authority in question considers aspergers to be autism does not necessarily mean he considers it a disorder. This is the fallacy of equivocation. If you choose to argue with that angle, you need better testimonial evidence to nullify Moromillas' evidence.

Now my own argument. If you wish to disprove Moromillas by claiming the expertness of the authorities in quest, you must prove that they are entirely correct based on their empirical evidence. To make an appeal from their authority would be to follow the Asch Paradigm that those same authorities make claim of, thus making your reasoning begging the question or circular reasoning. :roll:


Except Moromillas has not provided any sufficient evidence thus far. All he's done is state that the DSM and ICD are not reliable sources for autism/Asperger's. He has not said why or offered any sources supporting his point. The source he did eventually use (Tony Attwood) has books attesting to the fact that Asperger's is an autism spectrum disorder so that is not a valid source for his argument.

The only thing possibly resembling evidence that he has given is what he experiences and what he feels based on those experiences. Personal experiences are anecdotal and do not constitute good evidence.

Now, if you want to accept personal experience as evidence, here is my evidence for why Asperger's is a disorder:
-I am socially inept. I am in my third year of college and have only made two friends (and I don't even talk to/see them that much). The one friend I see regularly I knew since preschool. And we only became friends because our birthdays are four days apart so our parents had us celebrate them together.
-My fine motor skills are absolutely horrible. It took me four tries to pipette the right amount of water into a beaker! My gross motor skills aren't good either. I run into things and trip over my own feet on a daily basis. I couldn't get my license until I was 19 years old because I lacked the coordination and depth perception/distance judgment to drive decently.
-Executive dysfunction. I cannot focus on an assignment/project until the night before (or even the day of) it being due no matter how hard I try to do it when it's first assigned.
-Slow processing speeds. My IQ is easily in the gifted/genius range if you ignore the processing speeds. Include those and my IQ comes out as barely above average. If I weren't allowed to type notes on my computer, I would've failed out of college in the first year.

All that is because of Asperger's. It causes impairment. It is a disorder.

*Note: Having a disorder does not make one defective. It just means one needs extra help in some areas.


_________________
Diagnosed Asperger's - 2007
Current AQ score: 43
Current PDD score: 105 - moderate
http://www.childbrain.com/pddassess.html

-Socially awkward and special interests don't mean autism.-


Moromillas
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 455

01 Oct 2014, 7:40 pm

DrHouseHasAspergers wrote:
Protogenoi wrote:
Moromillas claim follows thusly:
Quote:
All aspergers is autism.
Parts of Autistic spectrum are disorder
Therefore, aspergers may or may not be a disorder (this conclusion can manifest itself in many directions and at the individual level, but it does not logically follow that all aspergers is a disorder.)

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

or to simplify
Quote:
All aspergers is autism.
All of the Autistic spectrum is a disorder (fallacy of division)
Therefore, aspergers must be a disorder

DrHouseHasAspergers sees a contradiction because he has twisted and distorted Moromillas' claim. This is a strawman, although I assume it is unintentional.

The first claim: "All aspergers is autism" is accepted truth and a nonissue.
The second claim that all of autism is a disorder is the main issue here. Moromillas used an appeal to authority as evidence that it isn't. No one here seems to dispute that authority. However, to say that because the authority in question considers aspergers to be autism does not necessarily mean he considers it a disorder. This is the fallacy of equivocation. If you choose to argue with that angle, you need better testimonial evidence to nullify Moromillas' evidence.

Now my own argument. If you wish to disprove Moromillas by claiming the expertness of the authorities in quest, you must prove that they are entirely correct based on their empirical evidence. To make an appeal from their authority would be to follow the Asch Paradigm that those same authorities make claim of, thus making your reasoning begging the question or circular reasoning. :roll:


Except Moromillas has not provided any sufficient evidence thus far. All he's done is state that the DSM and ICD are not reliable sources for autism/Asperger's. He has not said why or offered any sources supporting his point. The source he did eventually use (Tony Attwood) has books attesting to the fact that Asperger's is an autism spectrum disorder so that is not a valid source for his argument.

The only thing possibly resembling evidence that he has given is what he experiences and what he feels based on those experiences. Personal experiences are anecdotal and do not constitute good evidence.

Now, if you want to accept personal experience as evidence, here is my evidence for why Asperger's is a disorder:
-I am socially inept. I am in my third year of college and have only made two friends (and I don't even talk to/see them that much). The one friend I see regularly I knew since preschool. And we only became friends because our birthdays are four days apart so our parents had us celebrate them together.
-My fine motor skills are absolutely horrible. It took me four tries to pipette the right amount of water into a beaker! My gross motor skills aren't good either. I run into things and trip over my own feet on a daily basis. I couldn't get my license until I was 19 years old because I lacked the coordination and depth perception/distance judgment to drive decently.
-Executive dysfunction. I cannot focus on an assignment/project until the night before (or even the day of) it being due no matter how hard I try to do it when it's first assigned.
-Slow processing speeds. My IQ is easily in the gifted/genius range if you ignore the processing speeds. Include those and my IQ comes out as barely above average. If I weren't allowed to type notes on my computer, I would've failed out of college in the first year.

All that is because of Asperger's. It causes impairment. It is a disorder.

*Note: Having a disorder does not make one defective. It just means one needs extra help in some areas.


You are officially a f*****g moron.

Saying your BS is found wanting is not a claim you braindead bastard. You, need to prove that your absurd claim is true, I don't have to disprove it, the burden of evidence doesn't work that way. Make a claim, back it up. The level of gall is simply amazing, to shift so heavily, and to say I've only anecdotes and not the evidence to disprove!

I've explained all this a few times now, no your IQ is not in the gifted range, you can't even grasp the simplest of concepts.

A book, does NOT pass for evidence. Cherry picking something an expert, not even said, but titled, does NOT pass for evidence. Repeatedly shifting, while saying there's no evidence to disprove, does NOT pass for evidence. Because you, feel your entirely unique outcomes are AS, does NOT pass for evidence. "Because I said so", does NOT pass for evidence. Repeating the same arguments over and over and over again, does NOT pass for evidence.

You want to call yourself a disorder, fine, you're a disorder. But don't you dare infer, imply, or otherwise that others are a disorder, you piece of s**t.



L_Holmes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,468
Location: Twin Falls, ID

01 Oct 2014, 8:29 pm

Moromillas wrote:
DrHouseHasAspergers wrote:
Protogenoi wrote:
Moromillas claim follows thusly:
Quote:
All aspergers is autism.
Parts of Autistic spectrum are disorder
Therefore, aspergers may or may not be a disorder (this conclusion can manifest itself in many directions and at the individual level, but it does not logically follow that all aspergers is a disorder.)

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

or to simplify
Quote:
All aspergers is autism.
All of the Autistic spectrum is a disorder (fallacy of division)
Therefore, aspergers must be a disorder

DrHouseHasAspergers sees a contradiction because he has twisted and distorted Moromillas' claim. This is a strawman, although I assume it is unintentional.

The first claim: "All aspergers is autism" is accepted truth and a nonissue.
The second claim that all of autism is a disorder is the main issue here. Moromillas used an appeal to authority as evidence that it isn't. No one here seems to dispute that authority. However, to say that because the authority in question considers aspergers to be autism does not necessarily mean he considers it a disorder. This is the fallacy of equivocation. If you choose to argue with that angle, you need better testimonial evidence to nullify Moromillas' evidence.

Now my own argument. If you wish to disprove Moromillas by claiming the expertness of the authorities in quest, you must prove that they are entirely correct based on their empirical evidence. To make an appeal from their authority would be to follow the Asch Paradigm that those same authorities make claim of, thus making your reasoning begging the question or circular reasoning. :roll:


Except Moromillas has not provided any sufficient evidence thus far. All he's done is state that the DSM and ICD are not reliable sources for autism/Asperger's. He has not said why or offered any sources supporting his point. The source he did eventually use (Tony Attwood) has books attesting to the fact that Asperger's is an autism spectrum disorder so that is not a valid source for his argument.

The only thing possibly resembling evidence that he has given is what he experiences and what he feels based on those experiences. Personal experiences are anecdotal and do not constitute good evidence.

Now, if you want to accept personal experience as evidence, here is my evidence for why Asperger's is a disorder:
-I am socially inept. I am in my third year of college and have only made two friends (and I don't even talk to/see them that much). The one friend I see regularly I knew since preschool. And we only became friends because our birthdays are four days apart so our parents had us celebrate them together.
-My fine motor skills are absolutely horrible. It took me four tries to pipette the right amount of water into a beaker! My gross motor skills aren't good either. I run into things and trip over my own feet on a daily basis. I couldn't get my license until I was 19 years old because I lacked the coordination and depth perception/distance judgment to drive decently.
-Executive dysfunction. I cannot focus on an assignment/project until the night before (or even the day of) it being due no matter how hard I try to do it when it's first assigned.
-Slow processing speeds. My IQ is easily in the gifted/genius range if you ignore the processing speeds. Include those and my IQ comes out as barely above average. If I weren't allowed to type notes on my computer, I would've failed out of college in the first year.

All that is because of Asperger's. It causes impairment. It is a disorder.

*Note: Having a disorder does not make one defective. It just means one needs extra help in some areas.


You are officially a f*****g moron.

Saying your BS is found wanting is not a claim you braindead bastard. You, need to prove that your absurd claim is true, I don't have to disprove it, the burden of evidence doesn't work that way. Make, a claim, back it up. The level of gall is simply amazing, to shift so heavily, and to say I've only anecdotes and not the evidence to disprove!

I've explained all this a few times now, no your IQ is not in the gifted range, you can't even grasp the simplest of concepts.

A book, does NOT pass for evidence. Cherry picking something an expert, not even said, but titled, does NOT pass for evidence. Repeatedly shifting, while saying there's no evidence to disprove, does NOT pass for evidence. Because you, feel your entirely unique outcomes are AS, does NOT pass for evidence. "Because I said so", does NOT pass for evidence. Repeating the same arguments over and over and over again, does NOT pass for evidence.

You want to call yourself a disorder, fine, you're a disorder. But don't you dare infer, imply, or otherwise that others are a disorder, you piece of s**t.


Dude, calm down, there is absolutely no need to be insulting people and calling names. He didn't say that anyone is a disorder, all he said was that he believes he has a disorder, and provided his reasons for thinking that. He also specifically said that in his mind disorder is not equal to defective. He wasn't trying to offend anyone, nor do I see what he wrote as being offensive in any way.

You're right, a random book does not pass for evidence. But it isn't just some random book, the DSM is used by virtually every mental health professional in the US to diagnose disorders. The claim isn't that the book itself is evidence, it's the fact that it has credibility, as mental health professionals use it as a tool, specifically for deciding if someone has a disorder, such as Asperger's. If they didn't consider it a disorder it wouldn't be in the mental disorder diagnostics book.

Sorry, but you're outranked here. You cannot seriously believe it is a valid claim to just say that all of these professionals don't know what they're talking about, especially since I'm pretty sure that you don't have any real experience in the field of psychology. These guys went through years of study to get their certification as a professional. The combined opinions of all these professionals easily outweighs one guy that has no professional psychology experience, who keeps repeating, "Ad verecundiam, I don't need to prove a thing."

If you are going to say that every professional who uses those books don't have any idea of what they're talking about, you need to have some pretty damn good proof to back that up. Yes, that's right, YOU need to provide proof now. Citing a book which is used by thousands of professionals is a valid claim. And don't reply with more name calling, that only validates the idea that you really don't know what you're talking about.


_________________
"It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important."

- Sherlock Holmes


Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 65,512
Location: Over there

02 Oct 2014, 2:27 am

This thread has collapsed into personal attacks and is going nowhere.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.