Aspies For Freedom

This is a well thought out & deliberately very cruel post to people who should be commended & honoured for their efforts rather than maligned.

Have you any experience of living or working with profound autism?  Some of us have.

I believe that most AFF members ' live with ' some degree of autism or AS, be it themselves, as parents or both.

Why 'cure' ? Does this have a different meaning from cure?

If  John Best's post is so good that we are "all urged to read it", why hasn't it been posted for us all to see? I know that a link can't be made, but a quote can be as far as I'm aware.

Thank you for that information.

I worked for many years in what was then called 'Mental Handicap', biting of hands was extremely common amongst many of the patients  all of whom were mentally handicapped, many had co-morbid mental illness & most of whom were NOT AUTISTIC..
Many mentally ill people self harm in one way or another, for some using their teeth is the only method they are able to use. This is & always has been problematic, but not insurmountable.

The name of this site is    *AFF.........ASPIES FOR FREEDOM*
I would have thought that the very name indicates the reason for the existence of this site.
merely from the title I certainly saw it that way & still do & I did at least take the time to read the site information.

I joined in order to contribute in any way towards the aims of AFF, also to help someone in the USA who has some similar ideas. (sadly I have been to busy to do the latter.) However I personally have gained a great deal in many respects from being a member & I resent any inference that AFF is not what it says it is or that the members are similar in any way to the 'curbie groups'..

Which is...what? Are you being held prisoner by evil anti-autists?

Where do you find this inference?

Also, no I haven't seen any videos of mothers that state they want to kill their children...But if there are such videos, I wonder why they haven't been used for identifying and apprehending the person. I wouldn't trust a child with a mother who has explicitly and publically stated her intent to kill it...would you?

Trouble is, these "curbie groups" as you call them are often groups of parents--they do live with people who cannot speak for themselves and they also claim to find ways to speak for them anyway.

I wasn't. I was merely criticizing the idea that from the title alone, one would be able to infer what this site's goal and policies are.

Oh yes indeed. It's difficult to find the bare facts, since most everyone (no offense) here only ever writes in opinionated, passioned styles. Is there a bare-bones, just-the-facts-I'll-provide-the-opinions-myself guide to the evils of these "curebies" somewhere?

So you find my opinions offensive? I am pro abortion in early pregnancy, and so I feel entirely comfortable with these terms. I didn't even think about it being possibly offensive, since where I'm from, there is virtually no one who disagrees.

And anyway, this is simply a disagreement, and I won't modify my opinions to avoid offending anyone. I find the idea of valuing primitive beings who are no more than a few cells just because they contain human DNA and maybe vaguely resemble a full-grown human baby, while devaluing more advanced animals, to be pretty stupid.

But I'm not going to defend my opinions on that in detail. This is not a discussion about abortion. I'll simply leave it at that: I was stating my opinion, not being deliberately offensive, and I don't consider it important to express myself in the most diplomatic way possible. I am as opinionated as everyone else here, so why would I put bounds on my opinions just so those who disagree shouldn't get upset?

Because there's a daily limit on how many posts you can have, and I may feel the need to defend myself and/or my opinions before that runs out. I'll add a signature to that account that states this clearly.

I'm not blind, however I see that I have underestimated how much some people on here take things personally. I wont withhold my opinions because of that, though. I stand by what I write--very rarely do I write anything with the intention to sound mean or angry. I simply disagree. Would you be happy if I put "Don't take what I write personally; if I think you're an idiot, I'll state it explicitly" to my signature? Probably not, because some people here can't handle disagreement and criticism.

There's no bubble to be burst. I'm not blind, why do you think I keep responding? I hear people, I just don't agree with them.

In authoritarian countries, the opinions about democracy, human rights, free speech, and so on, are causing offense to the rulers. Don't you see that "causing offense" is not only dependent on the content of an uttering, but also on the receiver? Some people cannot handle dissent, so they take offense. Now, I can understand that someone takes offense at personal attacks--I do, too. But I cannot understand why people take attacks on their opinions as attacks on themselves. I don't think this board should become a mindless echo chamber like the government-controlled media in authoritarian countries, e.g., China. It isn't, currently, but with the way some people act here it might become one. So, unless there's an official statement to the effect that dissenting opinions are unwelcome here, I will continue to present them. If there is, I will leave voluntarily, recognizing that the priviledge of posting here is worthless.

Actually, there are those who think I'm not welcome to post dissenting opinions.

But anyway, of course you can challenge them; but if you can challenge my ideas, then I should be able to challenge yours. And that is what I'm reacting to: the criticism because I simply dear to say what is, round these parts, clearly controversial.

I don't think I've written anything about scientific issues in this thread--if so, then please point out the scientifically incorrect bits.

Also, again, people are attacking me as a person, not my opinions, and that is what I'm reacting to.

Finally a voice of reason! I agree completely.

As long as no one resorts to personal attacks, I think beliefs should be fair game.

You managed to state these without being overly preaching. See, it's not so hard! An example to follow, instead of the idea that one opinion is so obvious that it needn't be explained or justified.