Simen, I do not subscribe to several of your viewpoints, and you had better start finding a way to present your arguments in a more "tasteful" way... or else.
You'll find that, based on plenty of anecdotal evidence available on the forum, many of your views are not popular here. I think it is your responsibility to start being mindful of this, and adjust accordingly.
Aspies for freedom - should include 'freedom of expression'.
I was not stirring - I sincerely prefer to hear issues debated.
I appreciate honest debate, I don't enjoy personal attack - so I will leave you to it.
Simen, I do not subscribe to several of your viewpoints, and you had better start finding a way to present your arguments in a more "tasteful" way... or else.
You'll find that, based on plenty of anecdotal evidence available on the forum, many of your views are not popular here. I think it is your responsibility to start being mindful of this, and adjust accordingly.
Thank you Batman. I am starting to believe that Simen is a very rare example of a nearly mythical beast - a subtle troll.
To be fair, I also have a bit of "subtle troll" in me (or at least, have been accused of it), I can't pretend to think I'm any more innocent than others. I was merely raising the point that Simen has repeated several highly controversial viewpoints, time and time again, and he is offering no apologies for his rather "cold" opinions.
Let me close by quoting the old Stoic philosopher Epitectetus: "Remember that foul words or blows in themselves are no outrage, but your judgment that they are so. So when any one makes you angry, know that it is your own thought that has angered you. Wherefore make it your endeavour not to let your impressions carry you away." Which doesn't mean you're never right to be offended, but it's food for thought.
You're right--verbal abuse shouldn't bother people, racist remarks should only make the target(s) stronger, say anything you want to anyone and blame the offense on the angered party's "reactive mind," instead of your own choice of words. ** sarcasm **
It seems to me - from rereading the earlier posts in this thread (in the original discussion) that Simen was talking about embyros (not fetuses) in regard to abortion rights.
Zacchie - suggesting that Simen indicated autism is bad is a bit stretch - seems really unfair.
Zacchie - I liked your suggestion re. Post ignored due to personal abuse. When people respond with personal abuse I get the impression they resort to this because of old grudges or because the can't hold up their end of argument. It's not a good strategy. Personal abuse just drives people further into their corner, it doesn't open up free and frank discussion, it kills it.
ah - okay, thanks for response. I misunderstood.
I get the impression Simen likes to explore ideas. I find I agree with much of what he says.
I didn't get the impression from his posts that he was pro eugenics.
It's easy to misunderstand when we just have the written word. Misunderstandings happen and sometimes it seems discussions almost become almost like chinese whispers. The intent of the ideas behind what people post gets lost as people misinterpret and discussions move on. Then if a personal attack comes into the discussion, the whole discussion falls apart and ideas become lost.
Also - personality clashes can distort how we understand other peoples ideas.
Personally, I don't think things have gone so far it's necessary to get all worked up about it.
I got the impression from this comment that Simen didn't have strong ideas on the issue because he didn't yet see genetic testing for autism as a possiblity. (my impressions!!)
I don't see how they can test for autism, given they don't understand the genetics of autism In my mind it is not an issue.
I got impression he talking generally regarding abortion and embryos.
IN the comment you posted Bella - he was seeking to promote the fact that autism should not be seen as bad or evil. I got the impression that this was the intent behind this comment.
apologies Simen.
This is the pessimistic end of the view, but as it cannot be ruled out as a possibility, but considering the seriousness of the repercussions of ignoring it, I feel that it is an important issue.
Yes - I agree with your point.
I think abortion of an embyro is another issue - an embryo is a very early stage in development - either abortion is acceptable or it is not - deciding that it is not acceptable because it could potentially carry the genes of autism is brings in a whole new dilemma that (for me) would take a considerable amount of thought to determine the rights or wrongs of the matter. Instinctively I tend towards thinking it is wrong - but I can't reason it out.
Who's the troll, did you say?
First, I didn't write any of the above. It's a complete misrepresentation of anything I've written.
Second, I have made no verbal abuse or racist remarks.
Miscommunication on my part, and misrepresentation.. correct. My fault in this case. I was using verbal abuse/racist remarks as examples to make my point, albeit very poor examples, and I'm sorry for using them.
Besides, as Simen pointed out, his view is a lot more mainstream than many of our views. So if we plan to be effective adovcates for these issues, why not begin by debating with someone on this forum? For many people, the issue of selective abortion is not so obvious as it may seem to many of us. For me, it seems obvious that same-sex marriage should be legal. But many people are opposed to it, and it is not any use to go publicly and proclaim, "Well, it's so obvious that it should be legal, we shouldn't even have a debate on it." How is that effective advocacy?
In that case, I must not be very informed on the current state of the abortion debate, at least in the USA. The many wonders of apathy and Aspie narrow interests behind this--try as I might, I can't make cutting-edge politics my interest, and I can't retain adequate information about these issues.
So--selective abortion is morally acceptable, is the majority view on this? To me--just like earthmonkey states--the idea that this is simply "wrong" is obvious, but then I suppose it is not obvious. as such, to others.
Simen
As an example of the impact that aborting or killing certain fetuses will have on the population, I'll give China as an example. In the 50's and 60's it was very common for people to kill female children because they wanted the name to carry on. The impact of this is that age group has quite a large number of men and not many women in which to breed with, so now they have to marry the younger women. People didn't stop doing it though, even when they saw the impact on the population. The government finally had to step in.
Now the problem with allowing parents to abort autistic fetuses is that autistics are actually a necessary part of our population, ie. research, IT, science, math, etc etc. Like in China though, if allowed to do it, parents will because they see it as not their problem what happens in society. This is because they will have been given the option to get rid of child that will be deemed flawed and to try again for this lovely perfect child.
I realize you are not talking about me or anyone specifically in this post, but what about those autistics who are not good at school, math, science, or programming? Are they less valuable than autistics who are?
Post ignored due to using personally insulting innuendo.