Aspies For Freedom

I think it's an extrapolated version of the rule against verbalising the name of God. I'm sure ATM will be able to clear it up, though.

Well said Mahler5.

I would also add that it is the right of everyone to adhere to their own religious beliefs and traditions.

To avoid an eternal loop, everyone has the right to say things using whatever terms or symbols they like, everyone has the right to complain about them, everyone has a right to complain about the people complaining about them - rights don't come into it.

That being said, "It's stupid" was hardly the most helpful comment.

It is a truthful comment.

Actually, IQ tests were originally developed as a kind of placement test in the 19th-century Prussian army.

Absolutely wrong. There may or may not have been intelligence tests in the 19th century Prussian army, but the IQ concept was invented by William Stern, first published in 1912, as a means of scoring intelligence tests such as the Binet-Simon test, for children, and these were then used to identify those with low IQ, it being assumed (as is pretty much true) that these children would have learning disabilities.

That IQ tests should have been invented by proto-nazis or that it is a racist tool is patently false.

There has been quite a bit on this subject published. However, I was going on memory. It was the Prussian civil service system, not the Prussian army. This article contains some background. There are probably better ones out there, but I am, right now, constrained on how much time I can spend on it. Most discussions I have seen on the web focus on the Stanford-Binet construction, but it had predecessors:

http://www.benwilbrink.nl/publicaties/95...tEARLI.htm

---------------------------------
CUTE (AND GOOD) ANALOGY, CHRIS.

Hrick Mom: As to the other, I actually agree everyone and everything serves a purpose within the greater scheme of things. The chaos theory of interconnectedness of sorts. LFA Autism is no different than other person  and probably serves similar purpose to any other severe disability for that matter.  Hrick's theory is that the severely disabled help people reconnect with their soul source - love.  Basically if you help someone who is disabled it is without expectation of return from that person.... because after all what can they do for you.  It becomes an altruistic act.  Altruism is love and love is the key to our souls/ or reminder of our soul source.  Now I have absolutely no idea whether this is a true perception or not.

-----------------
Me: I seldom get impatient with people here on the forum, but I can't let this pass (the last sentence). Living with Hrick as you do, how could you not know the truth of that statement?!

I mean, what are you waiting for? A miracle, some sign from God Hrick is, in fact, correct?

At some point everyone needs to at least address finally, or better yet take a stand of some kind on the "Truth" as they see it. If they don't they are wasting their time here imo. Fence sitters annoy ME. It is too important....
-------------------------

You: What I do know is Hrick thinks its true and his belief in it helps him to better accept his life's state as LFA.
-----------------
Me: It may better help him accept his life, but his ruminations are still right on target and about as profound metaphysically as anything I have read on the internet. I have actually emailed his thoughts on the matter to friends and family, that's how impacted I was by his observations....
---------------
You: I know some people try to portray those who think this way as seeing themselves as being better than others in some way. I get kind of mad at. Hrick would be the first to tell you his role, as he sees it, is not better than anyone elses. Each person/individual has his own unique and equally valuable greater purpose. He just figures that may be his.

My take: You nailed it: The highly religious, the proselytzers, the spiritually smug, what have you, DO think they are superior and that is highly annoying. I know LOTS of spiritually prideful people, including my brother. Nonetheless, those who do, by great effort and determination, STAY on their spiritual path ARE superior to those who don't or don't care imo.  Believe me, it is OK to make this distinction- nothing unfair or unegalitarian about it.

Many start with good intentions, but abandon the "path" at some point. Many never attempt it at all (or for many lifetimes). Their role seems to be to goad others into remembering their purpose, among other things.

I asked a co-worker the other day, after discussing something similar to the above, what he thought his purpose was (I told him mine was helping Hope, it was not about me anymore, probably never was, etc.) and he NEVER ANSWERED ME. He doesn't remember what his purpose is in all eventuality.

Paramahansa Yogananda: It is not easy to be spiritual.

You can say that again!

A friend of mine, a follower of Meher Baba, has spoken quite a bit of Duce and Sufism Re-Oriented.

I'm actually going to go the other way on this one - I tend to think that spiritualising disabilities can often be a way of writing the person off, to an extent. It's dangerous territory, even when the person themselves is the one doing the spiritualising.

If you believe in purposes, then who's to say that the purpose of a particular 'LFA' isn't to write a great novel, to inspire people with speeches, or to create amazing inventions?

With Hrick in particular, I've always enjoyed his posts when I see them, and I don't believe that it would be an 'altruistic act' to be around him. To Hricks mom: I know that's not entirely what was meant by the statement, but it's still what lies at the end of that kind of thinking...

Mythologizing people, disabled or not, does no one any good. Purpose is something you create, it's not something given to you. There is no "purpose" to disability or lack thereof. Rather, it's a fact that you have to live with, without any further explanation. I know this is hard, since the human mind searches for patterns everywhere, but that's how it is.

"Hrick" is "Michael Hricko" - he posts every now and then...

It's about arguing the concept, not the person presenting it.  I can not agree with ATM's view of certain things and still respect him as a person.  Conversely there are people whose opinions I agree with, yet I cannot respect them as people because they also happen to be twats.

For instance, I can read this:

And be reminded of my years being horribly bullied by good churchgoing "Christians" at various Catholic schools and give a bitter, cynical laugh.  But it doesn't mean I don't still respect Atypical and enjoy their posts.

Translation...

I mean  I can not agree with ATM's view of certain things, YET I still respect him as a person.

Sorry, many a slip 'twixt brain and finger.