Err, there seems a huge contradiction in the article, at first it states that his mother did not beat him. But then says how he was beaten and how wrong it was. :?
"His mother did not abuse him in order to teach him how to communicate. She used a combination of techniques, some of which resembled what's now known as facilitated communication, until he learned to type independently. His mother did not deprive him of food. She did not beat him. She did not tie his hand to a pencil."
"Note that Tito believes the "trouble" came, not from being beaten, but from his grandmother who tried to intervene to stop him from getting hit. This phenomenon shouldn't be unfamiliar to police who have walked into domestic violence situations where the battered spouse tells them to quit interfering in things they don't understand, or the child begs to go back to their parent who's molesting them."
I think Soma and other CAN supporters ought to be arrested for supporting genocide (or at least put into the nuthouse).
No one should be arrested or institutionalized for non-violent advocacy of anything. Remember, freedom of speach and of the press protect minorities more than anyone else. We are a minority, and if advocacy of certain ideas were grounds for arrest and institutionalization, then guess who would get arrested and institutionalized?
I think it is well established now that expressions such as that are a figure of speech (free speech at that).
I disagree that they are a figure of speach. "I'll kill you" is obviously a figure of speach when used in most contexts, since it expresses a primitive urge to inflict harm. But "I think that [so-and-so] should be arrested, go to jail, be sued, etc." should not be used as figures of speach, especially in a forum where you don't know who will be reading them. Arrests, incarceration, lawsuits are too high-level abstractions to be tossed around carelessly and are likely to be taken literally.
If someone wants to express a primitive urge to inflict harm, he should use something like, "People like that deserve to be shot," or some such thing. That way, you're not saying that you think that someone ought to shoot them, but only that they deserve to be shot.
However, as for myself, I prefer not to make such statements. I would rather say, "People like that make me angry," "People like that are evil," or some such thing.
EDIT: Let me add that there are many circumstances where it is legitimate to have someone arrested, file a lawsuit, etc., such as when a child is forced to take drugs. Like crying wolf, if "they ought to be arrested," "they ought to be sued," simply become rants that aren't to be taken literally, then when a legitimate case comes up for arrests, lawsuits, etc., then the person making the case won't be taken seriously. That is not the case with statements like "he deserves to be shot."
Amy
The article is referring to 2 different people - Tito's mother, who did beat her son to make him write, is compared to the mother of David Eastham, another non-verbal autistic who has written books & articles, who did *not* beat her son.
Hope that clears things up.
Are you sure? Now I'm totally confused, I thought that Tito IS David, that Tito was a fake name.
You are definitely confused. Tito and David are different persons and it is sickening to see a child abuser like Soma marketed like a Goddess by CAN.
Jerry Newport
Maybe there is inaccurate information on another site then, as I read about it there too. :?
This brings to mind, why I say to people "You wouldn't have guess I was Autistic, unless I told you. Right?" Trying to bring out the point, that we're not all the same, we're human beings. Sure we need to work at it to be like the others, but also if we get good at it, who the heck would guess we're Aspie unless we let them know?
I think the whole curing Autism thing sucks. I mean, it is like a genocide. It's like the movie Gattica, where babies were engineered instead of born. A movie I highly reccomend you see, if you're passionate about this subject. People tend to understand it more from the perspective of the film, as a base for the conversation.
It is just, I always have had trouble understanding why people spend so much time to promote bad will. It's like, ok you're screwing people up..you can sleep at night?! It's just so illogical, so I can't say.
I was at a Cure Autism show by the way, I mean...it's not exactly they beat you over the head and say "You're *** and we need to cure you". What comes to mind is those evangelical shows, where they touch people and "cure" them. I mean, I can't really say I have much to say against them as for them. Well one thing I can say for them, they did have fabulous chocolate chip cookies at the presentation. That is besides the point though, heh.
Wowzers, the ex leader of Communist Yugoslavia had AS :p
Well, I'm quite evil :p
but I use my evil for good...and business
Of course, Good and Evil are basically different perceptions ;p
My good is another mans evil.
autism should be cured its an awful curse me and many have to live with having autism is like living in a daily hell.
autism should be cured its an awful curse me and many have to live with having autism is like living in a daily hell.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean having to accept genocide or cruelty. Besides, autism can't be cured.