Yea, I've been finding on myspace groups that the CANinites and the parents don't seem to like it that much when someone claiming to have a form of Autism (Aspergers, which I do have) presents a different side to the story. I've been asked many times to apologize for saying that I don't think that wiping out Autism like it's Smallpox is the right way to go, never once have I.
That's why I hate the Autism Speaks organization so much, they keep claiming to be "giving Autism a voice". The problem is that people with Autism already have a voice, but no one cares what we have to say. It's easier for NTs to just assume that anyone with Autism doesn't know what they're talking about than to actually listen to what they have to say.
I agree with normally_impaired.
At the same time I think this, I had a discussion with my dad a couple nights ago. Generally he presents both sides of the arguement in a non biased way. When we talk about autism generally the first people that come to mind are those like those on this forum and it trickles down from there. (Correct me if i'm wrong, pelase) Though for those like "Autism Speaks" the people that first come to mind for them are those who can hardly function in society at all.
I've been lurking around this forum for about 2-3 days before today, generally getting a feeling for how things are like here. (See if this is real, I thought people with Asperger's were isolated for all of my life, like none of this exhisted.) My general feel of the pro-cure crowd is that there are parents who see that a cure is an act of compassion, because they see how their kids are treated. So anything to remove that pain that others cause them for their difference will help.
Then we have the familiar people like CAN, personally I call them ENTs (Extreme neuro-typicals) those I associated with a cure is the only way to go, their way or the highway. (or should I say: grave?) Maybe they are the ones that believe they are part of what is a master race. Are they ignorant or have delusions of granduer, who can say? To me it seems they are waging a PR campaign against us so that they become not just the dominate voice for those with autism, but the only one.
Also, anyone else see any friends here with the pro-life crowd on abortion?
You would be surprised how legal professionals use impressive sounding language that says nothing. One example of the flabby minded destitution of logiocal discipline in law is the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Such a law suffers two contradictions.
You're not using any sort of logic at all. First, the prohibition is against "cruel and unusual punishment", NOT against "cruel OR unusual punishment". Therefore, a punishment must be both "cruel" AND "unusual", not merely one or the other.
Now "cruel punishment" does not merely mean "inflicts distress", it certainly did not mean that in the 18th century. It means "indifferent to or taking pleasure in another's pain or distress".
As the law is written, a punishment could be cruel but usual or unusual, so long as it was not administered in a way that was indifferent to or taking pleasure in another's pain or distress.
There is no contradiction.
Yea, I've been finding on myspace groups that the CANinites and the parents don't seem to like it that much when someone claiming to have a form of Autism (Aspergers, which I do have) presents a different side to the story. I've been asked many times to apologize for saying that I don't think that wiping out Autism like it's Smallpox is the right way to go, never once have I.
I think I managed to put a psychologist on the spot recently. I started talking about how it was permissible in US culture to subject some children to treatment that would violate the UN charter against torture. After she had started mustering her outrage, I dropped the other shoe--so long as the kids were on the autistic spectrum, such torture was deemed fine, merely to improve their "social acceptability". Then I got to watch her hem and haw with me and try to contradict herself without contradicting herself.
Definitions can be unpredictable in how laws are interpreted. But they definition you submit does work, and yet, how many definitions have to be adjusted after a law had a different effect from what was intended by those who wrote it. For instance, things done to children that get defined as legal cannot be successfully challenged. In Atlanta Georgia a woman was made to throw up by her neighbors turning up the bass on their stereo. The law and the courts refused to help. But her neighbors were inflicting cruelty purely for their own pleasure. Was this not legalization of cruel and unusual punishment for her failure to adjust to her neighbors music? I give the law one chance then if that fails I defend myself any way I can.
Were the neighbors doing this specifically for the purpose of affecting her, or were they just listening to music obliviously? If they were just listening to music, then it's not cruel and unusual punishment since it's not as punishment in the first place.
They were asked to quit playing it because it was torturing her. They continued and the law supported them with their refusal to make them stop. That proves to my satisfaction that they were doing it out of spite as those kinds of people always do to show who is boss. There is no limit to what bad people will do when they feel safe about getting away with it. They were obviously offended that someone did not like their music which they had made the centre of their identity so they when they discovered that society would tolerate it they committed a hate crime against her.
Huh? The law supported them? Up here, in the northeastern US, there are laws about noise like that. They would have been asked to stop. If they didn't, a restraining order would have been issued. If they STILL did not stop, they would have been arrested (for contempt of court), booked, processed, then realeased. If they STILL continued they'd probably get some small jail time.
Wouldn't this hate crime be disturbing the peace? I mean if the bass was enough to make the woman throw up from it, wouldn't other neighbors have been the same way?
Freedom of speech (or expression) is one thing. But the legal system must be pretty twisted if this was allowed to happen.
Is there an article on this?
My problem with this case is that everybody keeps calling it a "hate crime" and talking like the people playing the music were doing it intentionally for no other reason than to "torture" this woman.
Say you're mowing your lawn and a neighbor that you barely know comes over flipping out saying that "you're torturing me with the sound of your lawnmower". Are you gonna leave your lawn half cut and just shut it off and never mow your lawn again? Or are you going to just assume that she's crazy and continue?
I don't think that the people that were playing the music had any intention on doing anything except listening to loud music and maybe show their neighbor what to get used to. If they set up their speakers facing her house and blasted them 24/7, then maybe that could be considered torture, but from what I've seen so far by reading this forum, it looks more like an average neighbor rivalry than a hate crime.
Wouldn't this hate crime be disturbing the peace? I mean if the bass was enough to make the woman throw up from it, wouldn't other neighbors have been the same way?
Do you know what a "hate crime" actually is?
They openly call Autism a malady(sickness, disease, defect), an epidemic(infectious, spreading), and have parent's talk about their desires to end their children's lives. Wanting their children dead.
I'd say that's a hate group, wouldn't you?
still, it could be complex for some people (a.k.a. non- lawyers like me). CAN should can it, and Autism Speaks does NOT speak for us!
^which we are attempting to become.
in which case,it will be a hate crime.
Hopefully we will become a very large 'minority group'.....with a voice big enough to be listened to, acknowledged, accepted for being 'as we are' & as very useful members of society in a great many instances.
CAN's operation can be summed up as follows:
Raise money
Give money to research programmes
One of the main research programmes is AGRE - the Autism Genetic Resource Exchange. Gathering DNA samples in the hopes of developing a prenatal test. We have had contact from them on this issue which states the goal isn't developing a prenatal test, and then later seen them funding the baylor college of medicine's prenatal test.
does anyone know the location of this centre?