Just another day in the life for anti-autism sensationalising press. Unfortunately so many people that ought to be against this kind of scare-mongering, instead of opposing it actually embrace it! Why? Because in embracing it and helping draw attention to it they can put forward their own platforms on funding for autism, autism advocacy, and the like. They believe anything negative about autism at least gets the condition known in the ignorant and ignoring public. What does it actually do?
Imagine starting a new job and someone finds out about your autism. Walking into a staffroom and catching the tail end off a conversation "...Yeah Rossco has. Just like that guy in America, Cho...Oh Hi Rossco"
Great!
Or get a Glock! LOL. Sorry that was in poor taste
Hang in there mate. You're right of course fuck the both of the ignorant pricks!
Give me the link and I will do the same. Arseholes!
Surprise, surprise! Foresam has written a nasty blog about it too h ttp://h atingau tism.blo gspot.co m/
I wonder if blogs like that is supposed to make curebies look stupid. :p
I think that would be a great idea anyway, lol.
[edit] link broken [couldbecousin]
Wouldn't go there Callista
Can't remember I put a link there.
This is complete bs. He did not have as and he certainly didn't have autism because he started speaking at a young age.
If you believe that speaking, even speaking early, is counterindicative of autism, then a large percentage of autistics might have to disagree with you here...
I assumed he was autistic already when I read the "he was a loner" article. Curebie groups take advantage of this info, so could we with our goal of autism acceptance.
Well I understand that you can speak and then slowly stop speaking altogether forever.
Several of Kanner's original cases described in his paper on autism spoke early or on time. It's not about speaking, it's about communication.
By the way, these are the speech/communication criteria for an autism diagnosis:
(B) qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:
1. delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime)
2. in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others
3. stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language
4. lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level
It is very very easy to fulfil those criteria without being delayed in learning to speak. Most of Asperger's original cases would easily be diagnosed as autistic according to the DSM IV.
Sure, it's easy enough to let them call him someone other thing, and then some people with Autism are like "Yeah, maybe.. Well, I don't know" "hmm..." But now that someone did mention Autism... "How DARE they!" "Hate speach!" So if he is called scitsophrenic or something, then shouldn't
they be angry and calling it hate speach? (Ok my spelling sucks, i know.
)
They discribed a few things that suggested that he seemed to think he was the only one that thought seperatly from other people, and that other people thought the same way as if everyone else but him was a linked race. Good at reading others? It doesn't sound like it to me at all really. It sounds more like he didn't understand how he effected other people. Obviously, he wasn't very understood either.
How sad. He shot people on purpose, but people are wandering why he did, and why he believed his future was hopeless. Yes, it's pretty easy to say how "evil" and horrible someone else is. That was the ultimate mistake he made as well.
... What I'm saying is.. is that he did do a very evil and stupid thing, but Autistic traits actualy, unfortunatly do make sence and kind of do fit him a bit.
Anyway, this is all moot. We will never know exactly what his problem was. Maybe he was autistic (but I doubt it) or paranoid schizophrenic or narcissistic or any other condition in a litany of mental states. I mean, who cares??!!! Whatever he was, it was clear that he was violent and dangerous.
Nobody like that should be allowed anywhere near a firearm, any more than a blind person should be allowed to get behind the wheel of a car.
Yes, exactly. Thank you.