02-17-2005, 08:21 AM
What a pity, I've always liked Scientific American. There's an interesting article in the most recent issue on the geopraphic distribution of gay and lesbian couples, and another article criticizing creationism :twisted:
02-17-2005, 08:21 AM
02-17-2005, 12:31 PM
:-( I like Scientific American Mind a lot too...sad
02-17-2005, 01:53 PM
Damn I read that issue a while back and I can't believe I missed that! (Normally the word "Autism" tends to jump out at me in whatever I read!)
Just goes to show that even a decent and usually well-researched magazine can have errors in it.
Just goes to show that even a decent and usually well-researched magazine can have errors in it.
02-19-2005, 02:22 AM
Quote:
At the moment though, those few who aim for this are greatly outnumbered by people, even on the better sites like AFF, who are determinedly pushing us in the other direction, by introducing spurious concepts, derailing any debates which show signs of being progressive and productive, and discouraging us from taking positive action (which is surely what AFF is about, so why are these people here?).
Don't imagine for a moment this is accidental; we get bullied, abused and manipulated in real life, and any notion that the web actually imparts immunity from such deliberate falsehoods, is pure fantasy.
Don't imagine for a moment this is accidental; we get bullied, abused and manipulated in real life, and any notion that the web actually imparts immunity from such deliberate falsehoods, is pure fantasy.
OMG, gwynfryn, You are so right! Before today, I just didn't see it. I can see it now. All of the emails and letters I've sent with no replies and then getting pretty much picked apart when I dared think of being progressive. I was very distressed today, thinking that I couldn't be understood. My son told me that he understood my views and now here you are, bringing up the same points my son brought up, just hours ago to me....coincidence? I don't think so. Thanks for helping to open my eyes.
02-19-2005, 01:48 PM
I didn't see a "sweeping judgement" being made either.
To be cautious on the internet and not to blindly believe everything someone says without first thinking it through for yourself is a very wise thing to do indeed.
This holds true for the internet and daily living, too. So what is so bad about Lili expressing this?
I cannot see the point of making her explain herself. She made perfect sense in saying this.
To be cautious on the internet and not to blindly believe everything someone says without first thinking it through for yourself is a very wise thing to do indeed.
This holds true for the internet and daily living, too. So what is so bad about Lili expressing this?
I cannot see the point of making her explain herself. She made perfect sense in saying this.
02-21-2005, 05:56 AM
erm, on the original topic, I personally think that referring to Autism as a disease is just one of those 'technical terms' that really does not necessarily imply anything about the thoughts of the speaker, or writer.
And Einstein's brain was not just generally dense, it was specifically dense in oligodendrocytes,. if I remember that article correctly. It was a very interesting article, especially since it would seem to corroborate some of what I recall having read about brain abnormalities in ASDs, dont remember right now, its rather late...
And Einstein's brain was not just generally dense, it was specifically dense in oligodendrocytes,. if I remember that article correctly. It was a very interesting article, especially since it would seem to corroborate some of what I recall having read about brain abnormalities in ASDs, dont remember right now, its rather late...
02-21-2005, 01:10 PM
Nemidaelius Wrote:
erm, on the original topic, I personally think that referring to Autism as a disease is just one of those 'technical terms' that really does not necessarily imply anything about the thoughts of the speaker, or writer.
In this case though the technical term was simply wrong. A disease is the effect of a disorder or illness on a body, not a syndrome, condition, disorder etc. as is the case with PDDs. (I tried to outline this on another thread but don't think I got my point across well)
02-21-2005, 01:24 PM
alan8359 Wrote:
You cannot separate what's happened at AI with what happens here, particularly as they have both effectively lost that place as a platform for their views. Of course, I know Gwynfryns a friend of yours, and this is your forum; BUT, many of us don't wish to be associated with the redefining of Aspergers Syndrome to fit the two people in question.
I think we are ALL forgetting that AFF is focused on acceptance and not cure and the means to acheive that regardless of being autistic or not.
02-21-2005, 01:30 PM
TheASman Wrote:
I think we are ALL forgetting that AFF is focused on acceptance and not cure and the means to acheive that regardless of being autistic or not.
That's a very good point. Acceptance is important, and you don't have to be autistic to be against a cure for autism, as parents like Kev show. (You just have to be a rational sane human being to understand that this is a nonsensical enterprise to start with!)
Pages: 1 2