Aspies For Freedom

Hello,

My great-uncle was autistic (for certain), yet he was born (in the late 1920’s or very early 1930’s) (and his autism was recognized at an early age, e.g. 4 or 5), over a dozen years (at least) before vaccines were mandated in the United States. In addition, a lot of people speculated to have Asperger’s Syndrome (Einstein, Darwin, Newton, among others) were born before (long before) vaccination. I believe it can be agreed that they all at least had Asperger’s traits (Einstein especially).  

P.S., does anyone know when doctors began giving Thiomersal vaccinations?  

Will

I second that... though completely un-scientific on my viewpoint. It just seems that more people really should be thinking the way I am- its unimagineable that someone would not.

But sadly, I recognize that that whole "everyone really thinks like me" think is an aspie trait so stink... but I really do think it'll end up being considerably higher as well.

A true, correct and complete medical record is enough, Simen. The question is, are the records I'm chasing up like that. That's what I don't know.

Anyway - ANYONE can be reducible to a medical record. Practical fact.

Most people have normal social skills. It follows from the definition of normal. Further, most people who go against social norms have normal social skills; this is because there are so many more people with around normal social skills.[/quote]

First off - there is no such thing as normal. People who went against social skills in the 1930's were ostracised without a second thought. That's the way it was then. You seem to have a lack of knowledge about what things were like then - and you appear to be applying today's standards of social behaviour to a time when they were so different it may as well have been a different culture.

Committing adultery was socially wrong. In some cultures today it still is. It's more accepted today socially because the ability of couple to get together and get married has been restricted to a degree by changing society and the increased role the woman plays in environments that in the 1930's would have been unheard of.

Bottom line - committing adultery in the 1930's was socially incompetent. I'm sorry that you are unable to see this fact.

Oh yes you can! Especially if you are as clever as Einstein was. And again - in the 1930's breaking social rules was a one way trip to enforced solitude. Guarenteed. Doesn't happen now of course, but it did then.

Yes - because it proves that being an Aspie is not a bad thing and we can contribute to the livelihood of the world. Those who have looked deep into Einstein's life (which I assume you haven't) will say "Yes, he was pathologically eccentric".

I happen to be eccentric as well - and I am *** proud of it!

1. Yes - it WAS a different culture in the 1930's.
2. Socially competent people only break social taboos deliberately, not accidentally - and 9 times out of ten at the time the ones that did it were criminals.
3. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NORMAL!
4. And why don't you just call me a liar and be done with it? It's hardly my fault if you haven't studied history.

I can see there's no point talking to you about this, Simen. You have got a lot to learn it seems. The above quote was highly offensive to me and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Marieke, first off - you have been far better than Simen. You've been choosing your words in a much better manner. Makes a big difference.

Ummm, in Australia there is no "college" level. You go straight from high school to university. Anyway - the textbooks weren't purely about Einstein's neurological tendencies. It was much more general than that covering a wide range of his history both personal and otherwise. The class - through the encouragement of our teacher - discussed a great deal of it.

That's not something I usually see, Marieke. My experience is that people who disagree with me turn around and bite back along the lines of "prove it!"

If there wasn't any evidence to the contrary - yes I would. Because there are a lot of things I wouldn't put past the US government.

It's also an expression of frustration on my part, Marieke. And with the written word the options are limited.

I would if I could remember them. And even if I didn't I could go back to my old alma mater to see if they still had it - but it was closed in the early 1990's like a lot of high schools were around that time (and to this day I've always said that was a BS decision by the state government). Anyway - it is possible that because we had it in Australia there's no guarentee it would be available in other countries. Of course that depends on who wrote it - and because it was a non fiction text book the author was irrelevant.

I fail to see why government propaganda would be used to affect a text on someone like Einstein. That would make no sense. If we were talking Australian History that would be another matter (I've got a doozy of an example there but it's off topic so I'll leave it). What would the teachers in the education system have to gain from warping information on Einstein? None.

I seem to recall a detailed bibliography at the end although it may have been an appendix. That I'm not sure of.

Marieke - a good rote memory is standard for an Aspie. Now if Simen isn't an Aspie, and is here because of a sibling or other family member - then OK fair point. But it appears to me that the vast majority of members here are Aspies. Hence my comment.

It stated that he had affairs. Numbers were not specified.

Of course not. AS wasn't known when I was at school. It stated that he was an eccentric with "bad social habits" - which is what started the argument I referred to earlier in this thread.

HUH? I would have thought the connection was obvious! A spouse catching their beloved with another member of the opposite sex? Instant divorce!

That's the difference between the 30's and 40's and now. That was my point. Social penalties don't work anymore - so the divorce rates go up to compensate. Social penalties worked better back then so the divorce rates were low - along with what you said as well.

And that's another example of a bad social call.

Hilton's a bad example because she's a spoilt brat who always found someone else to blame - and it finally caught up with her. And I think you'll find that back in the 30's uncaring arseholes and the socially clueless were more often than not one in the same.

This is better! I prefer debating with you, Marieke! You disagree agreeably!

Timelord, he is trying to tell you that anecdotes are not evidence or proof.

You are trying to pass of the idea that Einstein had ASD as fact without any ground. In reality, it is pure speculation at best. If you have different data or different information, we would of course like to see it. Also, you are trying to pass off a lot of stuff as fact when the sources I'm aware of contradict your claims.

Please document your sources, and quote where your textbook says this.

Molotov, they are not anecdotes. They are facts. And I explained in my reply to Marieke as much as I could. If that's not enough for you, then I'm sorry if you don't believe me.

(ignores the other two posts).

You're not worth the effort.

I agree with JennaP and side with Simen. Timelord will talk down to you in an argument, not back up with facts, and stick to only one opinion without seeing any other sides. I've "debated" several times now with him and its useless. Its like arguing with a door except a door doesn't have a mouth (or in this case a keyboard) to shut everything down.

I'm just getting tired of being talked down to in an argument, especially testosterone injections are steroids (his argument was they weren't). I don't like that he can shoot down cited facts and claim they're false, even if listed on numerous reputable sources. Its frustrating.

Thank you Simen, thank you Rossco, and thank you JennaP.

I just re-read the whole "argument" and its ridiculous. I'm getting so tired of reading Timelord's arguments that I'll leave here soon and go somewhere else. To talk down and insult people, to tell them to withdraw their posts and kiss *** is enough. I've had enough of this guy. He argued with me continuously about the Hating Autism Blogger running for President. I think we all know how absurd that sounds. But no, the hating autism blogger said he would so Timelord believes him and won't back down from people saying its not and never will be true.

Well let me tell you something, back up your facts. You can say whatever pops in your head, doesn't make it fact. Cite your sources, the books, the authors. I don't care if you memorized the Bible, tell me the damn passages to look at before saying lame comments like "I remember it so its fact, thats the best evidence you'll get." Please get off having the God Complex and acting all high and mighty. Someone has to put you in your place, especially when you discount medical professionals, several...opinions.

You didn't know Einstein personally did you? Did you? You can't diagnose someone post posthumously without interviewing them and those close to them. Its 110% speculation and the medical records comment was irrational as well.

People also don't always divorce because of cheating, in fact there are thousands of couples who stay together after cheating occurs.

I am just absolutely sick of reading this guy's arguments, because right now he's doing nothing other than trolling. He's starting and continuing arguments none other than to boost his post count. Really, he's irritated around 7 members now. Its enough. Your brain isn't fact, fact is fact.

Read the Benoit thread (if you want to and if you have time) and the one about kicking the guy in you know where, plus the autism hating blog. For saying that Benoit was probably on steroids, I was talked down to and told to "apologize" to Timelord if he was right. He is still arguing about it, and arguing on several other threads.

Kinda reminds me of the way creationists argue; when there is evidence to the contrary, deny the facts and attack the science or person.

It seems the topic of whether or not Einstein was autistic deserves its own thread, but since it has progressed (??) so far here I thought I'd add my two cents worth.

I [/b]just started a fabulous book by the Swedish psychiatrist Christopher Gillberg, co-author of the Gillberg diagnositic criteria for AS.  The book is A Guide to Asperger Syndrome published in 2002 by Cambridge University Press.  In chapter 15, "What about all those famous geniuses?" he carefully analyzes the case of the philosopher Wittgenstein, and concludes that he was likely autistic.  Though he does not diagnose Einstein, he writes (p. 134):

"Einstein, Kandinskij, Satie, Bruckner and Bartok are other famous people who possibly had autism spectrum conditions.  This is not just an interesting curiosity for experts in the field of autism.  The possibility that prominent individuals who have forever put their mark on history in their respective field might have had the condition described by Hans Asperger, is hopeful for all of those whose lives are touched by Asperger syndrome.  Maybe one could even speculate that historic progress has quite often been made by people with autism spectrum conditions.  The perseverance, drive for perfection, good concrete intelligence, ability to disregard social conventions, and not worry too much about other people's opinions or critiques, could all be seen as advantageous, maybe even a prerequisite for certain forms of new thinking and creativity[b]."

(bold type added by me for emphasis)

Why does this matter?  We have all speculated on famous Aspies, and have read accounts by laypersons making post mortem diagnoses.  But this is no layperson, this is Gilberg of the Gilberg scale.  An expert, and a positive one.  He DOES diagnose Wittgenstein.  He acknowledges the likelihood of Einstein's autism.  To me, that is significant.

Arghhh.  Obviously I am bold-type impaired.  Sorry.  I just meant for the last half of that quote to be in bold print, not my added comments.

Gillberg devotes the entire chapter telling you exactly how and why he post-mortemly diagnoses Wittgenstein.  And I bet he's just as skeptical as you are, but makes this one exception.