Genetic Screening for Aspergers

['andersom']

You refuse to answer my sincere questions.

Easy to call my sarcasm immature.

I've found that when arguing with Chris McC, it's generally a good idea to ask him to be as specific as possible as early on as you start to see any room for subjective interpretation.  It gets you to the "Oh christ, he's too full of shit to bother with" part of the argument a lot quicker.   

Well so far, I do find it intriguing how Hadron thinks to be politically successful. He doesn't seem to want to find allies in other groups of people that are not excepted in main-stream normality. 

If we do that in the way that you are suggesting, then we have no cause. We have to distinguish ourselves in order to gain legitimacy, otherwise we will just get portrayed as another awkward squad.

And he is extremely successful in showing a great contempt for the people he claims to represent.

I know who will be useful and who won't be. Over time, others will gain self-respect. Which fundementally any Aspie cause has to be about: respect.

The way he is behaving looks more like the ways of a religious zealous sectarian cult leader, than the ways of a politician. But, that is not that distant from the ways of a 'political' leader who wants to impose his ideas by all means.

We are not the mainstream - how is being just another smooth politician going to help things along?

[sidenote]Says the man who's major complaint about Ari Ne'eman is that he does not look dashing on a couch.[/sidenote]

Its his performance on it which worries me - he doesn't show any strength or legitimate conviction. Nor would he charm the masses. We need someone more like a toned down Louis Farrakhan if we want things done.

And no, I'm not talking about smooth politicians.

You seem to think top down. And you forget about people acting grassroot.

Yes well, you want a leader who follows, where as I tend to prefer a leader who leads.

I want things to change.

And am way too stubborn to just play follow a leader (with a plan that he fails to communicate effectively).

[Christopher McCandless]

You refuse to answer my sincere questions.

Easy to call my sarcasm immature.

I've found that when arguing with Chris McC, it's generally a good idea to ask him to be as specific as possible as early on as you start to see any room for subjective interpretation.  It gets you to the "Oh christ, he's too full of shit to bother with" part of the argument a lot quicker.   

Well so far, I do find it intriguing how Hadron thinks to be politically successful. He doesn't seem to want to find allies in other groups of people that are not excepted in main-stream normality. 

If we do that in the way that you are suggesting, then we have no cause. We have to distinguish ourselves in order to gain legitimacy, otherwise we will just get portrayed as another awkward squad.

And he is extremely successful in showing a great contempt for the people he claims to represent.

I know who will be useful and who won't be. Over time, others will gain self-respect. Which fundementally any Aspie cause has to be about: respect.

The way he is behaving looks more like the ways of a religious zealous sectarian cult leader, than the ways of a politician. But, that is not that distant from the ways of a 'political' leader who wants to impose his ideas by all means.

We are not the mainstream - how is being just another smooth politician going to help things along?

[sidenote]Says the man who's major complaint about Ari Ne'eman is that he does not look dashing on a couch.[/sidenote]

Its his performance on it which worries me - he doesn't show any strength or legitimate conviction. Nor would he charm the masses. We need someone more like a toned down Louis Farrakhan if we want things done.

And no, I'm not talking about smooth politicians.

You seem to think top down. And you forget about people acting grassroot.

Yes well, you want a leader who follows, where as I tend to prefer a leader who leads.

I want things to change.

Dont we all? But some changes are more important than others.

And am way too stubborn to just play follow a leader (with a plan that he fails to communicate effectively).

You know the subfertuge type strategies are the only ones which are going to work right - for precisely that reason. We only need 10,000 or so people who will do what they are told to get things done, not individuals who think they no best and decide to do whatver the hell they like.

['andersom']

You know the subfertuge type strategies are the only ones which are going to work right - for precisely that reason. We only need 10,000 or so people who will do what they are told to get things done, not individuals who think they no best and decide to do whatver the hell they like.

I disagree about the deceptive strategies.

I do see things changing, because of things happening from the base. And there is more going on in communicating between people than you realise. It's not about individuals deciding to do whatever the hell they like. There is open communication. It's happening low profile, so maybe you don't notice it. But it makes that things are changing in schools, in jobs, in supportive agencies. Small changes, but happening. And spreading.

You show contempt for the people here on this board disagreeing with you.
Many of us try in daily life to make this world a better place for our children, ouir friends and ourselves. Not by randomly doing things. But by communicating with the people we have to deal with. Time and time again. And by not being the only ones doing that. There is some self-organising thing going on, and you seem not to have the eyes to see and to believe that. So you discard all actions that are not according to your great subterfuge  plan as silly, meaningless or even counter-productive. And then refuse to listen further, because you want to establish a leadership with obedient followers that won't ask questions.

[Christopher McCandless]

You know the subfertuge type strategies are the only ones which are going to work right - for precisely that reason. We only need 10,000 or so people who will do what they are told to get things done, not individuals who think they no best and decide to do whatver the hell they like.

I disagree about the deceptive strategies.

I do see things changing, because of things happening from the base. And there is more going on in communicating between people than you realise. It's not about individuals deciding to do whatever the hell they like. There is open communication. It's happening low profile, so maybe you don't notice it. But it makes that things are changing in schools, in jobs, in supportive agencies. Small changes, but happening. And spreading.

I am more than aware of that, in fact I have been very involved in that kind of stuff. But you are misguided if you think that it is going to fundementally change things, there are simply not enough of us for that strategy to have any hope of working. All it will do is change the ignorant into those who think they know - essentially sending us backwards. The only sort of place where this strategy is likely to work is in communities which have a greater proportion than usual with Aspergers, for example universities. But even that can backfire...

You show contempt for the people here on this board disagreeing with you.

I don't show contempt for mere disagreement - unless that disagreement is simply copying the party line and using it against me. Society is fundamentally wrong, and yes I am contemptious of those who use it to back up their arguments. At least I have the self-respect to think for myself, a self-respect most of our lot seem to have lost these days.

Many of us try in daily life to make this world a better place for our children, ouir friends and ourselves. Not by randomly doing things. But by communicating with the people we have to deal with. Time and time again. And by not being the only ones doing that. There is some self-organising thing going on, and you seem not to have the eyes to see and to believe that. So you discard all actions that are not according to your great subterfuge  plan as silly, meaningless or even counter-productive. And then refuse to listen further, because you want to establish a leadership with obedient followers that won't ask questions.

No, you just overate a weak approach to the point of deluding yourself that it is going to work. Historically our lot have had great infleunce by far better methods, I simply propose to use them.

['andersom']

Historically our lot have had great infleunce by far better methods, I simply propose to use them.

Examples please of how our lot have had great influence by far better methods that improved things for our lot.

Examples of the ones of our lot doing those things, and of the methods please. And then I would like to know what they improved too.

[Christopher McCandless]

Historically our lot have had great infleunce by far better methods, I simply propose to use them.

Examples please of how our lot have had great influence by far better methods that improved things for our lot.

Examples of the ones of our lot doing those things, and of the methods please. And then I would like to know what they improved too.

Why not educate yourself on our history, rather than expecting me to do it for you. Start with Fitzgerald's book's on the topic, they serve as a good introduction.

In the meantime, admit that your methods are in general not going to solve anything, rather than trying to deflect back onto me. At least admit you haven't researched AS properly and stop trying to hide behind weak arguments based on society.

['andersom']

Historically our lot have had great infleunce by far better methods, I simply propose to use them.

Examples please of how our lot have had great influence by far better methods that improved things for our lot.

Examples of the ones of our lot doing those things, and of the methods please. And then I would like to know what they improved too.

Why not educate yourself on our history, rather than expecting me to do it for you. Start with Fitzgerald's book's on the topic, they serve as a good introduction.

In the meantime, admit that your methods are in general not going to solve anything, rather than trying to deflect back onto me. At least admit you haven't researched AS properly and stop trying to hide behind weak arguments based on society.

You make the claims, you can back them up, or not. If you want to be a politician, in public, or behind the scenes, you will have to learn how to bring the subject to the people you want to reach.

So, the task is yours if you want to convince people. You won't get followers if you tell everyone with a question to go and look it up in a book.

[Christopher McCandless]

Historically our lot have had great infleunce by far better methods, I simply propose to use them.

Examples please of how our lot have had great influence by far better methods that improved things for our lot.

Examples of the ones of our lot doing those things, and of the methods please. And then I would like to know what they improved too.

Why not educate yourself on our history, rather than expecting me to do it for you. Start with Fitzgerald's book's on the topic, they serve as a good introduction.

In the meantime, admit that your methods are in general not going to solve anything, rather than trying to deflect back onto me. At least admit you haven't researched AS properly and stop trying to hide behind weak arguments based on society.

You make the claims, you can back them up, or not. If you want to be a politician, in public, or behind the scenes, you will have to learn how to bring the subject to the people you want to reach.

So, the task is yours if you want to convince people. You won't get followers if you tell everyone with a question to go and look it up in a book.

Why do that when I can begin by preaching to the already nearly converted, who actually recognise the facts and would do stuff to demonstate them (e.g. make the mass sperm donation that this thread is about and prove me right). Its a far more effective method in the meantime.

As for claims, look at your ones. You seem to have this pie in the sky notion that if we all spread the Good News, everyone will believe it and be happy. Face it, your method has been debunked. Now admit to it, rather than continue to miss the point entirely.

['andersom']

Historically our lot have had great infleunce by far better methods, I simply propose to use them.

Examples please of how our lot have had great influence by far better methods that improved things for our lot.

Examples of the ones of our lot doing those things, and of the methods please. And then I would like to know what they improved too.

Why not educate yourself on our history, rather than expecting me to do it for you. Start with Fitzgerald's book's on the topic, they serve as a good introduction.

In the meantime, admit that your methods are in general not going to solve anything, rather than trying to deflect back onto me. At least admit you haven't researched AS properly and stop trying to hide behind weak arguments based on society.

You make the claims, you can back them up, or not. If you want to be a politician, in public, or behind the scenes, you will have to learn how to bring the subject to the people you want to reach.

So, the task is yours if you want to convince people. You won't get followers if you tell everyone with a question to go and look it up in a book.

Why do that when I can begin by preaching to the already nearly converted, who actually recognise the facts and would do stuff to demonstate them (e.g. make the mass sperm donation that this thread is about and prove me right). Its a far more effective method in the meantime.

As for claims, look at your ones. You seem to have this pie in the sky notion that if we all spread the Good News, everyone will believe it and be happy. Face it, your method has been debunked. Now admit to it, rather than continue to miss the point entirely.

Happy preaching for the nearly converted.
Here it might be metaphorical pearls for the metaphorical swine indeed.

Hope your sperming plan fails massively.

[Christopher McCandless]

Historically our lot have had great infleunce by far better methods, I simply propose to use them.

Examples please of how our lot have had great influence by far better methods that improved things for our lot.

Examples of the ones of our lot doing those things, and of the methods please. And then I would like to know what they improved too.

Why not educate yourself on our history, rather than expecting me to do it for you. Start with Fitzgerald's book's on the topic, they serve as a good introduction.

In the meantime, admit that your methods are in general not going to solve anything, rather than trying to deflect back onto me. At least admit you haven't researched AS properly and stop trying to hide behind weak arguments based on society.

You make the claims, you can back them up, or not. If you want to be a politician, in public, or behind the scenes, you will have to learn how to bring the subject to the people you want to reach.

So, the task is yours if you want to convince people. You won't get followers if you tell everyone with a question to go and look it up in a book.

Why do that when I can begin by preaching to the already nearly converted, who actually recognise the facts and would do stuff to demonstate them (e.g. make the mass sperm donation that this thread is about and prove me right). Its a far more effective method in the meantime.

As for claims, look at your ones. You seem to have this pie in the sky notion that if we all spread the Good News, everyone will believe it and be happy. Face it, your method has been debunked. Now admit to it, rather than continue to miss the point entirely.

Happy preaching for the nearly converted.
Here it might be metaphorical pearls for the metaphorical swine indeed.

Hope your sperming plan fails massively.

So again, you fail to debate. How predicatable.

Now admit that your approach is proved to be doomed to fail and that we need another one. Go on, admit you are wrong.

['andersom']

Historically our lot have had great infleunce by far better methods, I simply propose to use them.

Examples please of how our lot have had great influence by far better methods that improved things for our lot.

Examples of the ones of our lot doing those things, and of the methods please. And then I would like to know what they improved too.

Why not educate yourself on our history, rather than expecting me to do it for you. Start with Fitzgerald's book's on the topic, they serve as a good introduction.

In the meantime, admit that your methods are in general not going to solve anything, rather than trying to deflect back onto me. At least admit you haven't researched AS properly and stop trying to hide behind weak arguments based on society.

You make the claims, you can back them up, or not. If you want to be a politician, in public, or behind the scenes, you will have to learn how to bring the subject to the people you want to reach.

So, the task is yours if you want to convince people. You won't get followers if you tell everyone with a question to go and look it up in a book.

Why do that when I can begin by preaching to the already nearly converted, who actually recognise the facts and would do stuff to demonstate them (e.g. make the mass sperm donation that this thread is about and prove me right). Its a far more effective method in the meantime.

As for claims, look at your ones. You seem to have this pie in the sky notion that if we all spread the Good News, everyone will believe it and be happy. Face it, your method has been debunked. Now admit to it, rather than continue to miss the point entirely.

Happy preaching for the nearly converted.
Here it might be metaphorical pearls for the metaphorical swine indeed.

Hope your sperming plan fails massively.

So again, you fail to debate. How predicatable.

Now admit that your approach is proved to be doomed to fail and that we need another one. Go on, admit you are wrong.

Not going to admit that.

The percentage of people on the spectrum is that low that the world will never be all about 'us'.

Society is based on averages. And for about 70% of the people that works well enough. For 30% it doesn't.

Society will always be based on averages. Question is how open society is and will be for people who do not fit in snugly.

Because I do not want to throw society in itself over, you think my approach is doomed to fail. But my target is different than yours. So, your judgement on my doom is a false one.

[Christopher McCandless]

Historically our lot have had great infleunce by far better methods, I simply propose to use them.

Examples please of how our lot have had great influence by far better methods that improved things for our lot.

Examples of the ones of our lot doing those things, and of the methods please. And then I would like to know what they improved too.

Why not educate yourself on our history, rather than expecting me to do it for you. Start with Fitzgerald's book's on the topic, they serve as a good introduction.

In the meantime, admit that your methods are in general not going to solve anything, rather than trying to deflect back onto me. At least admit you haven't researched AS properly and stop trying to hide behind weak arguments based on society.

You make the claims, you can back them up, or not. If you want to be a politician, in public, or behind the scenes, you will have to learn how to bring the subject to the people you want to reach.

So, the task is yours if you want to convince people. You won't get followers if you tell everyone with a question to go and look it up in a book.

Why do that when I can begin by preaching to the already nearly converted, who actually recognise the facts and would do stuff to demonstate them (e.g. make the mass sperm donation that this thread is about and prove me right). Its a far more effective method in the meantime.

As for claims, look at your ones. You seem to have this pie in the sky notion that if we all spread the Good News, everyone will believe it and be happy. Face it, your method has been debunked. Now admit to it, rather than continue to miss the point entirely.

Happy preaching for the nearly converted.
Here it might be metaphorical pearls for the metaphorical swine indeed.

Hope your sperming plan fails massively.

So again, you fail to debate. How predicatable.

Now admit that your approach is proved to be doomed to fail and that we need another one. Go on, admit you are wrong.

Not going to admit that.

The percentage of people on the spectrum is that low that the world will never be all about 'us'.

Apart from the evidence that we happen to have infleunced most world events to quite a degree. You miss that argument off. Of course when its provable concretely, we could all be in serious trouble, given some of the names likely to be on the list.

Society is based on averages. And for about 70% of the people that works well enough. For 30% it doesn't.

Society will always be based on averages. Question is how open society is and will be for people who do not fit in snugly.

Its also why Terrorism works - you cannot downtrod a minority for too long as increasingly small groups have the means to fight back. Of course I am not suggesting that as an approach, even though some great collegues of ours have tried it. But take a step down or two and look at other means of disrupting a society. Again they rely on a small committed core and tend to be very effective methods if applied right.

Because I do not want to throw society in itself over, you think my approach is doomed to fail. But my target is different than yours. So, your judgement on my doom is a false one.

Any goal or target involving the betterment of those on the spectrum isn't going to be achieved by your methods. At best, your approach is simply going to change people to those who don't know to those who don't know very much but think they know. The latter can be worse in many circumstances, for obvious reasons. If anything, awareness may well have made things a lot worse, especially for higher functioning individuals.

['andersom']

Oh, and for changes happening, without deceptive methods.

I've been an active member of a church for a long time. When I was a child, only men were allowed in functions there. Women were obedient. Gay love was seen as an abomination. Everything was neatly following strict rules that had been there for ages and ages.

In 25 years everything changed. Not by deception. But by changing it from within. There has been some civil disobedience, sure. But not something to mess with the lives of people the way you propose with your sperming of the mainly NT population.

Now there are a lot of woman in functions. And a lot of people from the GBLT community too.

A church is a small society with a similar rigidity and reluctance to change as the secular society. I've seen how it happened, I've been a part of it. And I have hope for changes when it comes to the valuing of people with a diagnosis in a fair way.

['andersom']

Its also why Terrorism works - you cannot downtrod a minority for too long as increasingly small groups have the means to fight back. Of course I am not suggesting that as an approach, even though some great collegues of ours have tried it. But take a step down or two and look at other means of disrupting a society. Again they rely on a small committed core and tend to be very effective methods if applied right.

I would not be surprised if you were to be charged for terroristic acts, would you succeed to sneak in ASD sperm in massive amounts in spermbanks and get caught.
You are willing to mess on a very fundamental basis with the lives of thousands of people then.

I ask you again, why not set up an alternative sperm bank. Get publicity for that. Don't act covert, but open. Claiming the right of infertile couples with an ASD partner to want children from donors that have the quirkyness/ASD in common with the social parent to be.

[Christopher McCandless]

Oh, and for changes happening, without deceptive methods.

I've been an active member of a church for a long time. When I was a child, only men were allowed in functions there. Women were obedient. Gay love was seen as an abomination. Everything was neatly following strict rules that had been there for ages and ages.

In 25 years everything changed. Not by deception. But by changing it from within. There has been some civil disobedience, sure. But not something to mess with the lives of people the way you propose with your sperming of the mainly NT population.

Now there are a lot of woman in functions. And a lot of people from the GBLT community too.

A church is a small society with a similar rigidity and reluctance to change as the secular society. I've seen how it happened, I've been a part of it. And I have hope for changes when it comes to the valuing of people with a diagnosis in a fair way.

The problem again here is numbers. How many people claim to be LGBT compared to Aspie? They barely managed it with 10% of the population without using some millitant methods. Nor was it done from inside the Church, but from outside pressure. They wrecked the Church's standing in the process, which is having some rather unintended consequences in the UK for one. I am an atheist and I really think overall, it has been more damaging to our society in the long run, especially given the way it was done. When the wider populace realise this, guess who they are going to blame.

Even more difficult, our cause is very difficult to grasp by the layman, for the reason AS is a lot more complicated than shagging your own sex. Your approach has no chance of working for this and a mulititude of other reasons.

If you want an example of a very small group which has been millitant and successful, look at animal rights or the ecomentalists. Their success is something we can emulate, but on a larger scale.