Warbler

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Maybe, but shouldn’t the cure be there for those that want it?

This gets into the weeds pretty fast. The problem is not necessarily the “cure” per se. It’s the subtext that anyone who doesn’t opt for it is being unreasonable. It’s the issues that arise when people stop spending money on ADA compliance when you could just take a pill for it. It’s the minority group becoming even more invisible as their numbers diminish. It’s the loss of cultural connections between family members.

This are problems that have to be dealt with, but I can’t see this problems are justification for denying “the cure” to those that want it.

And of course it’s treating a disability as if it were a disease.

How about we treat a disability as a disability instead of a person’s race, or religion?

That’s not going to fly with this group. Race, religion, sexual orientation, and disabilities are all in a bucket called “identities”.

But race, and sexual orientation are not in a bucket called “disabilities”, deafness is.

Yes, they’re different from each other, but the basic concept of curing an identity is problematic (and people seriously also try to cure sexual orientation like a disease, and disability advocates see that as a parallel).

Unless you are going to try to argue that deafness is not in fact a disability, I don’t see that parallel.

Curing a disease, no problem. Curing an identity, them’s fighting words.

What about curing a disability?

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

But deaf people would still have the problem of not being able to hear.

Not to jump straight to crude jokes, but it applies. Everybody has problems.

not everyone has disabilities.

Yes, even if everyone could sign and every phone has a visual ring indicator and so on, people would still have the problem of not being able to hear. And some people would have the trouble of being an asshole (seriously not aimed at anyone, but the concept works so run with it). Deafness is a pretty small problem. Hell, I have combination skin (does anyone remember that commercial?), that’s a problem too.

I think not being able to hear music is huge problem. I don’t think you can compare the trouble of being an ***hole of the trouble of having combination skin to the troubles of not being able to hear.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Great post. If someone gave me a magic wand and said I could “cure” my daughter today, I wouldn’t do it, because she’d no longer be the girl I love, she’d be someone different.

I see multiple problems with that approach. One is, should you have the right decide she shouldn’t have “the cure” if one existed? What if she would want to be cured? Another is, why wouldn’t she be the girl you love? I mean, you don’t love her just because she has autism right? If she had never had autism, you still would have loved her, right? Also how would she be someone different? She would just be your daughter without autism. Your daughter is defined by more than just autism. She a person and would still be that same person if her autism were cured. If your daughter had cancer and that got cured, would she be someone different after she was cured? Myself, if I had kid with autism and there was a cure, I’d want him/her to have it(but I will not be so arrogant to deny the possibility that my opinion would be altered if I actually had a child with autism). Why would I want to deny him/her the opportunity live free of autism, to be free of all of its problems?

Call me stupid, clueless, bigoted or whatever, but I don’t get it.

edit: I really hope I haven’t offended by any of what I said in this post, because that wasn’t my intent. Keep in mind that I have no family members with autism. I don’t know anyone that does. So if I have offended, it is because of my own ignorance of the issues.

I’m not offended, they are fair questions.

Cancer does not fundamentally change your brain the way autism does. My daughter has challenges that neurotypicals do not,

neurotypicals? You mean people without autism?

but she also sees the world differently and some of those differences are positives rather than negatives.

I should learn more about these positives.

I suppose you could say that cancer changes your attitude and maybe you find some positives in that, but it doesn’t fundamentally alter who you are as a person the way autism does.

Again, something I need to know more about.

Another way to look at is this - if I could go back and have my first daughter not be stillborn, would I? I don’t know, because it would change the course of our history. Our second child might have been a boy instead of a girl. We might have only had one child, and almost certainly wouldn’t have had three…so our younger daughter would basically cease to exist. “Curing” my daughter’s autism would essentially erase her from this world, replaced by a different girl.

Here we are talking about the problems of altering history as opposed to the issues of curing something. I’d love to go back in time and break my father’s fall so he’d still be with us, but I don’t think I should be allowed to mess with history like that.

Lastly, the argument that she should be the one to have the choice is a compelling one, however I don’t think she is old enough to make that choice (if the choice were available to us). If we were given a magic wand and were told we could choose to wave it any time in the next ten years, I might feel differently ten years down the road.

But here is the problem. If I am understanding autism at all, in order to truly cure it, it would have to be done sometime early in brain development, way before she was 18 and could decide for herself. This brings up yet another issue. Are people with autism capable of making their own decisions? We are talking about a problem with the mind here. What if “curing” your daughter were the only way to bring her to a state of mind where she could make her own decisions?

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

I guess I am not able to understand how a mental difficult can be considered a superpower. But I do have to say that you did not answer my question. Are you saying that he wouldn’t have his nerve and creativity without the autism?

You’d have to ask him; I don’t even know that person. Temple Grandin is an example of a person who feels she owes much of her livelihood to tapping the potential of her autism that would not otherwise be available. Most people only know of autism from Rain Man, and there’s a lot more to it than Wapner at 4. They see it not as a mental difficulty–it’s a neurological difference that can lead to social difficulties. That said, it’s an ill-defined “spectrum”, so even that statement was dumbing it down too much for my tastes.

Well, maybe I need to learn more about autism.

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Maybe, but shouldn’t the cure be there for those that want it?

This gets into the weeds pretty fast. The problem is not necessarily the “cure” per se. It’s the subtext that anyone who doesn’t opt for it is being unreasonable. It’s the issues that arise when people stop spending money on ADA compliance when you could just take a pill for it. It’s the minority group becoming even more invisible as their numbers diminish. It’s the loss of cultural connections between family members.

This are problems that have to be dealt with, but I can’t see this problems are justification for denying “the cure” to those that want it.

And of course it’s treating a disability as if it were a disease.

How about we treat a disability as a disability instead of a person’s race, or religion?

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

So are you saying he wouldn’t have the nerve or creativity without autism?

Possibly, yes.

but how certain of this are you?

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Warbler said:

Was Jesus wrong to make the lame walk and the blind see?

The ex-leper sketch from ‘Life of Brian’ covers that pretty well 😉…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTJFwwJ7VF8

The ex-leper forgets that now that he is cures, he doesn’t have to beg for money. He can get a job and earn it.

Some people might not want to be “cured” because it’s part of who they are. It might not define them but it’s an important part.

Maybe, but shouldn’t the cure be there for those that want it?

I was watching that Oscar nominated Documentary ‘A Life Animated’ the other week about this guy Owen Suskind (he has Autism) and how he uses Disney films to help him relate to the world. At the end he delivers a speech on Autism to a lecture theater and writes an animated short to express himself. I know I wouldn’t have the nerve to do the first, or the creativity to do the second.

So are you saying he wouldn’t have the nerve or creativity without autism?

Many autistic people treat autism like a superpower, which they can tap to accomplish lots of useful things. It just happens that the world is also littered with Kryptonite.

I guess I am not able to understand how a mental difficult can be considered a superpower. But I do have to say that you did not answer my question. Are you saying that he wouldn’t have his nerve and creativity without the autism?

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

One more thing:

CatBus said:

But then there’s things like cochlear implants. They don’t remove the barriers for deafness, they remove the deafness, which is a different thing entirely.

But doesn’t removing the deafness also remove the barriers?

Sure, and according the many deaf advocates, it does it in exactly the same way curing blackness would remove problems with hailing cabs, counting on the police, and getting through in-person job interviews. That’s the core argument.

Maybe this going to offend and show by ignorance, but blackness isn’t a disease or disability. Deafness is a disability.

To which they’d say: You can be born black, you can be born deaf. You can become deaf, you can become Mormon. You communicate in Spanish, you communicate in ASL. The difficulties you face in life, with people understanding you, are very much the same.

The difficulties faced in life of deaf people are very different than the ones faced by those that can’t speak English or those that are Mormon or that are a member of a minority racial group.

The problem in all of those cases isn’t with who you are.

The problems of all the others you listed are problems of bigotry. The problems of deaf people are more than just bigotry(although that is most certainly a problem they face). If we were to wave a magic want and cure the world of bigotry and prejudice and discrimination, what problems would black people face? What problem would those that can’t yet speak English face? What problems would Mormons face? But deaf people would still have the problem of not being able to hear.

Disabilities are different things than diseases.

Yes, disabilities are different that diseases, and they are also different than just being a member of a minority racial group.

Ryan McAvoy said:

Warbler said:

Was Jesus wrong to make the lame walk and the blind see?

The ex-leper sketch from ‘Life of Brian’ covers that pretty well 😉…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTJFwwJ7VF8

The ex-leper forgets that now that he is cures, he doesn’t have to beg for money. He can get a job and earn it.

Some people might not want to be “cured” because it’s part of who they are. It might not define them but it’s an important part.

Maybe, but shouldn’t the cure be there for those that want it?

I was watching that Oscar nominated Documentary ‘A Life Animated’ the other week about this guy Owen Suskind (he has Autism) and how he uses Disney films to help him relate to the world. At the end he delivers a speech on Autism to a lecture theater and writes an animated short to express himself. I know I wouldn’t have the nerve to do the first, or the creativity to do the second.

So are you saying he wouldn’t have the nerve or creativity without autism?

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

One more thing:

CatBus said:

But then there’s things like cochlear implants. They don’t remove the barriers for deafness, they remove the deafness, which is a different thing entirely.

But doesn’t removing the deafness also remove the barriers?

Sure, and according the many deaf advocates, it does it in exactly the same way curing blackness would remove problems with hailing cabs, counting on the police, and getting through in-person job interviews. That’s the core argument.

Maybe this going to offend and show by ignorance, but blackness isn’t a disease or disability. Deafness is a disability.

One more thing:

CatBus said:

But then there’s things like cochlear implants. They don’t remove the barriers for deafness, they remove the deafness, which is a different thing entirely.

But doesn’t removing the deafness also remove the barriers?

TV’s Frink said:

You’re not included in “the rest” because your posts are entertaining.

They are until you are butt of his “jokes”.

TV’s Frink said:

Great post. If someone gave me a magic wand and said I could “cure” my daughter today, I wouldn’t do it, because she’d no longer be the girl I love, she’d be someone different.

I see multiple problems with that approach. One is, should you have the right to decide she shouldn’t have “the cure” if one existed? What if she would want to be cured? Another is, why wouldn’t she be the girl you love? I mean, you don’t love her just because she has autism right? If she had never had autism, you still would have loved her, right? Also how would she be someone different? She would just be your daughter without autism. Your daughter is defined by more than just autism. She a person and would still be that same person if her autism were cured. If your daughter had cancer and that got cured, would she be someone different after she was cured? Myself, if I had kid with autism and there was a cure, I’d want him/her to have it(but I will not be so arrogant to deny the possibility that my opinion would be altered if I actually had a child with autism). Why would I want to deny him/her the opportunity live free of autism, to be free of all of its problems?

Call me stupid, clueless, bigoted or whatever, but I don’t get it.

edit: I really hope I haven’t offended by any of what I said in this post, because that wasn’t my intent. Keep in mind that I have no family members with autism. I don’t know anyone that does. So if I have offended, it is because of my own ignorance of the issues.

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Fuck everybody.

😉

Well, autism isn’t something that you can “cure” in somebody. Now, if it were focused on determining specific causes and means of prevention, that would be different.

How do you know we won’t be able to cure in the future(maybe a couple hundred years from now)?

Well, to answer the question seriously and completely requires a bit of a historical disability rights primer. You don’t have to agree with this 100%, I’m just presenting this as background information.

The easiest gateway to understanding is to consider the deaf community, cochlear implants, etc. Deafness can be caused by maladies, but it’s not a malady in itself. Some proportion of the human population has always been deaf, and the deaf community considers itself simply part of the natural variation in humanity–not that much different than variations in height–there’s a bell curve, but not sitting at the average is simply not a problem that needs addressing. That’s not to say that a society designed for the middle of the bell curve doesn’t present difficulties for them, but those difficulties are the things to be managed, not the people. i.e. tall/short people may have a hard time finding clothes, being at the right height for photo booths, etc, but those are problems that can be managed. Similarly, deaf people can run into issues talking to people who don’t understand their language. The solutions in those scenarios would be teaching more people to sign, using interpreters, or–technology FTW–texting.

But then there’s things like cochlear implants. They don’t remove the barriers for deafness, they remove the deafness, which is a different thing entirely. You don’t have to know very much about deaf culture to see how this presents a real threat to deaf identity. There’s at least one documentary about the bitter and divisive struggle that has raged over cochlear implants. To deaf community activists, it’s very much like someone invented a cure for blackness, and sells it with the promise of how much easier it will be when you can hail cabs, get help from the police, and make it through in-person job interviews. All of these promises quite possibly being true, but missing the larger point.

Autism is in a similar place. It’s not neurotypical, but it’s within the natural variation of humanity. Many of the problems are simply with interacting with the society at large, and can be addressed individually without changing the identity of the person.

Anyway, that’s the background on that. Again, there’s a whole lot of wild twists and cul-de-sacs I avoided to keep things as simple as possible. So basically, “curing autism” is not something some people would want to pursue even if it were scientifically feasible, but “things that make being autistic in a non-autistic world a lot easier” are.

Sorry but I have to disagree. I don’t know how anyone could be against the idea of allowing the deaf ability to hear. I mean, I ok, if deaf wants to chose not get or use cochlear implants that is one thing. But to deny a deaf person that wants them the ability to get them? I don’t get that. Then there is this.

Also the problem for deaf people is more than just about other people not being able to understand their language. The problem is they can’t hear. This means they can’t enjoy music(and yes I know there is the ability to “sign music”, but that is not the same thing as actually listening to music). If someone is behind a deaf person and is at a distance and wants to warn them that something is about to fall on their head, they can’t, because the person can’t hear the warning. I can easily see all kinds of difficulties for those that can’t hear, other than just just language difficulties.

Was Jesus wrong to make the lame walk and the blind see?

TV’s Frink said:

Trump doesn’t know how to use Google. If he did he’d be smarter about the things he should be smart about. He knows how to watch Fox News and CNN, read the New York Times print edition, and post tweetles.

and he knows how to grab women by the *****. 😉

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

It’s a great example of how the Republican Party does not believe in Americans’ constitutional right to privacy. I’m sure the so-called strict constitutionalist conservatives like Ben Shapiro have already BSed a justification for this.

Did you mean this or were you being sarcastic?

Of course it isn’t sarcastic.

Sorry. I’m bad at detecting whether something is sarcasm or not.

Generally speaking people don’t make sarcastic statements that are completely reasonable responses to a comment without even a subtle tongue-in-cheek angle to it. I’m not saying I’ve never done it before, I probably have, but as a rule that’s generally the case.

There can be disagreements on what is and what is not completely reasonable, especially when talking politics.

moviefreakedmind said:

It turned rainbow.

When did it do that, when the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage?

I don’t like the whole, “I did something with a specific color so that means I’m contributing!” mindset anyway.

It seems to be the “in” thing to do though.

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

It’s a great example of how the Republican Party does not believe in Americans’ constitutional right to privacy. I’m sure the so-called strict constitutionalist conservatives like Ben Shapiro have already BSed a justification for this.

Did you mean this or were you being sarcastic?

Of course it isn’t sarcastic.

Sorry. I’m bad at detecting whether something is sarcasm or not.

moviefreakedmind said:

It’s a great example of how the Republican Party does not believe in Americans’ constitutional right to privacy. I’m sure the so-called strict constitutionalist conservatives like Ben Shapiro have already BSed a justification for this.

Did you mean this or were you being sarcastic?

SilverWook said:

How much taxpayer dollars does it take to change the lights to blue anyway?

Has the White House ever had the lights changed to pink for Breast Cancer?

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Fuck everybody.

😉

Well, autism isn’t something that you can “cure” in somebody. Now, if it were focused on determining specific causes and means of prevention, that would be different.

How do you know we won’t be able to cure in the future(maybe a couple hundred years from now)?

Maybe we could prevent people from being born with it, but it isn’t a disease that can be “cured” like the flu. It’s a condition affects the development and functioning of the brain and types of physical and social development too. It’s beyond even making a crippled person walk again or giving a blind person sight.

You never know what medical developments will come in the next 200 years. But I agree it would have to be cured before the brain develops too much.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Fuck everybody.

😉

Well, autism isn’t something that you can “cure” in somebody. Now, if it were focused on determining specific causes and means of prevention, that would be different.

How do you know we won’t be able to cure in the future(maybe a couple hundred years from now)?

Just got this from my Senator:

Dear friend,

I’ve always believed protecting the personal data of everyday consumers was something all Democrats and Republicans could agree on. It turns out I was wrong.

Just last year, the Federal Communications Commission took the historic step of creating a set of rules for internet service companies that said simply: Consumers should have a choice about whether to let their broadband provider share their sensitive personal information. Common sense, right?

But last week, Republicans in both the House and Senate pushed through a resolution to roll back basic consumer online privacy rights – allowing any internet service provider (ISP) to track, store, share, or sell our personal data – without our knowledge.

Think about it. Financial and health information…passwords…browsing history…even social security numbers. Anything we watch, write, or enter online or on our cell phones – all of it could be monitored, stored, and sold to the highest bidder.

All they need now is President Trump’s signature.

That’s why Senator Booker and I have sent a letter calling on the President to stand up for consumers and veto this resolution, and that’s why so many consumers are sharing their concerns with the White House.

I’ll continue to do everything I can to protect the personal information of consumers – it’s worth the fight.

Thanks for all you do to make New Jersey a great place to live, work, play, and raise a family.

Sincerely,

(here he posted a pic of his signature)

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want my personal info to be shared without my permission.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Warbler said:

Okay, I give up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmPhaG1ud38

LOL!

Okay, I give up.