Instructables

"Parenthood" TV show

ok so last night while flipping around on the TV i happened to pass by the TV show "Parenthood" on American TV (it's a pretty crappy show). unfortunately i happened upon a scene where two parents of a young child where discussing whether or not their child had aspergers. someone at school had apparently suggested they get their child tested for one reason or another, the mother was "receptive" but the father basically "flipped out" and denied that it was even a remote possibility (his tone suggested that someone had told them the equivalent of telling them that their child could possibly be the next antichrist or "gay hitler"). i didn't watch the whole show but i watched a few minutes of their discourse and flipped away. when i came back to it, the two parents were now at the home of a family that has an aspergers child. these parents were basically giving a rundown of what a horror story it is to have an aspergers child (with the TV sugar coating to make it seem like they were "coping" with it). the mother had pulled out some organizer that had all of these color coded cards with things like schedules, therapist numbers, behaviorists, and schedules for when the couple could have sex since dealing with their child was such a burdon that they couldn't possibly be intimate in any other way. all the while their child was bouncing off the walls moving from one random thing to the next, eventually plugging in his electric guitar and jamming out at a volume that drowned out the conversation in the other room. they painted a picture of complete chaos.

so basically, i know that having a child on the spectrum is a difficult job (depending on the level). but is this the "awareness" that's going to help the community? it made it look like having a child with aspergers was quite possibly the worst thing that could happen to you. i know the show is supposed to be a comedy (it's not funny at all) but i found it a bit annoying. i mean, if you think back to when people with down's syndrome started being portrayed on TV (thinking of corkie here) they were portrayed in a pretty good light for the most part. the struggles of having a "challenged" child were shown, but they were shown in a way that would give families going through the same situations  hope. that their child could be like this, that their child could have friends, and that they themselves could have a wonderful, enjoyable life with their "special child". the first time i see a sitcom mention aspergers in any way, and they make it seem like a total living nightmare. what's the deal?

hmm for some reason i couldn't get this posted in the aspies forum area....who the heck knows anymore (this forum software is screwy)

Goodhart3 years ago

This all got reflamed because someone
#1: found it listed through a google search
#2: signed up JUST to argue on this forum thread
#3: immediately without learning about anyone or aligning themselves with anyone, started to character assassinate
#4:  quickly left the fray

This among other things seems to tell us something about recent events, no?
Not going to lie here, I think you're over-reacting. Just because you don't find something funny doesn't mean that nobody else should. I have a right to find humour in whatever I feel like laughing at, and you can't stop me from doing so. So what's the big deal? Don't like it, don't watch it.
crapflinger (author)  the black jesus3 years ago
i didn't say YOU couldn't find it funny, i said I find it offensive.

you can laugh at whatever the hell you want to laugh at, but finding something funny doesn't make the thing you find funny right.

i think it's rediculously funny when someone falls down, doesn't make it cool for the guy who fell down.
. Ppl have made millions of USD falling down for our amusement. Eg, The Three Stooges, Steve Martin, and just about every comedian in Vaudeville. Someone else falling down is almost universally funny (I bet even Klingons get a chuckle out of pratfalls). You're not a bad person for laughing at another's misery, just human.
crapflinger (author)  NachoMahma3 years ago
you're seriously going to equate someone falling down on purpose to misrepresenting a medical condition? great argument path
> i think it's rediculously funny when someone falls down...
.  I'm just agreeing with you.
.
.
.  As for misrepresenting, I finally got the Parenthood site to work, but didn't locate the episode you refer to in the OP. I did watch a few minutes of a few episodes (couldn't stand much more heehee) but all I saw was a drama about some ppl trying to raise a special needs kid - not always very successfully. Judging by the short descriptions from Google when searching for an Asperger Parenthood episode, it looks like most ppl think they handle the facts pretty well for a TV drama.
crapflinger (author)  NachoMahma3 years ago
as i stated in the OP i didn't watch the entire episode. they may very well have turned the experience around and it's now positive. to reitterate, i didn't watch the whole episode and i haven't watched one since.

however my OP was about the part that i did see. the part i did see (based on my experience) COMPLETELY misrepresented the facts of Asperger's and how it presents in children (especially those of the age of the child in the show). 

i am almost 100% positive that the introduction of the character was done for good reasons (as well as to create conflict/intrigue in the plot line), however i think that their presentation was irresponsible. if they had done more research they could have gotten the same point across more accurately.


i'm all about suspension of disbilief when watching a fantasy, but if you're presenting things that are real (such as this show) then you should do your research first 
. So you base your indignation on scenes taken out of context and incomplete data? Cool.
crapflinger (author)  NachoMahma3 years ago
ABSOLUTELY! i acknowledged that in the OP, i've acknowledged it again, and i'll continue to do so if it comes back up.

however, i don't think i took the scene(s) that i was aggitated by out of context, as i did see the lead up and the exit from the scene that caused the most concern. the trouble with that scene (the child acting "insane") is the innacuracy of the child's activities, not the fact that the scene exists. IF they had done the scene correctly, accurately, responsibly, i probably wouldn't have been concerned at all.

the fact of the matter is that more and more children are being diagnosed as being "on the spectrum" every day (more occurance? or just better testing? who knows), and the public's knowledge about "the spectrum" ONLY comes from popular media. MOST people only know of rainman when you say autism, the other portion of the population think of Jenny Mcarthy's rediculous campaign to stop children from being immunized because she's convinced that an immunization gave her kid autism (which he doesn't actually have by the way).

i can't feel good sitting around when a growing subset of humanity is being marginalized because of ignorance. the makers of this show had a GREAT opportunity to educate and i feel that they dropped the ball in the introduction of the character (and by all rights they may be taking that opportunity now, but their introduction to the topic was off base).
. Why would anyone expect accuracy out of the entertainment industry? Their raison d'être is not to educate, but to make money by making us laugh/cry/&c.
.
.
> i can't feel good sitting around when a growing subset of humanity is being marginalized because of ignorance.
. It doesn't seem to affect your sitting around when I've been attacked about my age and the fact that I come from the Rural South. Is that somehow funny, but making fun of your pet group is taboo?
.

crapflinger (author)  NachoMahma3 years ago
everyone should expect accuracy out of the entertainment industry. especially when they're trying to portray reality. claiming that you shouldn't expect it because they don't achieve it is a bit silly

how do you know what effects me? what causes i take up? this show wasn't mocking the rural south (which is actually where i'm from, i would postulate that i'm from "more south" than you, unless you live somewhere in south florida)

i've also never been present for someone attacking your age. please don't try to include things in the argument/discussion at hand that aren't relevant. we could go through with a bevy of injustices and have a list a mile long but they're not relevant to this topic (though, arguably, once TBJ came around 90% of this isn't relevant to this topic)

i also don't have a pet group at all. any time something is portrayed inaccurately in a situation that's supposed to depict reality i get pissed off. i complain A LOT about the show CSI because they don't turn the damned lights on when the walk into a room, it's an inaccurate depiction of reality.

if a show inaccurately depicted people from the south as completely inbred ignorant hicks as if it were reality then i'd be indignant about that as well. but the fact is that most shows that follow that depiction are actually referencing the stereotype involved and not actually the cultural group that the stereotype references.

i get aggitated when someone is depicted as a cajun, or from new orleans but they have a COMPLETELY inaccurate accent. i don't get aggitated when someone is depicted as being the swamp dwelling cajun stereotype (e.g. "the waterboy") because in those scenarios they are accurately depicting a stereotype as satire.
> claiming that you shouldn't expect it because they don't achieve it is a bit silly
.  They don't even make a pretense of trying to achieve it. Once again, why would anyone expect accuracy from the entertainment industry? You have unreasonable expectations.
.
> how do you know what effects me? what causes i take up?
.  I don't. All I know is that you didn't get up out of your chair to take my side when I was attacked. And that's all I claimed.
.
> i've also never been present for someone attacking your age.
caitlinsdad is one of the worst offenders. Both for age and location. Some of the things c'dad has called me on IRC are NSFW, so I'll not repeat them here. IIRC, Skunkbait has referred to me as a Redneck and/or Hillbilly several times.
.
> please don't try to include things in the argument/discussion at hand that aren't relevant.
> i can't feel good sitting around when a growing subset of humanity is being marginalized because of ignorance
> any time something is portrayed inaccurately in a situation that's supposed to depict reality i get pissed off
.  The relevant point was that you don't seem to be able to work up much moral indignation for the mistreatment of any group but your own. If I'm missing something, please link me.
.
> if a show inaccurately depicted people from the south as completely inbred ignorant hicks as if it were reality then i'd be indignant about that as well
.  I'm still trying to figure out where you get the notion that a TV drama is supposed to depict reality.
>. I don't. All I know is that you didn't get up out of your chair to take my side when I was attacked. And that's all I claimed.

See:

>> i've also never been present for someone attacking your age.

>. caitlinsdad is one of the worst offenders. Both for age and location. Some of the things c'dad has called me on IRC are NSFW, so I'll not repeat them here. IIRC, Skunkbait has referred to me as a Redneck and/or Hillbilly several times.

You and I both know that Daddio is being tongue-in-cheek, not malicious. Also, you and Skunkbait trade that type of insult back-and-forth all the time - as I recall, when I objected to a "barefoot-and-pregnant" joke made in one such exchange, you accused me of being overly sensitive.

>. I'm still trying to figure out where you get the notion that a TV drama is supposed to depict reality.

First you are indignant that CF only gets upset over maltreatment of his "pet group", then you decry his indignation over totally different groups/portrayals. Which is it?

Also, the "artistic license" defense isn't some kind of universal coverall. We don't necessarily expect depictions of reality, but we (or at any rate, the FCC) do expect them to refrain from overly offensive depictions, regardless of basis in reality.
> You and I both know that Daddio is being tongue-in-cheek, not malicious.
. Precisely! And I saw no indication that the Parenthood show was being malicious. If you know of any scenes/episodes that demean Aspies, please link me.
.
.
> First you are indignant that CF only gets upset over maltreatment of his "pet group", then you decry his indignation over totally different groups/portrayals. Which is it?
. Huh? I don't understand the "then you decry his indignation over totally different groups/portrayals" part. My point was that TV Drama is not Reality nor does it pretend to be. There is no reason to get bent out of shape over fiction. "Dramatic programming is television content that is scripted and (normally) fictional." - Wikipedia/Dramatic Programming (my emphasis). Any expectation of accuracy is totally unjustified.
.
.
> Also, the "artistic license" defense isn't some kind of universal coverall. We don't necessarily expect depictions of reality, but we (or at any rate, the FCC) do expect them to refrain from overly offensive depictions, regardless of basis in reality.
. According to the reviews I read on the 'Net, only a very small minority find the show to be offensive. Apparently, most  caregivers find the show to be very accurate. http://www.google.com/search?q=Parenthood+Aspergers+review
>If you know of any scenes/episodes that demean Aspies, please link me.

I don't have the time/inclination to watch it, but I think that's the whole point - some people think there are.

>. Huh? I don't understand the "then you decry his indignation over totally different groups/portrayals" part.

I was referring to "I'm still trying to figure out where you get the notion that a TV drama is supposed to depict reality" (said in response to him saying that not only did THIS show bother, him, but that all shows that portray inaccuracies bother him). You say he's only concerned with one thing, and when he says he's actually concerned with many such things, you say he has unreasonable expectations.

>According to the reviews I read on the 'Net, only a very small minority find the show to be offensive. Apparently, most caregivers find the show to be very accurate

In 1972, only 46 percent of Americans believed women should have "an equal role with men in business, industry, and government". Since they were in the majority, does that mean they were right?

> but I think that's the whole point - some people think there are.
.  The whole point is, according to my Q&D survey of the 'Net, an insignificant number of ppl are offended by the show. Those ppl whose opinions actually might matter, the "acute" Aspies and their caregivers, seem to be almost unanimously in favor of the show.
.  Or they are ppl who can't be bothered with checking the facts. ;)
.
.
> I was referring to "I'm still trying to...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acI12jO0HSQ Still waaayyy over my head. There is nothing there for anybody to be indignant about.
.
.
> In 1972, only 46 percent of Americans...
.  What in the world has that got to do with anything?
.  Yes. What the majority thinks is offensive (or not), is (or is not). If they change their minds tomorrow, then what's offensive changes. We're not talking about "God-given rights", we're talking about opinion.
.  100 years ago, a female in a bikini bathing suit would have been considered by the majority to be offensive; today it's not. Yep. The majority was right back then and they are right today.
>Still waaayyy over my head. There is nothing there for anybody to be indignant about.

I don't seem to be communicating clearly...sorry.

What I mean is this: You said CF is only concerned with one group, and implied he should be concerned with more than one if he wishes to avoid hypocrisy. He replied that he's concerned with more than that one group. You responded that that was unreasonable.

>> What in the world has that got to do with anything?

An illustration of the point that just because the minority holds a belief (women should not have an equal role with men in X, Y, Z), it doesn't make it true or right.

Unless you argue that women truly shouldn't have had an equal role in science, business, and government in the 1970s, because the majority was against it...

>Yes. What the majority thinks is offensive (or not), is (or is not). If they change their minds tomorrow, then what's offensive changes.

I guess KKK lynchings only started being offensive in the last few decades?

That's an extraordinarily interesting definition of offensive. It's sure not what my dictionary says. Merriam-Webster online defines it as "causing displeasure or resentment". There's no "majority qualification" for something to be offensive. Something may be offensive to the majority, or to the minority, or to an individual.  

"Offensive" isn't something determined by the majority. If I find something offensive, and nobody else in the room does, I'm not "wrong". Just because an opinion differs from the majority doesn't mean that it is wrong, or should be ignored; just because an opinion is held by the majority doesn't mean it is right, or should be espoused.
> I don't seem to be communicating clearly...sorry.
> What I mean is this: You said CF is only concerned with one group, ... responded that that was unreasonable.
. I guess I'm not being very clear, either. He "claims" to be concerned for other groups, but I see absolutely no evidence of that and no one seems inclined to provide any.
.
.
> Unless you argue that women truly shouldn't have had an equal role in science, business, ...
. Where in the world did that come from?!? What I said had absolutely nothing to do with Womens' Rights - unless you consider WR to be an opinion. Stop trying to twist my words around like that.
> I guess KKK lynchings ...
. Egads! What next? Let's go ahead and get it over with - I'm a Nazi, too.
. Denying someone of Life (, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness) is not an opinion, it's a crime and it goes way beyond offensive.
.
.
>That's an extraordinarily interesting definition of offensive.
. But I thought we were talking about what society found offensive. Society as a whole decides what qualifies as patently offensive and worthy of censure, not a very small, but vocal, minority. So if, three, maybe four, ppl find something offensive, then we all must find it offensive?
> He "claims" to be concerned for other groups, but I see absolutely no evidence of that and no one seems inclined to provide any.

Hm. Some guy upthread said "I hate to tell you this, but your permission is not needed, and, as far as I can tell, is not being solicited..."

>. Where in the world did that come from?!? What I said had absolutely nothing to do with Womens' Rights - unless you consider WR to be an opinion. Stop trying to twist my words around like that.

'K, I'll stop trying to twist your words around when you stop trying to accuse me of trying to twist your words around - I did no such thing.

What I did do was to say, "Your argument, taken to its logical conclusion, does not work - unless you believe this (absurd) thing." Back in the 70s, the majority thought WR (or, more grammatically, that women should have equal rights/participation) was an opinion - a wrong one. And the majority decides what's offensive, right? Logically, back then, it was completely offensive and wrong for women to have an equal share in those things, because the majority thought so.

> Denying someone of Life (, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness) is not an opinion, it's a crime and it goes way beyond offensive.

That's not what the majority thought. They thought it was neither a crime, nor offensive. And the majority decides what's offensive.

>Egads! What next? Let's go ahead and get it over with - I'm a Nazi, too.

I was calling you neither Nazi nor neo-Nazi - merely pointing out the implications of the argument that the majority defines what is offensive.

I use extreme (if cliched) examples to point out that the arguments I refute break down when carried to their logical conclusion.

Does this offend you? ;) Maybe we should poll the thread, and find out what the majority thinks...

> But I thought we were talking about what society found offensive.

Sorry if we've been talking at cross-purposes. I was talking about what a small subset of society (the members involved) found offensive, even though the majority doesn't.

Also, that's very circular logic. Of course the majority defines what is offensive for the majority, but it doesn't define some sort of "objective offensiveness", and it doesn't mean that if the majority is OK with something, then that something is right.

>So if, three, maybe four, ppl find something offensive, then we all must find it offensive?

No, but we shouldn't say "you're wrong and oversensitive".
> Hm. Some guy upthread said "I hate to tell you this, but your permission is not needed, and, as far as I can tell, is not being solicited..."
. Not even remotely related as far as I can tell. What did I miss?
.
.
> I did no such thing.
. You most certainly did.
.
> What I did do was to say, "Your argument, taken to its logical conclusion,
. Oh no. You went waaayyy beyond logical.
.
> Back in the 70s, the majority thought WR
. That's all fine and good, but has noting to do with what I said - "We're not talking about "God-given rights", we're talking about opinion." Maybe I didn't make it clear that the Life/Liberty/PoH thing included all other civil rights. Or that "opinion" includes what is offensive, not what is criminal.
.
.
> was calling you neither Nazi nor neo-Nazi
. That was some of that "logical conclusion" stuff.
. You know good and well that bringing up the KKK (or Nazis) like that is inflammatory.
.
.
> No, but we shouldn't say "you're wrong and oversensitive".
. If only 3-4 ppl out of 300+ million (or almost 7 billion if we include all of Earth) think something is offensive, then, yes, I would have to say that they are wrong/over-sensitive/too out of touch with reality to really know if they were offended or not.
>. Not even remotely related as far as I can tell. What did I miss?

(We've moved on from "CF only cares about one group" to "CF only TRULY cares about one group, and lies about caring about other groups")

That I don't think CF cares what you think about his sincerity. ;)

>. You most certainly did.

No. I didn't, anymore than you did when you replied "unless you consider WR to be an opinion". Calling that quote of yours "word-twisting" would be as absurd as calling mine word-twisting; neither of them are.

I used *new words of my own* to illustrate the logical conclusion of your ideas. I said, "Your argument is invalid, UNLESS you agree with this absurd thing nobody agrees with". We both know neither of us believe any such thing as we said "unless you believe...", which is _why we said it_ - to illustrate the flaw in one anothers' statements.

>. Oh no. You went waaayyy beyond logical.

Do you mean I offended you? ;)

Seriously, I seem to have upset you, which was never my intent. Apologies.

Please do, however, show me the hole in my logic - explain how that is not your position taken to its logical end. It most certainly is.

If:

A) Majority opinion determines what IS offensive; and

B) Majority opinion used to be that KKK lynchings weren't offensive/women shouldn't have equal rights; then

C) KKK lynchings were formerly not offensive/equal rights for women were offensive.

QED.

Just 'cuz they hold emotional impact for you doesn't mean it's not logical.

>. That's all fine and good, but has noting to do with what I said - "We're not talking about "God-given rights", we're talking about opinion." Maybe I didn't make it clear that the Life/Liberty/PoH thing included all other civil rights. Or that "opinion" includes what is offensive, not what is criminal.

You don't seem to understand my point at all.

Today, I think you could reasonably say that it's the majority opinion that owning an iPod is not a God-given right. But what if the majority thinks it is in the future? Does that mean owning an iPod is an inalienable right if the future majority thinks so? What if we don't think so right now?

In the past, it was *majority opinion* that some people didn't have those "God-given rights". It's all well and good to pontificate on the errors of our forefathers, but hindsight is 20-20. Either the majority opinion IS always right, or it is NOT; I think I've sufficiently illustrated that it cannot, in part because it constantly shifts. If it's not, why does it determine what is offensive?

>. You know good and well that bringing up the KKK (or Nazis) like that is inflammatory.

Why is it inherently inflammatory? It isn't to me. Is it inflammatory - or shall we say, offensive - to you? This illustrates my point: who's "right", then? How do we determine?

I reiterate that extreme examples, while old and tired, yes, do illustrate the logical extremes, and are not necessarily invalid simply because you find them...offensive.

> If only 3-4 ppl out of 300+ million (or almost 7 billion if we include all of Earth) think something is offensive, then, yes, I would have to say that they are wrong/over-sensitive/too out of touch with reality to really know if they were offended or not.

Didn't know we polled the whole nation on this show.

Really? But I thought this was a difference in opinion, which by definition cannot be "right" or "wrong". You keep referring to "offensive" almost as if it was some objective standard.

Why does the majority get to decide anything? Simply the fact that everyone saying 4-5 people are crazy doesn't make it so, no matter how they shout. Galileo, Copernicus, etc, etc, etc.
> (We've moved on from "CF only cares about one group" to "CF only TRULY cares about one group, and lies about caring about other groups")
.  So asking for verification of unsubstantiated claims is calling someone a liar? Interesting theory, but not one I subscribe to.
.
.
> That I don't think CF cares what you think about his sincerity. ;)
.  Ah! Not sure why I didn't see that.
.  Judging by his last post or two, I'd have to say he does care - deeply. What I can't quite figure out is why.
.
.
> Do you mean I offended you? ;)
.  LOL. No, but I like the way you said that.
.
.
> Seriously, I seem to have upset you, which was never my intent. Apologies.
.  I am not upset at all. A little frustrated that I have been unable to Enlighten you :) , but certainly not upset.
.
.
> It isn't to me. Is it inflammatory - or shall we say, offensive - to you?
.  I didn't see it as offensive, but to claim that bringing up the KKK (or Nazis, or baby rapers, &c) in a public forum is not inflammatory is nothing short of disingenuous.
.  And to cut you off at the pass, yes, it's not necessarily inflammatory if the topic is the KKK, Nazis, or baby rapers. Context.
.
.
> This illustrates my point: who's "right", then? How do we determine?
.  Which has been the underlying current to my comments - "who's "right", then? How do we determine?" I'm betting that you don't want me to set the standard and I sure don't want you to have the job.
.
.
> Didn't know we polled the whole nation on this show.
. That's because we didn't. You moved from the specific of maligning Aspies to being offensive in general and hypothetically. I just followed your lead.
.
.
> You keep referring to "offensive" almost as if it was some objective standard.
.  And you keep shifting focus from society to the individual. Yes, society (the majority) codifies what if finds offensive and creates organizations such as the FCC to enforce those standards. Since the FCC hasn't filed any complaints against Parenthood, I'm assuming that it meets those standards.
.
.
> Why does the majority get to decide anything?
.  Uhhhh, because we have a Republican form of gov't? Isn't that how we elect the officials who make the laws and set the standards - majority rules? That doesn't mean the majority is necessarily right, but it does mean they get their way.
>Judging by his last post or two, I'd have to say he does care - deeply. What I can't quite figure out is why.

I don't think he cares what you think, I think he cares that you're publicly implying he's untruthful.

>to claim that bringing up the KKK (or Nazis, or baby rapers, &c) in a public forum is not inflammatory is nothing short of disingenuous.

You know, any time we debate, you always drag out that word "disingenuous" at some point; I have to say I'm not terribly fond of the practice. I've never said you were being anything but sincere; I address your points and not your intentions. At any rate, we're getting off-track, and talking about how our arguments make us feel, not their validity. You still haven't addressed my underlying point with that one. I'd appreciate if we could focus on what I've said, and not "you're being trollish!". AGF, man!

I stand by what I have said; I was not being inflammatory. Guess this is one of those "agree to disagree" things.

> So asking for verification of unsubstantiated claims is calling someone a liar? Interesting theory, but not one I subscribe to.

You've given no verification for your claim that you've been made fun of for "being a redneck/old/fat", but expect him to verify his claim that he cares about more than Aspies, which is like asking somebody to prove they love their spouse. He can perhaps point to evidence he's SAID he does, but A) that doesn't address whether he actually cares, and B) you haven't been inclined to show such evidence for your claims.

>I'm betting that you don't want me to set the standard and I sure don't want you to have the job.

So why are you taking on the job in this thread?

> And you keep shifting focus from society to the individual. Yes, society (the majority) codifies what if finds offensive and creates organizations such as the FCC to enforce those standards. Since the FCC hasn't filed any complaints against Parenthood, I'm assuming that it meets those standards.

Because we're talking about individuals. We're not talking about society. We're talking about what a few individuals on a thread find offensive, as opposed to the rest of society, and why we shouldn't dismiss their opinion out of hand simply because it is the minority opinion.

Also, the FCC isn't relevant because we're not talking about society at the moment - in referring to the FCC, I was addressing your "It's TV! Don't expect it to be real" point by making the point that:

"the "artistic license" defense isn't some kind of universal coverall. We don't necessarily expect depictions of reality, but we (or at any rate, the FCC) do expect them to refrain from overly offensive depictions, regardless of basis in reality."

>. That's because we didn't. You moved from the specific of maligning Aspies to being offensive in general and hypothetically. I just followed your lead.

Okay, so what is the cutoff percentage for having a cromulent opinion? Where's the safe harbor? Do you have to have at least 25 % of people agree with you? 10 %? Who sets that limit?

>. Uhhhh, because we have a Republican form of gov't? Isn't that how we elect the officials who make the laws and set the standards - majority rules? That doesn't mean the majority is necessarily right, but it does mean they get their way.

That 's all very nice (except that the majority doesn't always get their way...), but it doesn't have anything at all to do with the subject at hand, which involves private individuals discussing private views of what is offensive. Besides, the FF were scared of too much democracy, which is precisely why they put so many safeguards in place to guard against unchecked majority rule - partially so it wouldn't trample on the minority so much.

The majority doesn't decide what's objectively offensive. As is self-evident, the majority decides what is offensive to the majority; stated another way individuals decide what is offensive to themselves. And just because more people think something isn't offensive doesn't mean we get to say that those who are offended have an invalid opinion or are wrong in some fashion.
. OK. This will be my last post here (at least I will make every effort to make it the last). Just want to answer a few points and then I'll let you have the last word (if you want it).


> I don't think he cares what you think, I think he cares that you're publicly implying he's untruthful.
. A fine distinction in your eyes, perhaps, but all I'm saying is that I don't believe everything some stranger on the Intertubes says. Stretch that into calling him a liar if you will, but I seldom accept one source of information as being definitive.

> You know, any time we debate, you always drag out that word "disingenuous" at some point;
. You know, I was willing to back down last time and AGF, but you seem to be making a habit of it.

> At any rate, we're getting off-track
. Most definitely. Which is why I intend on making this my last post on the subject.

> You still haven't addressed my underlying point with that one.
. Please reiterate your point. I seem to have lost it in the shuffle.

> AGF, man!
. I tried. I really, really, tried.

> I stand by what I have said; I was not being inflammatory. Guess this is one of those "agree to disagree" things.
. k

> You've given no verification for your claim that you've been made fun of for "being a redneck/old/fat",
. No one has mentioned verification of my claim. In the absense of any discussion/request for links, I assumed it was accepted at face value. Your comment after my claim would certainly lead me to believe that you knew exactly what I was talking about (but disagreed with the interpretation).

> He can perhaps point to evidence he's SAID he does,
.  That would be fine. A history of at least trying to appear compassionate to other causes is not proof, but I would consider it valuable evidence.

> So why are you taking on the job in this thread?
. I'm not. I'm willing to let the FCC and other agents of society handle the job.

. That is all. You have succeeded in wearing this old man down.
crapflinger (author)  NachoMahma3 years ago
gave this whole thing a break over the holidays, but i've got things that need to be addressed before i call it quits.

the most important of which is this claim that you need verification/proof of my "activism" under certain critera.

First, i'm not sure who you think you are, or who you think i think you are that you feel the need to require proof from someone on the internet. it's laughable at best.

Second, i requested from you what type of proof you would accept, as i'm pretty sure none that could be offered would fall under the criteria that would satisfy your request. i guess i could talk about the charities i donate to (like the ones to help homeless people, hungry children, those with disabilities, those who live in war torn areas, the prevention of animal cruelty, the adoption of animals from shelters, the ones that help to promote the rights of the LGBT community, the ones that attempt to keep people from blowing up family planing clinics because of someone's misguided trust in a figment of their imagination, etc.. etc.. lather rinse repeat) or even show you reciepts (though i don't keep those) or i could come to wherever you are and go on a march with you, but none of those things are reasonable. you'll have to accept my word that i try to be socially active in many areas where i feel strongly enough to do so. (seeing as i don't think i've given you specific reason to not take my word, it should be acceptable)


third, while you seem to think asking for proof and calling someone a liar are two different things, they are in fact not. when someone makes a claim, and the other party requests proof it's because they doubt the veracity of said claim, which means they think the other party is lieing. this is extremely offensive to me personally because i don't think i've given you cause to assume that i'm being anything less than honest. and i don't take kindly to being called a liar.


fourth, as to proof. lack of evidence does not prove lack of existence. this is science speaking. just because you can't show physical evidence of an act, doesn't mean the act hasn't occured. i don't need physical evidence of the things that i do, because i know what i do and do not do and i have no need to prove otherwise to anyone. i could care less if you think that i do something or not, but don't call me a liar when i tell you that i do.

therefore i counter you to prove that i DO NOT stand up for things i believe in other than what has been specifically taken to task in this post. as i'm sure that you will not be able to come up with concrete proof that i have not stood up for things that i believe in, i humbly accept your acknowledgement that i do (applying the logic that lack of evidence proves lack of existence) 

and last on this point. asking for proof of a claim (especially that which is intangible) during a debate is a third grade tactic at best. were we of the appropriate age and proximity, that tactic would have rightly been met with a challenge to meet after 5th period english behind the monkey bars for an awkward 15 mintues of posturing, pushing, and subtle cues to our respective groups of friends to break up the "fight" before the teacher showed up and we all got detention.

being of a sufficient age to not require such sparing matches to prove my self worth, i sincerely decline your challenge.


now, since you have exhibited either a lack of ability or an overwhelming lack of desire to actually proffer a viable counter debate, or understand what is being said by your opposition, there's no chance of this debate actually ending. your continual regurgitation of the same short sighted points shows a severe lack of understanding of the long term objective of the things you've stated.

so in closing:

My entire point of the OP here was that I was personally offended by the inaccurate portrayal of a person with a disability (whether you agree with it's accuracy or not is irrellevant). i was curious as to whether anyone else felt the same, or if i was over reacting. several people who's opinions i respect seem to suggest that, while my evidence may have not been complete, that if my perception was correct, then my feelings were valid.

the secondary point, which was brought up through the rest of this disjointed discourse, is that the media has a responsibility towards accuracy when portraying events of reality. to that point we as consumers of said media should have an expectation of responsibilty and accuracy in such regards (again, since you don't seem to accept the definition of expectation here, i offer an examle. you as a parent expect your children to act in a specific way, the fact that they do not always act in the way that you expect does not negate your expectations).

i shan't go into the third, fourth, or any subsequent topics brought up here (eugenics and the like) because they serve no purpose at all in this particular post.
crapflinger (author)  NachoMahma3 years ago
> I guess I'm not being very clear, either. He "claims" to be concerned for other groups, but I see absolutely no evidence of that and no one seems inclined to provide any.

do you have a top to bottom, rock solid, historical account of every time you've "stuck up" for another group outside of your own? do you have documented evidence of your fight for civil rights? do you have a video of that time you punched a football player in the face because he was picking on a nerd?

yeah, neither do i. why the hell are you asking for me to "prove" that i care about anything other than asperger's in a thread that's not ABOUT anything other than an offense that i took to a scenario involving asperger's?


i've never ONCE told you what you have to find offensive, and i'll say it ONE MORE TIME REALLY FREAKIN LOUD! I HAVE NEVER ASKED FOR CENSURE OF THE SHOW, I HAVE STATED THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE RESPONSIBLE AND ACCURATE ABOUT THEIR PORTRAYAL OF A MEDICAL CONDITION.  if you'd take 5 seconds to pay attention you'd see that i've said that at least 3 times now.



if you can't see that you're going around in circles continually then there's no way any of us are going to make you see that.


the beliefs of the majority do not negate those of the minority. same with emotions, feelings, and the like. if every single person on the planet was ok with punching baby seals, but i wasn't, it wouldn't make my stance any less valid. 
crapflinger (author)  NachoMahma3 years ago
again, i'll say it. the scene in question didn't mock or specifically demean anyone. it wasn't in there for laughs, it wasn't a gag. it was a MISREPRESENTATION. they had the child acting in a way that is not wholely unlike a child with ADHD and too much time on their hands, however the child's behavior was COMPLETLY inaccurate with regards to a child with asperger's. so they did a disservice to families with children with asperger's by showing something completely inaccurate to a general public that has no frame of reference to know that it's inaccurate.

i'm done arguing as to whether or not something on TV is responsible for accuracy. apparently it's not, so from now on i give any tv show permission to at any time spout complete falsehoods and inaccuracies when depicting science/medicine/or anything else that's based in fact, no matter what the reprecussions
> again, i'll say it. the scene in question didn't mock or specifically demean anyone. it wasn't in there for laughs, it wasn't a gag. it was a MISREPRESENTATION.
. Sorry to be imprecise with my wording. I meant anything "anti-Aspie" in general, including misrepresentations.
.
> to a general public that has no frame of reference to know that it's inaccurate.
. No frame of reference?!? Just look in any dictionary for "drama" and/or "fiction". Apparently, you're one of only a small handful of ppl that don't realize what fiction is. Drama/fiction is, by definition, inaccurate. If you want accuracy, stay away from TV. I don't go to church when looking for sex and I don't go to the whorehouse when looking to save my soul.
.
> i give any tv show permission to at any time spout complete falsehoods and inaccuracies when depicting science/medicine/or anything else that's based in fact, no matter what the reprecussions
. I hate to tell you this, but your permission is not needed, and, as far as I can tell, is not being solicited by the media.
crapflinger (author)  NachoMahma3 years ago
while you're in the mood for looking up definitions, go ahead and actually look up the definition for fiction and then look up the definition for fantasy

Fiction's base definition:" is any form of narrative which deals, in part or in whole, with events that are not factual, but rather, imaginary and invented by its author(s). "

notice that "not factual" here does not mean innacurate, just meaning that the topics did not necessarily happen exactly as stated, or at all.

notice that there is also another subform of fiction

Realistic fiction:
"Realistic fiction, although untrue, could actually happen. Some events, people, and places may even be real. Also, it can be possible that in the future these events could physically happen. Realist fiction appears to the reader to be something that is actually happening."

this is the heading that THE MAJORITY of sitcoms on TV actually fall under. REALISTIC FICTION, the whole point of all of them is that the things that happen COULD IN FACT really happen, they just usually don't happen to most people. therefore an expectation of accuracy is in fact appropriate. in any realistic fiction (or any NON FANTASY fiction) functional accuracy is actually a driving force behind viewer acceptance of the story. if you're being told a story full of things that can and do really happen all the time to a large portion of the population, and all of a sudden without explanation aliens show up and start eating cats, then the story is lost.


the overridding definition of fantasy is that it has no basis in reality or very little basis in reality. and therefore has NO expectation of accuracy i.e. it's really stupid to complain about things that "cannot happen" in a zombie movie, even if EVERYTHING in the movie except for the zombies is "real". once ONE thing that couldn't happen ever is introduced it's fantasy and no longer simple fiction
. Whatever definition one chooses to use, it still boils down to the fact that it is foolish to think that everything/anything on TV is going to be accurate (some things _are_ accurate, but don't bet on it). I don't buy a car when I want to go boating and I don't watch TV for an education. Use the right tool for the job.
. If we were talking about a video/article/&c that claimed to be scientific, it would be different, but we're talking about TV.
.
. Are you really qualified to recognize the difference between ADHD and AS?
crapflinger (author)  NachoMahma3 years ago
technically qualified? no of course not. anecdotally? possibly?

i've been diagnosed (for my whole life) with ADHD, Dyslexia, mild OCD, antisocial disorders, and a few other mild learning disabilities and developmental dissorders.

i've taken SEVERAL informal Asperger's tests (some administered by medical professionals but not for the purpose of achieving a writen diagnosis) and meet pretty much all of the criteria.

i've also spent quite a bit of time living and working with ADHD children (in previous jobs and you know, being an ADHD child in school with other ADHD children) and i've been around a few children with varying degrees of Asperger's/Autism(notably fewer than the ADHD kids)


In my anecdotal experience children with asperger's aren't that bouncie and they don't shift between tasks that fast. in the show the kid was litterally bouncing between tasks within seconds of starting. that's how ADHD works. ADHD obliterates your attention span, your ability to focus on anything ever for any long period of time.

that's NOT how asperger's works (from my knowledge) Asperger's actually serves to INTENSIFY your focus on a given task (especially if it's one of your chosen tasks that interest you). so the child would more likely have only been doing ONE of the things they showed, and doing it A LOT, very intensly and any attempt to break the child out of that activity would have resulted in confusion or anger.

from the interwebz "People with Asperger syndrome often display behavior, interests, and activities that are restricted and repetitive and are sometimes abnormally intense or focused. They may stick to inflexible routines, move in stereotyped and repetitive ways, or preoccupy themselves with parts of objects.[19]"


now, the kid COULD have both ADHD and Asperger's but in that situation (again, based on anecdotal evidence) the ADHD would make menial tasks and things the kid doesn't enjoy UNBEARABLE and hard to stick with for any period of time (school work on a subject they don't like would be difficult and their mind would wander from place to place), but the Aspie side would cause them to hyper focus on the things they enjoy doing (none of the things the kid in the episode were doing involved menial tasks, it was all playtime)

my own formative experiences showed this latter patern of hyper focus on things that interested me (probably where the OCD diagnosis came from, i still feel that diagnosis is completely wrong) to a point where i would ignore every thing else (i still do this, if i get started on a project that i like i'll miss meals, appointments, anything. i just keep on plugging away) but when it came to things that didn't specifically fall into my "sweet spot" of interest i couldn't focus if i tried (still the same way, come watch me give a presentation at orientation at work, it's misserable).
> technically qualified? no of course not.
.  Thank you.
.  Being ADHD or AS does not make one an expert on the condition any more than being myopic makes one an expert on optometry.
.
.  You don't seem to be able to comprehend that TV is not real and my fingers are getting sore, so I'm outta here. I hope that chip on your shoulder doesn't get too heavy.
. Being ADHD or AS does not make one an expert on the condition any more than being myopic makes one an expert on optometry.

However, may I venture that they are probably more knowledgeable that those who do not suffer from the condition?

Thanks to family/personal events, I know much more than I would like to about myopia, dentistry, polio, skin cancer, depression, bipolar conditions, kidneys, appendixes, joint disorders...
> However, may I venture that they are probably more knowledgeable that those who do not suffer from the condition?
. Yes you may. The questions are: what is the baseline? and how much more? If my knowledge of ADHD is the baseline and one has twice as much knowledge of ADHD as I do, one is still pretty ignorant.
. Thanks to family/personal events, I know much more than I would like to about myopia, dentistry, depression, bipolar conditions, joint disorders, heart disease, Alzheimer's... but I wouldn't consider myself enough of an expert to be making diagnoses based a few minutes of observation of a fictional character on TV.
.
.
. PS: Some of the AS ppl may be offended that you say they "suffer" from their condition. ;)
... but I wouldn't consider myself enough of an expert to be making diagnoses based a few minutes of observation of a fictional character on TV.
He wasn't diagnosing, he was recognising a highly-inaccurate representation.

. PS: Some of the AS ppl may be offended that you say they "suffer" from their condition. ;)
I don't think anybody enjoys being on the receiving end of any of the conditions I listed. I/we certainly didn't/don't.

> He wasn't diagnosing, he was recognising a highly-inaccurate representation.
. How can you recognize it if you don't make a diagnosis?
.
. I still don't see where CF is qualified to make that determination, especially in light of all the reviews on AS-oriented sites that praise it for content and accuracy ( http://www.google.com/search?q=Parenthood+Aspergers+review ).
.
.
> I don't think anybody enjoys being on the receiving end
. That was a gentle poke at your use of language that some might consider non-PC. You didn't mention AS anywhere on your list of ailments, so "I/we" is not appropriate.
> How can you recognize it if you don't make a diagnosis?

See my eczema example. I may not be qualified to confirm the presence of a medical condition in a patient, but I am certainly qualified to recognize that a TV show's depiction of the medical condition does not jive with either my personal experience or medical literature.

>You didn't mention AS anywhere on your list of ailments, so "I/we" is not appropriate.

It's very grammatically appropriate.

Kiteman wrote: "I don't think anybody enjoys being on the receiving end of any of the conditions I listed. I/we certainly didn't/don't."

The conditions Kiteman listed are: "myopia, dentistry, polio, skin cancer, depression, bipolar conditions, kidneys, appendixes, [and] joint disorders."

Kiteman was referring to non-enjoyment of the conditions he listed. (As to the implication that people with Aspergers, like himself, may not enjoy what they have - this is from what I know partly true - some do and some do not.)
> See my eczema example.
. Are you really trying to compare diagnosing a medical condition with well defined physical symptoms and a wide-spectrum mental condition that even the experts don't fully understand? The same condition that many doctors, psychologists, and psychiatrists misdiagnose after a clinical evaluation? And doing it remotely? By amateurs? I ain't buyin' it.
.
.
> It's very grammatically appropriate.
. Perhaps I read it wrong, but it appears to me that "I/we" refers to "family/personal" in a previous msg. In any case, it's not really material - it was just some nit-picking on my part.
> Are you really trying to compare diagnosing a medical condition with well defined physical symptoms and a wide-spectrum mental condition that even the experts don't fully understand? The same condition that many doctors, psychologists, and psychiatrists misdiagnose after a clinical evaluation? And doing it remotely? By amateurs? I ain't buyin' it.

Your strawman's cute. But there isn't much to him.

Nope. Nobody's "diagnosing" anything. We are saying "I don't know what this kid's got, but I know what he DOESN'T have, based on what I see". If I watch a show about mental illness which claims an obese man screaming at a light pole about the aliens is doing this because he has anorexia, I can say "Golly, Nacho, I don't know what that guy has, maybe it's X or Y, I dunno, but it surely isn't anorexia!" That's not a diagnosis; it's recognizing an inaccurate diagnosis, which is entirely different.

Also, Aspergers has well-defined diagnostic criteria; just because some clinicians make mistakes/are ill-informed/are incompetent doesn't speak to the ease of diagnosis (which nobody is even doing).
crapflinger (author)  NachoMahma3 years ago
the diagnosis was made on the show, i don't have to diagnose someone as having a condition when someone says "hey this kid has this thing"

what i can do is make an observation based on my experience that states that the depiction was inaccurate

i'm not an expert on dinosaurs, but i know for a fact that Jurrasic park had Velociraptors that were at least 5 times the size of the real ones (the ones in the movie were 8-9 feet tall. real ones were the size of beagles with really long tails). i don't have to be an expert to notice the fact that it's inacurate, i just have to know what reality is.
Yes.

I cannot diagnose eczema, but I can say "Hey, that television show states the main character has eczema on her hands, but her hands are smooth and silky and perfect instead of cracked and bleeding! That's not accurate."
crapflinger (author)  NachoMahma3 years ago
inability to focus strikes again...forgot the first part.

you're confusing what is currently the state of media, and what should be expected from the media.

everyone SHOULD expect accuracy and responsibility from the media. when i say expect, i don't mean you should currently turn on the tv and believe everything that comes out of it. what i mean is that you should REQUIRE from your media outlets, accuracy and responsibility, and hold the media accountable when they fall down from that level.
. Please indulge Ol' Uncle Nacho while he reminisces. When NachoDaughter was much younger, her Mother and I tried not to censor what she watched on TV but would instead would explain to her what was going on and why it might not be "right." One day I started with an explanation, but, before I could get very far, she turned to me and said (in that voice of disdain that only kids have) "It's only TV! It's not real!" Nacho quit worrying about what she watched.
. All that just to say: If you want truthfulness/accuracy/&c, even a little kid knows TV ain't the place to look.
>even a little kid knows TV ain't the place to look.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but whoa! Not necessarily!
. OK. So I exaggerated a little. You get the point.
I'm afraid you exaggerated quite a lot. "Knowing" you, I would think that it is reasonable say that your children are among the better brought-up section of modern society.

I have a perpetual low-level battle against "it must be true, I saw it on TV / the internet", to the level that children in double-digits will actively argue that men have visited extra-solar planets, and their models of extinct animals are based solely on the Jurassic Park films...

. So we blame the media because some ppl aren't fit parents? If I had let NachoDaughter out on the highway at 8 yo old and she wrecked the car, would you blame Ford for the accident?
No, I'm saying that there are a lot of parents who do nothing to correct the inaccurate "information" the children are flooded with when they are left in front of the TV and PC.

I also think you are in the mood for an argument tonight - I'm going to leave this thread for now.

> there are a lot of parents who do nothing to correct the inaccurate "information" the children are flooded with when they are left in front of the TV and PC
. We punish the media for the sins of the parents?!? That doesn't seem very just to me. Wouldn't a better solution be to make ppl do their job as parents? Wouldn't it be better for the children, and society in general, if parent's were held responsible for raising the kids that they brought into the world. Why should the media (or anyone else) be charged with babysitting?
. Or how about just requiring that all TVs and PCs have an on/off switch? If one can't figure out how to operate the switch, maybe one has no business trying to raise kids.
crapflinger (author)  NachoMahma3 years ago
>Nacho quit worrying about what she watched. . All that just to say: If you want truthfulness/accuracy/&c, even a little kid knows TV ain't the place to look

see, that's actually the problem that i'm complaining about. it's not that someone with asperger's was depicted, it's not NECESSARILY that the depiction was negative. it's the fact that the depiction was innacurate and irresposible.

as a society why don't we expect accuracy and truthfulness from our media anymore? why was fox news allowed to actually call part of the health care reform "death panels" and convince MILLIONS of old people that their doctors were being given money to plot their deaths? Its because we don't force media makers to be responsible any more. they're answer to the question above was "well, it was a hot story and it got ratings. we forgot to fact check"....wait, what? a "news" orginization forgot to FACT CHECK! and WE let them?
This is why we have so many children jumpping off of buildings as superman, etc. Back when I was younger, we DID know that Bugs Bunny was not "real" and you could not stand on the underside of a tree limb. Either the children have gotten dumber, or the parents stopped teaching sense; letting the schools be the parents.....it isn't something we can regulate. but man does that forshadow a future idiocracy.
It isn't true misery in Vaudeville - it's laughing at exaggerated, known-to-be-faked injury (I don't laugh if I see someone fall and hurt themselves IRL).
One of the most confusing scenes to me in a comedy was the end of a Monty Python skit, people in 1950's period clothing were gathered about a piano in the garden, and having a picnic. They organized a picture to be taken and when the flash went off, the keys cover closed and chopped off the pianist's hands, and that caused a tennis ball to be launched and all kind of destruction occurred (tennis racket through someone's torso, etc. There was blood and guts everywhere, and the audience was roaring with laughter..... I almost lost my supper at the time.
Hmm, I guess this is why I never found the three stooges very funny. I am not sure how "human" it is, but it does seem to fit a certain mind set (male, typical). Most females, and several other psychies do not find such things any more then insulting. Would I "demand" they take anything off the air? No, do I think they could show better judgement? Sure. Most people could, but don't.
.  Wiley Coyote? :)
.
.  I'm very sure that it is very human. Slapstick, pratfalls, and physical humor in general, have been a big part of comedy since the invention of entertainment. My experience is that most ppl of any race, color, creed, national origin, or gender find pratfalls at least mildly humorous. An almost all-inclusive demographic.
.
.  Can't say that I've ever met a woman that was insulted by pratfalls and such, but I haven't seen everything. I've met several that weren't interested in slapstick, but they weren't insulted.
.  Contrary to popular belief, most women really do have a sense of humor. heehee
Most of them will tell you up front: they don't GET IT.. IT's not FUNNY. Steve Martin is another one. Any idiotic act to appear funny. o_0 The verbal humor of Abbott and Costello was funnier (who's on first? The Flea Flew, etc).

It isn't that they do or don't have a sense of humor, but it is different then most men's "sense" or lack thereof. And for a growing portion of the population, slap schtick is about as funny as movies like Friday the 13th.  
On that same note, if they fell and broke their neck and died, it wouldn't be so funny anymore.
NachoMahma4 years ago
.  Did you notice that Parenthood is a Comedy? A large part of Comedy is exaggeration.
Some things are just not funny though.  

 


Humor is the only test of gravity, and gravity of humor; for a subject which will not bear raillery is suspicious, and a jest which will not bear serious examination is false wit. - Aristotle
So, it is OK to laugh at the guy with no arms because he can't eat  on his own? 

Or the socially inept because of how they were born? 

 It is one thing to make fun of the "stupid things we do" but to make fun of something by encouraging inaccuracies it not a good thing. 

I do prefer laughing at my own ineptness though:  When they came out with those deodorant pads I thought you wore them under your arms.  Can you image what I'd have looked like on the beach?  Look at the goofy guy ! He wears pads under his arms !

But this is not the same as portraying the handicapped as idiots.
 
crapflinger (author)  Goodhart4 years ago
i concur

though..my own personal issue isn't with the "comedy" ploy....it's with the use of misinformation for the sake of plot development. it's ok to "stretch" the boundaries of truth in a sci-fi movie or a fantasy. but it's NOT ok to misrepresent scientific facts in a show/film/movie that's supposed to be representing reality or is supposed to show the humor in real life situations. if they had done even a modicum of research they would have been able to pull the scene off in a way that didn't make it look like having a child "on the spectrum" is the worst thing possible. their show would have been just the same if they had decided to not go down that road.

which people already think as it is, there are a number of groups advocating for the development of in-utero testing for autism spectrum disorders so that parents will be able to make an informed decision about terminating a pregnancy, just like the in-utero testing for downs syndrome. which i think is reprehensible.


i get just as outraged when they show someone on CSI taking down a perp, or walking into a room to collect evidence WITHOUT turning on the lights (dude you can't look for fingerprints in the dark)
You wrote: 
which people already think as it is, there are a number of groups advocating for the development of in-utero testing for autism spectrum disorders so that parents will be able to make an informed decision about terminating a pregnancy, just like the in-utero testing for downs syndrome. which i think is reprehensible.

And I agree.  In  fact, if  they ARE able to, and do start removing "those on the spectrum"; the world  will lose all it's Mozarts,  Einsteins, and Edisons.   This is the very thing that Dr. Attwood was partitioning against. So, this is not really new.  Just more widespread (or more widely known?).   For any that are not "on the spectrum" it seems a light thing to them for us to go through the bullying and horror of childhood at the hand of ignorant children;  but those very children, sadly, tend to become ignorant adults.

Ignorance of what the world is "ACTUALLY" doing, is bliss for many, and an absolute horror for quite a number of us.

 
Typical pro-Asperger's false rhetoric. There's absolutely no concrete reason to believe that Mozart, Einstein or Edison had any form of autism. In fact, to do so is to deny their gifts as actual giftedness, and instead pass it off as a symptom of a disorder, which, as far as I'm concerned, is demeaning.

And you know what? Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, it's up to the parents. If I don't want my son to have brown eyes, I SHOULD, in theory, be allowed to have him aborted.
crapflinger (author)  the black jesus3 years ago
Your use of the word "pro-asperger's" is appalling here. you're suggesting that someone being on the side of helpling someone with a disability is somehow a bad thing.

guess what, there are A LOT of people in the world with Asperger's or Autism (or anywhere else on the spectrum) do you suggest that we go back to the 40's and 50's mentality of just shoving these people back into institutions and never letting them see the light of day?


"And you know what? Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, it's up to the parents. If I don't want my son to have brown eyes, I SHOULD, in theory, be allowed to have him aborted."

that opinion frames what's wrong with the human race. it's disgusting. and enraging. knowing that this is basically the worst thing that you can do on the internet, you know who else in history shared that view? yeah, that guy.

there's no way i can comment completely on that statement without violating the rules of this forum, so i'm going to leave it.
Godwin's law! I caught that LOL

It is sad to witness such, isn't it?
crapflinger (author)  Goodhart3 years ago
i figured you would.


Nacho, i don't know about name calling, but advocating the termination of a pregnancy because you would prefer to not have a blue eyed baby does fit the model (i'm quite sure that "black jesus's" comment was hyperbolic, which is why my response was as well) 
> i don't know about name calling
.  Let's see ..... in no particular order: implying that ppl are Nazis, calling ppl trolls, saying ppl are ignorant, saying ppl's worldview is ridiculous, &c, &c, &c, ad nauseum.
.  If y'all are so concerned about ppl making fun of other ppl, then why do you ignore all the ppl that make fun of me for being: old, a Redneck, a Hillbilly, &c?
.
> advocating the termination of a pregnancy because you would prefer to not have a blue eyed baby
.  TBJ doesn't advocate that. He only says that it should be an option. Would you deny a woman the right to remove an unwanted growth from her body? What next - she can't remove a tumor or infected appendix?
.
.
.  TBJ may be one of only a dozen or so ppl in the world with less tact than I, but he makes some good points.
crapflinger (author)  NachoMahma3 years ago
comparing any suggestion towards eugenics and things that occurred during WWII is a pretty solid argument. i AT NO POINT IN TIME called ANYONE a nazi, i compared the concept of aborting a fetus because you didn't want it to have blue eyes to that of killing jews (and other non aryans) to create a "master race" because you/your ethnocentric group decided that you didn't like their characteristics. it's not exactly a giant leap between one concept and the other. if you'd prefer to avoid the nazi comparison, it's similar to any other event in history when one group was persecuted or killed because another group wasn't a big fan of the color of their skin/eyes/hair/God.

> TBJ doesn't advocate that. He only says that it should be an option. Would you deny a woman the right to remove an unwanted growth from her body? What next - she can't remove a tumor or infected appendix?


and i say that it shouldn't be an option. and i don't particularly care what your views on pro-life/pro-choice issues are (i'm HEAVILY pro-choice, but there's a logical end to where your choice should end IMO) but i think that most rational humans can make a distinction between a growth on their own body and a fetus, if you're not capable of making that distinction then i don't know where this discussion could ever go. and the termination of a fetus shouldn't (AGAIN IMO) be based on non life threatening statistics. this isn't an issue of morality from the stand point of terminating a life, it's an issue of continuing our species in such a way as to not promote homogeneous lineages of "perfect" offspring. it flies directly in the face of evolution, you know, that thing that's responsible for us being the most advanced life form on this planet? if people are allowed to tailor their children to exactly what they want them to be (which, in most cases will be whatever will give them the best chance of success as an adult), then every child on the planet is going to end up being a muscular white male (sorry everyone else, but no matter how far we've come as a society, the healthy, attractive, muscular, white male is still at the top of the chain of success)
.  I AT NO TIME IN TIME said you called anyone a Nazi. If you will actually read my post, I said that it was IMPLIED that someone was a Nazi - which is exactly what happened.
.
.  Prospective parents have used all sorts of methods to affect the sex, hair color, build, skin color, &c of their children since Mankind figured out that it could be done. While the comparison to Eugenics is technically correct, it is gross exaggeration and meant to incite passion, not a reasoned argument. It worked very well.
.
> i say that it shouldn't be an option
.  So what? Apparently TBJ and you disagree. Big deal.
>. I AT NO TIME IN TIME said you called anyone a Nazi. If you will actually read my post, I said that it was IMPLIED that someone was a Nazi - which is exactly what happened.

Nope. It was said that someone's philosophy resembled that of the Nazis. Big difference.

>While the comparison to Eugenics is technically correct, it is gross exaggeration and meant to incite passion, not a reasoned argument. It worked very well.

No, it's not. That's what Eugenics *IS*.
. But the word "Eugenics" is inseparable from the Nazis. Eg, "has fallen into disfavour after having become associated with Nazi Germany" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics  and "...eugenics had become `hopelessly perverted' into a pseudoscientific facade for `advocates of race and class prejudice, defenders of vested interests of church and state, Fascists, Hitlerites, and reactionaries generally'" (I, Kevles 1985, p. 164) - http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/publications/scopenotes/sn28.htm

crapflinger (author)  NachoMahma3 years ago
when used correctly eugenics CAN in fact be separated from Nazism. In modern language and perception it's pretty hard. HOWEVER, when speaking of Eugenics you have to consider the ways that eugenics as a process is achieved. it's not done by politely asking everyone to not have babies with ugly people. it's done by making policies that restrict the rights of people.

China's one baby policy is eugenics. Because of population growth they instated a policy that every family could only have one child. in chinese culture it's EXTREMELY important to have a boy, therefore, if you found out you were having a girl, you got rid of it. this policy resulted in a VERY large disparity in the sexes of children in china .

there has NEVER been a successful eugenics program, ever. and there never will be. do you really want PEOPLE to be in charge of this stuff?
Much like I wrote that someone was ACTING like....but I didn't say WAS one. ;-)
crapflinger (author)  NachoMahma3 years ago

> i say that it shouldn't be an option . So what? Apparently TBJ and you disagree. Big deal. right which is my point, why are you jumping up and down about two other people having an argument/discussion?

and i never implied that any individual involved was a nazi, i compared the topics that he was discussing to certain nazi behavior (though, said behavior is in no way limited to that particular facist regime. MANY other governments have tried eugenics and genocide, not just nazis)

>Prospective parents have used all sorts of methods to affect the sex, hair color, build, skin color, &c of their children since Mankind figured out that it could be done. While the comparison to Eugenics is technically correct, it is gross exaggeration and meant to incite passion, not a reasoned argument. It worked very well.

you have a list of any of those that are scientifically proven to effect the actual genetic make up of a child before birth with 100% accuracy? the comparison to eugenics is not a gross exaggeration when someone is suggesting that it's someone's right to pick and choose when someone is allowed to live based on eye color.

i WHOLEHEARTEDLY support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy because they simply don't want a child, i support their right to terminate a pregnancy because their health is at risk, i support their right to terminate a pregnancy that's the result of rape. i DO NOT (and it's my belief that no one else should either) support anyone's right to terminate a pregnancy because there's a high chance that the child will come out with blue eyes (again, i'm using the example that was given above because that's the extreme that was suggested). i'm EXTREMELY doubious of the right to terminate a pregnancy because of non-life threatening conditions that may/may not be present in a fetus at the time of conception.
 

You can't see the difference between terminating a pregnancy in the body of your self or your partner, and rounding up private citizens to murder them? One thing is the exercise of civil liberty, and the other is its breach.

You say yourself that you are "pro-choice", which I would have thought would mean that you agree that a woman has "personal sovereignty" over her own body, at least to a certain point in the pregnancy. People are allowed to pick and choose from traits that would be present in either parent, since you can't magic genes where there are none. Bar a few very rare cases, two black parents won't have a white baby, and likewise, it's not possible (based on my understanding of genetics) for two blue-eyed parents to have a brown-eyed child. Who knows... Maybe, at some stage, that'll be an option, but right now, it isn't, and so it's not what I'm talking about. All I'm saying is that parents should have a right to select from the traits that they can offer their child. How is that wrong? Can you explain?
. Indeed it is. >heavy sigh< 'Tis always sad to see Godwin's Law invoked. Seems there is a bit of name-calling by both sides of this discussion. ;)
It was not my purpose to call any names. I am not wired that way. I normally point out what I am observing. It seems to get lost in the translation however ;-)
It's not just encouraging "helping someone with a disability", though, it's making the topic of Asperger's a socially untouchable issue, demanding that no joke ever be made about the syndrome, and insisting that Asperger's Syndrome is central to humanity. That's just plain silly, and if you can't see that, then you need a reality check.

Oh? The theoretical right that I propose for parents to have with regards to their offspring exemplifies everything wrong with humanity? I'm not saying (to continue with this particular example) that we should forcibly breed brown eyes out of the gene pool. I'm saying that if a woman's foetus is know to be going to have brown eyes, and the parents would prefer otherwise, that they should, in theory, be allowed to avoid this. It's none of anyone else's business, not mine, and not yours, what they decide to do with their pregnancy, until a certain arbitrary stage.

It has nothing to do with Nazism. I can see no reason for my assertion that others have rights to enrage or disgust you. For the record, though, if I did not disagree in principle with the intrinsic breach of civil liberties that would come with it, some kind of state-sponsored eugenics programme for the purpose of, say, increasing the public intellect, would be quite a nice thing, I think. I guess that'd stop you from reproducing, too.
Actually, there are many reasons to believe they had them. Those that have Asperger's tend to BE VERY GIFTED, so having Asperger's doesn't deny them this, it helps concur the fact that they may have had this very highest functioning form of Autism; Asperger's. Those that want to "cure" Aspergers, want to rid the world of genius.

The world needs ALL kinds of minds....

"They were smart.
Therefore, they had Asperger's Syndrome."

Seems like a non-sequitur to me. I'm pretty clever myself, but I'm not autistic. What's your point here? You think there'd be no smart people if there was no autism?

Point being, it detracts from their genius to call it a sumptom of a disorder. It really does, because it takes the credit away from the individual.
No, they were of the mind, with the symptoms as all of them had similar problems dealing with . Actually, studies are starting to show that Asperger's may be where evolutionary process is heading, away from mindless useless chit-chatters and persons that can not focus and into a phase where people actually CAN pay attention to details that NT's like yourself miss.
As Temple mentioned in her talk, it is a SPECTRUM, meaning individuality with each individual, so it doesn't detract anything except in the minds of most NT's . Many times, it is the co-morbids that seem to detract from wiring of the brain that brings about the creative, the detail and focus drive that adumbrates Aspies.
You're stereotyping me (and everyone else on the planet) as an unfocused, gossiping moron, who can't see the trees for the forest, simply because I *DON'T* have a disability?
Good on you. You're clearly a very intelligent person.
nope, not at all. Not all NT's are like that. But one of the "symptoms/tests" for Asperger's involves noticing things others do not. So, is that a disability?
Everyone notices some things that some others don't notice. That's a symptom as the condition is defined, but it is not proof of a disorder, in and of itself.
Not at all true (except on a very small scale, which we are not talking about here). No matter the situation presented, someone with Asperger;s will consistently pick out and notice more detail, period. But of course, since I said it was only one symptom, it is not proof of anything, just evidence to add to the pile of others. Many many other tests are needed, especially to diagnose an adult; since, by adulthood, over half of the co-morbids are ensconced or compensated for.
crapflinger (author)  Goodhart4 years ago
*high five* and/or *right on*
I find that ifrst example hilarious. Why should the handicapped be exempt from having fun poked at them? It's okay to make fun of normal humans, but when someone is a bit less human than everyone else, it's somehow a horrible thing to do and becomes completely taboo to have a joke at their expense? Not in my world.
It's ok when we make fun of our own foibles, but making sport of another for any "problem" that is no fault of their own is hateful. Sure it's ok to make fun of a fool because he CHOOSES to be a fool. In the world you describe, it is ok to make fun of races because of their race, the handicapped, or even eye color, etc, since these are not ones choice at birth.
Who are you to tell me what I can and can't find amusing? What I'm getting at here is that you have absolutely no authority over my sense of humour. BRB, Googling for dead-baby jokes.
crapflinger (author)  the black jesus3 years ago

again you can personally find whatever you like funny, and you can tell whatever jokes you want. but when it's something that's on TV, it should have a different standard applied.


also, the "bit" that this whole post is about is part of the drama section of this comedy/drama. they're not claiming that it's funny as hell that this kid has autism, they're claiming that it's the worst thing that could possibly happen to a family

It isn't "really" the asperger's that causes the problems, but the co-morbids that accompany it; and they come out when others demand that they be cookie-cuttouts of the rest of society; i.e. "just like them". Well, we would still be using sticks and stones for tools most likely if it weren't for those few whose brains are wired differently.
Oh, I see, you're one of those sad Asspies that genuinely thinks every single development ever made by the human species is down to autistic people. Give me a break.
No, only those that are symptomatic. And you have been antagonistic ever since you arrived, why do you think you deserve a break ?
Rather, give me a break from your autism-centric worldviews, because they are ridiculous. It would seem that you, yourself, suffer from Asperger's Syndrome - I can't see any other reason for you to be ranting and raving about how it's the most important contributor human history.

I have not been antagonistic. The comments you made of your own accord were offensively stupid, and my tone and attitude was perfectly suitable in responding.
You crossed the "Be Nice" line some time ago.

Now you are jumping up and down in deliberately offensive troll territory.

No further warnings will be issued.

Ah, that's how it works, is it? You don't like what I'm saying, so now I'm being a (dramatic music) DELIBERATELY OFFENSIVE TROLL! Check out some of those definitions, before you go throwing that term around. It'll do you some good.
I know the definitions. On some sites, I helped write them.

You joined to join this thread. The vast majority of your (currently) 16 comments were on this thread. You have not made any effort to become part of the community, you have posted in an entirely antagonistic manner.

If *you* did a bit of research on who you're engaging, it would save you some embarrassment.


Hang on there, cowboy. We have a Be Nice policy. No matter what your position is, you better be able to expound on it without resorting to ad hominems.
Pro

Get More Out of Instructables

Already have an Account?

close

PDF Downloads
As a Pro member, you will gain access to download any Instructable in the PDF format. You also have the ability to customize your PDF download.

Upgrade to Pro today!