This is getting into irrelevant details. — Darkneos
The argument is that a net negative life experience is caused by autism, and the conclusion is that curing the autism will result in a positive life experience. It's a rendering of the medical model of disability. — Banno
I and others would give anything to not be this way, but we learn to deal because there is nothing else. It's almost like trying to acknowledge that fact would make folks question themselves. — Darkneos
the problem is that people seem to forget this can manifest in many ways and while some have the good traits and minimal bad down have nothing but bad and struggle needlessly. — Darkneos
Yes you can. Not really hitting it out of the park huh. — Darkneos
I'm just making the point that there is no necessary connection between having a shitty time and wanting not to be autistic. — bert1
Well, sort of. You could maybe develop a medication or surgery or something that turn people from being autistic to neurotypical, but such a thing could only correctly be called a 'cure' by people like you who conceive of autism as a disease. Neurodivergence is generally not conceived that way, so 'cure' would be the wrong word. Unless you want to say that you could 'cure' bipedalism by hacking someone's leg off. — bert1
But I'm against such a pill being available to the general population. That would mean the end of autism. My son would be in the last generation. Parents would give it to their autistic children en masse. — bert1
I'm also not a fan of ironing out all the wrinkles in human variability. Doing so might well eliminate musical prodigies, business geniuses, brilliant and productive writers, the rare very gifted inventor, etc, as well as eliminate problematic variations such as mental retardation, schizophrenia, epilepsy, and so on. — BC
You're kidding right? — Darkneos
I'm also very open to the idea that XYZ condition offers some advantages — Hanover
Take psychopathy. On the extreme end, you get arsonists, rapists, and bloody murderers who don't feel much. — BC
Not really. You presented the question starkly enough that the response seemed unavoidable. If it's nothing but trouble, like a broken leg, then why wouldn't you cure the fracture? This isn't to condemn those with broken legs, but it's not to humor those with broken legs either by suggesting broken legs are as good as unbroken ones.
I'm also very open to the idea that autism offers some advantages, even if it's just a certain pride in uniqueness, but I defer entirely to those in the know on that as to whether it is worth it for the individual to protect.
This is to say, if you tell me you've got a problem, real or perceived, and there is a cure, why would I intervene on that decision? By the same token, if you have what I think to be a problem, but you don't think it that way, why should I intervene there either. — Hanover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.