0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Someone who isn't autistic but who shares some traits with people who are can perfectly reasonably be described as semi-autistic. You could argue that the overlap between them is not large enough to justify the use of "semi", but it doesn't always need to mean half - it's simply a short way of referring to the overlap, or would be if it didn't lead into ludicrous arguments with people with poor interpretation skills who want to make out I'm equating autistic people with terrorists.
How can you be "semi on a scale that everyone is on"?There isn't a meaningful "half way" point.However, there's no evidence that those involved in the murders were anywhere in particular on that scale.If David Cooper gets to grips with that we can get back to the actual topic.
Someone who isn't autistic but who shares some traits with people who are can perfectly reasonably be described as semi-autistic.
the terrorists are a self-selecting group who have no feeling whatsoever for the innocent people they kill. They are incapable of empathising with them, and it's a fair bet that they have genetic defects relating to that trait which are also involved in autism. They'll have a different mix of faults which lead to a different condition which will likely have a proper official name given to it some day, but there will be an overlap in the cause.
Citation needed.
Quote from: tkadm30 on 29/05/2017 18:57:39There's no such thing as a "semi-autistic" person.Someone who isn't autistic but who shares some traits with people who are can perfectly reasonably be described as semi-autistic. You could argue that the overlap between them is not large enough to justify the use of "semi", but it doesn't always need to mean half - it's simply a short way of referring to the overlap, or would be if it didn't lead into ludicrous arguments with people with poor interpretation skills who want to make out I'm equating autistic people with terrorists.Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/05/2017 19:12:06You seem to be the only one who believes that "Semi autistic" is meaningful.If you don't recognise it as a category that you've ever encountered, your job is to interpret it the way that I intend it to be interpreted by reading what I've said with sufficient care to recognise that it means something other than autistic.QuoteWhat's more important is that you have yet to show any link between any autistic trait and to terrorism.You seem to specialise in ignoring things. How many times do I have to repeat the two things which they have in common? These terrorists take their holy texts very literally (instead of looking for less vicious interpretations in the way that normal people do), and they are unable to form any normal kind of emotional connection to the people they kill.QuoteObviously, there could be one, but have you any evidence to suggest that those involved in Religious bigotry are more autistic than the population in general?We're taking things a bit further than just bigotry - the terrorists are a self-selecting group who have no feeling whatsoever for the innocent people they kill. They are incapable of empathising with them, and it's a fair bet that they have genetic defects relating to that trait which are also involved in autism. They'll have a different mix of faults which lead to a different condition which will likely have a proper official name given to it some day, but there will be an overlap in the cause.
There's no such thing as a "semi-autistic" person.
You seem to be the only one who believes that "Semi autistic" is meaningful.
What's more important is that you have yet to show any link between any autistic trait and to terrorism.
Obviously, there could be one, but have you any evidence to suggest that those involved in Religious bigotry are more autistic than the population in general?
Quote from: tkadm30 on 29/05/2017 21:25:19Citation needed.Try looking up a dictionary, if you're really that anal - look at precedents for how "semi" is used. For example, a semi-etached house is not detatched; a semi-final is not a final; a semicolon is not a colon; etc.
Quote from: David Cooper on 29/05/2017 21:20:01Someone who isn't autistic but who shares some traits with people who are can perfectly reasonably be described as semi-autistic.No they can't.
A person who isn't autistic is not autistic and does not share traits with an autistic person.
Terrorists who are cold and unemotional are this way for differing reasons that have nothing to do with the autistic gene spectrum. In fact it is uncharacteristic for an autistic person to be involved in group behavior and the MO of an autistic is not the MO of a terrorist.
The people on the ground being killed/maimed by no trial, judge and jury kill switch drone attacks no-doubt feel, or have relatives that feel the very same about drone operators, etc, etc... and I've seen documentaries about how drone operators are affected by their own actions. They are not incapable of empathizing with the 'possibly' and 'probably', because it is all but impossible to correctly identify a suspect from a drone camera, innocent people that they kill. Fact is that these drone operators get PTSD...
It's a war David. When the underdog goes to war their actions are called terrorism, and you are buying into the media spin.
What you should be examining is 'why' the so called 'terrorists' are pissed off... Try watching "The Origins of Violence", "Shadow Wars", and "Child Soldiers Revisited"...
Again, I do not condone terrorism or violence of any kind, but when one educates oneself as to the details and follows the money trail, it starts to become clear that much of what is going on right now is cause and effect to the purpose of financial gain where it serves the people who are invested in war that peace never be achieved, and it is the tax payers money that funds it...
Still waiting for you to tell me how they diagnosed the dead people.
However you haven't shown that these people are AT ALL autistic.You have made unsupported claims (and that, btw, is why you were asked for a citation) that they have traits in common.
But you have not shown that claim to be valid.
You have also ignored the fact that religion doesn't sit well with autism.
Rationality does correlate with autism,. Killing yourself in pursuit of an imaginary cause isn't generally rational
Quote from: timey on 29/05/2017 22:11:19Quote from: David Cooper on 29/05/2017 21:20:01Someone who isn't autistic but who shares some traits with people who are can perfectly reasonably be described as semi-autistic.No they can't.Yes they can - the overlap is all that's needed to justify the description, and the overlap is there.
QuoteA person who isn't autistic is not autistic and does not share traits with an autistic person.In which case, these terrorists who share some traits with autistic people would need to be classed as autistic rather than semi-autistic, and I think that's going way too far.
QuoteTerrorists who are cold and unemotional are this way for differing reasons that have nothing to do with the autistic gene spectrum. In fact it is uncharacteristic for an autistic person to be involved in group behavior and the MO of an autistic is not the MO of a terrorist.Which is why it's a good reason not to class them as autistic.
QuoteThe people on the ground being killed/maimed by no trial, judge and jury kill switch drone attacks no-doubt feel, or have relatives that feel the very same about drone operators, etc, etc... and I've seen documentaries about how drone operators are affected by their own actions. They are not incapable of empathizing with the 'possibly' and 'probably', because it is all but impossible to correctly identify a suspect from a drone camera, innocent people that they kill. Fact is that these drone operators get PTSD...I have not heard drone operators working for governments being referred to as terrorists - some of them are reckless because they're so cut off from the action that they don't see the consequences of a bad decision, but they're not relevant to the issue.
QuoteIt's a war David. When the underdog goes to war their actions are called terrorism, and you are buying into the media spin.I'm not buying into any such spin. There are many occasions when the government should be described as the terrorist side rather that the freedom fighters who are branded as terrorists, but that again is a different issue as they are wars between armed groups and governments. Actual terrorism involves the deliberate targeting of innocent people, such as the slaughter of Yazidis or the bombing of a concert.
QuoteWhat you should be examining is 'why' the so called 'terrorists' are pissed off... Try watching "The Origins of Violence", "Shadow Wars", and "Child Soldiers Revisited"...You're dealing with freedom fighters and not terrorists - you're allowing spin by powerful people to determine who should be classed as terrorists, and that distorts the picture. The people who actually are terrorists are the ones killing innocent people and who are doing so out of choice rather than because they've been forced to do so.
QuoteAgain, I do not condone terrorism or violence of any kind, but when one educates oneself as to the details and follows the money trail, it starts to become clear that much of what is going on right now is cause and effect to the purpose of financial gain where it serves the people who are invested in war that peace never be achieved, and it is the tax payers money that funds it...Again that is an issue of freedom fighters responding to mistreatment, although a lot of freedom fighters are on the wrong side in many conflicts because they're basing things on abuses against one side while ignoring those committed against the other side, so bias has a heavy role, but most of those fighters are not terrorists. The actual terrorists are the ones who kill innocent people on purpose for ideological reasons and who have no feelings for anyone that they consider to be the wrong kind of person for reasons of race, religion or sect - they simply murder them all and they never regret what they've done because they're doing what their ideology tells them is right.
I have pointed to two traits which they have in common.
It clearly isn't relevant as it isn't part of the overlap.
You generally find out what they were like by asking people who knew them, and then you typically hear a litany of things about them that fit the usual pattern.
Religious people consider themselves to be fully rational,
Do you seriously think the terrorists out there who behead people are normal on average? No - there is something far from normal about them.
On the issue of fanatical Christians abusing people, can they really be written off as not true Christians? Paul had the most important role in setting up the church and getting Christianity going, but he was a raving homophobe who oozed hate - half the NT is dedicated to him and his rants. His hate speech was responsible for the death of Alan Turing. Hate speech in holy texts influences semi-autistic thugs and leads to them seeking to impose that hate on everyone else, and so long as that holy hate is tolerated, the abuses will not end. We need to stop it getting into the heads of the people who are influenced by it by making sure it isn't available to them, particularly as they are most likely to grab hold of it as some way of giving meaning to their lives. If we could detoxify the holy texts, the threats would disappear and we'd be left with colourful cultural assets instead of systems that generate hate from hate. The terrorism would soon stop and the world's people could unite in safety.
I disagree. There is a lot more required to justify that description.
If a terrorist is autistic or semi-autistic then this would require that the terrorist have the same type of gene mutation as an autistic.
Edit: The correct terminology for a semi autistic person is 'borderline autistic", but borderline still requires specific genealogical conditions that fall within the autism spectrum.
So describing terrorists as having autistic tendencies. semi or otherwise, is not justified.
You have not heard drone operators working for governments being referred to as terrorists because you are not on the ground being subject to drone attacks.
Where armed groups under government control cannot tell the difference between a school and a munitions factory, or a hospital and a terrorist hideout. What were you saying about innocent people?
You clearly have not watched any of these documentaries. Child soldiers are in the employ of the USA forces, among other relevant issues inclusive of the fact that both the USA and the UK are guilty of selling the machines of war to all parties before removing key persons who were previously considered as customers as a means of destabilizing infrastructure. Destabilizing infrastructure being the tried and tested means to pick the bones of an infrastructure for financial gain
This could be said to be describing the USA's MO, just as easily as describing that of fanatical Jihadi's. USA got bigger guns is all... courtesy of the USA tax payer, justified via media spin. Watch "All Governments Lie - truth, deception, and the spirit of I F Stone"
Jihadi's have got machete's, rifles and C4 explosive courtesy of the Yahidi genocide who's wealth they have appropriated, and by selling their young women into slavery.Both sides are doing what they are doing under the banner of their ideology tells them that it is right, and both sides are dealing death and misery for profit.Both are equally as wrong as each other in my opinion...
[Yes, but as I said, that's like black + white cows having a common trait with dalmatians.
It doesn't mean that they are the same thing.
The points you have noted are not diagnostic of autism (they are also rather debatable in their own right)
It's relevant since it strongly implies that these murderous bigots who- you have to accept- are not atheists, are not autistic.
If, for example, all autistic people, and only autistic people had blue noses, and you said the terrorists are (semi) autistic, and someone pointed out that they didn't have blue noses, would you say it was irrelevant because it wasn't "part of the overlap"?
Or would you accept that it was very relevant because it pretty much proved that they were not autistic?
Quote from: David Cooper on 29/05/2017 22:58:46You generally find out what they were like by asking people who knew them, and then you typically hear a litany of things about them that fit the usual pattern.That's what is commonly called a "witch hunt". It's not scientifically valid.
But let's play the game and see what his brother said about, for example, the Manchester bomber.“ he was just a normal teenager, going to the park with us for a drink. He was a big Man Utd fan.” doesn't sound very autistic to me.
And " he had not got the capability. He [Abedi] does not have it in him, he is not smart enough." pretty much rules out the high IQ often associated with autism.
It's hard to square it with the observation made by a neighbour "They are a lovely family, really friendly."
They have lost track of reason; not a trait that autistic people often demonstrate. (OK they can- you can get people who are simultaneously autistic and delusional, but that's just bad luck)
Paul the apostle did not hate people.
Quote from: timey on 29/05/2017 23:16:11Quote from: David Cooper on 29/05/2017 21:20:01Someone who isn't autistic but who shares some traits with people who are can perfectly reasonably be described as semi-autistic.No they can't.Yes they can.
QuoteI disagree. There is a lot more required to justify that description.The only requirement for the description to be valid is that there be an overlap.
QuoteIf a terrorist is autistic or semi-autistic then this would require that the terrorist have the same type of gene mutation as an autistic.And why shouldn't they? There are lots of genes involved and there are features in common, so what are the odds against a completely different set of genes being responsible?
QuoteEdit: The correct terminology for a semi autistic person is 'borderline autistic", but borderline still requires specific genealogical conditions that fall within the autism spectrum.I'm not referring to borderline autistic though, which is why I used the wording semi-autistic - this allows them to be a very long way from being autistic while still having things in common.
QuoteSo describing terrorists as having autistic tendencies. semi or otherwise, is not justified.It is absolutely justified on the basis of overlap.
QuoteYou have not heard drone operators working for governments being referred to as terrorists because you are not on the ground being subject to drone attacks.What people on the ground call them is irrelevant - it's their intentions that determine whether they're terrorists or not, and that depends on whether they're deliberately targeting civilians or not, so you're basing your definition of terrorism on other people's misuse of the word.
QuoteWhere armed groups under government control cannot tell the difference between a school and a munitions factory, or a hospital and a terrorist hideout. What were you saying about innocent people?Terrorism involves deliberate targeting of civilians (i.e. knowing that the target is civilians) - not accidental.
QuoteYou clearly have not watched any of these documentaries. Child soldiers are in the employ of the USA forces, among other relevant issues inclusive of the fact that both the USA and the UK are guilty of selling the machines of war to all parties before removing key persons who were previously considered as customers as a means of destabilizing infrastructure. Destabilizing infrastructure being the tried and tested means to pick the bones of an infrastructure for financial gainI have probably watched more documentaries on this subject than anyone else in this country. If you want me to give you a list of terrorist acts by Western governments it would take months to do so - there are terrorists on all sides, and to supply weapons to mass-murdering dictators is be an accessory to mass-murder (for political reasons), which should certainly be classed as terrorism. Those terrorists are not directly killing anyone though, so they needn't have the same extent of mental defects as the ones who are actually pulling the triggers or holding knives when they kill civilians as they can simply close their minds to that part of the business.
QuoteThis could be said to be describing the USA's MO, just as easily as describing that of fanatical Jihadi's. USA got bigger guns is all... courtesy of the USA tax payer, justified via media spin. Watch "All Governments Lie - truth, deception, and the spirit of I F Stone"Most of the US's terrorism today relates to its support of Israeli terrorism, so there's plenty of justification for people to seek revenge against them. (In the past, the bulk of their terrorism came out of their phobia of socialism, but they've backed off on that and the bulk of the Americas has been transformed into peaceful democracies with all the mass-murdering dictatorships which the US used to prop up gone.)
QuoteJihadi's have got machete's, rifles and C4 explosive courtesy of the Yahidi genocide who's wealth they have appropriated, and by selling their young women into slavery.Both sides are doing what they are doing under the banner of their ideology tells them that it is right, and both sides are dealing death and misery for profit.Both are equally as wrong as each other in my opinion...There are certainly bad motives on both sides, but the issue I raised focuses specifically on the terrorists at the sharp end who are directly killing civilians on purpose and to the mental state of such people - they are in a league of their own.
Those terrorists are not directly killing anyone though, so they needn't have the same extent of mental defects as the ones who are actually pulling the triggers or holding knives when they kill civilians as they can simply close their minds to that part of the business.
As for the pilots who would go on to participate in the attacks, three of them were ...... chosen by Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda's military wing due to their extensive knowledge of western culture and language skills, increasing the mission's operational security and its chances for success.
Since you are so bloodymindedly determined to say that the people you consider to be "semi autistic" aren't autistic, why did you coin that phrase?
(And then define it such that a cow is a "semi dog"- you might want to take a breath and look again at how daft that is.)
All it can do is make life more difficult for people who are actually autistic.
Also, in the only case anyone has looked at, the traits are missing.You are, on the basis of the evidence, simply wrong.You call them "semi autistic" but there's no evidence of any autistic trait.