Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

GlobusGlobus t1_iycfje2 wrote

The problem with understanding what this means is that current understanding of autism and how to limit the conditions makes the term autism unusable. It is certainly a group of very different conditions that we call autism. And the fact that one of the major indications of autism is not being completely oblivious to the world should tell us that the current view of the autistic condition is severely flawed. Is everyone who is not completely oblivious to the world around them and everyone who has some moral reasoning autistic? Is that really what we want to point out as a condition to treat?

4

earthsworld t1_iyd8ys8 wrote

>Is everyone who is not completely oblivious to the world around them and everyone who has some moral reasoning autistic?

wtf are you talking about? nobody but you think this.

11

GlobusGlobus t1_iydc09u wrote

No one but me has read the definition of autism and the questionnaires used to define autism! That is a not a reasonable claim.

Having interests on any meaningful level is counted as a symptom for autism.

−6

Keepfingthatchicken t1_iyditas wrote

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html please read this article about the requirements for asd. It is not having interests on a meaningful level. It is having a highly restricted fixation on narrow interests. Which is also only one of several requirements across multiple areas of life.

5

GlobusGlobus t1_iye1hgq wrote

Yeah, I know. My point is that people who lack an interest that fits that discription are all rather meaningless creatures without any stake. As born out by reality.

1

earthsworld t1_iydmowg wrote

> Having interests on any meaningful level is counted as a symptom for autism.

sorry, but you're clearly delusional.

2

SafeHayven t1_iyd63ri wrote

I don’t understand what autism would have to do with moral or ethical reasoning? Morality is set by cultural norms, and ethics are mostly debated based on reason and emotion.

2

GlobusGlobus t1_iyd8qoo wrote

Well, if you define autism so that everyone that cares about anything are autists then the rest follow.s You can't have any ethics if you are absolutely oblivious to everything around you.

Now, I am not claiming that non-autists are immoral or in any way less moral than autists. On the contrary I am suggesting that a definition of autism that leas to this conclusion probably is not great.

−2

SafeHayven t1_iyeczqd wrote

I’ve never seen anyone define autism that way. Being “unusual” and willing to question society’s standards isn’t inherently autistic (this is how I am too).

Autism is a developmental disorder that gives people sensory issues, an absence of social skills, and a childlike personality, along with digestive issues, eating struggles, and a host of other symptoms that negatively affect quality of life. It causes suffering so it needs a cure.

Also it’s possible to be immoral without being unethical, and vice versa. Morality is that which upholds the existing social order (which is not always ethical).

3