> You're profoundly autistic if you can't function, and if you can't function you're profoundly autistic
That is a definition, not a tautology. Though I suspect the way this conversation will go is that we will argue over the definition of definition.
I’ll bow out, but I do share your concerns about people looking to be right about vaccines. I feel they may be right (and also that they may be wrong), but as I’ve mentioned in another thread, I’m concerned they’re finding research to support their conclusion (mercury and aluminium poisoning) rather than approaching the problem more rigorously.
> That is a definition, not a tautology... we will argue over the definition of definition.
We shall.
Given your circular definition of profound autism, what I had said is a tautology. And that's my point, the way you've defined this thing doesn't make logical sense.
A shame to bow out on a semantic quibble, I made a number of substantive points I'll that I guess will have to remain unanswered. At the end of the day this definition is circular and is of no use to anyone.
> Given your circular definition of profound autism
No. It's not circular. Matching a name to a value and then saying that value has that name isn't a tautology. We're on a forum for programmers, if you work in this industry you do it all the time. I'd hoped by discussing shared values we'd end civilly but I guess not.
How have I been uncivil to you? I have not called you names, nor have I engaged your arguments in bad faith, nor have I attacked your character, your reputation, nor impugned you in any way. I've done nothing but engage you civilly.
And it is circular because you still haven't given a definition for "profound autism" -- all you have said is that "profound autism" is autism that profoundly disables a person. But what does that mean? Because all autism is profoundly disabling if you ask autistic people.
How does one go about determining if an autistic person is "profoundly" disabled? What's the test? What's the measure? How disabled can one be before they are considered not just regularly disabled, but "profoundly" disabled?
You've already said "you would say someone who headbangs has profound autism" but I headbang, and most people are surprised to learn I'm autistic. So I shouldn't be someone RFK is referring to in his speech, but according to the symptoms he lists off and your apparent concurrence here, I am someone he would be talking about.
Which brings me back to my original point: he was not clear at all in his speech.
The lack of civility I feel is that you’re either not reading what I write before replying or not feeling the need to address the points in the comment you’re replying to.
You’re right there is a spectrum of abilities and this changes over time. However we can define a threshold. I think a self-harming stim as an adult like head banging is sufficient to qualify as profound.
Not responding to all the points you raise is not an act of incivility. You've done the same (e.g. when you just responded "Godwin") -- you're psyching yourself out. I'm substantively responding to your posts, so it's up to you if you want to emphasize a specific argument that you feel I'm not picking up.
> However we can define a threshold. I think a self-harming stim as an adult like head banging is sufficient to qualify as profound.
Yeah I agree, we can define a threshold. Meaning someone has to determine where the line is, and so my question is still: where is that line? Who determines it and how? The answer is that there is no line and no one determines it, RFK is just using vague nebulous terms, which are not clear at all.
> I think a self-harming stim as an adult like head banging is sufficient to qualify as profound.
Lots of autistic people self-harm as a stim, through skin picking, scraping, pinching, cutting, hair pulling, etc. So if "self-harming as a stim is sufficient to qualify as profoundly autistic", then they can sweep up pretty much any autistic person.
And that's the problem when autistic people are cut out of the conversation entirely and painting autistic people with a broad brush as RFK is doing.
If it's not the answer, then where is the line and who determines it?
> Disagree. I think your stats are off.
I didn't provide any statistic, I made a generalized observation based on the autistic people I know. If you have stats, provide them.
But my observation is every autistic person I know has engaged in some level of self-harm stimming, and my generalization is that means lots of autistic people stim in this way, and this means if self-harm is a criteria for being "profoundly autistic", that will cause a lot of false positives.
That is a definition, not a tautology. Though I suspect the way this conversation will go is that we will argue over the definition of definition.
I’ll bow out, but I do share your concerns about people looking to be right about vaccines. I feel they may be right (and also that they may be wrong), but as I’ve mentioned in another thread, I’m concerned they’re finding research to support their conclusion (mercury and aluminium poisoning) rather than approaching the problem more rigorously.