AUTISM = "no drive to explore"

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
L. Merk wrote:

So saying that all autistics do not want to explore is a generalization
that is not true.


But *no one* made that claim. What experts point out is that many
*severe* autistics manifestly lack a drive to explore. The point: it's
*not* normal to lack that drive.


You see, 'L.', what you're doing in this thread is pulling
a fast one with definitions. You use different ones depending
on what you're trying to show.

If you want to show that (just about everyone) has a drive
to 'explore', you use a very broad definition.

But then when you want to argue that space exploration
is necessary, or that people who don't feel driven to visit
Mars are autistic, you use a very narrow definition. Otherwise,
why don't all those innumerable opportunities for exploration
(sic) in everyday life, the ones used to show we're all
explorers (sic), serve to satisfy that putative drive?

Paul

GOOD SHOW!

wrote:
Experts point out that unlike normal people, the severely autistic lack
the urge to explore the world. Hmm. This could explain a few things
about certain posters in these newsgroups, who claim to lack a drive to
explore.

"And how do you educate severely autistic children? How do you teach
those who, for the most part, have no language, and no particular
compulsion to acquire it, who are BORN WITHOUT THE NEED TO EXPLORE THE
WORLD, who would rather spin round and round in a circle, or do the
same jigsaw over and over again, than play games with their peers, who
won't make eye-contact, or copy, and who fight bitterly (and sometimes
literally, with nails and teeth and small fists) for the right to
remain sealed in their own world?" - Nick Hornby, renown expert on
autism

http://www.penguin.co.uk/static/cs/u...ouse/swta.html

From which we conclude people who have not geographically explored the world are autisitic. And
only a handful ever have, authism is the norm for 99.999999% of humans. QED

--
The American Civil War is like all wars, justified in
hindsight in this case by the unintended consequence
of the abolition of slavery.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3439
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
book review http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/wi...utioners.phtml a7

On 2005-06-06, Rand Simberg wrote:

Do you have a credible cite for that slander?

Isn't it libel? (and which charge are you referring to?

That's unclear, when it occurs on Usenet. I don't think there have
been any rulings on it.

Almost certainly libel; the distinction in most jurisdictions is one of
permanence not form, IIRC. (Slander is often thought of in this context
because of the similarity of a Usenet discussion to a verbal
conversation, but a verbal conversation on a radio programme would
likely be classed as libellous not slanderous)

--
-Andrew Gray

On 2005-06-09, Rand Simberg wrote:
On 8 Jun 2005 23:49:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, Andrew Gray
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Almost certainly libel; the distinction in most jurisdictions is one of
permanence not form, IIRC.

Could be, but I'd probably have a more winnable case with a lesser
charge...

This is where the joy of Usenet comes in. Sue him in a foreign court
with more plaintiff-friendly standards - after all, it's been published
in their jurisdiction, as far as they're concerned... ;-)

--
-Andrew Gray

Paul F. Dietz wrote:

Nothing like a stress test to find defect(ive)s.

Paul

Funny, but mainstream psychiatry says that people like *you* are the
defectives. It's not psychologically normal to lack a strong drive to
explore.

On 8 Jun 2005 17:46:20 -0700, "L. Merk" wrote:



Paul F. Dietz wrote:

Nothing like a stress test to find defect(ive)s.

Paul

Funny, but mainstream psychiatry says that people like *you* are the
defectives. It's not psychologically normal to lack a strong drive to
explore.

And how much exploring have you done in the last month?

On 8 Jun 2005 23:49:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, Andrew Gray
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

On 2005-06-06, Rand Simberg wrote:

Do you have a credible cite for that slander?

Isn't it libel? (and which charge are you referring to?

That's unclear, when it occurs on Usenet. I don't think there have
been any rulings on it.

Almost certainly libel; the distinction in most jurisdictions is one of
permanence not form, IIRC.

Could be, but I'd probably have a more winnable case with a lesser
charge...

L. Merk wrote:

Funny, but mainstream psychiatry says that people like *you* are the
defectives. It's not psychologically normal to lack a strong drive to
explore.

Which of your multiple definitions are you using here?

Paul

On 9 Jun 2005 00:27:14 GMT, in a place far, far away, Andrew Gray
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

On 2005-06-09, Rand Simberg wrote:
On 8 Jun 2005 23:49:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, Andrew Gray
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Almost certainly libel; the distinction in most jurisdictions is one of
permanence not form, IIRC.

Could be, but I'd probably have a more winnable case with a lesser
charge...

This is where the joy of Usenet comes in. Sue him in a foreign court
with more plaintiff-friendly standards - after all, it's been published
in their jurisdiction, as far as they're concerned... ;-)

But the costs of litigation are higher (being in a foreign land,and
whatnot) and I seriously doubt that he's got deep enough pockets to
make it worthwhile, since there's no evidence that he even has a
job...