ishyface | Help me with my learnings!

Questions for... well, everyone, I guess:

1) How big is the gap between Asperger's Syndrome and high-functioning autism? (From what I understand the two overlap a lot. Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

2) What is the Baptist Church's official stance re:stigmata? (Any info about the Baptist Church would be useful, actually- I know very little about it.)

3) What does it feel like to have a nosebleed? (I've never had one.)

4) How do you know when "coffee" is not just coffee but coffee? (Because I just made plans to go for coffee with a friend, but I think said friend may be under the impression that these plans are for coffee instead of coffee. And, um, that could be problematic!)

5) How much does Thomas Hobbes suck? (Like, a lot, right?)

This list brought to you by the Gerald Doesn't Wanna Finish Hir Philosophy Paper Wildlife Fund.

ETA: From the essay I am currently writing on Hobbes' theory of the state of nature:

"Hobbes would have us believe that people tend not to murder their children because of the power of law and the state, but this is nonsense: anyone who has ever been in the same room with a fussy baby for more than ten minutes is sure to wonder why its parents do not simply drop it into the nearest lake and tell the authorities that dingoes ate it."

I don't even care if I am grossly misrepresenting Hobbes here,* I am not cutting that sentence.

* I am, but only because I don't like him.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I don't know about this, I think the distinction and relegation of the former to "it's genetic" is a way-- systematically; this is going to sound paranoid-- of keeping autism "bad" without pissing off any autistics percieved as smart enough to argue for autism acceptance.

I don't really see how you can infer that from a distinction based on genetics. I don't think any stigma should be placed on either syndrome. I have a cousin who is autistic, and we don't know what caused the illness nor do we think he is bad or defective or love and respect him any less because of it.

I also wanted to say that it isn't so much an issue of autism acceptance, but a desire to understand the causes and discover ways to cure or enhance the life experiences of those who suffer from the syndrome. I say suffer because I have seen my cousin go through horrible experiences because of autism. It isn't like being blind or deaf. Either of those former differently abled life situations have their problems, but with autism, those who are severely impaired do have a lower quality of life. My cousin will never be able to go to university or hold down a regular job, nor will he be able to live on his own. His options are limited and his disability not only causes suffering in his own life, but also creates stress for his family. Autistic people are not bad, nor should people consider them unworthy; however, if there is a way to enhance their lives whether through medical/lifestyle changes, education, scientific research, prevention, or other factors, we should look into them.

Def. agree; no good reason to try to cover up the causes or treatment of malignant autism. (I have a severely autistic cousin too.)

Well, because of Title VII and the like there's a lot of emphasis placed on whether something is an immutable characteristic, which is used pretty much synonymously with "is genetic." Although from a legal perspective getting autism considered immutably "you" has benefits, socially it does not.

WAIT, want to acknowledge that the legal benefits may be/are likely outweighed by the legal stripping of agency often applied to those considered mentally disabled. Whoops.

Which is why research regarding prevention and possible cures or methods of alleviation, is so important! :)

Help me with my learnings!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

EDIT

Re: EDIT