Electroconvulsive therapy right into your brain - Elon claims BCI can solve Autism

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

What do you mean by "the ones that can't make decisions for themselves are fairly moot"?

It's those people I think would need to be forced to be cursed. Either by the state (like we have with vaccines today) or by their guardians/parents (which also happens today).

 

Again, I have only advocated for forced cures for these two groups throughout this thread:

1) The group of autistic people who are so far on the spectrum that they do not function in society. The ones mr moose said were something along the lines of "so autistic they were diagnosed way back". The ones dalekphalm described couldn't work and needed full time help from someone else. I don't think we're taking away choice from these people because they essentially can't make choices for themselves anyway. That's why they have personal assistants.

 

2) Newborn babies or fetuses, who already do not have any say in how they are treated because that is 100% the parents. We are not removing choice from these people either because they already don't have any say in things.

 

 

No. I have never said that. I have never even said anything remotely similar to that. Stop straw manning.

Find me a quote where I have said this please. I am getting really, really tired of you constantly misconstruing everything I say just so that you can make me look bad.

 

What I have said is that autistic people are more involved in violence than non-autistic people, and that's bad because I wouldn't want my child to get beat up. Having autism = more likely to get bullied and beat up.

I have also said that autistic people are overrepresented in the category of school shooters, and my theory is that it's because they have been bullied and had other bad life experiences.

That's what I have said.

 

 

Well, yeah. Say the wrong thing at the wrong time or to the wrong person and you might get hit. That's life.

I am not saying that's right or justified but that's the way things are. And it happens to everyone, not just minorities or oppressed groups. There are plenty of straight white men who has been physically attacked for things they have said too.

I am not saying violence is justified. What I am trying to do is explain why it might happen and that it might be a good idea to remove things which might lead to violence.

 

 

I don't understand what you mean. Can you please elaborate?

 

I am not following you here. I have never said victims of violence and perpetrator of violence are the same thing. You will not be able to find a quote of me saying anything remotely like that. What I have said is that violence breeds violence. Since autistic people are more likely to be victims of violence they are also at a greater risk of becoming violent. That would explain why school shooters are so often autistic people.

 

What do you mean by "internally inconsistent"?

 

 

Again, I am having a hard time following you here. Could you please quote what I said instead of the type of writing you're doing right now? It might make it easier for me to follow you. It seems like you're referencing some specific sentence have made here but I am not sure which one.

 

Again I am not understanding you.

I use straw man correctly. I say something, and then you claim I said something else which is far easier to shoot down.

For example earlier I said violence breed violence, and your response to that was "so you're saying being a victim of violence is just as bad as being violent!", which is not at all what I said.

I would really appreciate if you could start quoting me because then it becomes really obvious to the rest of the people reading this thread what I have actually said.

 

When did I throw around hypotheticals that were refuted? When did I say the opposite was true? Again, I have no idea what you are referencing here.

 

 

Wait a minute, you can't have it both ways.

First you say I do something, stop doing it and then complain that people called me out for something I stopped doing.

Then you say I just rephrase things and never change my arguments.

Which one is it? Do I flip flop around or do I stay consistent? A bit earlier you even said I never stopped talking about the things people were angry at me for saying.

I am really trying to understand you but I just don't get it.

 

 

 

Well, yeah. I have never really changed my arguments. What has happened is that people got angry at me for saying some things and then I elaborated what I meant. I haven't "hidden my stance", I have explained how I came to the stance I have. I was more direct with it earlier but since people seemed to misunderstand me I elaborated more on my thought process. That's not "hiding" anything. It's explaining and elaborating.

 

 

What do you mean by "the magic pill theory is back"?

I don't get it. What do you have against a hypothetical "magic cure with no side effects"? That is the dream goal of all medicinal advancements. This thread is about research that could lead to the a cure for autism. Am I not allowed to say "if this is successful then I would want things to be handled this way"?

Re: “What do you mean by..”  

exactly what you said.  Must  have been the word “moot”. it means unarguable.  Usually because of it not being a part of the thing in the first place.  People who can’t make decisions have care givers who make decisions for them.  It’s not the incompetent ones you want to force in those cases, it’s the caregivers.  The incompetent ones are moot.

 

re: advocacy

1) here is one of the major points of contention.  You deciding what is and is not “functional”, and the definition of that is not wherever you feel like putting it.  You seem to place it at “anyone who annoys me”. That’s really scary.

2) goes to caregivers

 

NOTE: as far as I can tell this is the only part of this whole thing with any actual bearing on the subject.  Everything else below this is about argumentative technique and has almost nothing to do with what is actually being talked about.  Read at you own peril.
 

re: I never said that

you did, at least your meaning was the same. You even did it again as part of your explanation of why you didn’t say it.  This is definitely the ‘magic pill’ problem over again.

”straw man” for you seems to mean “you didn’t buy my excuse but attacked the point behind it”. It doesn’t mean that.  Also a classic Limbaugh tactic.  He’s been known to scream it over and over. Repetition doesn’t make something true, it just makes it truthier.
By claiming straw man you are saying I attacked something else.  That “else” being the validity of your point that autistic people are dangerous.  The thing is though to to support that you claimed they were violent.  To support that they were violent you said that the perpetrator of violence and the victim of violence were the same.  I pointed out that what you were advocating was the same argument people who commit violence do to avoid responsibility.  It’s commonly called “victim blaming”.  That’s not straw man.  Actual straw man anyway.  You even admit as much  in your defense where you then make the same point.  Your defense is to change the approach to the same thing. The new one, which isn’t actually new, is more or less “If these people didn’t do these things people wouldn’t react violently” still classic excuse by abuser.  Still victim blaming.

 

Re: using straw man correctly.

And here we get into pure sports debate and the actual subject starts to get ignored.

This makes me wonder if you ever believed your own argument.  It’s not required for sports debate.

your definition of straw man is sort of false.  It works IF the summary being attacked is different from the point being made. To attack something else.  there are two forms of sports debate: lincoln Douglas and policy.  Each deals with the problem you describe in a different way and each still has their problems. Your definition of straw man is the policy one.  In policy any summary is straw man.  Except you’re using it in Lincoln Douglas where basically everything is a summary.

I’m not going to make you play the “cite your source” game, also a Limbaugh classic, which is mostly about creating work for the other party and hoping they fail to find something.  Policy debaters used to carry around entire multi hundred pound luggage ensembles full to the brim with 3”x5” note cards.  This isn’t sports team debate.  That’s the beauty of using “straw man” and “cite your source” concurrently.  One negates the other.  You debate Lincoln/Douglas style and then demand the opponent debate policy style.  When they reply policy style a Lincoln Douglas counter is offered.  Another Limbaugh classic.

 

Re: which is it?

rephrasing an argument doesn’t necessarily change the argument. It CAN change it, but can is not does.  The quality of the argument is the quality of the summary.  In LD.
 

Re: “I don’t understand”, “could you elaborate” etc..

and here are the demands for policy style debate.  I’m not even going to read them.  There might be something in them but I’m sure they will come up later if there is.  Or even if there isn’t.
 

re: you can’t have it both ways.

i didn’t attempt to. You’re taking parts of two different things and attempting to mash them together.  You know it, I know it.  You want examples I assume. A policy refute.  
 

I just noticed you completely changed your response to include cut quotes.  Other stuff may or may not have changed as well  I’m not going to bother reading it.  Responding to your first one has taken enough of my time.  The only bit that actually treats the subject is the tiny bit at the top anyway.  Everything else is debating garbage.

 

 

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, GeekYuuki said:

It could also be a part of his persona, perhaps. Who knows.

It’s true.  He will make things, he will say things.  The making and how they work is more important imho.

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

When you say "abort" do you mean let mothers expecting children to have abortions? Because that's not what I think should happen. In the best of worlds I would say we had a "magical pill" which just cured the autism without any side effects. That's what I have been talking about all throughout the thread.

 

 

I feel like you are not reading what I say and is just getting angry.

Is it victim blaming? Maybe a bit, but at the same time I see it as a genuine solution, one that (assuming we had this magical cure) would be far easier than the other solution, which is get rid of bullying and make sure everyone has a great childhood without any problems. That solution seems even more miraculous than finding a cure for autism.

I don't really understand which part of my statement and train of thought you disagree with. At which point do you start disagreeing with me?

1) Autistic children has a higher risk of getting bullied than non-autistic children.

2) Autistic children often have a more difficult childhood than non-autistic children, partially or maybe even primarily because off getting bullied.

3) Bullying and difficult childhood is a common theme with violent people, and especially school shooters.

4) Autistic people report a lower life satisfaction than non-autistic people. They also report more traumatic life experiences.

5) The percentage of school shooters who has autism is significantly higher than the general percentage of people with autism.

6) To me, this indicates that autism often leads to a more troubled childhood, which in turn increases the risk of violent behavior as well as dramatic actions like school shootings. Therefore, curing people with autism will lead to fewer troubled childhoods which will lead to fewer things like school shootings.

 

I think it's "victim blaming" the same way telling a drunk woman to not walk through a shady ghetto all alone at night. Does she deserve to be attacked if she walks through there? Of course not, but at the same time not walking there is the most practical solution we got to minimize the risk. Same deal here. It would be fantastic is everyone had a great childhood, but at it stands autism greatly increase the likelihood that you will have traumatic experiences and the end result is that autistic people are less satisfied with their lives (according to studies and surveys).

 

Personally, I would want my child to have as good of a childhood and life as possible, and according to the studies an autistic person has far greater risk of having a bad life than a non-autistic person.

In order to maximize the chance of having a good childhood, and minimize the risk of having a bad one, curing autism is a practical solution (assuming we had a cure for it).

 

Repeating your self doesn't make it true. 

 

Autistic are no more (and in many cases less likely) to be violent than any other person.  PERIOD. You are a liar.  Your opinions on what causes what are pointless empty rhetoric.  We have scientific research to back up what we are claiming, you however just keep repeating yourself.

 

Also your "magic pill" does not work, it can't.  until you accept that you don't know shit about Autism and get a good decade of education under your belt  you will never understand why it won't work. 

 

 

[Kisai]

22 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Repeating your self doesn't make it true. 

 

Autistic are no more (and in many cases less likely) to be violent than any other person.  PERIOD. You are a liar.  Your opinions on what causes what are pointless empty rhetoric.  We have scientific research to back up what we are claiming, you however just keep repeating yourself.

 

Also your "magic pill" does not work, it can't.  until you accept that you don't know shit about Autism and get a good decade of education under your belt  you will never understand why it won't work. 

 

 

I think this thread should be closed, as there's clearly two or people in the thread that are essentially trolling.

 

Just to summarize my thought on this:

 

It is unethical to pre-determine a fetus's fate based on a DNA test just like it's unethical to tinker with the DNA in the egg/sperm to try and get what you want. If the ability to do this ever existed and existed for people of middle-class or above, what would happen is that everyone who could afford it, would get exactly what they want, smarter, "defect-free", blonde-hair, blue-eye, 6' tall, male babies. And the consequences of that is population control by "other'ing" those that can not afford it. That was the plot of GATTACA. If your parents had you naturally or could not afford to get the perfect baby, you end up permanently in the lower-class. The major plot driver of GATTACA was said naturally born baby exceeded his expectations and took the place of someone who had these fixed expectations.

 

If certain cultural expectations, were not normalized, then perhaps some ethical DNA tinkering could be done to prevent FATAL diseases from ever surfacing. However the mere fact that we try to save every baby, even some that will never have any quality of life, is still worth doing. Stephen Hawking lived to be 76 despite being told in his 20's he would only live 2 years. However, if people were able to just able to change the DNA of their children before being conceived, look no further than how humans have utterly screwed up dogs to make them cuter. I have no doubt that science would lean in towards the super-athlete since that's exactly what we keep seeing in science fiction. Super-athletes/soldier that are well behaved because all their potential insubordination was bred out of them.

 

BCI's can cure nothing. Assuming such a device became available, it may sooner help assist someone with improving their quality of life (see Stephen Hawking) but it will not cure anything. Existing EEG headsets doesn't really do much above what we had before either. https://store.neurosky.com/

 

Like it's a rather large leap of faith to even suggest that a BCI will ever do anything but replace game controllers/input devices. I can't imagine a world where a BCI is permitted to be invasive enough to actually tap into the language, sight, speech or hearing parts of the brain and replace the input and output.

 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

I think this thread should be closed, as there's clearly two or people in the thread that are essentially trolling.

 

 

 

I am not too sure if you are referring to me as a troll, but defending myself and every other Autistics from baseless character assassination is not trolling.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I am not too sure if you are referring to me as a troll, but defending myself and every other Autistics from baseless character assassination is not trolling.

I totally agree. It is obvious some people will never understand, of choose not to, ASD. Maybe we should go back the Victorian style loony bins, sent to bethlam prison etc.

[Kisai]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

I am not too sure if you are referring to me as a troll, but defending myself and every other Autistics from baseless character assassination is not trolling.

 I didn't want to specifically call out someone. My response to you, and everyone in the thread was the "I think the thread should be closed."

 

I've seen this happen on LTT a few times, where one or two people will just keep bumping a thread but adding nothing, and all it does is cause people to read the last post and restart the argument.  Hence when an argument appears to be approaching godwins law, it's time to close it.

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

 I didn't want to specifically call out someone. My response to you, and everyone in the thread was the "I think the thread should be closed."

 

I've seen this happen on LTT a few times, where one or two people will just keep bumping a thread but adding nothing, and all it does is cause people to read the last post and restart the argument.  Hence when an argument appears to be approaching godwins law, it's time to close it.

 

Anyone who is trolling is not going to stop because they are asked (unless by a mod with certain force),  anyone accused of trolling who is doing something else is only going to be offended and further take issue with their stance being trivialized as a kin to trolling.

 

The best way to stop a thread from being "bumped" is to either report it and let the mods sort it out or not comment.  

[Bombastinator]

Godwin’s law is breaking down to some degree though.  It assumes references to fascism are always spurious.  Lately though they’re becoming actually if only very occasionally appropriate.

When I made my statement I assure you I was very aware of Godwin’s law.  I did not make the statement casually.