Comment by ModernMech
6 hours ago
> 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.