Question & Answer

Do you guys think autism is real? I have given it some thought and do not think so. In syllogistic form, these are my reasons:

1. Either autism does or does not exist.
2. If autism has real existence (exists outside of the mind), then it must have an essence or definition.
3. But it would seem that autism has no essence. Whenever people try to define it, they only bring up its symptoms or what kind of a condition it is—not what it is in itself.
4. Now, either autism can or cannot be defined.
5. If it can be defined, it has an essence (in which case it also has real existence).
6. Either this essence is simple (not made of parts) or composite (made of parts).
7. If the essence of autism is simple, it can be discovered in the same way we discover other essences—by thinking deeply about it.
8. But no one has discovered its essence since its introduction to psychology in the early 20th century.
9. So, for the last hundred years, we have remained bereft of any reason to believe it has real existence.
10. If we have lacked any reason to believe it ever existed, it follows that we have no reason to believe it exists here aud now.
11. If the essence of autism hasn't been discovered yet (as some may argue), they must do more than assert that it exists; they must prove that it exists by providing it. Otherwise, we remain bereft of any reason to believe it exists.
12. Now, either autism exists as a spectrum or it exists as a condition. If everyone has it in degrees, then it cannot be said to be a neurological condition any more than someone can be said to be "a little pregnant." You either have it or you do not.
13. Besides, a condition implies a certain state or mode of being in a subject.
14. But if autism is a spectrum and not a condition, then autism is just whatever deviates from the norm—a kind of tendency or set of behaviorisms.
15. If autism is whatever deviates from the norm, then it is really no different than eccentricity, in which case "autism" is merely eccentricity.
16. If, on the other hand, autism exists as a condition, we must be able to say what exactly it entails.
17. Now, maladies like mental conditions are privations; that is to say, rather than existing as features, they exist as a certain lack of features or due perfections.
18. So, to define what autism as a condition is, we must define what due perfections are lacking in its subjects.
19. Now, scientists tell us that the most common symptoms of autism are three: (1) difficulties in socialization or introversion, (2) repetitive behaviors and hyperfixations, and (3) sensory sensitivities.
20. If the essence of autism is lack of social skills, then autism is not a mental condition but a lack of experience.
21. If autism is social retardation, then it is merely social retardation; not autism as generally understood.
22. If the essence of autism is a kind of temperament (ie., introversion), then it is not a mental condition but a behaviorism.
23. If the essence of autism is a set of behaviors (i.e., obsession with trains or chicken nuggets), then, again, it is not a mental condition.
24. If the essence of autism is a sensory or textile sensitivity, then it is a sensory or textile sensitivity; not autism as generally understood.
25. If autism is not a condition but a collection of interrelated symptoms like these, then someone who overcomes these symptoms ceases to be autistic.
26. Now, some may argue that autism is this very interrelation, but merely being interrelated is not enough to establish it as a true condition. Neurological and behavioral patterns often coincide given the complexity of the brain. Thus, a schizophrenic may be both socially retarded because of his hallucinations and antisocial.
27. If, on the other hand, it exists as a collection of these individual symptoms, then the essence of autism is composite.
28. Since singular objects can only have singular identities or essences, that autism has multiple distinct essences means that it can only exist virtually (in the mind) as a useful but ultimately illusory mental category.
29. If it happens that the essence of autism cannot be defined, either it is too difficult for us to define because we lack wisdom or it is impossible for anyone to define.
30. If autism is so difficult to define that not even scientists can tell us what it is, they have no business going around diagnosing people with it.
31. If, on the other hand, it is impossible to define, then it is impossible that we should have any reason to believe it exists.
32. So, whether or not we can define it, we remain bereft of any reason to believe that autism exists.

>let's ban frogs they fuggen jerdee

KEK DO NUSOIFAGGOTS REALLY?