Re: Temple Grandin article

[Guest guest]

Jane wrote:

> Clay wrote:

> >... I also thought it unfair for one autistic to

> > criticize another for doing what she does best.

> What if what she or he does best is something morally

> objectionable?

Then that would be something completely different than

what I'm trying to say. I may not have said it very well,

but what I meant is specific to autism in that some of us

have different " gifts " , and Temple's seems to be the ability

to see things from the point of view of the cattle. She

puts herself in their place and understands how they feel

on the way to the slaughterhouse. She has devised standards

of humane treatment for the industry, and has thus put her

unique ability to good practical use. The most I could do

to put my talents to good use would be to become a proof-

reader, and I'm really not interested in doing that. ;-)

I do wonder what you mean by " morally objectionable " . My

imagination isn't working very well right now. I came up

with " lawyer " and " insurance salesman " , but that was me

being humorous. Mafia hitman, maybe? Some people might

think that operating one of those bolt-guns at a slaughter-

house was morally objectionable, and I might agree with them.

It's not a job I would want to do, nor any other job in the

slaughterhouse, I suppose. The person who criticized Temple

thinks that her part in the business is morally objectionable.

I don't see that, because 50 million cows are slaughtered

every year in this country alone *anyway*, and the only diff-

erence that Temple has made is that they are now killed in a

more humane way. One of the things that make kosher meat

kosher is that the Rabbi oversees the killing of the animals,

and one of the laws is, " Don't let the animal see the knife. "

I take this to mean, " Don't cause unnecessary stress or fear

to the animal before its death. " What Temple has done is to

minimize any stress to the animals, and should be considered

a good thing.

> I'm not talking about Temple now, I'm talking about your

> own statement. I just don't see any reason why " what some-

> one does best " (whether the person is autistic or not) has

> any bearing on whether the person's action are open to

> criticism.

Again, you're talking about something other than the

specific thing I had in mind, and I'm not able to come

up with another example. If a person does something

better that anyone else can do it, who can criticize that?

(See, I didn't mean " the thing a person does best " , but

" the thing a person does better than anyone else " ).

> After all, criticism is not a bad thing in itself. It's

> part of how we learn and grow. Do we really want to put

> parts of ourselves (and parts of our interaction with the

> world) off limits to the insights others might bring to

> them?

Agreed, it's not such a bad thing. But for myself, I could

take criticism much better on a one-on-one basis and learn

from it, than I could if I were to find out that someone had

taken the trouble to write a treatise criticizing my life's

work and publish it on the internet for all to see. I think

I wouldn't be too happy about that.

Clay

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

>> >... I also thought it unfair for one autistic to

>> > criticize another for doing what she does best.

I responded (in part):

>> I'm not talking about Temple now, I'm talking about your

>> own statement. I just don't see any reason why " what some-

>> one does best " (whether the person is autistic or not) has

>> any bearing on whether the person's action are open to

>> criticism.

and Clay replied:

>Again, you're talking about something other than the

>specific thing I had in mind, and I'm not able to come

>up with another example. If a person does something

>better that anyone else can do it, who can criticize that?

>(See, I didn't mean " the thing a person does best " , but

> " the thing a person does better than anyone else " ).

There are many things that go on in various societies that

are morally objectionable from one POV or another. It is a

matter on which there can be debate whether it is ever okay

(and/or under what conditions it is okay) to participate in

morally objectionable actions in order to make them function

" better. " For example, I am opposed to capital punishment,

so even if I could make the about-to-be-killed more

comfortable (and thus, incidentally, less difficult for the

executioners to deal with, which is why I would be allowed

to ply my skill), I would consider it morally objectionable

for me to participate. Murder should not be made " better, "

lest it become too acceptable.

Some people believe that the mass slaughter of other aniamls

(other than humans) is morally wrong. People with that belief

are likely to see it as wrong to " improve " the system for

mass-killing of any animals. Not only because the killing

itself is wrong, but because " improving " the system will make

it harder for other people to see the wrong involved.

If Pol Pot had been an autistic with a special skill that made

him uniquely able to wipe out the educated classes in Cambodia

painlessly, would it have been unfair for other autistics to

criticize him for putting his skill to work? No, because mass

murder is never okay. Well, some people believe it is murder

whenever a sentient being is killed. (Others, including me,

believe that it is wrong to establish exploitative relations

with other sentient beings of the sort that lead so many cows

and other non-human animals from the factory farm to the

slaughterhouse.)

Seems to me both useless and contrary to liberty to ask

autitistic not to criticize anyone (autistic or not) on

the basis of our beliefs. We aren't all going to agree,

and repressing one's criticism can be a mark of disrespect.

Jane

[Guest guest]

We are in the world together. We should stick together. Even people who

do not eat meat should be slightly pleased that she is helping the

process along for cattle by causing less stress toward their end. I am

coming close toward switching to a vegan lifestyle. Unfortunately because

of so many allergies to things, vegs.., fruits, and meats are just about

all I CAN have.

I undersatnd what Clay's saying. If someone does a thing enabling them to

excel, to be good at something in an industry that will hurt animals if

she did not come along and change it, than she did something posisive.

The fact that her unique mind enabled her to see the way in which it

needed to be done is her plus, and he meant her action should not be open

to criticism because her job is worthy of respect.

The act of eating meat may be morally reprehensible in a vegan's heart

and in their view, but if we deprive a cat of meat they do not get

taurine, an essential nutrient. And they get tumors and go blind. Animals

eat animals in the wild.

Humans don't need to eat meat, we have seeds, peanuts, legumes, etc. But

the morally objectional act is not the person making the slaughter

humane.

just rambling,

Kim

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:22:53 -0800 Jane Meyerding

writes:

Clay wrote:

>... I also thought it unfair for one

>autistic to criticize another for doing what she does best.

What if what she or he does best is something morally

objectionable? I'm not talking about Temple now, I'm

talking about your own statement. I just don't see any

reason why " what someone does best " (whether the person

is autistic or not) has any bearing on whether the

person's action are open to criticism. After all,

criticism is not a bad thing in itself. It's part of

how we learn and grow. Do we really want to put parts

of ourselves (and parts of our interaction with the

world) off limits to the insights others might bring

to them?

Jane

[Guest guest]

> We are in the world together. We should stick together. Even people

> who do not eat meat should be slightly pleased that she is helping

> the process along for cattle by causing less stress toward their

> end.

<snip>

None of that has to do with the fact that she is autistic and, because

of certain aspects of her autism, has done something that *some*

people find morally objectionable. I don't happen to find it morally

objectionable, and did not even when I was a vegan. However, I can

understand why someone *would* find it morally objectionable and

believe they should be allowed to say so if they do.

> The fact that her unique mind enabled her to see the way in which it

> needed to be done is her plus, and he meant her action should not be

> open to criticism because her job is worthy of respect.

[completely hypothetical situation ahead]

What if someone autistic had used their unique inside view of autism

to develop a method of torturing autistics into submission without it

*looking* like torture from an NT perspective? And what if that

person got better " results " in terms of " autistics learning to act

normal " than anyone else in the field, and made it into their life's

work, saying it was their love for autistics that drove them? And

what if that person were arguably the most famous autistic in the

world?

Would it be worth being " supportive " to this one person to subject all

those other autistics to absolute *hell* under that person's " care " ?

Or would many autistics say, " Hey, wait a minute, I don't think that

deliberately causing severe distress in autistics in order to change

our behavior to look more like non-autistic people is okay. "

[end hypothetical situation]

Note that I don't think what Temple Grandin does is equivalent to

that. But clearly the author of that article thinks it's equivalent

or worse. Acting as if it's wrong to *disagree with another person's

actions* (and you, by the way, are in your post disagreeing with an

important part of another autistic's life work, whether or not you or

I agree with it) in the way you've described it is pretty much like

saying " Okay, autistics, you have blanket permission to do whatever

you want to as long as you're really good at it, you put your heart

into it, and it looks to most people as if you're helping someone.

Even if you're torturing them. And you're completely above criticism.

" I don't know if that's what you *meant* to say, but that's what it

reads like.

[Guest guest]

Jane wrote:

> There are many things that go on in various societies that

> are morally objectionable from one POV or another. It is a

> matter on which there can be debate whether it is ever okay

> (and/or under what conditions it is okay) to participate in

> morally objectionable actions in order to make them function

> " better. "

Thanks for giving me a better idea of what you meant. I was

only half-serious about the lawyers and insurance salesmen,

but I could have added car salesmen, lobbyists, politicians

in general, any number of occupations that use questionable

tactics to achieve their ends. To me, using deception to

gain money or power is morally objectionable.

> For example, I am opposed to capital punishment, so even

> if I could make the about-to-be-killed more comfortable

> (and thus, incidentally, less difficult for the executioners

> to deal with, which is why I would be allowed to ply my

> skill), I would consider it morally objectionable for me

> to participate. Murder should not be made " better, " lest

> it become too acceptable.

I want you to know that I hold you and your opinions in the

highest esteem, and I can sit here and agree with you on

principle on being opposed to capital punishment, both for

the reason that sometimes the innocent are wrongfully killed,

and I don't wish the State to have the power of life and death

over its citizens. It is wrong, in my opinion. But, faced

with the practical situation of someone about to die, and I

could make his transition any easier, then I would do it. That

would be a kindness to him, and if it were the most I could do

for him, I would do it. I don't think the executioners mind too

much if the condemned causes any difficulty - some of them

might enjoy it. Did you see " The Green Mile " ?

> Some people believe that the mass slaughter of other animals

> (other than humans) is morally wrong. People with that belief

> are likely to see it as wrong to " improve " the system for

> mass-killing of any animals. Not only because the killing

> itself is wrong, but because " improving " the system will make

> it harder for other people to see the wrong involved.

" Other people " , like and me and most everyone else,

simply don't go to the slaughterhouses to see what happens

there. If we did, I'm sure we'd be sickened by what we saw,

and might find it hard to eat meat after that, at least for

awhile. But the fact is, most people would get over it, and

it wouldn't affect the market on beef much at all, and still

there would be that same 50 million cows killed every year in

this country alone. That's my " practical " argument. And I

could argue about its being morally wrong, because both the

Bible and Qur'an say that cattle were given to mankind as

food. Both give stipulations regarding kindness and gentle-

ness towards the animals, and the saying of God's name as

the animal is killed, to make it " acceptable " . Given the

fact that the animals are going to be killed *anyway*, then

what Temple has done was the most she could do to alleviate

their suffering.

> If Pol Pot had been an autistic with a special skill that made

> him uniquely able to wipe out the educated classes in Cambodia

> painlessly, would it have been unfair for other autistics to

> criticize him for putting his skill to work? No, because mass

> murder is never okay.

Okay, now I have to call " foul " here, because I think in

debate, that's called " reductio absurdum " , that is, reducing

a thing to the absurd. Pol Pot was not autistic, there is

no unique talent which could have allowed him to wipe out

the educated class in Cambodia painlessly, and equating

murdering people with killing cows for the purpose of feeding

people is a leap that I can't make.

> Well, some people believe it is murder whenever a sentient

> being is killed. (Others, including me, believe that it is

> wrong to establish exploitative relations with other sentient

> beings of the sort that lead so many cows and other non-human

> animals from the factory farm to the slaughterhouse.)

It could be that we're using different definitions of " sentient " .

I'm not sure just how sentient a cow is, how aware she is of

her surroundings, situation, etc. Does a cow ruminate about

how carefree her calfhood was? How she could run and jump in

the sunshine and explore new meadows? Do they feel sad if it

rains all day, and the grass gets muddy? I really don't think

cows are aware of much, but I think they were specifically

designed to provide milk and meat and cheese and ice cream.

> Seems to me both useless and contrary to liberty to ask

> autistics not to criticize anyone (autistic or not) on

> the basis of our beliefs. We aren't all going to agree,

> and repressing one's criticism can be a mark of disrespect.

I'm trying to understand the first sentence above, and have

to admit that I can't get my mind around it. I've tried to

restate it more directly, but I'm not sure that what I come

up with is what you meant. Can you restate it please?

On the last sentence, yes, we won't always agree, and I take

your point on repressing criticism is a form of disrespect.

(Damn, can't think of the word, something meaning " apathy " ,

or " beneath one's attention " . Can't get it.) It's a fine

point though, and wouldn't occur to most people, because

criticism is usually delivered in a hostile way, with false

characterizations or name-calling.

What I think was useless was to write that criticism of Temple,

as it could only alienate her from that segment of people who

support the one who wrote it, and had no real impact either

on her work, or on the life of any cows.

Clay

[Guest guest]

>...I don't think the executioners mind too

>much if the condemned causes any difficulty - some of them

>might enjoy it. Did you see " The Green Mile " ?

I avoid all popular entertainment about prisons. It's too

painful. So I can't comment on " The Green Mile " except to

say that they way it was described revolted me (because I

am " allergic " to sentimentality).

>... Given the

>fact that the animals are going to be killed *anyway*, then

>what Temple has done was the most she could do to alleviate

>their suffering.

" The way thinga are " always seems immutable (until enough

people decide to change things).

>... I really don't think

>cows are aware of much, but I think they were specifically

>designed to provide milk and meat and cheese and ice cream.

No comment. Except: I don't see the world that way.

I wrote:

>> Seems to me both useless and contrary to liberty to ask

>> autistics not to criticize anyone (autistic or not) on

>> the basis of our beliefs. We aren't all going to agree,

>> and repressing one's criticism can be a mark of disrespect.

>I'm trying to understand the first sentence above, and have

>to admit that I can't get my mind around it. I've tried to

>restate it more directly, but I'm not sure that what I come

>up with is what you meant. Can you restate it please?

It's useless to ask autistics not to criticize because

autisitics (in my limited experience) seem quite likely

to speak their minds no matter what rules of decorum are

supposed to reign. It's contrary to liberty because even

autistics should have freedom of speech.

>On the last sentence, yes, we won't always agree, and I take

>your point on repressing criticism is a form of disrespect.

>(Damn, can't think of the word, something meaning " apathy " ,

>or " beneath one's attention " . Can't get it.) It's a fine

>point though, and wouldn't occur to most people, because

>criticism is usually delivered in a hostile way, with false

>characterizations or name-calling.

I think much criticism that is *not* delivered in a hostile

way is *perceived* as being hostile precisely *because* so

many people continue to believe/say that the only way to

support one another is to keep quiet or say only " nice "

and basically content-less inanities.

>What I think was useless was to write that criticism of Temple,

>as it could only alienate her from that segment of people who

>support the one who wrote it, and had no real impact either

>on her work, or on the life of any cows.

Temple is an individual human who deserves the support of

hearing how her actions are perceived by people who respect

her as an individual. And I do not believe we should base

our actions or our expressions of belief on whether or not

we can foresee an immediate benefit/change.

Jane

[Guest guest]

I honestly do not know why everyone has a big problem with temple. I

still do not understand how she is somehow a 'bad' role model for 'us'

collectively. I am willing to be persuaded. But I said she's helping

cattle, not " some'one.' " I am not above criticism either. Absolutely no

person is.

It is wonderful that she(Temple) doesn't give a hoot what anyone thinks

and pursues what she wants, I don't judge, or try not to. She

reconstructed an industry that before really was full of torture.

Note that I don't think what Temple Grandin does is equivalent to

that. But clearly the author of that article thinks it's equivalent

or worse. Acting as if it's wrong to *disagree with another person's

actions* (and you, by the way, are in your post disagreeing with an

important part of another autistic's life work, whether or not you or

I agree with it) in the way you've described it is pretty much like

saying " Okay, autistics, you have blanket permission to do whatever

you want to as long as you're really good at it, you put your heart

into it, and it looks to most people as if you're helping someone.

Even if you're torturing them. And you're completely above criticism.

" I don't know if that's what you *meant* to say, but that's what it

reads like.

As for this nonsense below , which you dreamed up, I don't have any

concept of fame. I once had Temple's phone number and know people from

Australia who know her personally and thought we might hit it off. I

ditched it thinking we just weren't alike. Simply because I'd read a book

of hers.I sensed she was busy with her work and after reading that she'd

cried in the car with Oliver and said that her work was her life, I just

thought that we had different relating styles.I had kids for one. My

point? I have NO concept of her fame.

That a person you consider with noteriety -her name doesn't call that

forth for me-I don't think of Donna or Jerry as people with fame and have

a hard time * feeling* it even though I know they have accomplishments...

There is a lot hidden in this little paragraph here below(so FAR off the

subject!!!) than cows being quietly led to slaughter by someone who

devised a way to do it humanely.

What denotes fame?

Like pride, I cannot understand the definition.

Like idea, thought, and emotion I don't understand.

She's a person with an invention. Who gives her this fame label?

Kim

SNIP>>>

[completely hypothetical situation ahead]

What if someone autistic had used their unique inside view of autism to

develop a method of torturing autistics into submission without it

*looking* like torture from an NT perspective? And what if that person

got better " results " in terms of " autistics learning to act normal " than

anyone else in the field, and made it into their life's work, saying it

was their love for autistics that drove them? And what if that person

were arguably the most famous autistic in the world?

[Guest guest]

Kim wrote:

>I honestly do not know why everyone has a big problem with temple.

As far as I'm concerned, this thread has had nothing to do at

all with Temple Grandin. I don't know much about her, have no

problem with her at all as a person, assume she's a fine

individual.

What I have been reacting to is the idea that (as I inferred

from one post) perhaps we (autistics) should refrain from

critical (i.e., analytical, thoughtful, contextualizing)

thought about what another autistic is doing simply because

that thing is what the person happens to be very good at and

feels good doing.

That's all.

Nothing to do with Grandin, except that her work was the first

example raised (and I do understand why her work is objectionable

for some people).

Jane

[Guest guest]

> As far as I'm concerned, this thread has had nothing to do at

> all with Temple Grandin. I don't know much about her, have no

> problem with her at all as a person, assume she's a fine

> individual.

Likewise.

> What I have been reacting to is the idea that (as I inferred

> from one post) perhaps we (autistics) should refrain from

> critical (i.e., analytical, thoughtful, contextualizing)

> thought about what another autistic is doing simply because

> that thing is what the person happens to be very good at and

> feels good doing.

> That's all.

That pretty much sums things up for me as well. I was saying nearly

none of the things attributed to me in the previous post, so I can't

really respond as if I was. All I was saying was that autistics

should be allowed to say what we want about each other's work. The

examples I came up with (not " nonsense I dreamed up " ) were to

illustrate that point, not to denigrate anyone. Everything I said was

geared toward that topic and that topic alone, not a specific person

-- Temple Grandin (and more specifically, her work) was simply the

subject of the paper written by someone who supposedly shouldn't have

written a paper on her work. And I was saying that we should be

allowed to talk about what we agree and disagree with in each other's

work.

(Which is actually what is happening in this thread -- autistics are

disagreeing with each other's ideas. Which is perfectly acceptable,

just as acceptable as autistics disagreeing with what Temple Grandin

or *any* other autistic does.)

[Guest guest]

Jane Meyerding wrote:

> As far as I'm concerned, this thread has had nothing to do at

> all with Temple Grandin. I don't know much about her, have no

> problem with her at all as a person, assume she's a fine

> individual.

>

> What I have been reacting to is the idea that perhaps we (autistics)

> should refrain from

> critical (i.e., analytical, thoughtful, contextualizing)

> thought about what another autistic is doing simply because

> that thing is what the person happens to be very good at and

> feels good doing.

> Nothing to do with Grandin, except that her work was the first

> example raised (and I do understand why her work is objectionable

> for some people).

>

It's really quite simple. Anyone (AS or not) has a right to state what

they consider morally wrong. No one however has a right to dictate what

Temple Grandin or anyone else can or can not do based on what that

person's moral standards are. My actions should be based on my own

personal moral standards NOT what anybody else's are.

A.

[Guest guest]

Jane wrote:

> As far as I'm concerned, this thread has had nothing to do at

> all with Temple Grandin. I don't know much about her, have no

> problem with her at all as a person, assume she's a fine

> individual.

For my part, I have *only* been talking about Temple Grandin,

and what I perceived as unfairness in criticizing what she

does. You were the one who broadened it into the idea of

whether autistics should be allowed to criticize each other

in general. I can agree with what you said in your clarif-

ication on that this morning, but I hold that the case is

different concerning Temple and her work.

Why? Fair question. She's doing what she and she alone is

capable of doing; she's using her savant-like gift of under-

standing what cattle feel and fear to make their lives and

deaths more comfortable. No one else can do what she does,

and she was motivated by the best of intentions to ease

their suffering. Most everyone would want to give her credit

for that.

But you can't please everyone. Along comes a guy who has an

inordinate fear of death, wouldn't hurt a fly, but doesn't

mind attacking and alienating someone who is admirably

accomplishing her life's work, possibly the very thing she

was put here for. Who read the article Doug posted about

her? It stated that in 1996, only 36% of cattle were killed

with the first shot. In 2002, 94% were. A large graph of

other improvements were given, but I can't remember them all.

In my first post on this thread, (#14620, I remember because

its also my Zip code), I said in response to " If you love

something, you don't kill it " , You do, if the thing you love

most about it is the taste. What's to love about cows, I

ask you? Cows don't need love, they need steak sauce.

Once I had to kill something I loved. Mooncat I lived from

1982 to 1985, and died with a urinary infection that I could

not afford to have taken care of. When someone gave me

another cat, in 1988, I gave him the same name, and vowed

that he would live a long happy life. At 16, he's still

very healthy, and I hope he has many more years. But, the

day will come when he is in pain, hopefully just from old age,

but if I see him suffering, I will do what is necessary to

end his suffering. I wouldn't just let him die a lingering

death if he were in pain and there was nothing I could do to

alleviate it.

Last night I watched a show on PBS, about animals, about

how they live and die. They showed a meerkat digging into

an anthill, greedily scooping up ants and devouring them.

Then it showed ants taking apart grasshoppers, and carrying

these parts back to their home. They showed a banana slug

being attacked by these ants. It started exuding " copious

amounts of slime " , which kept the ants from grasping it,and

ensnared many ants which could suffocate in the slime. But

eventually, the slug ran out of slime, and the ants, " carved

steaks out of him " the voice said. They went on to show a

young wildebeest being snatched by the head by a crocodile,

while it was about to cross a river. The crocodile thrashed,

and mercifully broke the wildebeest's neck. They showed a

cheetah run down a 's gazelle, killed it, and then

brought it home to her kits.

I guess the point is, everything that lives, eventually dies.

It's important how a life is lived, and its important how

death arrives. That much is true of all life, but one more

thing is true for mankind: its important how we treat each

other.

Clay

[Guest guest]

What I'm confused about is how this:

> criticizing what she

> does.

'morphed into this:

> attacking and alienating someone who is admirably

> accomplishing her life's work

I saw the article as criticizing what she does. I did not see the

article as attacking her. I am trying to figure out where you find

the distinction to lie, if anywhere, between:

A. Looking at something a person does, disagreeing with it, and

saying something about your reasons for that disagreement. [

" Criticizing what a person does " .]

and

B. Doing something to *attack* a *person* on a *personal* level. [

" Attacking and alienating someone who is admirably accomplishing her

life's work. " ]

To me, the article was doing A. To me, the article was not doing B.

Note that I don't agree with " IYLSYDKI " for a number of reasons and

never have, not even while vegan. However, I can disagree with that

article without either (a) agreeing with your assessment of the person

who wrote the article or ( attacking the person who wrote the

article. (I add ( in because you seem to think that disagreeing

with what Temple does is attacking her. And I want to make it very

clear that I am not attacking Jim for writing the article, despite the

fact that the article is part of xyr life's work as an animal rights

activist and despite the fact that I disagree with the article.)

You seem to be completely melding together your disagreement with the

article, your opinions of the emotions and personality of the article

's author, and your opinions of the ethics of writing such an

article. And I do think those are separate issues. I disagree with

the article on many counts, I would not presume to tell the article's

author that xe simply had an inordinate fear of death, and I think it

was ethical and non-attacking to write the article.

It is kind of frustrating to say " But the article's not an attack " and

hear arguments about whether or not it's ethical to develop new ways

of killing cattle, speculation as to the emotional state of cattle,

and speculation as to the emotional state of the author of the

article. Those things, to me, don't really touch on the issue of

whether the article is a personal attack or not -- and in fact that

they confusingly meld (a) the issue of agreement or disagreement with

the ideas in the article, and ( the issue of whether or not the

article was attacking anyone.

If it's up to whether something is someone's life's work with the best

of intentions and motivated by love using specific autism-related

skills, you're going to come up with essentially a stalemate because

Jim and Temple *both* are doing what they and many others think is

their life's work motivated by love with good intentions and using

autism-related skills to do so. So what you are saying from that

point of view can just as easily be turned in the other direction. I

don't know if I'm being clear there -- I just mean that you can't

claim that either side is more that way than the other, so you can't

really use that angle as meaningfully differentiating between who is

right.

But what worries me the most is that confusing melding of things. I

can't tell if you're arguing two things separately but simultaneously

(that Jim's article was an attack on Temple *and* that you disagree

with Jim's views while agreeing with Temple's views); or if you're

arguing that the two are so intertwined that you can't separate them.

If you're saying that they're that intertwined, then you're

essentially setting up " whether or not I agree with someone " as having

a fair amount of influence in " whether or not their views are

something I consider an attack " . And that I can't agree with at all.

[Guest guest]

> It's really quite simple. Anyone (AS or not) has a right to state

> what they consider morally wrong. No one however has a right to

> dictate what Temple Grandin or anyone else can or can not do based

> on what that person's moral standards are. My actions should be

> based on my own personal moral standards NOT what anybody else's

> are.

" Murder is wrong " is a moral standard. (So would be " Murder is right "

if held by people who believed such a thing.)

So is " No one has a right to dictate what anyone else can or cannot do

based on what the person's moral standards are. "

Which is why complete moral relativism ties my head in pretzels and

tends to dissolve itself. I try to take it to its conclusion and it

doesn't compute.

(My own belief is that morality/ethics will destroy itself if it tries

to incorporate all possible contradictory moralities/ethics, and also

if it gets so rigid that it allows for no variation.)

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

>But you can't please everyone. Along comes a guy who has an

>inordinate fear of death, wouldn't hurt a fly, but doesn't

>mind attacking and alienating someone who is admirably

>accomplishing her life's work, possibly the very thing she

>was put here for.

I believe you are grossly mischaracterizing the person

who wrote that essay. Your assumptions are wrong, which

probably has a circular effect on your reading of the

essay. Because you disagree with the author, you make

assumptions about the author; those assumptions futher

color your interpretation of the essay, and that

interpretation " validates " your mischaracterization of

its author.

Your disagreement with the essay is fine, your prerogative.

But spreading your mischaracterization of the author as if

it were The Truth is not a good idea, IMO. Is not ethical.

You are capable of arguing against the author's beliefs,

as you have shown. So this ad hominem description of the

author's character is out of place.

Jane

[Guest guest]

Jane wrote:

> Clay wrote:

> >But you can't please everyone. Along comes a guy who has an

> >inordinate fear of death, wouldn't hurt a fly, but doesn't

> >mind attacking and alienating someone who is admirably

> >accomplishing her life's work, possibly the very thing she

> >was put here for.

> I believe you are grossly mischaracterizing the person

> who wrote that essay. Your assumptions are wrong, which

> probably has a circular effect on your reading of the

> essay. Because you disagree with the author, you make

> assumptions about the author; those assumptions futher

> color your interpretation of the essay, and that

> interpretation " validates " your mischaracterization of

> its author.

I really didn't mean to mischaracterize the author, and

I'm not sure I did. I do have respect for him as an

advocate for autistic rights, and I actually like him.

On this topic of " animal's rights " or whatever it is, I

just think he's off the mark. It's just *futile* to

worry about animal's dying, they die every day, most

animals that have ever lived have died at the tooth or

claw of some other animal. It's the circle of life.

What I thought was wrong about the article was not that

it was an " attack " , but just that it seemed to guilt-trip

Temple for doing what she is uniquely able to do. How

would you feel if you were her, and happened to come across

the article on the internet? Would you suddenly quit, with

the realization that what you were doing was helping to kill

cattle, or would you continue, knowing that what you were

doing was a good thing? I do think she'd feel alienated

from other autistics.

> Your disagreement with the essay is fine, your prerogative.

> But spreading your mischaracterization of the author as if

> it were The Truth is not a good idea, IMO. Is not ethical.

I'm saddened that you took it that way. I didn't mean to

imply that what I was saying was The Truth, didn't mean

to mischaracterize the author. It may not be that he has

" an inordinate fear of death " , but he has some radical

thoughts on the " sanctity of all life " , and seems to hold

that mice or mosquitoes or whatever have some immutable

right to life, and that killing anything is murder, and

their lives are equal to human life. I don't think that's

a mischaracterization, and it isn't an attack either. I

can admire such a gentle soul, but I don't think that view

is practical.

> You are capable of arguing against the author's beliefs,

> as you have shown. So this ad hominem description of the

> author's character is out of place.

When I watch those Nature shows on PBS, I let Mooncat know

they're on, because he likes to watch the animals. He is

fascinated with birds, other cats, and especially polar

bears, for some reason. But he always looks away when a

big cat or something is about to " make a kill " . He just

doesn't want to see it. (He's never killed anything.)

This may not be " The Truth " , but I would guess the author

of the article does the same thing. That's not an ad

hominem attack, but an acknowledgement of the gentleness

of the soul who feels so strongly about the sanctity of

all life, who recognizes the fear of the gazelle as she

is mauled by the cheetah before it breaks her neck, who

would like to end pain and suffering for all God's creatures,

but unfortunately, cannot. One could spend his life tilting

at that windmill, and still not have any effect. Again,

everything that lives, eventually dies. A painless and

instantaneous death is better than a brutal one. I hope to

die in my sleep, of old age. But there are a thousand ways

to die, each with varying degrees of pain. I would hope

for the most painless way, as Temple is trying to do for

the cattle.

Clay

[Guest guest]

Sorry, , I didn't mean to " duck " answering you, but

this post came in late last night, and I didn't have time

then or this afternoon to respond. I really want to clear

up any misunderstanding, and hope this will do it.

wrote:

> What I'm confused about is how this:

> > criticizing what she

> > does.

> 'morphed into this:

> > attacking and alienating someone who is admirably

> > accomplishing her life's work

Ummm, because I was forced into further elaboration on

what I meant? I don't say that it was *intended* by the

author to do any of those things, but probably had those

effects. It also had the effect of laying a guilt trip

on her for doing what she " has a calling " to do.

I was speaking specifically about Temple, but Jane mis-

understood that I was declaring a new rule that should

apply to all autistics, in that they should never criticize

each other. I didn't say or imply that, so I can't/won't

defend it.

Why do I think the author should not have criticized her

specifically? Because as an autistic, he should realize

how difficult it is for *any* of us to be gainfully employed,

let alone at a job for which they're especially adept.

Very few of us have that, and I'm not one of them. So

is it realistic to expect her to chuck it all, just be-

cause *some* people might consider it " aiding in murder " ?

She doesn't see it that way, and neither do the vast

majority of people.

And I was not " attacking " the author. If I were, I would

for sure have mentioned the name, and I took pains not to

use the specific pronouns the author uses, because I did

not want to identify him to people who didn't already know

who we were talking about, as it could muddy the issue.

(Not that it didn't get muddy enough.) ;-) No, I actually

like and respect the author, but disagree with him on this

one issue. I even respect his reasons for being that way,

but find them extreme and impractical.

> I saw the article as criticizing what she does. I did not

> see the article as attacking her. I am trying to figure out

> where you find the distinction to lie, if anywhere, between:

>

> A. Looking at something a person does, disagreeing with it,

> and saying something about your reasons for that disagreement.

> [ " Criticizing what a person does " .]

>

> and

>

> B. Doing something to *attack* a *person* on a *personal*

> level. [ " Attacking and alienating someone who is admirably

> accomplishing her life's work. " ]

>

> To me, the article was doing A. To me, the article was not

> doing B.

I hope I answered that somewhere above. We (all of us),

always get hung up on definitions, and it always leads to

misunderstandings. I'm not able to answer your post line

for line, as I'm afraid *I'll* get too confused.

> Note that I don't agree with " IYLSYDKI " for a number of

> reasons and never have, not even while vegan. However, I

> can disagree with that article without either (a) agreeing

> with your assessment of the person who wrote the article or

> ( attacking the person who wrote the article. (I add (

> in because you seem to think that disagreeing with what Temple

> does is attacking her. And I want to make it very clear that

> I am not attacking Jim for writing the article, despite the

> fact that the article is part of xyr life's work as an animal

>rights activist and despite the fact that I disagree with the

>article.)

I don't think I " made an assessment " of the person who wrote

the article, nor did I " attack " the person. All that I meant

was said in that message 14620, and not what anyone read into

it.

> You seem to be completely melding together your disagreement

> with the article, your opinions of the emotions and personality

> of the article's author, and your opinions of the ethics of

> writing such an article. And I do think those are separate

> issues. I disagree with the article on many counts, I would

> not presume to tell the article's author that xe simply had

> an inordinate fear of death, and I think it was ethical and

> non-attacking to write the article.

Uhh, I didn't try to tell the author that. And the " inordinate

fear " thing was toned down from what I really meant. (And I'll

decline elaborating on that.)

> It is kind of frustrating to say " But the article's not an

> attack " and hear arguments about whether or not it's ethical

> to develop new ways of killing cattle, speculation as to the

emotional state of cattle, and speculation as to the emotional

> state of the author of the article. Those things, to me,

> don't really touch on the issue of whether the article is a

> personal attack or not --

I think that if I were her, and came across the article on the

internet, I would consider it so. I don't know that she did,

but I'm trying to see it from her point of view.

> and in fact that they confusingly meld (a) the issue of agree-

> ment or disagreement with the ideas in the article, and (

> the issue of whether or not the article was attacking anyone.

Are you actually aware that longwindedness and labyrinthine

paragraphs and (a)'s and ('s confuse the hell out of me?

Heh-heh-heh. I do hope Some things are getting cleared up.

> If it's up to whether something is someone's life's work with

> the best of intentions and motivated by love using specific

> autism-related skills, you're going to come up with essentially

> a stalemate because Jim and Temple *both* are doing what they

> and many others think is their life's work motivated by love

> with good intentions and using autism-related skills to do so.

> So what you are saying from that point of view can just as

> easily be turned in the other direction. I don't know if I'm

> being clear there -- I just mean that you can't claim that

> either side is more that way than the other, so you can't

> really use that angle as meaningfully differentiating between

> who is right.

well, we know that Temple found a comforting sensation by being

compressed in a box or something. She devised some sort of

contraption that would work even better. Somehow, she realized

that cows might like it too. Sorry if that's a scanty description.

I once asked the author when xe first came to feel that way, and

xe said that xe became upset once at a kosher butcher shop, as

they had live chickens there ready for killing. Xe was very

young at the time, and naturally felt sorry for the chickens.

And, being an aspie, perseverated on it in that state.

At that same age, my mother used to take me to the butcher

shop. It wasn't kosher, everything was already laid out in

rows, and then was wrapped in white paper. It didn't have the

traumatic effect it might have if there were live chickens in

cages.

> But what worries me the most is that confusing melding of

> things.

(You and me both.)

> I can't tell if you're arguing two things separately but

> simultaneously (that Jim's article was an attack on Temple

> *and* that you disagree with Jim's views while agreeing with

> Temple's views); or if you're arguing that the two are so

> intertwined that you can't separate them.

Uhhh, whether intended as an attack or not, it was likely

perceived as one by her. And I disagree with Jim on this

and agree with her.

> If you're saying that they're that intertwined, then you're

> essentially setting up " whether or not I agree with someone "

> as having a fair amount of influence in " whether or not their

> views are something I consider an attack " . And that I can't

> agree with at all.

I don't understand that, and/or I'm totally confused. It's

late, check the date line above. Something like 3 AM here.

I hope we cleared up Something. I value your opinions too.

Clay