Re: Positive personal talk (was:TGrandin)

[Guest guest]

> Yep, the header is misleading. I hate that. Let's change this, so

> that the discussion can be identified. What is it? Vegans unite?

To me the subject has been " What are we allowed to say and what are we

not allowed to say and why? "

[Guest guest]

This group's description says: " This is a place for all autistic

spectrum adults (Asperger's Syndrome, High-Functioning

Autism, PDD-NOS, et cetera) to say whatever is on their minds.

There will be no censorship or moderation, but personal attacks

are off-limits. This list/group is for people on the spectrum only,

not for normal parents of autistic children. "

Say what is on your mind. Personal attacks are off limits. No fair

taking pot shots at anyone, including Temple, I'd say. That is my

understanding of how this group is set up. Am I right? -Zer

> > Yep, the header is misleading. I

hate that. Let's change this, so that the discussion can be

identified. What is it? Vegans unite?

>

> To me the subject has been " What are we allowed to say and

what are we not allowed to say and why? "

>

[Guest guest]

Zer wrote:

>Say what is on your mind. Personal attacks are off limits. No fair

>taking pot shots at anyone, including Temple, I'd say. That is my

>understanding of how this group is set up. Am I right? -Zer

Why do you ask? Did you see anyone (here) " taking pot shots "

at Temple?

Jane (who did not)

[Guest guest]

Yes, I am hearing a good woman lambasted for caring about

how feedlot animals are treated on their way to a destiny that is

not HER choice. Blaming Temple for animals being slaughtered

strikes me as a personal attack. I am hearing vegans and others

talk about 'murder' and I am puzzled to see Temple Grandin's

name on postings that drift into personal dietary choices. That's

a whole other kettle of fish, so to speak. I'm sure that some AS

folks are welcome to discuss dietary preferences, but why tie in

a woman who is doing what she can do -- and doing it well, from

what I see in my beginning reading on AS as I attempt to learn

more about my own recent dx at 60 -- to contribute to a world that

is a harsh place for some creatures who are lower on the food

chain? Gosh, if that is not spitting in the face of a good woman,

I'm not sure what it is. Strikes me as abusive. So, I say so. -Zer

(who does not remember who here is vegan or beastly in taste)

> >Say what is on your mind. Personal attacks are

off limits. No fair taking pot shots at anyone, including Temple, I'd

say. That is my understanding of how this group is set up. Am I

right? -Zer

>

> Why do you ask? Did you see anyone (here) " taking pot shots "

at Temple?

>

> Jane (who did not)

[Guest guest]

> Yes, I am hearing a good woman lambasted for caring about

> how feedlot animals are treated on their way to a destiny that is

> not HER choice. Blaming Temple for animals being slaughtered

> strikes me as a personal attack.

Nobody has done that.

> I am hearing vegans and others

> talk about 'murder' and I am puzzled to see Temple Grandin's

> name on postings that drift into personal dietary choices.

I am not a vegan. I was merely saying I *used* to be, in order to

illustrate that I *did not agree* with the person who disagreed with

Temple *even when I shared that person's dietary choices*. When

people were talking about " murder " , they were talking about it *BY

ANALOGY*, not accusing Temple of anything. If you read the posts in

their entirety, you'll see that what was being described was what

happens when people's ethical ideas clash with each other. We were

talking about how *some* people might see finding ways to kill cattle

as on par with torture or murder, but none of *us* said it was on par

with torture or murder. Merely that we could understand how someone

with another ethical system would see it that way.

> That's

> a whole other kettle of fish, so to speak. I'm sure that some AS

> folks are welcome to discuss dietary preferences, but why tie in

> a woman who is doing what she can do -- and doing it well, from

> what I see in my beginning reading on AS as I attempt to learn

> more about my own recent dx at 60 -- to contribute to a world that

> is a harsh place for some creatures who are lower on the food

> chain?

I think you missed the point of why people were referencing their

dietary choices (and you will see that everyone who mentioned their

dietary choices actually agreed to one extent or another with what

Temple is doing).

> Gosh, if that is not spitting in the face of a good woman,

> I'm not sure what it is. Strikes me as abusive. So, I say so.

It's not abusive to talk about why one thinks that another person's

work does not fit into one's ethical system. If we were all nice and

polite and quiet when other people's work didn't suit us, and phrased

it entirely in terms of ourselves, nothing bad would ever be made

better. I happen to think that Temple is not doing anything all that

bad, but clearly that one person *did*, and I think they are being

completely non-abusive to say so. In fact, the only reason I have

been involved in this discussion is to point out that disagreeing with

someone in public is not an act of abuse. That is my only point, all

else has been merely an illustration of that point.

> -Zer

> (who does not remember who here is vegan or beastly in taste)

I'm no longer vegan. It's not relevant except to point out that even

when I *was* vegan I supported to some degree or another what Temple

was doing. The reason I pointed it out in particular was that people

might assume that my dietary choices *did* have something to do with

why I thought she was okay, and I was pointing out that they didn't.