beau99 (post: 1233598) wrote:I'm probably showing my bias, as I'm autistic myself. I will ALWAYS stand up for the autistic person.
Cap'n Nick (post: 1233754) wrote:Imposing restrictions on a person doesn't imply guilt. It only acknowledges the reality of their limitations. For example, I fly in airplanes rather than flapping my arms vigorously. I'm not guilty of not flying, I simply need an airplane to fly. More realistically, a blind man isn't guilty of blindness, he simply needs help to see. Different people need help with all sorts of things, like walking, or not stealing, or even behaving in church.
Because we're not perfect, we can't always give people the help they need everywhere they need it. This doesn't mean we drop people out of airplanes or let blind men wander the freeway. It does mean that we restrict people to places and situations in which they and those around them are safe. We should always work to make people as free as possible, but we should also understand that's it not realistic to expect all situations to be made safe for all kinds of people. People with special needs should rejoice in the freedoms won for them and work toward the expansion of their freedoms, not curse those who are sacrificing for them for failing to deliver that which they cannot.
Guilt is probably the least useful way to look at this problem. It implies a level of control that no one involved really has. When tragedy strikes, even in the form of mental illness, we should be looking at how to pick up the pieces and not where to point the fingers.
Fish and Chips wrote: Autistics, more tight-knit than Masons.
CelticWarrior20 (post: 1233757) wrote:Im autistic i have aspergers syndrome in fact but the point is that the priest handeld it wrong he should have said i am going to bring u communion every sunday to ur house
Fish and Chips (post: 1233811) wrote:Autistics, more tight-knit than Masons.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 259 guests