Autism, Autistic, Asperger, what are all these?

[Aleh]

Recessive genes and genotype vs phenotype.

To effectively remove that, you're going to have to and sterilize every living member of their blood family, as you have no way of telling who carries the recessive gene and who doesn't. Assuming you do, you'd have to get them to consent to it, and should they have the recessive gene, consent to sterilization.

Click to shrink...

To be fair, we've been arguing about Types I-IV OI, which are autosomal dominant.

 

[nick012000]

Recessive genes and genotype vs phenotype.

Click to shrink...

It's not a genetically recessive disease, it's a genetically dominant disease - everyone who has the genes has the disease, and will have at least a 50% chance of passing them to any offspring they have.

The population does not equal the gene pool. As noted, the program would and could have pretty much no notable effect on that.

Click to shrink...

Yes, it does. Everyone who has the genes for the disease (the gene pool) has the disease.

Well, first off, it's inaccurate to refer to people with OI as having "shatterbones cripple-midget genes", as noted above. You're also assuming that every person with OI participates in the program, which I've repeatedly pointed out would not be the case.

Click to shrink...

Well, normally I'd be more sensitive about people with disabilities, but this is a severely crippling disease that leaves you midget-sized and with bones that shatter at practically the lightest touch, so...

For another, the problem is largely self-limiting. The genes for OI are already severely selected against. This is why you have fewer second-generation people with OI than first-generation... and still fewer third-generations, etc. The phenomenon is maintained pretty much entirely by said de novo mutations. But...

Click to shrink...

Did you read the article I posted? The author's mother was a sufferer of OI, and she had two children that also had the disease, because his father was so desperate for pussy that he was willing to fuck a shatterbones cripple-midget (and then went on to divorce her and fuck the nurse the government paid to help him with his crippled sons).

No. The number needed to treat is the number of sterilizations you'd have to perform to prevent the birth of a single baby with OI.

Click to shrink...

Okay, then - the number is 5:2, then - sterilizing 5 people to prevent 2 births (using your own numbers about 40% of them inheriting it from their parents). You're still probably turning a profit, considering how much money you're going to be spending on healthcare costs for them.

First off, as noted, the people most likely to let themselves be sterilized for your proposed incentives are also those least likely to have kids in the first place. Since they wouldn't have kids anyway, sterilizing them does jack and shit to prevent further births of kids with OI. On top of that, there's a slightly less than 50% chance (due to babies with OI being less likely to survive to term) that any kid born to one would not have the condition, so you then have to double the number of sterilizations you need to prevent a birth.

Click to shrink...

So, 5:2, then.

And those are the ones least amenable to being impacted by your program, not to mention the ones least likely to reproduce anyway. You can't pick and choose between attributes of the different types like that.

Click to shrink...

If there's 8 different conditions, you pick the worst ones. Duh.

 

[Fedorable]

Does that argument still hold up when you start taking into consideration other diseases or whatever that you plan to remove from the gene pool via sterelization though? and why are we talking about midget bone disease thing in the austism/aspergers thread?

 

[Aleh]

Yes, it does. Everyone who has the genes for the disease (the gene pool) has the disease.

Click to shrink...

No. The population consists of the individuals alive at a given time. The gene pool consists of the genes available to be passed on to the next generation within the population. People who don't or can't reproduce are not part of it.

Well, normally I'd be more sensitive about people with disabilities, but this is a severely crippling disease that leaves you midget-sized and with bones that shatter at practically the lightest touch, so...

Click to shrink...

As noted, this is pure stereotype. Remember my quote from the OI Foundation?

Well, here and here are a couple of stories of people with OI, complete with pictures. Those are the sorts of people we're talking about. The "midgets" you mentioned? They don't reproduce anyway.

Did you read the article I posted? The author's mother was a sufferer of OI, and she had two children that also had the disease, because his father was so desperate for pussy that he was willing to fuck a shatterbones cripple-midget (and then went on to divorce her and fuck the nurse the government paid to help him with his crippled sons).

Click to shrink...

I don't make a habit of going to Nazi websites, and the details of his story are irrelevant. Also, as repeatedly noted, "shatterbones cripple-midget" is anything but an accurate description of people with OI.

Okay, then - the number is 5:2, then - sterilizing 5 people to prevent 2 births (using your own numbers about 40% of them inheriting it from their parents). You're still probably turning a profit, considering how much money you're going to be spending on healthcare costs for them.

Click to shrink...

No. A more realistic number would be something like 50:1, and that's without mentioning the other side-effects of the program.

As for healthcare costs... they're both less than you might think and not necessarily a taxpayer expense. Plenty of people with OI have productive careers. This includes the more severe types, which your program wouldn't be able to effect at all.

Fredrick Brennan, for instance, is a software developer who is best known for developing and founding 8chan. He does meet your "cripple-midget" stereotype, and has either Type III or severe Type IV OI. Much the same can be said of Dr. Peter Radtke, a scientist and linguist who's also had a career as an actor and playwright.

Interestingly on that last case, he's kinda-sorta a Holocaust survivor as well: he was born in 1943, and his parents and a sympathetic doctor helped him escape the Nazis' euthenasia programs. He's hardly unique; I have lists.

Or perhaps I should focus on the people your program would target -- like Doug Herland, an American Olympic athelete who not only had OI, but managed to win a Bronze medal... in the Olympics. Or Julia Fernandez, an actress best known for playing Brenda in The Office. Here's a picture of her... and yes, that wheelchair is full-size. Or... well. You get the idea.

Edit: Oh, and Kerry Ingram -- the actress who played Shireen on Game of Thrones -- also has OI. Here's what she looks like.

If there's 8 different conditions, you pick the worst ones. Duh.

Click to shrink...

Except we're not using the numbers for the "worst ones". People with the worst forms of OI are also the least likely to reproduce anyway and the most likely to be the results of de novo mutations -- in fact, pretty much all cases of Type II and Type III OI are exactly that. Are you really that blind to the sheer inconsistency of your argument here?

Does that argument still hold up when you start taking into consideration other diseases or whatever that you plan to remove from the gene pool via sterelization though?

Click to shrink...

It doesn't hold up even before then, so no.

and why are we talking about midget bone disease thing in the austism/aspergers thread?

Click to shrink...

Because that was the example he picked of a disability amenable to eugenic solution.

 

[gibbousmoons]

nick012000, after reading this thread I can only conclude that you are not making a reasonable effort to fulfill Rule 1. If you want to discuss something with another member of the forum, you must make a reasonable effort to post in good faith. You have thus far failed to present a consistent, fair argument. If you would like to continue posting on this subject you may, but it would be a good idea for you to examine your position if you do so. This is the polite warning to play along and not act in bad faith. If I return to this thread I will not be polite.

Also, remain on topic everyone. This is a thread about autism and autism-related conditions. Other things do belong here, but only as they relate to the topic.

 

[nick012000]

nick012000, after reading this thread I can only conclude that you are not making a reasonable effort to fulfill Rule 1. If you want to discuss something with another member of the forum, you must make a reasonable effort to post in good faith. You have thus far failed to present a consistent, fair argument. If you would like to continue posting on this subject you may, but it would be a good idea for you to examine your position if you do so. This is the polite warning to play along and not act in bad faith. If I return to this thread I will not be polite.

Click to shrink...

I *am* making a good faith effort at arguing my point. It's not my fault that everyone else is twisting words around and using hyper-specific definitions of things! Eugenics, for instance, can be a "treatment" for a condition rather than a "cure", and simply aim to reduce the incidence of a condition, but whenever I explain that, they just ignore me and keep on going, or give some bullshit explanation involving something completely unrelated that totally ignores my actual point!

This is Fredrick Brennan, aka "Hotwheels". He has Osteogenesis Imperfecta, and he's the author of the article I linked.

When I'm describing them as "shatterbones cripple-midgets"? That's because that's what he is, and that's why he advocates the voluntary eugenics program that I've been describing. His life is literally almost constant agony; even the smallest bump can break a bone. His arms fold in zig-zag fashions because of how many times they've been broken and mended incorrectly; it's less obvious in this image, but if you watch a video with him in it, it becomes apparent very rapidly when you see him move them.

The people saying that they don't reproduce? They do, and can - his mother did, and she had two boys, both of whom had her condition. A woman, who looked like that, had two children, because their father was so desperate for sex that he didn't *care* what the woman he was having sex with looked like as long as she was willing.

Even if there's other versions of the disease out there that are less severe? They're not the ones I'm talking about. I'm talking about the ones like Hotwheels here, who are at an immediate glance obviously crippled for life as a result of a genetically dominant disorder, who will require carers to look after them for life, and who will pass the disorder on to 50% of their children (who make up 40% of the total population of the people suffering from their disease, apparently).

Also, remain on topic everyone. This is a thread about autism and autism-related conditions. Other things do belong here, but only as they relate to the topic.

Click to shrink...

Sure, fine. Just defending myself from your mod text accusing me of arguing in bad faith. Should we make a eugenics thread, then, and take this tangent there?

 

[gibbousmoons]

Nicknumbers has been given a one day threadban for arguing with an official moderator decision.

 

[Aleh]

I *am* making a good faith effort at arguing my point. It's not my fault that everyone else is twisting words around and using hyper-specific definitions of things!

Click to shrink...

This is typically a pretty good indication that you have a misunderstanding of something basic.

Eugenics, for instance, can be a "treatment" for a condition rather than a "cure", and simply aim to reduce the incidence of a condition, but whenever I explain that, they just ignore me and keep on going, or give some bullshit explanation involving something completely unrelated that totally ignores my actual point!

Click to shrink...

It can aim to reduce the incidence of a condition, yes, but eugenics programs -- by definition -- aim to do so in a sustainable and hereditary fashion. That is what eugenics is about. You can't just redefine the term in the middle of a discussion about the practicality of eugenics programs -- it's both moving goalpoasts and arguing in bad faith.

This is Fredrick Brennan, aka "Hotwheels". He has Osteogenesis Imperfecta, and he's the author of the article I linked.

Click to shrink...

To be more specific, he has either Type III or Type IV osteogenesis imperfecta by his own description in an interview he gave to Ars Technica a few years ago. You have been citing numbers for Type I OI. You continue to do so throughout your post.

See? That's what arguing in bad faith looks like... and it's not the only example of you playing fast and loose that way that I can cite.

The people saying that they don't reproduce? They do, and can - his mother did, and she had two boys, both of whom had her condition. A woman, who looked like that, had two children, because their father was so desperate for sex that he didn't *care* what the woman he was having sex with looked like as long as she was willing.

Click to shrink...

An assertion allegedly made by an abandoned and abused son in an article posted to a neo-Nazi news site is hardly reliable evidence of the father's motives.

More to the point, you finding a single example means jack shit on the scales social programs work on. As if that wasn't enough, your numbers then assume that every person with that sort of OI goes on to have exactly one child with a person who doesn't have OI.

In fact, the whole "nothing in his story is relevant" bit was the very first thing I pointed out when you brought his story up.

Even if there's other versions of the disease out there that are less severe? They're not the ones I'm talking about.

Click to shrink...

My very first post mentioning OI brought up the various types and the differences in how often they're caused by de novo mutations. I then used Type I -- the mildest type which fits an autosomal dominant heritability pattern -- as my illustration of why an eugenics program would do jack and shit to meaningfully deal with it.

I'm talking about the ones like Hotwheels here, who are at an immediate glance obviously crippled for life as a result of a genetically dominant disorder, who will require carers to look after them for life, and who will pass the disorder on to 50% of their children (who make up 40% of the total population of the people suffering from their disease, apparently).

Click to shrink...

Aaaand see? First off, Hotwheels pays his carer. The fact that he does so -- and is able to do so -- illustrates a pretty strong argument against the usual excuses for eugenic "solutions".

Secondly, he's stated, in an interview for Ars Technica, that he has either Type III or (very severe) IV OI. The numbers I gave -- and that you're quoting -- are for Type I. (Type IV, I've learned while researching the condition during this exchange, is weird.)

This is important: You can't mix and match things that way, as I've repeatedly noted. Even within types, severity varies considerably; what you're portraying isn't OI -- it's a stereotype of OI... and yes, it has a basis in fact. So do most stereotypes. What you're doing is akin, ontologically speaking, to pointing to a single black gangster from a troubled family and claiming that blacks -- in general -- are criminals from troubled families.

Thirdly, the number needed to treat you cite in favor of your idea-- a 5:2 ratio -- not only assume those incorrect numbers, but further assume that each and every person with severe OI will have one -- and only one -- child with an unaffected individual. This is patently false. Then they also assume that you will "get" an unbiased sample of people with the condition. This is also patently false, as I've repeatedly noted.

Oh, and they assume a 20% infant mortality rate. Again, false.

You also calculated in a way that's hardly robust to violations of said assumptions, all of which were made to get as favorable numbers as possible for your program. Again, this is stunningly unlikely.

You have done nothing to correct these probelms, despite them being repeatedly pointed out to you. Do you start to see why we're finding your argument in bad faith?

Now, I've been tolerating this and addressing it directly here for the very simple reason that eugenics and eugenics programs are a major, ongoing issue in autism. Sterilization -- including involuntary sterilization -- of various types occurs regularly, and one of my first notable advocacy cases in the field involved trying to expose a national network of clinics dedicated to chemically castrating autistic children.

Other methods used include trying to prevent autistic people from marrying or having the legal ability to give consent, deliberately isolating people on the spectrum from the opposite gender, sabotaging the social skills relevant to dating, marrying, and having sex...

All of these, of course, are less plausible than your hypothetical program. They are still (well, except the castration clinics -- those were just weird) motivated by eugenic thinking. Eugenics -- genuine eugenics -- is a huge and ongoing problem.

And, as noted, it doesn't work.