Leaderboard

Should we keep quick-tempered people in a short fuse box?

Correct any finite portion will not extend to infinity. However we do not know if the entirety of universe beyond our Observational portion is infinite or finite. Our Observable universe portion will always remain finite. Had findings of our universe term been precisely flat at unity then we likely would have had an open infinite universe. However their is a slight curvature term that raises the possibility of a closed universe.

I got a chilly reception for my idea for designer underwear for scientists: Kelvin Klein.

Glad you said this; for example not a lot of people understand that I do not have a very strong material drive at all and I have a hatred of money. Which personally I don't see as that disabling really. It can certainly make things difficult in some respects but in others it's better. For example if I was on SCOTUS, all the crap that corrupted Thomas Clarence wouldn't motivate me to be as much of a corrupt asshole as he is. Feel free to go up and read my earlier comment by the way.

Yes, absolutely. But remember the context of this discussion - the claim was made that autism is a disease that’s due to blood toxicity, and can be cured on that basis. This of course is utter nonsense, and as an autistic person myself I’d really wish there was a way to rid us of such snake oil salesmen (and there are many of them). Autism - like other forms of neurodivergence - isn’t a “disease”, it’s a difference in brain physiology that has genetic, developmental and environmental factors involved. It cannot be “cured” in the classical sense, for that reason. It manifests across a range of areas - social, cognitive, executive functioning etc -, and impacts a person’s quality of life anywhere on a spectrum from very mildly to extremely severely. Succinctly stated, neurodivergent people tend to have support needs - we must live in a world that is fundamentally designed for neurotypicals (both culturally and evolutionary), but because we aren’t neurotypical, some expectations can be hard for us to meet and some situations difficult to handle, and we need support and accommodations to manage them. Some of us need only a little (or no) support and accommodation, others need a lot, and for some it’s debilitating, and they need 24/7 support and care. So in my personal opinion, it’s not about “curing” autism - which fundamentally suggests that we’re somehow deficient and need fixing, which is a questionable stance to hold. Rather, it’s about recognising that autistics may need extra supports and accommodations in certain areas, and being willing to offer those. There are also meaningful interventions available for at least some of the more severe and debilitating manifestations of autism, and I completely agree that these should be offered so long as the aim is to improve quality of life, and not just to make people “less autistic” and “more normal”. That’s an important difference. We will never be neurotypical, but with the right help we can become less dependent on external supports. There’s another thing I’d like to mention, which is not so often talked about - some commonly held life goals and values that are normal and generally unquestioned in the neurotypical world may not be shared by all autistics. For example, wanting and needing to be social and around others, wanting to acquire possessions and material goods, wanting to have family and procreate, conforming to gender norms, following generally accepted blue prints for how life should be lived, ideas around what has value and what doesn’t, concepts of what gives us meaning and joy in life etc. While this is of course very individually different, not all of us autistics share these goals and values, so we end up in a situation where we are forced to try and fit into a society and culture that feels fundamentally alien to us. We can’t be our real selves, but must train ourselves to wear a certain mask and act a role so that we might appear to be able to meet the expectations of a neurotypical society, simply because it’s practically and logistically very difficult to exist outside that system. We feel like we don’t have a choice, so we live a life that’s at odds with who we are. This creates a lot of suffering and struggle. So at least part of our suffering isn’t due to autism itself, but due to demands and expectations placed on us by others to “be a certain way”. Such behaviour - called stimming - causes us no suffering. On the contrary, it feels soothing and comfortable, and dissipates the perceived pressure of sensory overload. I do it by (gently) pressing certain places on my hands for example, and it helps me to self-regulate. Who are others to say that this is wrong and needs fixing? I would suggest that the problem here isn’t this particular behaviour pattern itself, but how it is perceived by others. From a neurotypical point of few it appears meaningless, odd and not normal, and it is tacitly assumed that the one engaged in it does it only because he feels compelled to do so, and thus suffers. But it’s not like that - it’s a self-regulation tool, like people take a painkiller when they have a headache. Both help increase well-being. The problem is only that society has deemed taking painkillers to be acceptable behaviour, but not flicking your fingers. If you stop an autistic person from stimming, or shame them into hiding the behaviour, you aren’t acting to promote their overall welfare, even if as a result they might appear “more normal” and supposedly fit in better. I would suggest that training autistics to appear less autistic is generally not in our overall best interest, unless we ourselves specifically ask for such interventions. This is a difficult ethical question, particularly for severely autistic children - there’s ways and training methods to make them appear less autistic, so they can function better in neurotypical society. The price they pay of course is that they’re forced to be something they’re not, that they’re forced to play a part in a story they themselves haven’t read or understood. Are you really doing them a favour, are they really suffering less afterwards? Most people in the autistic community who underwent such childhood interventions seem to say that no, it wasn’t in their best interest, even if it did enable them to function better in society. The general consensus is that providing supports and accommodations on an individual basis if and when needed, is probably the best way for most of us. Sometimes that means we need a lot of support, and that’s the measure of a modern enlightened society - how it relates to their weakest members, who perhaps can’t contribute in traditional ways. Caveat: if the behaviour is dangerous, or injurious to one self or others, as sadly sometimes is the case, then of course intervention is necessary regardless.

My son knows several people, formerly at school and now at university, who are on the autistic spectrum and obviously highly capable. The fact - which I had absolutely no idea about - that @Markus Hanke is also on the spectrum (!) is another illustration. I have my suspicions that various eminent figures in history (Newton, perhaps?) may also have been. People of my son's generation are getting quite comfortable with the idea that autistic people can fit into society perfectly well. But then there are other cases that are clearly very difficult. At the other end of the scale, when my son was small one of his schoolfriends was a little girl who had an autistic brother, who still could not speak at the age of 5. (This girl once told him that when she grew up and married him (!) she wanted 3 children: one boy, one girl and one autistic. )

When it has a pathological effect on the individual and their carers. You make it sound benign,

! Moderator Note No. This is a discussion forum. Soapboxing and promoting an agenda are against the rules. Stop it.

As of May 1945, the USA had enough fissile material available to manufacture just 3 atomic bombs. One of these nicknamed ‘Little Boy’ was a ballistic gun-type device that worked by firing a slug of Uranium 235 along a barrel into another sub-critical mass of U235 to cause a chain reaction with a 15 Kiloton explosive yield. This was never tested because the engineers were certain it would work at the first time of asking - so they simply assembled and dropped it on Hiroshima - but there was no other Uranium 235 available. The scientists had used up their entire stock of weapons grade Uranium 235 refined over a 3 year period in building this single weapon. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/fatman-littleboy-losalamosnatllab.pdf The other two devices both relied on an HE implosion lens to compress a hollow sphere of Plutonium 239 into a critical mass with an explosive yield of around 21 Kilotons. This novel Plutonium implosion mechanism was a highly complex engineering challenge to perfect, and absolutely had to be tested by proof firing one of the devices nicknamed ‘The Gadget’ at Los Alamos to ensure it worked. After the Trinity test on 16 July 1945, the USA now had just 2 atomic bombs left available for use - One Uranium device, and one Plutonium device nicknamed ‘Fat Man’. American military planners believed they would need to drop at least two bombs to convince the Japanese to surrender, and they reasoned it was better to actually run out of ammunition, rather than *look* as though they were running out of ammunition. It was a gamble that worked, because after the bombing of Nagasaki on August 9th, the Japanese concluded that America had an entire production line running, and that a third weapon would shortly be dropped on Tokyo if they did not offer their unconditional surrender immediately. In reality the USA had no other nuclear weapons that could have been deployed against Japan at that time. It is said that they could have cobbled together another Plutonium 239 device by a cannibalising a laboratory test-rig nicknamed the ‘Demon Core’ - which is another entire story - and would have taken months.

One historical theory I've heard is that the A-bomb, because of its incredible destructive power, allowed Japanese command to "save face" in their surrender. Had the US simply continued with conventional artillery and firebombing, the warrior culture of Japan would have seen this as something they could try to stand up to and therefore a surrender would have been shameful. We can never really be sure how a non-atomic invasion would have played out, given we have no alternate timeline to look in on.

From the French Revolution onwards we have come being slow-cooked as a society. The French Revolution? Hasn't that been a good thing? Liberty, Equality, Fraternity? Demagogy. It has always been about getting people to the extremes. Make them hate some abusive kings or rulers, and give them the opposite, useless puppets working for the hidden monarchs. It's a loss, isn't it? Majorly when there isn't anything with what to compare. Massive column of a system of mass manipulation. And the use of good words to hide evil concepts have drifted away the naïve. Maybe to get them realizing when they are so corrupted that they don't care much. Big problem. That's society today. People never knew more, and did less. In terms of "conspiracy theories". But the knowledge people lack these days is how to stop being perverse, how to have health, and how to put each one's life in order. This social engineering has confused the people, has got each generation brought forth into a tighter thought corral, and when it's time to react, because in 2024 it's time to react, one can see that is pretty much difficult to find allies. This is good against evil. Not red against blue, or my "clan" against yours. Social engineering, of the perverse, has bred perverse. And once some people get corrupted, they have no way back. And all of this has happened because of the pushing of every kind of immorality, disarming from moral authority the people, so making it impossible to bring order, but one having only to look the other way. We are bringing an end to that. Let us find ourselves some allies. Wouldn't this forum be a fit place for that? I think so. Thank you so much for the space. Guillermo Yacante Afonso. Modern Procer Project.

What is the purpose of science? What does the word mean? Knowledge. But let it be more like wisdom: knowledge applied. And that it be applied for the common good. We will see multiple branches of science will be needed to be connected so for us to get somewhere. This is a thread that is intended to give place to sound discussion, but to immediately awaken the people with potential, because understanding is only given to some, and those in some moment should stop the having nonsense discussions with those that can't understand, stop waiting for approval or consensus from the rest, and get to it. This is a thread that will touch some delicate topics, but doing it responsibly, and above all, providing solutions. Solutions are confirmed when one carries them. That is a call to action. Reality and a little bit of thinking will show us pretty much the picture I'll share you my personal experience. I am a scientist. Life made a scientist. When I had some health problems, I was already enlightened enough so to understand "I shouldn't go doctors." So what I did was to study by my own. But for the first years I did it just like them, using the same blinkers. I wasted a lot of time thinking according to the "neurotransmitter-ligand model", and I didn't see the complete picture or kept things simple. So just because of missing solutions, I kept studying. And why is it that I understood that I shouldn't go doctors? For the same reason that you should. They prove to not know much. Society is the result. So reality and a little bit of thinking set us in the right direction. One must study on his own. Science is multidisciplinary, and should be, to get us somewhere Imagine a man has discovered the panacea, yes, it's a way of saying it, but it would be the most alike: hemodialysis. The question would be: "Really? It has been all the time sitting around and doctors have been missing on it?" Yes, could be. When doctors are masturbating, watching pornography, thinking all the time about where is it they are going on vacation next week, getting paid when not solving anything, and seeing all the rest doing the same, these things could happen. It's social engineering. Maybe we could have some skinny cowards for doctors, in which those that do not be, would simply be women, that are not brought forth to carry the job of real men. So even if hemodialysis would be the panacea, how could it reach the people? When it has been dissuaded, hidden, entangled in bureaucracy, and those interested could see the shadows of mafia dogs when getting close. I came explaining in another thread how is it that "autism" is a symptom of poisoning, caused mainly by organochlorines of the DDT-type, and they would be detoxed by hemodialysis preferentially, or, on its absence, by proper bloodlettings. Now, how many actually have carried this instruction? It's not such a big deal. Remember hemodialysis is not about the kidneys, but about cleaning the blood. So first thing we should see is, it has been dissuaded. And if we really mean business, we would see lots of times the nephrologist would be inviting us to flee. That's how these things happen. For cowards, for evil-blind people. Can't you see a society filled with damaged people is a loss, something dangerous? We have been slow-cooked for ages. Then, out of nowhere, those that have done this close on us their plan, and now we want soldiers! Now we want real men! Ah! But those that should that been taking care of them have come looking the other way, now money is good for nothing. Remember we are not to expect approval or get consensus. Majorities have been bred to be useless. So, let's say a person manages to get an autistic healed, the blindfolds fall from her eyes. How would the message get to the masses? Mainstream media is taken by those that have done this. Understand? Now we will see who is truly a scientist. Get all the things put together. Be a scientist: stop jerking off, practice semen retention if you are smart, understand gender roles, and submit to the laws of nature if you want to do well in life. Science pays well. True science brings results. Have that for a testimony. Guillermo Yacante Afonso.

Not anyone can be a scientist. This is only for noble people. Because in the way of knowledge there are usually lots of times in which one has to recognize he was wrong. Do we agree? I'll tell you about my case. I am 27 years old, I only finished high school, but I have found the cure of autism and a lot of chronic illnesses. It has always been hidden in plain sight. Not anyone can be a scientist because intelligence is not innate to everyone. And now we will wake up to having trusted in white smocks, and in people for their diplomas, for their having been able to repeat well. And just as intelligence is not innate to everyone so isn't nobility or a good heart. This way, there are lots of times in which there are perverse people, intelligent by the way, in places of influence. And these would own big sums of money, would work together, and shape us a system of mental conditioning in which we may think ourselves doing some big job, when it's only part of the biggest lie ever created. And when any of you be able to realize, which will be your reaction? Are you going to keep spinning on your hamster wheel? Or help us bring a better world? Solutions empower the people. Taking away the pacifier may upset some, but when solutions are put at hand, there is not much place for being a pain. We are learning the lesson worldwide. Guillermo Yacante Afonso. Search my name. Thank you.