What you're proposing is emotionless culling?
You know who else went to Hufflepuff? Spoiler You know what it was...
Justice is not revenge. That's just silly. Revenge is revenge. Revenge is a part of justice. If you are going to kill someone specifically because they have wronged you, then its revenge. If you are going to kill someone because its will reduce damage to the community, that is justice. Its odd that we are talking about the same concept, but arguing over a word.
So... you're saying they are the same. I don't see how this helps your case. So, you do not believe it to be an effect, not a cause? Many OS communities do not agree. You say OS is romantic attraction. Fetishism should not be brought into the conversation unless I brought it up. I do not recall mentioning fetishism. Why are you bringing it up now?
Redundancy ftw? Sounds like you will have nothing but healthy relationships in life.
Win... just win...
There's something wrong with this thread... Spoiler
ICSP: A nick name. No one knew what it was. An obscure group of letters, easy to memorize, and I have not Shinigami Ryuk: For the DN games huge success. People started calling me Ryuk. Ryuk was taken at the time, Shinigami Ryuk was not. Frisky Kitty: Do not ask... I C Stupid People: The reason I chose ICSP. I lol'd to myself that no one would get it. I heard some... interesting... interpretations of ICSP. Madara: Because of Madara Flippin' Uchiha! Ghillie in the Mist: 5th Prestige Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2. Using only sniper rifles. Chaser: It was generic. Its the default title... I kinda like to have myself obscure at times. Princess Celestia: Spoiler
[spoiler]
Sure... That would be fine... I think... I mean, it will. Perhaps its best we wait... of course... only if you want to.
It doesn't? But... but... *Clicketh for you pointing out it going both ways... with narration.* Spoiler Your math is off. The number of test subjects was 21. Which is why I corrected my math to fourty something earlier. But going off your math, it still adds up to 23.8~% of subjects (all of whom had OS) had Autism. Still a large percent. 39% of people who have autism have OS. Makaze... there is a link. You yourself posted it. If you are autistic, you have an usually high percentage of having OS. If you have OS, you have an unusually high percentage of autism. Now, lets contrast it to see where my "unusually" high percentage comes from. Autism affects one out of 150 people. About .66~ percent. Even by your conservative calculation (assuming those who professed themselves autistic were incorrect), that's about comparing 23% to .66%. About 35 times higher. For those still doing math, that's 3500% more likely that a person with OS will be autistic. Now, that's a small percentage. Unfortunately, I do not have accurate percentages of people with OS. But I bet it is much higher in people with autism. Are you arguing sexuality is learned and not genetic? That is what it sounds like. You won't win a popularity contest with that. You gotta back up that argument.
Did you want to request the changes now? or later?
Hey Mike, sorry for the depression. But I have been where you are now before man. Let me know if you need anything bro.
That'ts not batman! That's what P dressed as for Halloween this year.
I admit, there are variables, but those who were classified as autistic were either diagnosed autistic, with Aspergers, or, gave an honest view of themselves and admitted having some form of autism. Meaning, they were all aware that they had a form of autistic disorder. I can only make assumptions off the information given to me. The idea behind case studies is to try to get a broad range of information, and as many volunteers as the study can practically manage. It is not practical to do a case study on every single person with OS. So, yes, it is not the wider class. But it represents the wider class. Ok... In regards to the stork statistic, there is a valid link, which you pointed out. In regards to the cocaine statistic, I see no reason to post that. A smallpercentage of the general population has autism. We agree. A VERY LARGE percentage of the people in the case study (idealy, a sample percentage of typical people with OS) have autism. Anytime you narrow the subgroup and a percentage of a subgroup within that subgroup goes up, there is the possibility of a connection. I know that was confusing... so let me give an example... Some people get skin cancer. Light skin toned people get it. Dark skin toned people get it. Not every light skin toned person gets it. Not every dark skin toned person gets it. But when we look at the statistics, and zoom in only on the fair skin tones, we notice a higher percentage of people get skin desease. The result? We can logically scientifically deduce that people with fair skin are more likely to get skin cancer. /example The point of the argument is autism increases likelyhood of OS. Autism is a genetic flaw. Autism manifest itself differently in different people. Also, if you need a more clear connection, look at my example again. Not everyone with light skin suffers from skin cancer. Nor does everyone with dark skin immune to it. But, a logical person would reason that given statistics, its more likely to have people with light skin suffering from skin cancer. I'm glad we agree on this, if there is one thing I dislike is when people misapply information given t- Fack... Are you implying that every single person with OS and autism in that study is -EVERY SINGLE AUTISTIC OS- in the world? That's the only way this post would make any sense. Otherwise... I don't think you ever studied statistics, or have a clear understanding of how it works. 9 of 21 people had autism in the case study. If you are going to use the example you did and apply it to general population, you would have to use it as of a scale of 21. With one out of 150 odds, you will likely not see a single autistic person. If you start scaling up, they will likely appear. Conversely, I do not see how the 50% (or, since you corrected my statistics 42.85~%) will not scale up. Do you have a case study which dealt with autism and OS together which gives a different set of statistics? If so, I would like to see it. But... alas... you are right. We need more information. I decided to research it the other way around. I did some google searching on Object Sexuality and Autism. And found this book. According to the survey of 100 Professional caregivers, (they did not give the number of patients, but I estimate base on the statistics given close to 335.) 39% of the autistic people surveyed in the survey showed sexual interest in objects. Of a different survey, within the same book, 14% of of parents stated that their autistic child showed sexual interest in objects. Unfortunately, I could not find statistics of people with OS who are otherwise considered healthy. Does anyone have that information? I do believe 14% is quite high for people with OS and Autism combined. Let alone 39%.
Is happily not ninja'd. :ninja:
