"It is harder for [autistic people] to find and keep jobs because we often speak up if rules are broken, or if people in a company are trying to cut corners. Many of us think about the ethical consequences of our actions even if *gasp* it doesn’t affect us!"
They were using extreme examples with no gray areas, too, it sounds like.
Though I do suppose it's possible you might sincerely think that the best way to deal with cats/dogs/other animals on the street is to euthanize the lot of them. Certainly, if the animals in question are "rats" nobody blinks an eye at the suggestion, and they don't worry about doing it humanely either.
And - much though it hurts to say it - it might not be wrong. If the animals are a persistent vector of disease or a cause of injuries and deaths, it might be best to remove them as quickly as possible, and the quickest way - at least for ferals - is to euthanize. It's a futile mission if you don't also do a massive campaign to vaccinate and sterilize people's pet animals (and find some easy way to ensure you don't kill people's pets that go outside), but if the choice is "allow a lot of feral dogs to spread rabies to children" and "remove the dogs, there aren't enough homes for them"....
Something about it not being a measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society seems like it would go very well here.
Seriously, though, pathologizing virtues sounds like someone set out to write a paper about the bad neuroatypicals and then had to scramble to find a way of framing it to fit their biases.
Ugh. That's quite some bad spin there. :-( Well, I haven't read the paper; I'm basing that conclusion on the post you linked. But sheesh -- when did taking the moral choice, even at a cost, become the "wrong" answer? WTF?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2020-11-16 10:55 am (UTC)They were using extreme examples with no gray areas, too, it sounds like.
no subject
Date: 2020-11-16 07:35 pm (UTC)And - much though it hurts to say it - it might not be wrong. If the animals are a persistent vector of disease or a cause of injuries and deaths, it might be best to remove them as quickly as possible, and the quickest way - at least for ferals - is to euthanize. It's a futile mission if you don't also do a massive campaign to vaccinate and sterilize people's pet animals (and find some easy way to ensure you don't kill people's pets that go outside), but if the choice is "allow a lot of feral dogs to spread rabies to children" and "remove the dogs, there aren't enough homes for them"....
no subject
Date: 2020-11-16 03:50 pm (UTC)Seriously, though, pathologizing virtues sounds like someone set out to write a paper about the bad neuroatypicals and then had to scramble to find a way of framing it to fit their biases.
no subject
Date: 2020-11-16 07:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-11-16 07:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-11-16 07:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-11-16 08:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-11-18 03:20 am (UTC)Ugh. That's quite some bad spin there. :-( Well, I haven't read the paper; I'm basing that conclusion on the post you linked. But sheesh -- when did taking the moral choice, even at a cost, become the "wrong" answer? WTF?
no subject
Date: 2020-11-18 03:46 pm (UTC)