This comment seems like it could be perceived as straw-manning. Backing up your statement with evidence that this is an accurate model of what people do with their autistic children would help.
It could be perceived as such. Given the context however it seems that Alicorn isn’t making an additional claim about what most people do and is instead adding labels to the behavior that Eugine did actively advocate (or criticise the deprecation of). Even if those things were never done by anyone the adovcation thereof could still be criticized. (And so any weakness in the argument is of a different kind to ‘straw man’.)
For better or worse there are the implied premises here that:
Doing things that are abhorrent to people for no goddam reason is torture.
Stopping people from moving around as they please without good reason is restraining.
Ignoring the principle “one thing to try if giving someone an instruction doesn’t work is making sure they have it taskified” results in incomprehensibly bossing people around.
The second two seem straightforward and while using the word ‘torture’ has its own problems the meaning is at least clear.
This comment does all of the things I was concerned about Alicorn’s not doing. The conversation I’d expect to ensue from her comment would be an argument over the definitions of “torture,” “incomprehensible bossing” &etc, which wouldn’t be explicit so much as the bashing together of “Doing these things to autistics is good” and “Doing these things to autistics is evil.” I have good reasons to expect this, because it’s what I’ve seen take place subsequent to such a remark a million times and with no positive outcome in any instance. (Add any amount, to taste, of “You’re not a real autistic so you can’t remark on the subjective experience of the Less High Functioning” and “People are actually being tortured and killed, so I shouldn’t have to be nice to you or explain these things out. Therefore I’ll just vaguely antagonize at you until you go away.”)
I’ll also point out that “doing things that are abhorrent to people for no goddamn reason” doesn’t pay attention to the fact that people who do e.g. ABA do believe that what they’re doing will improve the quality of life of whoever they’re doing it to.
Doing things that are abhorrent to people for reasons is still usually torture. (Sometimes it might be self-defense, or surgery, or something.) Stopping people from moving around for reasons is still usually restraining. (Sometimes that is self-defense, or protection of your privacy, or something.) The claim that these measures will help as you describe require support, but even if you could demonstrate strong reason, there would be reason to be suspicious of this kind of therapy!
If the kids involved were not autistic, and the torture/restraint were something corresponding to allistics, you would never get approval for human trials. (“I’m stabbing my son with this thumbtack repeatedly for ten to fifteen minutes every day. He has a really low pain tolerance, so this organization I found says that that will make it hard for him to function as an adult—I mean, he’ll still have to show up to work if he has something like a broken toe, right? - so they recommend this intervention.” “I don’t let my daughter out of her room. Ever. It’s okay, she has an ensuite bathroom. When she grows up she’ll probably have an office job, and she’ll just have to get used to not being able to run outside and play or get herself a snack or anything.”)
Watch out for sensory issues. If the kid reacts to, I dunno, styrofoam like it’s full of shards of broken glass and he can’t bear to touch it, keep him away from styrofoam
Central case of torture: thumb screws or the rack
Obviously within spitting distance of the central case: Forcing someone to press their hand down on broken glass
Still pretty obviously in the neighborhood: Forcing someone who reacts to styrofoam like it’s broken glass to touch styrofoam.
For someone who suffers from situation-dependent panic attacks, restraint and torture are not mutually exclusive. (Depending on how we define torture, of course.)
So is your claim that increasing that increasing the chances that the child will be able to fit into adult society doesn’t count as a good reason?
My claim? The grandparent doesn’t make any claims about autism or the optimal development strategy for those with particular symptoms. It describes claims already made and draws conclusions about whether “straw man” can apply.
It could be perceived as such. Given the context however it seems that Alicorn isn’t making an additional claim about what most people do and is instead adding labels to the behavior that Eugine did actively advocate (or criticise the deprecation of). Even if those things were never done by anyone the adovcation thereof could still be criticized. (And so any weakness in the argument is of a different kind to ‘straw man’.)
For better or worse there are the implied premises here that:
Doing things that are abhorrent to people for no goddam reason is torture.
Stopping people from moving around as they please without good reason is restraining.
Ignoring the principle “one thing to try if giving someone an instruction doesn’t work is making sure they have it taskified” results in incomprehensibly bossing people around.
The second two seem straightforward and while using the word ‘torture’ has its own problems the meaning is at least clear.
This comment does all of the things I was concerned about Alicorn’s not doing. The conversation I’d expect to ensue from her comment would be an argument over the definitions of “torture,” “incomprehensible bossing” &etc, which wouldn’t be explicit so much as the bashing together of “Doing these things to autistics is good” and “Doing these things to autistics is evil.” I have good reasons to expect this, because it’s what I’ve seen take place subsequent to such a remark a million times and with no positive outcome in any instance. (Add any amount, to taste, of “You’re not a real autistic so you can’t remark on the subjective experience of the Less High Functioning” and “People are actually being tortured and killed, so I shouldn’t have to be nice to you or explain these things out. Therefore I’ll just vaguely antagonize at you until you go away.”)
I’ll also point out that “doing things that are abhorrent to people for no goddamn reason” doesn’t pay attention to the fact that people who do e.g. ABA do believe that what they’re doing will improve the quality of life of whoever they’re doing it to.
So is your claim that increasing the chances that the child will be able to fit into adult society doesn’t count as a good reason?
Doing things that are abhorrent to people for reasons is still usually torture. (Sometimes it might be self-defense, or surgery, or something.) Stopping people from moving around for reasons is still usually restraining. (Sometimes that is self-defense, or protection of your privacy, or something.) The claim that these measures will help as you describe require support, but even if you could demonstrate strong reason, there would be reason to be suspicious of this kind of therapy!
If the kids involved were not autistic, and the torture/restraint were something corresponding to allistics, you would never get approval for human trials. (“I’m stabbing my son with this thumbtack repeatedly for ten to fifteen minutes every day. He has a really low pain tolerance, so this organization I found says that that will make it hard for him to function as an adult—I mean, he’ll still have to show up to work if he has something like a broken toe, right? - so they recommend this intervention.” “I don’t let my daughter out of her room. Ever. It’s okay, she has an ensuite bathroom. When she grows up she’ll probably have an office job, and she’ll just have to get used to not being able to run outside and play or get herself a snack or anything.”)
Didn’t we just have two threads about this fallacy?
Explain how this is a non-central case?
Central case of torture: thumb screws or the rack.
Alicon’s example: keeping the child from running around.
Central case of torture: thumb screws or the rack
Obviously within spitting distance of the central case: Forcing someone to press their hand down on broken glass
Still pretty obviously in the neighborhood: Forcing someone who reacts to styrofoam like it’s broken glass to touch styrofoam.
By “react” do you mean that it feels to them like broken glass would, or simply that he reacts that way?
I don’t think either of us is going to say anything the other finds interesting at this point.
You’re mixing up the cases.
Which case were you talking about?
“Keeping the child from running around” falls under restraint, not torture.
For someone who suffers from situation-dependent panic attacks, restraint and torture are not mutually exclusive. (Depending on how we define torture, of course.)
Sure. Could be both, but is closer to central case of restraint.
Certainly.
Ok, the central example of restraint is a straitjacket, so my complaint still stands.
My claim? The grandparent doesn’t make any claims about autism or the optimal development strategy for those with particular symptoms. It describes claims already made and draws conclusions about whether “straw man” can apply.