Just Because You Can’t See It…
They think that the autistics, such as us, need to be more aware of certain things; but just because we can talk, say sentences perfectly and have verbal language, that does not change the fact that we are STILL autistic.
Just Because You Can’t See It…
People with autism are special just as everyone else is special in their very own way. We need understanding and acceptance from other people and wider recognition of how different each person on the autism spectrum can be.
The next year, we had planned to go to a burger joint because they had a fudge brownie milkshake special. We arrived to the restaurant and there had been a kitchen fire, so it was closed for the night. There's no telling what will happen this year!
In the end, there shouldn't be one day that defines your love for one another, your love can be displayed every day in the littlest or biggest ways, just make sure you talk with your significant other a bit in advance so you're on the same page. If you want Valentine's Day to be a big deal, tell them, and vice versa. If you don't express how you want to celebrate the holiday, you might end the night in disappointment. If you can't come to a compromise, make it balanced! Have a fancy dinner, but do small gifts, or something along those lines. As long as you communicate with the one you love, it will be a success!
I could go on for days. With so many amazing people that do not get enough credit, African Americans are just as influential as any other race, but we have a story to share. As an African American, learning what went on years ago and knowing that racism is still around is absolutely absurd. We have a voice and it is being heard right now. Kendrick Lamar's performance at the 2016 Grammys and Beyonce's performance at the 50th Super Bowl are great examples! We will keep making noise until things change for good. February is Black History Month, but so is January, March, April, May, and the rest of the months! We will not be stopped!
In conclusion, QI and other researchers have not yet found this quotation in the writings or speeches of Martin Luther King Jr. The posthumous evidence comes from the remarks of Marian Wright Edelman starting in 1986. She presented more than one slightly different version of the quotation. QI believes that the evidence is substantive because Edelman knew King well. Yet, some uncertainty remains.
Well, just as you might suspect, it appears that it was born of the phenomenon itself. It may go back to a discussion board in the mid-1990s, when someone became aware of the Baader-Meinhof gang, then heard several more mentions of it within a short period.
You should not assume that just because you protect a workbook or worksheet with a password that it is secure - you should always think twice before distributing Excel workbooks that could contain sensitive personal information like credit card numbers, Social Security Number, employee identification, to name a few.
In formal fallacies, there's a problem with how you structure your argument, and how you're making your points. You might be speaking the truth, but the logic breaks down because of the way you're putting your arguments together.
Have you ever finished a task (that you really didn't want to complete) simply because you'd put so much time and effort in already? You probably felt like you didn't want all that hard work to go to waste, or to be for nothing.
But then perhaps your interests change, or you no longer wish to be an author. You might think you should finish the book because you're so close or because you've already spent so much time and energy on it.
What if Candidate A said that you shouldn't trust Candidate B because Candidate B doesn't dress well? There's no established link (that I know of!) connecting a "good dresser" with trustworthiness or good political decision-making, so this would be an ad hominem fallacy.
On the other hand, sometimes people just deliver insults that aren't actually logical fallacies because they aren't part of the argument. For example, if you were to say that all New Yorkers are rude and unfriendly (but you aren't trying to make a point), that's just an (untrue) insult and not a fallacy.
When you hear the term "straw man", what comes to mind? Probably a figure of a person made of straw, like a scarecrow, or something else insubstantial. That straw figure isn't too solid, and you could just knock it over with a little push or a strong gust of wind.
Perhaps you're discussing education with someone who believes that for-profit colleges are harmful to the broader educational system because they take advantage of their students, don't provide them high-quality education, and waste students' money.
But what if, instead of these sensible arguments, you let your emotions get away with you and instead said "You can't get a truck because then all your friends will want trucks and their whole families will then get trucks which they'll start driving all over the place and over-polluting the earth!"
Have you ever noticed someone arguing in a way that they seem to go around in a circle? It might seem like they're making an argument, but they'll use their conclusion to justify their argument, and their argument to justify their conclusion.
If this sounds confusing, that's because it is. When someone says something like "This tee-shirt is wet because it's covered in water," they're making a fallacious argument. In fact, the tee-shirt is wet because you fell in a lake, for example.
So here's another example: you say that your friend Jessie lies all the time, and you know this because they never tell the truth. But your argument (that Jessie lies all the time) and your premise (because they never tell the truth) are the same thing. That means that this is a circular argument.
This Latin phrase translates to "After this, therefore because of this." Now that might sound like a jumble of conjunctions and such, but it basically means that if event B happened after event A, that must mean that event A caused event B.
This fallacy says that because one thing happened after another, it means that the first thing caused the second thing happen. The argument is a fallacy when someone asserts something based purely on the order that things happened. This means they're not taking into account other factors that affected or caused the event to happen.
But what if, after that same earthquake, a lot of people moved away from the city? Now, some of them might have moved because the earthquake was the last straw. But many might have fled because of rising housing costs, pollution, over-crowding, poor infrastructure, poor schools, or a bunch of other factors.
But if you're arguing with your mom about the best way to save the sea turtles, and she asserts that she knows best because she's an intelligent person, she's using her own authority in a fallacious way (and with little to no justification).
And you shouldn't just expect people to trust what those experts say with no evidence. After all, even the experts can be wrong, and just because they know a lot about one thing doesn't mean they know a lot about everything.
This argument is an appeal to ignorance, because you don't know something/haven't seen any evidence of something, but you're using it to support your argument (that the society doesn't have a written language) all the same.
This is a form of the appeal to popular opinion fallacy. You argue that something is true, good, or right just because a large number of people (or some popular or influential person or people) are doing it or believe it.
Now, whatever your feelings about tattoos, this is a logical fallacy. Just because everyone's getting this tattoo doesn't mean it's the right choice for your kid. Maybe they haven't thought it through, or maybe they can't handle serious pain/needles, or maybe they will change their mind in a few years and regret such a permanent choice.
While it's understandable that your mom would want your political beliefs to align with hers, she's making a fallacious argument here. Just because they've always voted that way doesn't make it right.
People make generalizations all the time (that, right there, was a generalization!). And sometimes this is ok. If you're just stating something that's generally true, like "I like to cook" or "Puppies are cute", there's typically no harm in that.
Often someone makes such a generalization when they're basing their opinion or argument off of the behavior or characteristics of just a few members of a group. This often means they're not taking the behavior of the whole group into consideration.
This is also called an "appeal to hypocrisy" fallacy, because the person making the argument (let's call them Person A) often calls out the fact that someone else (Person B) did something similar to what they did. Person A argues that they may have messed up, but Person B did the same thing so should be punished. Person A is being a hypocrite because they're trying to escape the blame they'd like to assign to Person B.
It's tempting to use this type of argument, because people are always looking to shift the blame from themselves to others. It's especially enticing when that other person is not blameless and therefore seems to deserve some share of the guilt.
But this isn't an effective argument strategy because, while distracting, a tu quoque argument doesn't actually prove you innocent. It just draws attention (falsely) away from the issue at hand, which is your misdeed.
One thing to remember about tu quoque fallacies is that the information the person making the argument cites is typically irrelevant to the case at hand. Just because Person B is guilty also, doesn't mean Person A is any less guilty. So that accusation that Person A makes is irrelevant to their case.
While it's not great that Marta skipped class as well, it doesn't really make that teen any less guilty of skipping school. They just knew someone who did the same thing, and are trying to justify what they did by bringing up Marta's transgression as well. But it doesn't mean that they skipped any less school.