1) you don’t know lisa
No, I don't. But in a hypothetical where I see Person A attacking Person B, I don't need to know Person B's history to come to their defense
2) Lisa didn’t ask a question
Quoting Lisa: "The true cause of autism?"
3) it’s more than “know a couple people with autism” - it’s literally my career.
That wasn't my point. My point was that your refutation of the study was based on an anecdote. Even if you're an expert on autism anecdotes aren't "proof" that your argument is the correct one. I say that even while acknowledging I don't even think the study is true.
4) it is doing a grave disservice to people with autism by perpetuating a bad mother steroetype on their parents with shoddy half assed science, blame the mom blah blah.. it’s a disservice to the whole autism community.
Really? Does the whole autism community come to the VC forums to get the latest hot take on autism?
1) if you insist on chiming in with your personal opinion about how two people are interacting with each other then yes you should have some background details about those two peoples history and character before doing so. Comments about the subject matter in and of itself is something else.
2) if you knew Lisa you would know that wasn’t an honest question. But you either don’t know her because your new here OR your not new here, you do know her and your only purpose is to take over here usual MO of sowing chaos
3) no, I asked HER a question in an effort to get HER to think. There’s something called face validity. It’s more than an anecdote. If something lacks face validity it typically lacks any other sort of validity. I suggest you google it if you are still confused.
4) does it matter if the whole autism community comes to this forum? Perpetuating a lie against a community is harmful to that community no matter where it’s posted and it isn’t as if this was Lisa’s original idea and she didn’t find it somewhere else and repost it. What is your purpose in being here?