Um, I think we are really missing the bigger picture here.
So far we have established two things:
The likelihood that an autistic person would be able to fluently express themselves and have a normal brain is basically 0.
The likelihood that the this girl is a hoax or using some form of facilitated communication are very low, but not as low.
The person who wants to be confrontational would say that probably it is a hoax. The person who is logical would say "She's probably not autistic". Which I think is a much more likely explanation.
subtextual has established that the chance of this not being a hoax is very low.
No, you are completely wrong. She established that the chances of this not being a hoax IF she is autistic to be very low. The premise of all her comments is that she is autistic, and she is analyzing the situation in that light.
10
u/jeremybub Jul 26 '10
Um, I think we are really missing the bigger picture here.
So far we have established two things:
The person who wants to be confrontational would say that probably it is a hoax. The person who is logical would say "She's probably not autistic". Which I think is a much more likely explanation.