That you didn't accuse people who disagree with you of being autistic?

I mean, I'm saying that you have to have the sort of meticulous over-scrupulous attention to raw logic outside of the human emotional and social context to come to the conclusions counter to my position. This is similar to autism, and thus most succinctly summarized for an internet post by simply referring to it thusly.

so it's not merely that you've disagreed with me that I'd label you "autistic", but for the sake that it takes such behaviour as is similar to someone who suffers from autism as previously elucidiated in this post to come to conclusions that contradict those which I've previously set forth.

ergo, it isn't that you disagree with me that makes you colloquially "autistic", it is that the reasoning used to reach the position contra to my own is exceedingly meticulous and ignores common ideas present in neurotypical processing of the human condition. i.e. "common sense".

so my main point isn't that disagreement = autism. it's that autism = fallaciously meticulous reason, which implies disagreement since the reason presented is inherently fallacious.