Aspergers Bringing Out The Worst In People

Post Reply New Topic

No.. Conscience is feeling guilty if you do something wrong. It's feeling bad because you hurt someone or you took something that wasn't yours, or because you could have easily done something to help somebody but you didn't. It's not being able to live with yourself when you know you've done something you shouldn't have done.
Like if you came across a lost puppy, and you kicked it, you'd feel bad. Not because somebody told you to or because you were afraid of being caught or judged or punished, but because you'd done something wrong.


Civilizations don't just invent those rights and wrongs. They come from conscience.


Conscience is feeling those rights and wrongs in a similar way NTs supposedly feel what's socially correct. It's not because somebody told them to, or necessarily out of fear of retribution; it's because what's right is plain as day in front of their noses. (Now, I'm not sure that that's true about NTs and social obviousness, NT-ness is just the complete opposite side of the autism spectrum.. but what I'm trying to say is that it's not something learned or told or something that came from the outside. It's just there.)


I don't mean that they don't know. I mean that they don't care.
Maybe some people don't know, but those people actually are clinically insane to not understand. Those aren't people I'm referring to as evil. Evil is wanting to hurt people. Evil is the person who feels GOOD about kicking that puppy.


Conscience isn't about the consequences, that's what I've been saying. If someone without a conscience regrets something, they don't regret that they did it, they regret that they got caught.

Conscience is what makes people confess when they did something wrong even if they don't expect to get caught. It's what makes someone unable to sleep at night, or unable to look at themselves in the mirror because they know they've done something wrong. It's what makes people make amends for something bad that they did, try to make up for it, try to help whoever they harmed, get some of the guilt off of them. You don't feel guilt because you think you're going to be caught or punished. You feel guilt because you have that pit of dismay right below your ribcage that reminds you all the time that you caused harm.

I can only speak for myself.

I define a conscience as a intellectual and emotional understanding of right and wrong, resulting in a emotional response to injustice as well as a negative emotional response to evils one would commit (feeling bad about doing something bad).



I can't label everything that is wrong but I'll give some examples.

Wrong 1: Killing/Stealing/Taking advantage of another with no reasonable justification.

Example: Killing/stealing/taking advantage of another for being left-handed/a certain race, ethnicitity, nationality, gender, physical deformity, gender-identidy, sexual preference.

Wrong 2: Lying without reasonable justification.

Example: Lying to save yourself embarrassment or to absolve yourself of responsibility from a action of yours that caused needless pain and suffering.

Also, some things are more wrong than others, it depends on many variables.



I couldn't give you an exact percentage on how much is a gray area.



Respect for others and oneself.



I don't know, you most certainly don't have to be religious to have a conscience though, I'm agnostic and many agnostics and atheists have a strong sense of justice.



My definition of evil is more of a universal one, almost all religions have universal fundamental evils and virtues found in them all that non-religious people such as myself share as well.



I don't believe they are justified at all, I believe people should call them on their BS irregardless whether they know it to be right or wrong.



I think NTs also attract bad folks as well, I've seen it happen all the time and I've read stories about it.



Quite true on both points.

Someone who is not evil may be able to avoid the unambiguous evils. Most of the necessary evil, I suppose, comes in dealing with chosen evils.


Machiavelli was quite specific about that.
Someone can fear justice, or fear God, but that shouldn't lead to hatred.


If you're talking about a more modern take, we might be talking about two completely different things. I haven't really thought much about modern Machiavellianism.. I thought it had to do wit what he wrote in The Prince. According to Wikipedia, The Prince was not actually characteristic of his work. Machiavelli, apparently, was not actually Machiavellian.


Right; but what if you don't, and allow the person to terrorize others? I think figuring it out is one of the necessary evils I was referring to. It's impossible not to make mistakes, but evils will result from those mistakes.


Lots of emotions are completely irrational, though. Hence the whole Vulcan thing.


I think this is a good place to bring it back to conscience. Someone can understand the principles of what makes something wrong, but not feel guilty when they do it.


I agree.. there are just elements that are different. Much of it is verbal, but not definitional, verbal but not logical. And it's usually much more personal than informational. Very much of the communication is not about what is said but who says it and how it's said.
I'm not sure that the accuracy always matters. That's how the communication works sometimes, whether or not it's accurate. The same could be said of information, in a way. There is plenty of incorrect information that can be used in various ways, or irrelevant information used to somehow make a point that it's not related to. (Like when Creationists act all offended and angrily proclaim that their grandparents weren't monkeys, as though that somehow proves or disproves anything at all.. I know that was a particularly charged topic.. but it was the first example I thought of. The fact that someone's grandparents weren't monkeys doesn't have anything to do with God or the validity or non-validity of evolution.)



I'm not totally sure it's a reading comprehension thing so much as a logic thing. Aspies do tend to be quite excellent programmers.


Almost nothing applies to all anythings. Of course, the definition of NT is sketchy. If you take the autism spectrum, line it up next to the NT spectrum so that the borderline cases are right where it would meet, and then take just the group of NTs farthest from the autism spectrum, you could make more generalities than if you were just referring to people without any diagnosable autism spectrum disorders. Like I've said before.. geeks are on the spectrum anyways. Just not disordered.


I wholeheartedly agree!


If someone means misunderstanding in the manipulative way to begin with, that whole thing wouldn't make any sense to them to begin with.


Right. Lots of people who fall into the sociopath category are great at convincing people that they're honest and that it's all the fault of somebody who actually is honest. Especially when they're good at faking the things that indicate to most people that someone is being honest. Like making the right kind of eye contact and all that jazz.


Well, what would happen if one of those sadists couldn't find somebody who actually deserved it? They'd probably figure out some way to make somebody deserve it, or to justify that somebody who didn't deserve it did. Just because something is sublimated well doesn't mean that it's not there. "Sadism" and "Evil" are not actual diagnosable disorders, or even necessarily disorders at all. Sadism would mean "anyone who may be vaguely associated with the Marquis de Sade"


When they really are out to get you.

(Ok, I deleted the things to which I was just going to respond "yup" or "I agree," so that this would be slightly less ridiculously long.)

Is this a "what needs to be done should be done" thing or a "choosing the lesser of two evils" thing? I don't like taking extremes, I'd rather find a third option, as for the choosing of two evils, I'd rather not choose either evil. If two devils are trying to sell me snake oil and one gives me a better offer, I'd rather not buy the snake oil because it's still snake oil.



It doesn't all the time, but fear can lead to hatred, plus I'm pretty sure most conscienceless people wouldn't be real big fans of justice since it likes to figuratively slap them around.



It does, the "48 Laws of Power" is based on the Prince, I don't know to what extent though.



I believe I've heard that said before, maybe it's just deja-vu, or maybe I heard it elsewhere but I can't remember where, but irregardless his work seems to be used to promote what is known as Machiavellianism and some people take it seriously.



Pretty much a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. I figure if they don't commit a serious crime like murder (Which is should always be a life-sentence) we could give them a appropriate punishment deserving of the crime for the first or second time, continued terrorization would result in harsher punishment and more restrictions.



Well, we have emotions whether we like it or not, we just can't be over-taken by them and realize how to appropriately apply them.



Then they really deserve to be punished, if they understand but don't care, that pretty much evil.



I agree with you completely, it's the reason why the creepy people can say messed up things yet still be "cool" in some people eyes, yet a non-threatening person will shake people away, I believe this NVC "skill" is called charm or glib.



Some people rely on their emotions to much and don't care about accuracy.



Reading/word comprehension has something to do with it, but logic probably has something else to do with it as well. Reading/word comprehension is the ability to understand words and their meanings and put them into your own words, I can actually decode the definition of some words that are foriegn to my vocabulary just by hearing them used.



It's really sketchy if you ask me, also how much NVC knowledge and skills do we autistics truly lack? I don't really lack any, I'm just less reliant on NVC and don't jump to hasty conclusions about people as fast based on ridiculous assertions. Of course my NVC skills aren't perfect but I've never met an "NT" with perfect NVC skills either, they usually assume their NVC skills are perfect because... they just "know"..... Straight with no explaination whatsoever.



Then what would make sense to them? Imagining someone who when I'm talking to only hears "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah" is a strange thought.



I have a saying regarding this, "real creeps go under the radar" which is rather ironic, you hear people say "I know a bad dude when I see them" then they befriend a bad guy and when they get found out the person who supposidly has awesome "creep-dar" can only say "but they seemed so charming" or they disbelieve it completely, nobody who knew Ted Bundy knew he was a bad guy, he was "charming and likeable", unfortunately alot of "NTs" don't realize charm doesn't mean jack and this gets people in trouble time and time again.



Yes, but that's a maybe, if they have a strong enough conscience and sense of justice they won't let their inner-demons devour them.



Yes but it comes in levels and everyone has inner-demons, everyone has a bit of narcissus in them, does this mean everyone is going to become a raving psychopath or sociopath? Of course not. Everyone has a mean streak, doesn't mean someones going to be a pathological sadist, as for masochism I'm not sure if everyone has a masochistic streak, I do but that's me, I'm certainly not a pathological masochist. Having a small or medium dosage of a certain personality trait doesn't mean it's going to grow into a cancereous psychopathology.



Evil is more of a chronic culminative thing, sadism can be a personality trait but it'll have levels like anyother trait.



Can you establish evidence of them being out to get you?

So if conscience is feeling guilty for doing something wrong, then what determines right and wrong in a person's mind? You seem to have answered that as conscience as you continue




So now we are at the point where we need to really define right from wrong. What if my conscience tells me the right thing to do is to stand up for the meek, but some other guy's conscience says the right thing to do is to stand down in order to not bring on unnecessary drama to their loved ones? IN other words, if I don't stand up for someone, I will lose sleep at night, but the other guy might not. It doesn't mean he lack conscience because he would lose sleep if his family endured undue stress as a result of a principle.



I don't fully think it's just there. Now we come to the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Does society's moral standards (i.e. The Ten Commandments) exist as a result of conscience and most people agree with it? Or is it something people agree with because it's already a standard? Perfect example...CUSS WORDS. Not many people could tell you where the f-word came from (in fact, I don't think anybody really knows for sure, but Wikipedia's article on it has some theories). Anyway, most people have no idea why the f-word is a bad word, but some firmly believe it's very wrong to use the word. I personally think if we had a natural knowledge of right from wrong, we'd know why it's right or why it's wrong naturally as well.



I totally see what you are saying here. It doesn't take much to know that hurting other people for no reason is wrong. Sadistic is a very good word for it. On the other hand though, I know many people who would feel guilty for kicking the puppy, but not a cat. I know people who would feel guilty for hurting a person, but not a bug or snake. Some people can't physically make themselves eat meat because of their version of right and wrong whereas some people (like myself) can't go a day without a cheeseburger.




Well, no offense, you are kind of contradicting yourself (I almost did it too). If conscience isn't about the consequences, then lacking a conscience isn't about consequences either. But then if someone without a conscience shows regret, it's because they didn't consider the consequences of getting caught?



You would think though that the conscience would make a person not do something wrong as opposed to how they handle it if they did. Guilt and shame make people confess, unable to sleep at night, unable to look at themselves in the mirror, that pit of dismay right below your ribcage... Reminds me of the "Tell Tale Heart" by Edgar Allen Poe. See in my mind, conscience is distinguishing right from wrong, and it's very personal to people and very subjective to that person's experiences. With that, they all make a conscious (excuse the pun) choice to do right or to do wrong. If they choose to do wrong for whatever reason (the pros seemed to outweigh the cons maybe), then guilt or shame will bring them to attempt to right the wrong. Sometimes the guilt is brought upon by external factors (like getting caught, or disappointing people) and sometimes it is brought upon by internal factors (like religion, spirituality, or disappointing the self).

Instead of using words like conscience etc. We could look at it like this. Every individual somewhere defines who they are, what they stand for, and basically what they think is right and what they think is wrong. Some people define themselves based on external factors (like other people, religion) and some people define who they are based on internal factors (like spirituality). I think this is the main difference between extroversion and introversion. Either way, any time we go against our own grain, we are going to feel shame or guilt. Again, it's very personal and no one is to be the judge except the self.

I think what you are getting to isn't right vs wrong as much as... Is it wrong to do the right thing for the wrong reasons? You make it sound like it is a wrong reason to feel shame because people find out. To you it might be, but to an extrovert, it might be a better reason than just knowing yourself.

I'd still like to see your basic definition of right as well as a basic definition of wrong.





I like how you worded that.




I used the term spiritual on purpose there. You don't have to be a part of any religion to have spirituality. To me, spirituality is a very personal thing that religions do try to tap into (i.e. moral codes, intangibles, intuition). Some people just mirror what their religion states, whereas others like myself find these answers in my own way. I'm sure that my way is different than your way, but that doesn't make either one better than the other as much as different. Either way, I lump all that into "spirituality." That is something every person is capable of doing.



I think the Christian (which is a very broad scope when seeing all the denominations, so I'm not saying Baptists or Catholics, but Christianity as a whole as well as Judaism) belief of evil is pretty universal. I went with that example because A, it's so well known (I've met athiests who knew more about Christianity than some Christians) and B, it seems pretty universal. You don't have to call it God and Satan. The concept of Good vs Evil is so strong in that religion, and it seems that every other type of belief that ever existed (as far as my knowledge) is consistent with that concept. I also went with the term Christian because I was hinting at the idea that many of these morals might be a learned behavior rather than something like instinct. American laws are very much inspired by Christian concepts. The Framers created "One Nation Under God." While the gov't now tries to turn it's back to God, the laws are still the same, and it was God who inspired "Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Thou Shalt not kill, etc." In fact, all the examples of what you would label wrong are in the Ten Commandments. Like I told Maggiedoll in my other post, now we are getting to which came first, the chicken or the egg concept.





I totally agree with you.




That's why I continued with what I did that you seem to agree with. I know all people can attract bad folks as well. I know there are other types of people who seem to attract them more so than others, but I do think autistic people are a type who attracts it more so than some other types of people out there. People often perceive our social deficits as a weakness, even though sometimes it is what makes us stronger in the end. When I go back to my landlord situation, I really think my Aspie nature played a role in inviting his negative behavior in my world, but it also played a role in overcoming him.

Right: Doing something helpful even if it won't benefit yourself, taking responsibility for ones misdeeds, ect.

Wrong: Doing something that will benefit yourself even if it hurts others, avoiding responsibility for one's misdeeds, ect.

There is also morally nuetral actions.

Nuetral: Doing something that will benefit yourself but cause no harm to others or will benefit others, ect.

It's hard to clear line define the words, I can give examples though.



I guess I'm spiritual then, but I don't know whether or not there is a god or gods and I see it as irrevelant at this point in time.



Well when I say universal virtues and evils I'm speaking of the ones that are universally understood by almost all religious denominations (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism ect.), almost all human beings have a universal concept of virtue and vice that isn't religious denomination dependent.



I don't, I'm curious about how truly evil Satan/Lucifer was though, he didn't really lie alot and swindle people from my knowledge. He said "Eve, eating from the tree of knowledge will grant you knowledge" and he was telling the truth, he said to Jesus "You can turn those rocks into bread you know?" and Jesus could've. I'm told the evil he did was tempting, but he seemed to tempt out of truth rather than lie and swindle people. Azazel (another fallen angel) on the other hand raped humans with a cadre of fallen angels and created the Nephillim I believe, he seemed alot more evil. But my knowledge of Jewish and Christian stories is incomplete so I don't know everything.



They may be instinct or learned, I have no clue, but they exist so I'm not sure it really matters where they came from.



Well NTs have social-deficits as well, some of them overly rely on charm and confidence and creeps are masters of these things, I think NTs open themselves up alot to bad people because some NTs don't rely on honesty, integrity and consistency for communication but charm and confidence which opens a gap for creeps to get by.



It might have been your kindness, some people see it as a weakness especially when it's very pronounced and they don't believe you'll stick up for yourself.

Demon Chorus...

Something you said came across pretty Taoist to me, so if you aren't too familiar with it, may I suggest reading The Tao of Pooh? Just something I think you'd enjoy thinking about.

I'm not totally sure of that. I think conscience is the emotional understanding, the feeling, the compulsion to do what you feel is right. The intellectual understanding is separate; it comes more from the outside, and could be learned.


That's true. What do you consider morally neutral actions?
At first I was thinking that those were the gray areas, but now I'm not sure.
One of the "wrongs" you described was lying to save oneself embarrassment. I'd think that depended on the lie. If someone asks me what I'm thinking, and I find whatever I was thinking about embarrassing, would it be a lie to say "nothing" or to mention something I was thinking earlier? What if what I was thinking might embarrass or upset the other person?


I think that's the realm of the grey area. I think you also defined the difference between the grey area and the morally neutral. Well, not so much defined it as put a big fuzzy circular area around it. It's not defined, at least there's a spot where I can point and go "yea, there." The lines aren't exact, but it's more defined than it was before.



I liked that one too.
And that also answers the definition of wrong; Something that disrespects oneself and others.


I always figured it came from German.. lol.
The wrong-ness would be in disrespect. It's not the word, it's the usage. If it's used to disrespect others, cause discomfort and upset, that's what's wrong, not the word. It's not that that particular combination of letters wrong. If "right" is "respect for yourself and others," the "wrongness" of the F-word is in the disrespect intended by it's use, not in the word itself.


Are you saying that extroverts definitions of right and wrong come completely from the outside? I'm not sure I understand.


Actually the "Under God" bit was added in 1954. The original Pledge, written in 1892, read "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all." Also, dosn't freedom of religion sorta contradict the second commandment? America was NOT created to be a Christian country. It was created to have a secular governement, and allow Americans to chose to worship or not worship as they see fit. The very definiton of seperation of Church and State is that religious belief (or lack of belief) should not be dictated in by the government. The only actual crime mentioned in the constitution is high treason.


The fifth book of Piers Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality series, For Love of Evil, is really great for that..
It is possible to manipulate with the truth. If you tell a partial truth as though it is the whole truth, or if you say something that is true but irrelivant, in order to imply something that is not true. Like in the example I used before about evolution vs. creation. When someone states that their grandparents were not monkeys, that is quite correct. However, that has no bearing on the scientific validity of evolution. The person's grandparents were not monkeys; that is true if evolution is correct, it's true if creation is correct, and it's true if it was some combination. It also makes the implication that the person they were arguing with called their grandparents monkeys, which, again, is not the case. Further, it weakens their own point. If they had brought up specific problems with evolution, that might have to be addressed, but if the crux of their argument is that their grandparents were not monkeys, they're not convincing anybody of anything, as the person they told that to was already quite aware of that fact.


Right, lacking a conscience is not about the consequences. It's not necessarily that they didn't consider getting caught, it may also be that they wanted to avoid getting caught. They may regret not covering it up better, not planning it better in order to get away with it. They don't regret having done what they did, they just regret having not covered it up well enough to not get caught.
Exactly like "Tell Tale Heart" I was kicking myself for not having mentioned that already.

Many see the most important part of morality in maintaining one's ethics despite adversity. That's why the theme of martyrdom is so popular. It's easy to be moral when you are rewarded for it. What's difficult is maintaining that even when you are persecuted for your morality. (What bible passage is it that mentions how if you are seen praying, and others think you good for it, then you already have your reward?)
The Catholic Church now officially endorses following one's own conscience even if it contradicts Church teaching. If God is telling you something, you're supposed to listen.
I think I had a better way of putting that earlier.. but now I can't remember..

I'm not very familiar with Taoist thought and philosophy, I'd have to read into it.



Quite possibly, but to internalize it and appretiate it you would have to make an emotional connection with it I believe, otherwise it's just "words" much like a robot might think music is just "noise".



As I said, "Doing something that benefits yourself but causes no one else harm or benefits others" would be a morally-nuetral action.



You may have a point, gray areas and nuetral areas may be different.



It would, it would be situational and contextual, also that wrong is a lesser evil anyway even if it's for immature purposes.



I don't think that would be a wrong, it doesn't really cause needless harm.



That depends on the situation and person you would be talking to, if the person is a adult and the place is somewhat private or private and the thought would be beneficial for the person for personal growth or something they should know, then the thought should be said, irregardless of ego-injury as letting a person writhe in their ignorance and suffer future damage isn't quite good. If it's a pointless thought, then it can be kept secret. But yes, it's all very dependent upon the situation and intent behind the words, bluntless can be used constructively, letting someone you love kill themself slowly because you don't want to hurt their feelings is a bad idea.



Yes, I read on a blog ran by a woman with a narcissistic mother about the difference between self-respect and self-love, self-respect is earned and self-love is not basically, people who are in-love with themself don't really have much if any self-respect, I think you need to respect others before you can respect yourself.



I've never heard of that book, but what did Lucifer imply that wasn't true though? I don't understand that part.



True, I think that would be an argument from redundacy/irrelevancy.

So what if you've programmed that computer with the principles of music theory? What if it can tell what emotions a piece of music is meant to evoke based on the chords, scales, meter, etc? I think that's waht i meant when I was explaining that something can be understood but not internalized. Somebody could understand what it is that makes something right and something else wrong, but not feel it and not care. They wouldn't have just memorized "this is right, and this is wrong" they would know the principles, they would be able to figure out what was right and what was wrong given a new situation, but they wouldn't care. Just like that computer programmed with music theory would be able to comprehend music, possibly compose music, but it wouldn't care about the music.


I'm not sure that's true. I mean, usually they say that you have to love yourself before you can love somebody else, and while I'm not sure that that's true, it does have some good points. If you're absorbed in depression, if you're constantly overwhelmed, you can't effectively pay attention to somebody else, either. I'm thinking largely about how perfectionism causes things to be worse. You want to do something right, but that seems overwhelming, so you put it off, and end up not doing it at all. ( I've been trying to get into the whole FLY lady thing..) So if you just get started on something and don't focus on doing it perfectly, you actually get it done, instead of sitting there looking at the mess and getting overwhelmed and ending up doing the opposite of what you intended.
Do you think that being absorbed in hating oneself is a type of narcissism? If someone is deep in depression, they are in many ways focused on themselves. They may be focused on hating themselves, but they still can't really do much to help anybody else when they're absorbed in it. If Narcissus had been staring at himself thinking how horrible he was, how ugly he was, etc., the result would have been pretty much the same, wouldn't it? The only difference is that he would have been miserable in the process, too.


Well, it wasn't Lucifer, it was Satan. Lucifer held the office of the Incarnation of Evil before Satan did.
But manipulating the truth with the truth was something he regularly did. A lie is much easier to believe if it's wrapped up in the truth. There's also evidence to support it. I'm having trouble thinking of something specific that I wouldn't then have to explain the entire series..
Usually it has to do with saying something, and then stating something unrelated or almost unrelated as though it were the cause. I was attempting to use the thing about evolution/creation argument as an example, I think. They'll say that they don't believe in evolution, because their grandparents aren't monkeys. It's frequently difficult to argue with, because when you acknowledge that it is true that their grandparents weren't monkeys, they will sometimes take this as conceding that evolution didn't happen. They gave a reason for not believing something, and even if that reason is unrelated, they'll continue to act like it was related.
This site gives good examples of logical fallacies: http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/gurnow/semo/EN ... lacies.htm
http://www.badarguments.org/ba/ and this one has a quiz-thing for recognizing them.

Well it matters little anyway, if they know right from wrong but do it anyway and don't care, they should be punished.



I don't think one has to love themself to love another, I think it's possible to love both yourself and another but it's not a requirement, the biggest self-lovers usually don't love anyone but themself anyway.



But if you're in-love with yourself then you come before all others and you can't effectively pay attention to another either, alot of things can limit your attention to another, but self-love sure won't help the problem, of course you can like yourself but loving yourself especially strongly can hinder things.

Edit:

What is a "FLY lady" if you don't mind me asking?



But that doesn't equate self-love, self-respect and liking yourself can give one a better piece of mind and allow one to tend to another much more effectively I believe.




I guess it could be called reverse-narcissism, instead of being in-love with yourself you despise yourself.



Yes the result would've been similiar, but if you know how to use your self-hatred constructively as a motivator to do better and change, it could potentially lead to self-respect and liking yourself a bit destroying the former self-loathing. I'm not sure if anyone could turn their self-love (narcissism) into a motivator to better oneself though because they would'nt see a problem with themself in the first place.



Basically confusing the issue by mixing fact and fiction?

Right. But I think part of my point was that when someone has a conscience, it will hurt them to do something bad. If you massively violate your conscience, it'll eat you alive, you'll go nuts. It's bizarre to try to imagine that some people just don't care. That was my machine comparison.. I mean, how can a human mind work that doesn't have a conscience?!


I think that's the difference.. Loving yourself versus being in love with yourself. Usually (okay.. I'm not totally sure if it's "usually," I think it is, but maybe it's just in my own mind) being in love excludes others. If you're in love with somebody, you're not in love with anybody else. But you can love multiple people. You love most of your family members, but I'd certainly hope you're not in love with them..



It stands for "finally loving yourself" and is largely about getting things clean and organized. http://www.flylady.net/index.asp


I'm not sure if that describes it or not. I guess I'm talking about any time someone "proves" something with a fact that doesn't actually prove that something. Sometimes they try to make it look like the facts are related, other times they try to say that if they said one thing that's true, than the other thing that they say must be true, too. Or blaming anybody who says something they don't like. Like when people try to ask about the causes of 9/11, if it could have been a conspiracy, and then someone starts screaming that asking that means that they don't care about any of the people that died, and that the person asking must be a terrorist. Because, apparently, if someone wants to dig deeper into who was responsible for something, or thinks that somebody besides the person who is blamed is actually responsible, that means that the person doesn't take that something seriously.. when in reality, when somebody is bothered because they think something is untrue, it's because they do care about what actually happened, not because they don't care. If they didn't care, why would they care?
A lot of times that happens with murder trials. Someone is accused, and if anyone thinks that the person who has been accused of committing the crime was not the one responsible, the family or prosecutor will accuse them of not caring about the victim. Because wanting the actual murderer to be the one brought to justice, apparently, means that you don't care about the victim.

I think a German possibility was mentioned on the wikipedia article I read on it.

If the wrongness is the usage, when I say I'm f-in happy, then why would I still offend?

I do agree that there is a level of respect. I try not to use the f-word in church or around other people's children out of respect for those people, no matter how ridiculous it sounds to me to say it's wrong to use the word.





Actually, introversion and extroversion is a scale. We all are technically both, but more so one than the other, though I'm sure some people fall dead center. Anyway, my sister is a total extrovert (extreme extroversion). To her, what other people think are more important than what she herself thinks about herself. So, much of her morality is determined by other people around her and the people she wishes to please and impress. She tends to believe whatever the church she is attending believes, and she will call everything else stupid even though she has not given it much real thought. She's really hard for me to argue with because I'm very introverted. I really put a lot of thought and research into my belief system, and that's something she has never done. Not all extroverts are that way (as many have a level of introversion to them). But I can see how an extroverted person might think someone else being disappointed in them would create more shame than being disappointed with their own self (whereas the introverts are probably more the opposite).



Sorry, history was never my real thing. I do like Noah Webster, and he was very big about keeping God in the government and schools. Funny how this country can use Noah's methods without giving any consideration for his opinion. Either way, I hate the whole separation between church and state because it kills that freedom of worship. I don't believe any school should force kids to worship a particular God, but I don't think they should prohibit kids from worshipping the God they choose to worship. On top of it, there's a school here whose mascot is "The Red Devils." To me, Devil is a religious icon, and therefore that goes against separation of church and state. I'm sorry, but if a public school can't be "Christ's Disciples," then they can't be "The Red Devils" either.

Anyway, sorry for being a little touchy, but I do know that God was a big deal in the creation of this country as well as Europe for that matter too. The BIble inspired much of what you see today, whether you are Christian or not, and whether you want to admit it or not. It's the number one best selling book of all time. If the number 1 best seller of all time was Star Wars, then our laws would resemble a lot of the Jedi ways. Not to mention, the world was ran by the Catholic Religion for a very long time, and the Pope still plays an important role in political matters.

Anyway, my original point is that Christianity's concept of good and evil is pretty universal. Don't kill, don't steal, take marriage seriously, love is good, hate is bad, etc. I was just explaining why I chose to use the Christian concept, and I forgot to mention that they have an explanation for everything, so it wouldn't hurt to see what they have to say on some of the concepts we hit here.



You know I always questioned the story of Job. I guess Job had this faith that was tested by making all these horrible things happen to him. I always thought if you wanted the true test of faith with any man, give him everything he wants and then some. I truly think it's easier to maintain morality when you are persecuted than when you are rewarded. Compare stereotypes of the humble kid vs the spoiled kid. The humble kid is used to making sacrifices whereas the spoiled kid is used to getting his way. The humble kid has to depend on simple pleasures while the spoiled kid is bored with all those new cool toys trying to figure out what he wants next. When you are on rock bottom, all you really have is intangibles because they are free. The man might take away my house, my car, my money, but he can't take away my dignity, my character, etc. But if you aren't used to losing things but used to getting things, all those free intangibles can easily get lost amidst the superficial clutter.

Anyway, I'm glad I'm considering Catholicism. God tells me things all the time (not that I hear voices or anything), and I can't stand when a church tells me to listen to them instead. IN fact, when I started the RCIA program (couldn't finish thanks to life), I remember the priest was very welcoming of my strange concepts and ideas. But, the difference is the priest was far more educated on Religion, the Bible, and Christianity in general than any Protestant pastor/minister I ever met. He even thought my theory on women being created first was funny... I base it on the question, "Why do males have nipples?" Even male dogs and hogs have nipples. To answer it, because he was made in a woman's image. Whether Adam was more feminine than people suggest or Eve was actually created first (which would make sense with her name, but I'm sure her name isn't accurate)....

I think I understand your machine comparision now, imagining someone who has peace of mind no matter what they do is incredibly bizarre.



I have no clue, the idea is foreign to myself, someone who can't feel bad or have any internal psychological turmoil is a disturbing thought. My own mind is a chaotic war-zone, imagining someone who's mind is completely at peace irregardless of what they do, say or think is something I can't comprehend.



I understand your reasoning now.



I don't particularly like myself, I've gotten past alot of the flaws by consciencely making an effort and earning some self-respect for myself, all I have to do is push myself back up everytime my inner-demons try to shove me down.



Conscience effort can be a powerful thing, a strong desire to change can out-power your inner-demons, no matter how many times they (inner-demons) try to shove you down, you keep getting back up, your sub-conscience inner-demons can't kill you if you have a strong desire to live.



Ok, I think I understand now.



I completely understand your point, you can't condemn an innocent person to living hell just because you want instant results and the person is the first person on the list, you have to give a fair trial and look at the all the evidence.

The word still means "to have sex." Unless you're happy because you've been having a lot of sex, you're throwing in unnecessary vulgarity for no reason whatsoever. Further, you're saying that it's ridiculous for people to be bothered by you saying it around their children. Since you said that you "try" not to use it "around their children" I have to assume that if it's an adult who is bothered by you saying it, you wouldn't bother? That's disrespectful.
You could say you're happy. You could say you're very happy. You could say why you're happy. Instead, you complain that someone else shouldn't be bothered that you're bringing sex into your "I'm happy" statement. It may be a very versatile word, but the roots of the word are vulgar, and if there's no reason to use the word, and you just throw it in, that is disrespectful. You haven't expressed anything in particular by adding the f-word into your statement. You've really expressed less, because if you hadn't put in that word, you might have been compelled to add more information about why you're happy, rather than making a statement that could very well be interpreted as being happy from sexual activity. Or from having sex too much, if you'd like to compare the phrase "f***ing happy" to "trigger happy." It's an unnecessary layer of flippancy that certainly does signify disrespect.


I've never heard of extroversion used that way. Extroverts tend to be more social, like working in groups, doing things with other people, feel more relaxed among people than alone. Do you have links to any explanations of extroversion as actually having nothing inside to begin with? That doesn't make sense to me.


That's flat-out untrue. I have to say, I'm pretty disturbed to hear you say that you "hate the whole separation of church and state." That's a very extreme and distressing statement.
People are completely free to worship, and children in schools can worship however they like so long as they're not forcing anybody else to do it. There is plenty of prayer in public schools, it simply has to be student run. My high school had an awesome Christian club with an after-school bible study once a week, and met every morning in the lobby to pray. Prayer is completely and totally allowed in schools, the school just can't be running it, nobody has prohibited anybody from worshiping as they want.
You may want to check out the "See You At The Pole" event, a national and even international designated day for prayer, named such because they meet at the flagpole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/See_You_at_the_Pole One school did try to prevent the event; they got overturned on legal grounds. They cannot make rules regarding religion, that applies to putting it down as well as to endorsing it. I'm having trouble finding more recent statistics, but according to religioustolerance.org, in 1998, 75% of public schools had a prayer service on the day of SYATP. It was started in 1992, I'd imagine that that percentage has increased.
If you believe that hooey about prayer being "banned" from schools, then on this particular topic, you're just as indoctrinated with unsubstantiated rhetoric as your sister.
In addition, I recall studying at least one of the Psalms in 11th grade English class. While a school cannot endorse a particular religion (for quite obvious reasons) it's perfectly acceptable to study it as literature.
Furthermore, "Red Devils" is not exactly religious terminology, "devils" don't necessarily refer to Satan, and while a public school would probably not have a sports team called "Christ's Disciples," I'm sure there are some including the word "angels." Also, among other things, "red devil" refers to a type of fish. http://www.worldcichlids.com/fishprofiles/reddevil.html


If history isn't your thing, and you don't understand people, how do you "know" that God was a bit deal in the creation of this country? Thomas Jefferson actually made an abridged version of the Bible that took out all mention of anything supernatural and considered only the moral aspects presented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible It was about the morals and NOT the religion.
Agreeing with the morals of a religion and believing in that religion are two very, very different things, and even if this country was founded partially on Christian morals, that does not in any way, shape, or form mean that the founding fathers wanted this to be a "Christian country."


The concept of martyrdom is in the temptation, not the preexisting condition. It's whether someone would abandon their principles for a reward or to avoid punishment. When someone does something good, and is rewarded for it, you can't know if they did that good thing for the sake of itself, or in order to gain the reward. When someone does something good, and is not rewarded for it, or is even punished for it, they've obviously not done it for the reward. If they continue to do good things, despite not getting anything out of it, they are doing good for the sake of doing good, and not in order to get something.

Edit: I think the "religion banned from school" thing was school administrators reaction to being told that they can't do something but that their students can. Public schools don't like the concept that their students have rights, so when the schools were told that they couldn't lead prayers, they tried to make it so that the students couldn't either. That was obviously illegal, so it was overturned. I think it may have been a power thing on the part of school administrators.

Last edited by Maggiedoll on 22 Aug 2009, 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.