The Theory of Mindlessness - A polemic

Post Reply New Topic

You still think I am calling you a liar. I want debate without that sort of conflict orientation and resort. You seem sensible to begin with. You propose at least in part the autism spectrum is a partial lie. Yet it is about commonality of general symptoms. I wonder why it is very important to you. This is the subjectivity I seek.

Still think? Have you not read what I said? Calling what I have said supposition amounts to calling me a liar, whether I intentionally or unintentionally meant to lie. If you are trying to find subjectivity then maybe you should look where it exists: in yourself.

Dude , I'm not on Ci's side, I'm a lone wolf here. Subjectivity do you, say, find vulcan females more attractive than humans? For some odd reason I do. Now that's a serious question to me. If you do , how much more attractive do you find them? I'm like a 8 on a 1-10 scale.

I think you are to proud to have a conversation like I propose. You find yourself insulted over the littlest of things. Derive insults where they don't exist and ignore my otherwise comprehensible comments because they challenge your beliefs. Oh well!

My girlfriend would be pissed if she saw my response to your humor and my agreeing with you.

"Hey Ci look "

"What is it?"

"Did you order a pair of Spock ears on the internet?"

"Er...no...I ordered a toaster, definitely a toaster ."

"So like who the hell even buys Spock ears?"

"I dunno... say honey, seeing they're here, you er, you could always try them on..."


Oh man, we always get caught in the long game. Brains like a supercomputer, they never forget ,and are always working on the solution, years later. You thought you'd get away with that? - like throw yourself on her mercy and plead innate male stupidity. Might work. Might have to negotiate suggest genuine toaster purchase, if one is needed.

You have a unique sense of humor.

I think you do as well.

I think you keep deriving things from supposition because you have yet to actually go out for yourself and challenge or support what I said with empirical evidence, you just sit on your own theory. Also I wanted you to challenge my theory, that's why I said go outside. I have responded to all you have said so that ignore accusation came right out of nowhere.

No I'm fairly open minded. Just you keep calling people morons that have certain jobs, accuse people of calling you a lair when they disagree and so on because they don't fit your fancy of the world and autism. I propose that simply other then for yourself and autism you don't really know what your talking about and have no credentials. I'd also assert their is no resolution because my statements were "thinking spells" and I am Tinkerbell. I'm simply asking questions and you respond to it in a socially hostile way because my goal which you do not like is figuring out where your coming from personally with regards to autism and yourself. So I figure to ask you to either 1. settle a bit down and participate as a civil debater and respond to my questions and comments without the senseless jabs or 2. drop it because I'm not going to agree with you because you simply make up insult and injury where their is none so you can get your way.

Would you like to reconstruct this in an analytic way or persist with your method of reproach?

That wasn't me :/

You said that most of what I said was supposition. You might as well have called me a liar. I already explained this

Oh wow, you use the charge I made against others, whereas I have evidence that they don't you just say I don't because it fits with your world view

You are blinded by arrogance about your own belief. You want your belief of cure to be vindicated. In the end you are accusing people of your own faults because I told you to search for evidence yourself and all you have done is sit on your butt and try and find ways of criticizing me and help fuerther your own agenda. My own personal wish is to find out the truth

You are making the senseless conflict, not I. YOu instantly began criticizing this on faulty grounds, not I.



Given tha you began the second one yourself with unsupported claims of supposition and then a witchhunt for a bias that doesn't exist, I'd cal it ludicrous that you would ask me.

You started the topic out by calling the autism spectrum a lie. Yet any disagreeing with it I'm calling you a liar. Seems like folks have to agree with you or else they are arrogant, ignorant or calling you a liar. You yourself are going up against the classification by professionals so they must to be liars and everyone that disagrees with you including establishment inherently is calling you a liar.

You will cater to a certain crowd only otherwise it seems much like someone that talks to one end of reason and ignores that of the other. From the beginning you told me not to criticize you as a warning. Oh well as I said before it's not that important to me. You can believe what you want but at least people won't be effected by it to much.

It's just a label of general combined symptoms from mild to severe. How it manifests is a puzzle and every individual is different. It may not manifest for the same "brain" neurological and combined environmental reasons for everyone.

No, you were calling me a liar because you said every piece of evidence I used was supposition. You have your theories for you. THey work fine, but you actually find reasons why I might not be correct rather than call it supposition blindly. You
You know appeal to authority is a fallacy? Also I didn't say that they called me liars. I said you did. I said I thought they were wrong about their theories, which is convenient because the scientific community has also disproven many of the theories it has created. Is it wrong to suggest my own? No. So stop avoiding that point.



I don't cater to crowds I try to find truths. I told you to look for reasons to agree or disagree with me. You still haven't. You just call it supposition, call it a day and still pursue some phantom subjectivity. A lot of people have disagreed with me and that is fine. Disagree. I don't intend on dominating your mind. But if you use underhanded tactics as 'criticism' such as saying what I have said is supposition and then trying to exclaim that I have a personal investment that has made me come to this view then I will call you out for that. You even use absurd claims to somehow get a one up. Calling the whole scientific community liars? That's insultingly bad. If it isn't that important then why do you keep going on about it?

As I have said before I liked what you had to say. I think however there are some fundamental disagreeable ways of perceiving autism and cure? It's based on what you would call supposition which I didn't use that word but in root you are actually performing supposition and is a natural human behavior. I called it bias because you are personally emotionally attached in a subjective way to autism. You have been so very confrontational and making personal attacks I figured I'd wait until you would settle down a bit from the calling me names, accusations and so on. You see a teacher teaches a class differently and instead of getting all personal he or she finds different techniques to teach. You can teach me how you view the autism universe and then I can speak but resorting to this nonsense is an utter waste.

I want to know whether or not to bother getting all philosophical with you. Your dead set in your thinking and any challenge and you got me made out to being arrogant and calling you a liar. Let me know when we can be constructive with this conversation.

You have a subjective attachment to autism and so that makes your views just as uncredible. Howerver to a degree they are not wrong. Why? Because as long as what you came up with was not affected by your personal emotions then it wasn't sujective! Don't just claim I used supposition because I have a connection,

I will teach you but if you continue to call my work supposition and say that I have a personal investment in my own idea when you have no evidence, then making my counter-criticisms will continue. If you refer to these as personals attacks, then why don't you take a look at your own comments, which are replete with personal attacks on my ability to deliver a competent theory.



I already said I was open to some of your ideas on cure because there are obviously people who have difficulties unlike me in a myriad of things. I will not deny anyone's suffering on account of my ideas. What I will dispute are these charges that somehow I am set in illogical thinking, using supposition or simply attacking others for the hell of them not agreeing with me because you made these charges to defend a theory that you have been set in for a while. I have been far more open in actually challenging you time after time, giving you the respect of a response when all you say is this is pointless, an utter waste, let me know when you'll bother when you started it and you should end it yourself by not responding.

Ah oh. Here I was thinking you were the only one without supposition. The problem with supposition and autism is so much is unknown and what manifest in result is what we have. Everyone has emotions and the key is to figure out why they manifest.



If I said you were having supposition after supposition and that any audacity to think for myself was not allowed or you would be hostile in debate would that still be a supposition of my own? You do have a personal investment in your work as it is your work and no one is perfect. People that are confident take disagreements with a grain of salt but I am sure you are confident in that you are being attacked for my thinking for myself in spite of your and my suppositions.



I don't believe this conversation so meaningful it is akin to life or death but to disagree originally in-sighted a harshness I deemed inappropriate to effectively find a resolution. Allow me a supposition by saying this communication here is an example of just taking things waaaaaay too personally. I want to get down into the nity-gritty of 1+1=2 of perceptual logic including world-views, emotional relevancy, sociological frameworks and human rights law.

I will be back tomorrow in this post to begin it again.