Not Aspie enough!

Post Reply New Topic

Wait a minute. First, you insult me by calling me disabled, then you insult me by saying that my insistance on distinguishing between limitations and disability is an attempt to avoid coping with my problems and to "save-face" in our discussion. Then, after I show you how you are way off-base on both your opinions, you say to take the insult in stride?!?!?!?!?!?

How does honesty = pushover anyhow?!? You are saying since I am honest, I should let people insult me and be a pushover?!? Again, you don´t even know how to use the word candor correctly, just as how you didn´t know how use the words limitation and disability properly.



So, you insult me again by saying that my strategy for coping is an excuse to not attempt difficult things?!? Boy, you are full of yourself. There is no speculation here, as I have said, I have tried for years to fit in. Any further attempts to fulfill the role of a socialite would be a "foolsquest" indeed. There is a difference between an intelligent person knowing when to draw the line and when an idiot attempts the impossible. I suppose you would call "Rudy" a quitter for not trying out for the NFL.



This is the second time you present supporting arguments in a different post!! !! ! Whats up with that?!?

Its obvious that there really isn´t anything underneath this shiny wrapping paper of yours because your arguments make no sense. As Nietzche once said, "he who wishes to appear deep strives for obscurity", he tries to throw as mud into the water as to make the bottom appear deeper than it is, which is exactly what you try to do with your semantic presentation. I don´t see how there is anything left to discuss.

Look, Jonathan79, you are the one reading in insult that is not intended. And you building upon your sense of insult in a manner that is elaborate and actually begins to show creativity, though increasingly by convolutions of circular reasoning. Every conclusion that I am insulting you actually depends upon your assumption that something is, intrinsically somehow, indeed an insult.

We can agree or disagree on any point, and any assertion that can be made may be true or untrue. But as I have said that I intend no insult, certainly not in fine points of semantics, let that be the end of it and we'll both be happier.

So, an insult is only an insult if BOTH parties mean it that way? Thats a load of bull and you know it.





So, you claim freedom of speech by supressing my own? That makes no sense. You have the right to insult anyone you want (unfortunately), and I have the right to speak out against it.

And yes, I am being impossibly defensive because you shoot down our "impossible dream" at every turn with you condescending and curt remarks with regards to the way we live our lives. You claim to want this dream too, but its obvious you don´t, you want to show that you are better than us. You offer no helpful suggestions, only curt remarks. You never attempt to lift ones hopes, you attempt to crush their spirit. You do not say how we can do better, you only consistently point out that we are failing. You do not attempt to sympathize, you consistently criticize. You do not lend a helping hand, you kick a man when he´s down. You challenge us to give you answers, yet you provide none of your own. How can you claim that we have all given up, then ask us for advice on how to go on?!? That makes no sense.

No, you are not searching for a "better way" as much as searching for a reason to put us down. Its funny how my first post makes the same sense now as it did then.

Tautologically, successful communication is achieved when all parties arrive at the same understanding of the message content. So why would that apply any less to insult or non insult? And what is the point of hanging onto insult that was unintended?

And how, or so you say, do I suppress your free speech? Certainly you have every right to interpret or react however you see fit. I can only clarify my own intention and afford you my own considered recommendations.

All that you seem to want to contribute is ever escalating Ad Hominem!

There is a word for the cultivation of pleasing beliefs, regardless of whatever is reasonable, likely or true. And that word is: 'religion.' And the word for just shoving religion down another's throat like a giant sanctified dildo, is: 'proselytizing.'

I am struggling to conduct serious rational inquiry, and you just won't stop proselytizing your half backed clichéd religion. So yes, here I find myself bursting you balloon, just in desperation to get back on point. -Which you won't allow, and for which you then blame me.

Religion is not the "cultivation of pleasing beliefs". Religion is much more than that, it is a doctrine that regards someone as inherently flawed and offers a way to fix them, and/or it is something that relies on the supernatural. If religion is simply the "cultivation of pleasing beliefs" than the thought of a vacation is religious, the thought of kissing your lover is religious, the thought of taking your dog for a walk is religious, the thought of cleaning ones garden is religious. Again, you do not even know how to use the word "religion" correctly, just as how you did not know how to use the words "disabled" and "limitation". The list just keeps getting bigger!! ! You throw out these labels and don´t even know how to use them right. You have bursted no bubble, you have only further showed your inability to use words correctly.

You can get back on point anytime you want!! All you have to do is stop throwing out these inaccurate labels!! ! So, please do not let me stand in your way, but if you insist on labeling me with these inaccurate interpretations of words, I will respond.

Jonathan79, you are quite correct as to the psychotherapeutic aspect or thrust of religion, of ministering to the soul. However, that was not the aspect whereof I spoke, nor the context in which I even made mention. You are again sidestepping all that I was actually saying, with a semantic digression.

Indeed, you are quoting me out of context: I did not assert that religion is simply the cultivation of pleasing beliefs, but more specifically, doing so however dishonestly in flagrant denial of contradiction with reason, knowledge, likelihood, plausibility, truth and reality. After all, yearning easily enough gets the better of judgment, even without actually going so far as lying to oneself on purpose.

But returning to semantics, the word 'religion' is also often bandied about poetically, to evoke a range of high emotion. Hence, I wonder if it might surprise you that many would readily agree that anticipation of kissing one's lover is indeed religious!

There are many senses of most words in our vocabulary. And to achieve communication, the intention must be gleaned also from context provided.

Where have I sidestepped before? And, you are claiming that you know the "truth"?!? You know my subjective truth?!? For that is what we are talking about, didn´t you know? You are claiming that I am speaking against my own subjective truth? For that is the definition that your word relies on. You know that I´m speaking against yours and not my own right?Well......okay......

I was aware of how you were using it, and, I was asserting that you are overextending the use from its common application to take a jab at me, as you did with the words "disabled" and "candor". About the only phrase that was correct in that little statement was about the "giant sanctified dildo" being in your throat, hmmmmmm, funny how thats the only phrase that was actually used properly.

No, no no people!! ! What are YOU thinking about, I was shocked that he used words correctly, not what you were thinking...... shame on all of you!

Of course the intention must be understood, what do you think we are talking about? Do you even know whats going on?!? I keep saying that I feel that these words are deragatory (according to my subjective truth) and you keep saying that I should not be offended because you don´t (which is your subjective truth). And, I keep saying that if I tell you that I don´t like them, that they lose their "innocence" if you keep calling me by them. Perhaps calling a man disabled once is forgivable, it was an accident, but, after he tells you to stop doing that, and you keep doing it, its clearly meant to insult. You keep insisting that its not, because even if I tell you that I feel its deragatory, its not insulting me because you don´t think it is, therefore you can keep calling me that and I should not be insulted. Are we clear yet?

Don´t you have a "discussion" you are trying to get back to?

Last edited by jonathan79 on 18 Jul 2006, 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Edit:double post

As you are even now yet again continuing to sidestep by digression into semantics, Jonathan79, no, truth is by no means subjective. And this is well covered in an essay at my website: 'Metaphysics for Dummies' at: http://www.FoolQuest.com/metaphysics_for_dummies.htm

However I do employ the word 'religion,' then perhaps I am doing so effectively after all, as you do seem to catch my drift. You might not like it, though. Nevertheless, I offer not insult, but criticism. Taking offense is your problem. But a levelheaded critical reply might be more interesting. Honestly, I do not wish to upset you, because that's just boring.

Some truth is not subjective? Now you´ve really lost it. Of course there are some truths that are subjective!! And these are an example. I won´t bother to read through all your jargon, so you can stop wasting your time with the links.

Your second paragraph says you still don´t get it!! !! !! If I say don´t criticize me and you keep doing it, its insulting!! !!

Truth simply is not subjective. And it you do not wish to read my essay that explains and so demonstrates, then so be it. Too bad, because I even define all of the jargon! Indeed, for that very purpose, the page is actually quite popular online.

That simply does not follow.

Plainly, you do not really even disagree with what I actually have to say. You only object to my right to say it.

"Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
-George Orwell.

"Reality...What A Concept "
-Robin Williams

I´m not talking about all truth, we were talking about what a man finds distasteful, and that is always a subjective truth. If you are telling me that what a man finds distasteful can be objectively assesed, then you might as well have told me that your link proves a pink elephant dictates your posts!! !




Sam: Hey Al, hows the prosthetic leg?

Al: Its good, I´ve leared to walk and run with it, I´m able to function almost normally.

Sam: But, you´re still disabled.

Al: Don´t call me that!! !

Sam: No, I don´t mean it as an insult

Al: Still! Don´t call me that!! !!

Sam: No, but you are disabled, you really are.

Al: I said don´t call me that!! ! Its insulting.

Sam: But I mean it as a criticism, not an insult.

AL: I said don´t call me that, even if you don´t mean any harm.

Sam: No, but you really are disabled, I mean, look at you.




This is the 4th time you have twisted my words to make a point, although this time you simply ignore everything I have to say.



You answers have reached a level of high comedy. I only continue to see how long you´ll deny that you have the crumbs on your hand from the cookie jar.

Truth is objective and singular. Subjective truth is an oxymoron. Hence I have no idea what you are talking about! As to what may be distasteful to you, trying to use such to control others is sometimes refereed to as: emotional blackmail. The irony is that you are the one refusing to change the subject and get back on point. You are the one with the persistent interest in a subject that bothers you so. Which is only natural, but then don't kill the messenger, as the old saying goes. No, I do not engage in empty name calling, your own perception not withstanding. Again, having clarified my intent, most sincerely, that should be the end of it.

Obviously

Q: Is it true that you don´t like to be called disabled?
A: Yes, its true.

A subjective truth!



This is the 5th time you have twisted/ignored my words.






This is the 6th time you have twisted/ignored my words!



Please, keep going, its quite amusing!

Merely stating that I have twisted your words, does not explain how or so demonstrate. Answer my counter-charge of emotional blackmail, if you dare, the question remaining most salient. You exhibit a deep-seated need to bring to task someone who has injured you somehow, but I am not your enemy. And if there is any word you prefer to the word: 'disability,' then by all means, use it. And then explain why you've completely given up trying in whatever exactly that area!

Indeed, what is disability, except hopeless and complete, well, disability, in whatever specific regard? Or, otherwise, if disability is merely relative, a matter of degree, then what has ever been incorrect in my own usage? It might seem as though you want it both ways. You want the exemption of disability, but you want to deny it at the same time. Or has that perhaps escaped your notice?

Why are we so hung up on a word? What's in a word? Virginia Wolf was once famously queried: Why must you insist upon using that word? And she replied: For the same reason that you are afraid to!

Let's all confront reality together. Indeed, if there can ever be a better more creative problem solving sollution for the stumbling blocks before all such as we, then why are you so uninterested, even terrified? Get back on point, I dare you!

Everytime I have claimed such, I have demonstrated such, go back and read the posts!! !

As to your "charge" of blackmail, again I state for the 3rd time:





Because you have a deep-seated need to keep bringing it up! As in this post for example!!



Have YOU noticed that I´ve made replies to all of these accusations already?!?



And, who said that I have no hope? Show me that post!! ! I have more hope now than I ever did before.



As I have said before (as I have ALL these statements), it is not the word, but the repeated use of suchs words in a certain circumstance:

Sam: Hey Al, hows the prosthetic leg?

Al: Its good, I´ve leared to walk and run with it, I´m able to function almost normally.

Sam: But, you´re still disabled.

Al: Don´t call me that!! !

Sam: No, I don´t mean it as an insult

Al: Still! Don´t call me that!! !!

Sam: No, but you are disabled, you really are.

Al: I said don´t call me that!! ! Its insulting.

Sam: But I mean it as a criticism, not an insult.

AL: I said don´t call me that, even if you don´t mean any harm.

Sam: No, but you really are disabled, I mean, look at you.

A: Don´t call me that!

Sam: Well, you´re just being a "religious proselytizer" because you take offense.

A: Stop calling me things!

Sam: Aw, whats the matter, where´s your mono-ped "candor" you extoll?

A:????

Sam: Now, you´re just trying to emotionaly blackmail me.

A: ????!?!?!?!?!?!?!?




I dare YOU!! It seems you are the one who is terrified!! !



Honestly, this is a serious question, have you been reading my posts or just responding blindly?

Its funny how you can discard the jargon when you want to say something. The only ironic thing is, is that your arguments make less sense than they did before!! !!