Is strict rule following really a thing with Asperger's?

Post Reply New Topic

We're logical and that's a two-edged sword when it comes to rules. We're able to understand why good rules exist and we're able to see the flaws with bad rules.

Well the examples the OP listed came off as him being self centered. Those are the sort of people I dislike in society, main character syndrome and somehow they are so special not even realizing they are like everyone else and not any different. I do not think those rules are flawed. If everyone thought like him, everyone would be swimming at 2AM and it would be loud so yes the rule would apply to him too. If everyone smoked in public, there be second hand smoke everywhere and that would be a problem and it's been proven that it does harm our health even if we don't smoke and it increases aging. Who wants to look 60 at 40. I certainly don't want to have premature aging.

Most people wouldn't desire to swim at 2 am though. You might be falling prey to the slippery slope fallacy.

I bristle at rules, especially if they seem unnecessary or seem to be authoritarian as their only real purpose. Sometimes I will flaunt those on purpose but I have learned to be much better about not creating a disruption or a problem for others, and for myself, so I am more likely to just go along and not make a fuss now that I'm older.

But I wouldn't break a rule if it meant bothering someone or inconveniencing them, or worse.

For instance, the reason I would stop at a red light (if I drove) would be to not risk causing an accident, and generally because driving is much more pleasant for everyone if everyone just does as others are expecting, not because it's a rule.

So I would say that generally, for me, I don't tend to follow rules, I just try to do what I think is best.

Sorry to rain on everyone's parade and to be the Devils advocate, but...

In recent years in my adult life ...in both paid jobs and in volunteer jobs...I find rebellious rule breakers to be more irksome than than I find organizational rules to be.

Generally its the rule breakers who are stupid and not the rules.

Folks who "dont understand why we have that rule" are (in my experience) usually rather mentally impaired because they fail to see the "reason" for a rule that to me seems obvious, and even strategically brilliant.

This is the direction in which Western society is headed.

Confucianism looking better all the time.

Sorry to have offended you.

Just calling it the way I see it.

Huh?

I have no idea how my comment gave evidence of my being offended. Like when a female partner insists you are angry with her despite your having no such feelings.

I underlined the portion to which I was reacting. Perhaps you thought I was reacting to your observation? In fact, I generally agree and was attempting to support it in a facetious manner.

Sorry.

Thanks for supporting me. But ...dude you post a pic of whatshisname (head honcho of China) who is a guy most Americans dislike (though he aint thought of as being as bad as Hitler, Stalin, or Kim). So it could be taken as a stamp of disapproval. So I wasnt sure which way to take it. So I took a gamble that it was negative...to get you to clarify.

So thanks for clarifying.

I identify Xi with China which in turn I identify with Confucianism which to me is the opposite of Western Frat Boy Libertarianism/Objectivism. I am not an adherent of Confucianism, but I wonder whether, if a Confucianist society comes into direct conflict with a society run by overgrown Frat Boys, which will prevail?

Lol. You're dating my wife.

Huh, he does look like Winnie the Pooh

Was under the impression the ADA allows two questions:
1. is this a service dog
2. what is he trained to do

Fortunately, the most misbehavior we've had from a "service dog" is barking or sniffing people's butts....

Oh, one guy did bring in an "emotional support dog", which is NOT the same thing as an SD and does not have the same access rights. ESAs have important jobs as well, but they are not allowed in pet-restricted areas.

I remember that one man on Dr. Phil who moved into a community and wouldn't obey the rule "No feeding wild life" so he was feeding the crocodiles (Florida) and eventually they started to create issues for neighbors with their yards because him feeding them encouraged them to hang around and were wrecking neighbors yards. He was facing a lawsuit and was on Dr. Phil about it. Somehow he thought that rule didn't apply to him and he was trying to say all his neighbors were jealous and said they can come over and feed them too. He also somehow thought wild life didn't apply to the crocodiles.

He just came off as narcissist to me and these are the sort of people I dislike, so selfish and self centered and disregard's everyone's concerns. I would probably sue him too for causing damage. I would find a pro bono lawyer who only takes money if they know you have a case to win.

Rules about no feeding ducks or bears and other wild life exist for a reason. They don't want wild animals hanging around and causing damages. They also don't want ducks to become a nuisance to visitors if people keep feeding them.

I am proudly a sheeple.

If you don't like the rules, don't go there.
Don't like the work policy, don't work there.
Don't like the HOA policies, don't move to that community.
Don't like the rules on a forum, don't post there then.
Don't like the website policies, don't use that site.
Don't like the landlord's policy, don't move there.

Anyone who chooses to break rules never get my sympathy when they get a consequence. Don't get me wrong, I like my freedom to which is why I don't go to any churches or have a religion nor do I live in a HOA community. If a store or restaurant had way to many rules like Social Bar & Grill in St. Louis, I wouldn't eat there as a customer.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/socia ... r-AA1gMJgh

It's a slip of my memory, it was just the first question. Anything being that wasn't allowed due to liability issues. The same basic thing seems to apply where I work as well

I guess you're not a fan of civil disobedience, or of attempts being made to change rules?

There's rules that make sense to follow, but there's others that are unreasonable, unwise and/or unjust.

If the rules say you can't adopt to same-sex couples (for example) your employer is in the wrong and it's worthwhile to take a stand on that issue internally instead of just quitting. If your employment is actually vital to their operations the obligation to take a stand is even higher.

Just following orders isn't a valid excuse for participating in wrong-doing.

If the rules say women can't drive, should women just accept that and accept they'll be punished for violating those rules?

If you don't like HOA policies, laws, etc, work to get them rescinded or changed. Sometimes that process might even require breaking them and having to appeal to an outside body.

Yes, some rules like don't feed the bears make sense. That doesn't mean ever rule in existence is as commonsense as don't feed the bears.