Are autistic people more objective?

Post Reply New Topic

I often got people getting mad at me. If I say women are whores, they said I hate women. I couldn't understand the connection between saying someone wanting to get paid well for providing awesome service to "hate"

When I said muslims love theocracy, they said I insult muslim. When I said the poor and lazy love welfare, they said I am generalizing.

First of all, of course I am generalizing. There is no way all women are whores. Some are sluts. So what? Of course, the ugly doesn't count because for all practical purpose they're male. Now that's equality for most women, exactly like what they always say they want. But somehow I feel that they're still mad.

I don't feel whores or sluts are negative in anyway. I feel nothing. Actually I do feel negatively about theocracy because I am a libertarian, till I see how liberals are just as crazy and see that the whole force and BS is just part of the game.

Oh ya,. it feels funny for me to say that. But why are neurotypical people angry at me?

Are they so well indoctrinated by feminazis that they just evolve a knee jerk reaction against politically incorrect idea?

Because I don't feel like most other people, does that mean I am more objectives?

Or am I just a jerk? Or perhaps, everyone else is the one that's a jerk. They just pretend to get mad on anything that my challenge their BS.

Objective? Hmm. I'd say you're more blunt than most.

I'm not sure that all autistics are more objective than most other people, but I think that I am.

However I'm not sure that any of the controversial opinions you stated qualify as being more objective. You seem to be only concerned with a word's denotations, whereas others also take into account a word's connotations, but I'm not sure why you say statements like "women are whores" or "ugly (women) don't count because for all practical purpose they're male" are more objective. What objective facts or statistics are there to back these up? My guess is that you have formed these opinions largely from your own experiences and perspective - essentially the definition of subjectivity.

You don't sound terribly objective to me. Most of your viewpoints find fault with groups you are not a member of - I would classify your perspective as one of notably extreme subjectivity.

And I'd add that the views you've expressed display a disturbing narrow mindedness.
I assume your life duzn't bring you into much contact with Muslim women on welfare

Well, you still need to realize that these words carry a heavy stigma and are just going to offend people. If I was a black fellow and I had some friend who went and said "God I hate n****rs!!" then went and said "Oh I only met the annoying black people who do this or that stereotyped behavior plus Chris Rock said it so its alright!" I would be very mad and have every right to be.

People with aspergers sometimes have a tendency to be unintentionally blunt, kids go through this phase but grow out of it. Aspies like this eventually realize they can't go say everything on their mind though, much like children, even if they -do- think they're right. It seems more like you're just being an as*hole and its making people angry. You don't feel that slut and whore are negative words but I'm pretty sure you're not a woman. We don't live in a totalitarian society where everyone can force you to speak a certain way but don't be shocked when your offensive, close minded generalizations upset other people.

Its not just the NT people who are angry with you and it is definitely not a "feminazi" trait to be offended by the things you've said.

You really just sound like a bitter ,judgmental person who hides behind your aspergers or "libertarian" beliefs.

Please be trolling.

I have a hard time dealing with people when they get so emotionally worked about such issues (whether they are AS or NT). I regard this as hysteria induced by the mass media which some people latch on to because they are fundamentally uncomfortable with anyone who is different from themselves or lives a different lifestyle. Their views are usually informed by stereotypes and extreme examples in the media rather than real individuals and I hate it when people try to impose these emotional views on others or label me as 'soft' because I don't go along with writing off an entire culture as 'backwards' and 'uncivilised' just because the tabloids present things in such a biased way. I cannot read a newspaper or watch television with an unquestioning mind, I am always looking to determine what function this is fulfilling by the way in which it is presented, whether it is to encourage support for military misadventures or cut welfare programs. Promoting the view that 'everyone on welfare is lazy and should work' allows government to cut such programs relatively unopposed. I have been called 'soft' and even 'paranoid' for thinking like this but to me this is the logical way of looking at things.

This seems more narrow minded than objecting to me. The whole point of objectivity is seeing all aspects of something without personal subjectivity. Your statements are very subjective, they are your point of view, not a rational examination of fact.

Welkome to WP

Mick

Welcome to Wrong Planet!

I guess my problem is not asperger then.

Okay, this is why I think ugly women are effectively males. Males don't look ugly women as high value sex objects. So it's natural that ugly women are not sex object for males. It's natural to expect that ugly women want all women to be like that. What is not objective about that?

Actually if I am wrong, just show me where I am wrong.

As for women are whores. If I divorce my wife, I am sure she'll ask a lot of money. Why? Because she doesn't want money? Marriage is prostitution. Women get married so they get paid.

Maybe some women are not whore. So what? Why those who want to have sex for absolutely free is "better" than those who want to get paid for it?

I don't want to program for free, I don't want to help people for free, I like getting paid. Why it's wrong for women to want to get paid?

I don't say muslims are as*holes. No. I have muslim friends that are honest businessmen. It's just that I think if we do voters demographic, someone will see that muslims are more likely to favor religious based laws than others. Things like anti porn laws. Saying that people want theocracy is not negative. It's just one of the many traits people want. I want freedom. Others want slavery. So we agree that we want different things. That's it. I am not saying they're wrong or bad. It's just that obviously we have conflict of interests.

I guess I'm a bit confused as to what you mean by 'effectively males'. Sure 'ugly' women are, by definition, less physically attractive, but how does this make them more male? I think we run into issues of the definitions of femininity and masculinity. Perhaps you judge how feminine someone is by how attracted you are to them, therefore women you deem ugly (a subjective judgement) don't meet your standards for femininity (a subjective standard). I think you see unattractive women as unfit to have sex with, and therefore unfit to be called women. I would argue that physical attractiveness has little to do with the concept of femininity, which is complex, difficult to define, culture-specific and inherently subjective.



There seems to be two questions you are raising here. Firstly, is there anything wrong with exchanging sex for money? I would say that if all parties are willing and do so safely, then no there is nothing wrong with it. Secondly, are all (or most) women whores?

Well what is your exact definition of a whore? You mention a woman seeking money from her ex-husband after a divorce as an example, but how is this being a whore? The money received after the divorce is not a payment for all the times they had sex. You also mention that "Women get married so they get paid". There are many reasons a woman might get married, e.g. love, children, companionship. Some women may get married for their husbands money, but a) this is probably a small minority, and b) this does not fit many definitions of being a 'whore'. Relationships are not a transaction between two people, they are usually based on emotional attachment, social connection, love, affection etc.

Let's look at some definitions for objectivity. Two I like are:

1. agreed upon by all parties present (or nearly all); based on consensually observed facts
2. not influenced by irrational emotions or prejudices

I don't think your ideas about women fit either of these definitions. Your views are not agreed upon by many at all, nor are they based on consensually observed facts. I think they are influenced by some of your prejudices.

Just because you aren't always objective doesn't mean you don't have Asperger's. It isn't a diagnostic criteria, in fact I would say I haven't encountered many people with Asperger's who I would consider any more objective than anyone else.

Effectively males means ugly women are truly "equal" with men. If they can work as hard as males then they should be appreciated just as well as males.

Pretty women are goddesses.... They are ubber alles. So I wonder why feminazis insist on equality so much. Hot babes are more than men. Yet some women want equality. Guess what? They're almost always ugly. I was like, of course....

Definition of prostitution by law:

Exchange of lewd acts for "consideration"

Actually all sex is whoredom if you use that definition. Who among us have sex without consideration.

Would I marry my wife if she doesn't have sex with me? No. Would she marry me if she doesn't expect me to pay (either through alimony or support or shelter?) no.

If we can exchange what we truly want, most women will choose to be sugar babies or prostitute. Most men want sex. Women just want money. I don't feel love. I never feel love. I don't know what that is. It's just BS to justify prohibiting what people truly want.

Then honest relationship, where we don't have to BS about love, sanctity, and sacredness. Where we just pay cold hard cash is prohibited. Go figure.