Are All Problems Solveable and obstacles surmountable?

Post Reply New Topic

It is very difficult to have an intricate discussion about anything if discussion is censored, impeded and too many things become taboo and politically correct which is what is happening in our society. If certain concepts can't be examined and questioned because they're deemed offensive then how can we all grow in understanding as autistics and as society as a whole. If one can't examine life itself and question the things above, below and within us then what is the point of living? Now, I understand why Socrates drunk hemlock.

You can choose to discuss anything you want, but this did not start out as a discussion of parenting skills and when you went as you said to Hollands center to make a point because you felt you needed to get your point across you sidetracked the discussion from why people insist on looking through rose colored glasses and the difficulties you encounter. I don't know how you could better reach people but I wish you hadn't written that you think Holland is too judgmental and will likely harm her children.
Failing as a parent is probably the worst kind of failure because it means failing yourself and someone else.

Socrates drank hemlock because he was forced to.

Parenting skills are virtually impossible to assess on an Internet forum. You have to see parents in action. It helps immensely if you're a parent yourself.

Oh for Heaven's sake! Just apologize. You don't have to invoke the greater good of society. Socrates was forced to drink hemlock because he challenged the theology of Greece, not because he called someone a bad parent.

You have to be practical in order to parent severely autistic people. Philosophy tends to lose its appeal when your kid is banging his/her head against a wall. Abstractions are useless.

I am sorry for offending all on here. I will attempt to ask my question(s) in a different way. My offense was unintentional.

Now, since certain things are taboo (I don't know why) maybe I can try it this way.

On a computer instead of looking at the bright side why wouldn't I put an antivirus scanner to help mitigate viruses. I have one called Kaspersky. Instead, I'm told to believe things will be fine and not to worry about it. In addition, why wouldn't I defrag from time to time. Instead, I'm being told to be positive and not worry about these negatives. Why wouldn't one attempt to prevent problems or at least reduce their effect?

Another thing, I've had to edit windows registry before. I back the registry up. Based upon the logic here, I should hope for the best and not back it up and to me that is insane. If you screw up your registry you will screw up your computer.

Another thing, one has to pay for parking in Atlanta. The attendant inspects the lot to make sure one has a ticket for each car. It has to be visibly seen. If it is twisted or hidden it is the same as not having one and my car will be booted. Why wouldn't I take extra time to avoid paying fines and make sure it is seen?

This whole look on the bright side makes no sense to me. Do you see why now I have to reject this extreme optimism on logical grounds?

I actually found a name for what I'm describing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_pessimism Anytime I try to do this with others they tell me to look on the bright side. Why?

Just make sure the ticket isn't torn or otherwise defaced--and is absolutely visible--and you won't get booted. What's the problem with that?

Otherwise, one has to take action to get rid of the viruses. One has to take action to defragment. One has to take action to solve all problems. You have to create your own optimism sometimes.

"Defensive Pessimism" is not something I want to base my life on.

That's only my opinion.

If everyone doesn't mind, let's just end this conversation. Truth is, I see a green world, others see a blue world, others see a red world. I just simply don't agree with certain aspects of our society and how things are done and what is believed.

I'm not sure an answer exists to the original question. Or one that we can know anyway. In an absence of one, I go with Monty Python - "always look on the bright side of life."
Being prepared for the unknown is impossible, so why bother trying?

I see a polka-dotted world.

I'll go with that.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/artic ... ty-haskins



Based upon your answer to my question and if others have this as a similar answer then I have certain issues with Maxim 2 of personality responsibility as defined by The Brookings Institute and accepted by other people.

If there are things unknown and there are things that can happen that are beyond one's control then I have to ask why would one be wrong and ignoble to blame outside factors? Can outside factors actually cause an individual to not meet expected standards?

Look at this segment right here.



Let's say a young person decides to postpone sex and they get raped? Let's say they get pregnant. How could she have avoided pregnancy? Why would it be wrong for her to blame her rapist?



Let's look at this segment. Truth is, I worked hard in school and in college.

These are two posts I wrote here on my blog.

https://whyifailedinamerica1.wordpress. ... xperience/

https://whyifailedinamerica1.wordpress. ... xperience/

I have more to write on my blog about the details of the job I did obtain after college. Suffice it to say, I ended up on SSDI. I worked hard, did the best that I could, attempted to try to meet standards yet could not do it at all. By the actions of SSDI deciding to grant me benefits in spite of jobs I did hold, in spite of graduating from high school and college things beyond my control and external to me prevented my success that was acknowledged by Social Security.

The latest psychologist I just saw said that my state is the most difficult for being awarded social security and she recommends that I don't get a job and mess with it. Once I get a job and mess with it, it will be very difficult to get back on. As an added caveat, I got it the first time I applied. My version of my aspergers/autism must be extremely obvious and severe enough to totally incapacitate me.

So, how does the 2nd maxim of personal responsibility always hold up based upon the evidence that unknowns exist and what I've written here?

I would love for a religious, conservative fundamentalist answer these questions. If they could not and saw I had a point to admit that they're dead wrong.

Not always. If you can foresee a possible misadventure than you are wise to take precautions. But no one can foresee everything and sometimes you just have to chalk it up to experience and move on.

The expected standards are dependent on the outside factors, I think.

Agreed!



True, which is why I can only accept personal responsibility's second maxim in some cases and why I reject it in other cases. IMHO, things like personal responsibility and optimism is overhyped even though I do agree that there is a lot of truth to them. There is a lot of truth of positivity and even "grabbing the bull by its horns." Not to the extreme and hype that it is promoted in the USA. IMHO, they only look at only part of the picture which makes some conclusions for individual cases unsound. Even positivity does have truth to it but again to me it is over hyped. So is the can-do attitude; it is again over-hyped

Without all of the philosophy, this is what I am saying. To me there are ideas that are true but over-hyped and taken to extremes.




This is so true. It is society which means the majority of people in a given people which shapes the standards and direction(s) one is expected to go. From my experience one has no veto power to them nor has any say in what is developed. Like someone said on here, these norms as they're called are developed organically. Whenever one questions the norms and challenges them in a very rational manner people get angry with you as demonstrated by WelcomeToHolland. Even if one is simply trying to understand them.

So, it's very difficult to have a discussion about the norms if the norms themselves preclude discussion and one has to figure out rocket science in order to be able to have any discussion at all on the norms.

I don't understand. You said you wanted to stop the conversation where you criticized her as a parent, you said you hadn't meant any harm, why are you going back to that?