Is work tyranny?

Post Reply New Topic

That's a lot of "ifs" there, Marshall.

What Marshall and I are doing is what is called a what-if analysis. These are the issues that both Marshall and I have with property rights. Your rights end where mine begin which means some rights have to have higher precedence over other rights.

There is an underlying belief by conservatives and strict constitutionalists and that is that our rights are inalienable in the absolute sense. Our rights are inalienable but only to certain extents that they do not violate other rights and conflict with other rights.

We do not have the right to bare arms absolutely. We only have the right to a certain extent. We do not have the right to a dirty bomb or a nuclear bomb.

Why do people on the losing side of an argument resort to "What-If Analysis", when there are so many "What-Is Facts" to base their arguments on?

Could it be that their arguments are not supported by the facts?

Is that why they have to make up fantasy situations to "prove" their assertions?

I think I am beginning to understand what is going on here. These are guesses on my part based upon what you state about yourself in previous posts. To answer your questions I will state You and I have two different personality types even though we are both on the spectrum.

http://www.personalitypathways.com/type_inventory.html

Personality is a lot more complex than this.

You are more of a sensing type of aspie and I am more of an intuitive type of aspie. Therein lies the problem and why we are tripping over each other. I think Marshall is more of the intuitive type as well.

The thing is our personalities developed differently and I believe this is due to our past experiences. You see what is now and you improvise and go by your past experiences. For you common sense and practicality is instinctual to you. You go by facts and past events.

You were homeless for a time and because of this you've had to deal with the realities of your situations. This is how this part of your personality developed. Because you were living on the street for a time and had to deal with horrible situations you've been forced to deal in the practical and the more sensory aspects instead of the more intuitive aspects.


The thing is the way you operate and the way you think is not the way I think and operate. I do not know how to think in your way. For me, facts are not things set in stone like you see them but possible interpretations based upon my own experiences, prejudices and biases. You see facts, I only see possible interpretations of these facts and there could be many different ways to interpret these facts. Therein lies the problem. For me, common sense is not always reliable to me like it is to you.

I look for patterns in a given system and I make connections when I am able to establish patterns. I don't trust my past experience or see facts and absolute and set in stone like you do. My past experiences as I see them have a biased lens attached. My past experiences are based upon my own interpretations which may be faulty. I look at concepts and beliefs and extrapolate the possibilities of where they could be taken to. I ask, if this is so then why can't x be so either? For me, inventing possibilities and doing what if analyses is as natural for me as you being able to create practical solutions and using common sense is natural for you.

Fnord, please keep coming and posting on here. It is wonderful that you do. You bring a more practical approach to things that I have difficulty with because of my own upbringing and my own experiences. One thing I have learned from you is sometimes I have to accept some things as though they're axiomatic.

The thing is though there are times that some things should not be accepted as axiomatic, set in stone and just fact. One has to be able to understand the background and the context the facts were derived in. One has to be able to understand the interpretation of the fact when this fact was conceived.

For example, it is always believed that 1+1=2 in all cases. I can show you where it does not. The assumption that 1+1=2 in all cases is that we're dealing with the base 10 number system. What about the base 2 number system. 1+1=10 in the base 2 number system.

I don't look at the facts only I look at the interpretations behind those facts. Facts are based upon the perception of other facts that a person perceived.

You ask what and how. I ask why. You state x is so. I ask why is x so and if x is so then why isn't y so as well?

It is said that the speed of light is 299 792 458 m / s. Why does the speed of light have this velocity? What are the parameters that make this so? Can one change the parameters in a given space?

It is said that nothing can't go faster than light? Why is that so? What prevents anything from doing that? What are the physics that prevent the light barrier from being crossed?

Why does self-pity exist as an emotion if one is not supposed to feel it or display it? Why is it unacceptable? Why is negativity and negative attitude unacceptable in our society? Why is all misfortune that a person experiences their fault and their responsibility and not society's? Why is it unacceptable to blame a given society or any external entity in which one experiences misfortune?

What is the inherent reasoning for the American standard of internal locus of control that is considered absolute? Why is it fallacious to have any form of external locus of control whatsoever?

What is the inherent reasoning behind the beliefs of self-responsibility, positivity, self-reliance,etc? It is stated that life is unfair? Why is this so and why is it unacceptable to desire fairness? What is life and what is fairness?

Why must one have self-confidence in America? Why is this inherently required? Why is it considered that my belief determines my ability and not the converse? You state my beliefs are wrong and my arguments are wrong? I ask, why are they wrong and why are yours correct? What makes mine wrong and what makes yours correct? Why?

All you do is state that x is y? Why?