Aspergers and the notion of equality

Post Reply New Topic

yeah in that way people are all the same to me. I differentiate them by if they are nice or mean or scary to me

The majority of people with Aspergers eat meat.

Eating meat imposes inequality - "I have the right to kill an animal but not to kill another human being".

But there is no logical reason why an animal's life is of less worth than a humans.

People choose to ignore that fact because it is pleasant and convenient to do so. They adopt inequality when it suits them just fine.

By the way, this is probably why Mr Jefferson hung on to his slaves. I wouldn't rule out AS because of this behaviour. (Unless I have missed some shocking statistic in which 99.99% of people with Aspergers are in fact vegetarian.)

The majority of people with Aspergers eat meat.

Eating meat imposes inequality - "I have the right to kill an animal but not to kill another human being".

But there is no logical reason why an animal's life is of less worth than a humans.

People choose to ignore that fact because it is pleasant and convenient to do so. They adopt inequality when it suits them just fine.

By the way, this is probably why Mr Jefferson hung on to his slaves. I wouldn't rule out AS because of this behaviour. (Unless I have missed some shocking statistic in which 99.99% of people with Aspergers are in fact vegetarian.)

As a matter of fact, I have pondered on that issue a whole lot because of the stated potential problematic double standards.

We must accept we are animals. When we kill animals for the purpose of sustaining life (eating) there is a direct purpose of the act. Opposite that of the inequality many NTs enjoy to adopt: Adopting dominance over other by means of bullying or by other means. This does not have a purpose of sustaining life when both parties do not agree that the social structure should contain a hierarchy. Or actually, it has the purpose of sustaining the survival of the NT (through increased confidence) at the expense at the other person's misery.

That's why I find there is a difference.

Cats also do not have a pack mentality, so they also demands social equality, but they still eat meat. As long as they do not kill for fun I do not think one can blame them. Similarly with Asperger people.

But there is also no logical reason why a plant's life would be of less worth than a human's. That's why I choose to remain an omnivore.

I've had pets under my care; I've also had houseplants. I watched them grow from saplings, and found that they flourish when they receive plenty of care. And they were every bit a part of my household as my cats were.

When I buy meat, I take care to ensure that it wasn't mass produced in the bio-industry, and that the animals involved were raised on an as natural diet as possible, in the short lifespan they were given.
Cultivated plants are subjected to a treatment as disgraceful as livestock is, yet because they are farther removed from human beings than cows or chickens are, it's apparently a lot more difficult to imagine oneself in their position.

Curiously enough, cats also kill for sport.

Many people with cats can attest that, even though you'll give them catfood beyond their basic need for sustenance, cats will still experience a need to keep their hunting skills sharp. The average cat with a full belly will not leave a mouse or a bird alone where it encounters one.

Disturbingly, most cats who get plenty of food and aren't hungry at the time of their kill, will turn their back on the mouse as soon as it's dead. No more movement = no more sport. And why eat a smelly old mouse when you've just had a saucer full of tuna paté?

You don't have to accept truth defined by a recognized authority but there are 2 good reasons to accept orders from such people:

1)to stay out of jail (orders given by police or judge)
if you are breaking what you feel is an unjust law, you must accept that going to jail may be the price you pay

2)to keep your job (orders given by your boss)
if you are refusing to follow what you consider a bad order from a boss, you must accept that losing your job is the price you pay. The exception is if the boss gives an illegal order, but in that case you have to report the illegal order to legal authorities and follow whatever instructions they give (which will usually be something like "let us handle it") so you are still taking orders from authority

There is even a reason to accept orders from somebody who is not an authority: if that person is armed and you aren't or can't reach your weapon quickly enough. If an armed mugger orders you to hand over your wallet...follow that order.

Worrying about losing your job can have some dark consequences, though, such as that judge letting that rich kid off for driving drunk and killing someone while simultaneously admitting that the kid had "affluenza.". I suppose the judge was worried about the father having powerful friends and damaging his career?
Also, penalties for crack vs. powder cocaine due to which group of people predominantly using which and which has a higher social standing/power/status.