I think lying is like breathing for neurotypical

Page 2 of 2 [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

NowhereWoman
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 499
Location: Los Angeles, CA

08 Oct 2015, 12:40 am

ASPartOfMe wrote:
Unfortunate_Aspie_ wrote:
Most of the time this is how I feel about NTs. They just lie all of the f*****g time. I realize that the methods of communication are different; they throw around patterns and veiled meaning and unnecessary innuendo and cultural word play. Aspies generally don't and are direct. Sometimes I want to (metaphorically) strangle people and scream "JUST SAY WHAT YOU f*****g MEAN DAMN IT!" :x :x :x

I find that even when NTs use platitudes such as "say what you mean and mean what you say" and other such seemingly disingenuous phrases they don't REALLY mean SAY EXACTLY what you mean, because these calls for so-called "honesty" don't generally ingender people with the motivation to be more honest .... it brings about other things.... why I am not sure.

Sometimes I feel like NT talk is just a fuck-ton of cues to say the socially acceptable thing. Like conversational tennis... not actual conversation/exchange of information/ideas/theories/facts/cool info/stuff.
In some ways NT-talk is more scripted than the scripts I spin through when trying to interact with an NT. :skull:

Also, what's so bad about the term NT (genuinely curious)?
I thought it was a great and succinct way to refer to non-autistic people. I think everyone is aware that with the NTs numbers being what they are (that is to say that in any given population basically 99% of the people are NT) it isn't a negative stereotype or generalization and that ... you can't completely generalize NTs behavior too much ... that just doesn't make sense. Aren't autistics the least prone to generalizations? LOL isn't it our specialty to NOT generalize s**t?


I just do not believe 98 percent of the worlds population can be typical of anything.


Probably not a whopping 98%, but certainly an overwhelming and striking percent can have typical loosely matching traits, sure.

A significant proportion of the world's population has two legs, two arms and a head, to give an example.

A significant proportion (statistically significant) can see and hear and have extremely sensitive fingertips. A significant proportion enjoy music or the sound of varying tones. A significant proportion (though probably smaller than some may think) have among their top desires and goals: financial security (or its equivalent if in a non-monetary/trade-based economy tribe or clan system); respect/admiration; adult/mature/romantic love; and again for a statistically significant majority (though not 98%), children.

So sure, an overwhelming majority can be "typical" in a variety of ways.

We actually as a species are extremely UNdiverse in our genetics. In fact, as of approximately 30-50 thousand years ago (scientific opinion differs on this), this has been the only time period in an over two million-year evolutionary history that there was only one species of hominid. Among all other races within our species, there is an approximately 99.9% matching DNA sequence.

"Typical" doesn't have to encompass as large a percentage as given as an example in the above quote (98%). It simply has to comprise a significant majority. Nor does "typical" mean one-dimensional, at least the way I see it. There is no judgement in the word, to me. It's simply a descriptor. I am "typical" in many, many ways even being OTS, and that doesn't bother me at all. If I were entirely atypical I'd pretty much have to be an alien. :lol:



heffe1981
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 4 Oct 2015
Age: 43
Posts: 94
Location: Saratoga Springs

08 Oct 2015, 4:49 pm

This thread seems to have gone off topic. I really think I may be on the wrong forum. I know I am new here, but the original poster mentioned people lying specifically in relation to the bible and how out of political correctness and motives, most bible translations and "doctrines" are skewed. I agreed with him, see my post. It seems to me this thread has been turned into a "religion vs science" debate, with the science people highjacking this thread and either going off topic by starting a new conversation or trying to turn this into a debate.

In keeping with the original posters topic, here are more bible verses that might suggest that people were making up rules even back in bible times. I use the Lexham English Bible (LEB). This is a "word for word" or literal translation that is not like most literal translations. Most "word for word" translations are very "clumsy" and usually mistranslate idioms. For example, a literal English translation of the German word "Kindergarten" would be "garden of children," but in English the expression refers to the school year between pre-school and first grade. So this translation has foot notes in the text explaining why certain words or word orders need to be changed so that idioms like the kindergarten example can be taken in the proper context. This leads to a clear and readable English translation instead of a woodenly literal one.

Matthew 15

Human Traditions and God’s Commandments

15 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat a meal.”[a] 3 So he answered and[b] said to them, “Why do you also break the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your[c] father and your[d] mother,’[e] and ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother must certainly die[f].’[g] 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his[h] father or his[i] mother, “Whatever benefit you would have received[j] from me is a gift to God,” 6 need not honor his father,’[k] and you make void the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 Hypocrites! Isaiah correctly prophesied about you saying,

8 ‘This people honors me with their[l] lips,
but their heart is far, far away from me,
9 and they worship me in vain,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”[m]
Defilement from Within

10 And summoning the crowd, he said to them, “Hear and understand: 11 It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth—this defiles a person.” 12 Then the disciples came and[n] said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they[o] heard this saying?” 13 And he answered and[p] said, “Every plant that my heavenly Father did not plant will be uprooted. 14 Let[q] them! They are blind guides of the blind. And if the blind guide the blind, both will fall into a pit.” 15 But Peter answered and[r] said to him, “Explain this parable to us.” 16 But he said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not understand that everything that enters into the mouth goes into the stomach and is evacuated into the latrine? 18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these defile the person. 19 For from the heart come evil plans, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, abusive speech. 20 These are the things that defile a person. But eating with unwashed hands does not defile a person!”

Footnotes:

Matthew 15:2 Literally “bread”.
Matthew 15:3 Here “and” is supplied because the previous participle (“answered”) has been translated as a finite verb.
Matthew 15:4 Literally “the”; the Greek article is used here as a possessive pronoun.
Matthew 15:4 Literally “the”; the Greek article is used here as a possessive pronoun.
Matthew 15:4 A quotation from Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16.
Matthew 15:4 Literally “let him die the death”.
Matthew 15:4 A quotation from Exod 21:17; Lev 20:9.
Matthew 15:5 Literally “the”; the Greek article is used here as a possessive pronoun.
Matthew 15:5 Literally “the”; the Greek article is used here as a possessive pronoun.
Matthew 15:5 Literally “you would have been benefited”.
Matthew 15:6 Most later manuscripts add “or his mother”.
Matthew 15:8 Literally “the”; the Greek article is used here as a possessive pronoun.
Matthew 15:9 A quotation from Isa 29:13.
Matthew 15:12 Here “and” is supplied because the previous participle (“came”) has been translated as a finite verb.
Matthew 15:12 Here “when” is supplied as a component of the participle (“heard”) which is understood as temporal.
Matthew 15:13 Here “and” is supplied because the previous participle (“answered”) has been translated as a finite verb.
Matthew 15:14 Or “Depart from”.
Matthew 15:15 Here “and” is supplied because the previous participle (“answered”) has been translated as a finite verb.


See? To me, this is much easier to read and I can look up the original words in the footnotes. The New International Version (NIV) is also a good translation because it is meant for "international" readers of English, not just American English or British English, etc. I really like how this part is written in the NIV: Mathew 15 6-9

6 ...Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’[c]”

I think of these verses whenever I have questions about certain "doctrines" or "religions". This was happening then just like it is now.


_________________
Email:[email protected]
use my Email to find me playing android games online
Nintendo friend code: SW-5745-7581-4503
Not really on Xbox live


rugulach
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2014
Age: 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 282

08 Oct 2015, 7:53 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:

Neurotypical is by far the most common word used here at WP and
autistic spaces to describe people who are not autistic or who are in the vast majority as far as neurology goes. It was coined by autistic people as most people who are not familiar with autistic issues do not even know of the word, never mind actually use it on a regular basis.


Where is the proof that 'neurotypical' was coined by autistics?

I believe it was most likely coined by NT academics/researchers.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 37,943
Location: Long Island, New York

08 Oct 2015, 10:17 pm

rugulach wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:

Neurotypical is by far the most common word used here at WP and
autistic spaces to describe people who are not autistic or who are in the vast majority as far as neurology goes. It was coined by autistic people as most people who are not familiar with autistic issues do not even know of the word, never mind actually use it on a regular basis.


Where is the proof that 'neurotypical' was coined by autistics?

I believe it was most likely coined by NT academics/researchers.


Steve Silberman's book Neurotribes on page 447 says the word Neurotypical first appeared in the Autism Network International's newsletter in the 1990's.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


DailyPoutine1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2015
Age: 24
Posts: 2,278
Location: Province of Québec, Canada

08 Oct 2015, 10:26 pm

Jesus puts rape drug in the wine.



rugulach
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2014
Age: 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 282

09 Oct 2015, 11:31 am

ASPartOfMe wrote:
rugulach wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:

Neurotypical is by far the most common word used here at WP and
autistic spaces to describe people who are not autistic or who are in the vast majority as far as neurology goes. It was coined by autistic people as most people who are not familiar with autistic issues do not even know of the word, never mind actually use it on a regular basis.


Where is the proof that 'neurotypical' was coined by autistics?

I believe it was most likely coined by NT academics/researchers.


Steve Silberman's book Neurotribes on page 447 says the word Neurotypical first appeared in the Autism Network International's newsletter in the 1990's.


Interesting. Will look into reading that book.



rugulach
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2014
Age: 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 282

09 Oct 2015, 11:43 am

ASPartOfMe wrote:
If you have met one neurotypical you have met one neurotypical.


I am at a loss as to what is closer to reality with this statement - it's mawkish humanism or it's purported spunky callowness. Either way, I find it depressing.



Norny
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488

09 Oct 2015, 11:53 am

rugulach wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
If you have met one neurotypical you have met one neurotypical.


I am at a loss as to what is closer to reality with this statement - it's mawkish humanism or it's purported spunky callowness. Either way, I find it depressing.


lol I am a drone
umad


_________________
Unapologetically, Norny. :rambo:
-chronically drunk


rugulach
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2014
Age: 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 282

09 Oct 2015, 11:55 am

Norny wrote:
rugulach wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
If you have met one neurotypical you have met one neurotypical.


I am at a loss as to what is closer to reality with this statement - it's mawkish humanism or it's purported spunky callowness. Either way, I find it depressing.


lol I am a drone
umad


You're both a drone and mad.



Booyakasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Oct 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,898

09 Oct 2015, 1:08 pm

I'm sorry people, but singling out a proportion of the WP community in any negative sense is against the rules, and here we have neurotypical people on WP who came to search for help on behalf of their loved ones. They don't deserve to be offended.