Does being left wing go hand in hand with Asperger's?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, hey, you know most people would consider me conservative (although I don't really like these divisive labels). And you know what, I have used my time and money to help real needy people, but even saved a couple of lives in the process. One mother who was stabbed by her father in an African country is recovered fully because I helped donate money for medical care and food for her and her family. Years ago I saved the life of a woman who was mentally disabled by taking the time to help her get the medical care she needed. Neither of these people were part of my family. And there have been many other people I've helped over the years. There are other "conservatives" I know who do these same kind of things.

In fact, if I had less taxes to pay, I'd have more money to help others who really are in need. I am not saying this to boast. I almost never talk about these things, but I'm trying to make a point here.

So your stating that conservatives do not want to help real needy people is based on gross over generalizations and simplifications, and you are guilty of the same thing you are accusing Fnord of. Most conservatives are not the political figures, or talking heads on TV and radio. They are hard working people who are genuine, and are far more charitable than most people would care to admit. To be fair, I assume there are also liberals and libertarians, who are the same. I'm not going to stereotype mass amounts of people based on a label or misunderstood ideologies.




He never said that he "gets to decide what he considers disabled". He simply is saying that we should help the disabled, and that anyone who is able bodied, and able to work should do so. I think you are being rather divisive and misreading people's comments here. Because I don't see how you can come to such conclusions, and then start name calling.

Hi Edenthiel,

Yes, I have heard about these studies as well. However, I will say that the first 2/3's of my life I was liberal... I mean falling over the edge "left-wing".

Later on I became more of what most people consider a conservative. I kind of feel that I have had much the same neurological reactions to what you described throughout my whole life. So I think that these studies may not apply to everyone, and that there is room for "free thinking and or enculturation".

The other alternative is that our neurology can change or be changed throughout our lives... according to this logic of our political leaning being tied to our neurology.

I don't know, what are thoughts on this?

I think that I was born as a fundamental conservative as most simple living organisms, many animals and some people who believe without thinking. But thankfully, that changed many years before I was old enough to vote when I realized that my chances of becoming the absolute leader of this world and to live eternally were not even close to tiny! And it didn't take many years before I was at the other end of the political spectrum, against any type of religion and in favor of most if not all socialist values.
Now, the limit of my tolerance to others is when it implies tolerating those who don't tolerate you! Tolerating doesn't mean I agree or respect but that means I can live with if it doesn't threaten me seriously. And by seriously, I do mean seriously. I don't like when my friends smoke but there's no way I'd bother them with that unless I'm afraid they're seriously compromising their health by doing so. I don't mind people who drink a bit much as long as they aren't dangerous to others (violent or driving).

I hate when people get too radical. A few days ago, a friend told me that the childcare center where she leaves her son has a problem with a child who's clothes smell cigarette and they are trying to do something against his parents who are exposing the other children and the staff members to that dangerous third-end smoke... I don't say that third hand smoke has a pleasant smell (and I am quite sensitive to smells), or that it can't be dangerous at all. But, at some point, even if it is, when you have children, you have to accept that they'll be exposed to chemicals, carcinogens and they'll eventually die from either an accident, health-related issues or other causes but the only way to keep all these risks away from your children is not to have any!

I mean, to me this is like refusing that we drive cars or ride any kind of transport that uses energy as they pollute directly or indirectly and they might kill people in accidents. Refusing to stay in a home as it might collapse on you and refusing to stay outside as the thunder might fall on you... Or refusing to let wild animals live as they might attack people, refusing that others breathe air as others might have diseases that could spread through it... We live in collaboration with others, we are parasitic to others (we cut trees, eat animals and plants...) and we need them around to make our lives sustainable so unless they're a serious threat to you, I think we have to cope with others and their characteristics which we may not like.

There are still some contradictions in the way I think and act sometimes but as far as voting and supporting parties, I vote for the people I think would have the most left-wing and open-minded values. I haven't voted for a party that was elected yet but I hope it happens someday. I'm watching closely the US campaign right now. I wish I could vote there as I am quite thrilled about one candidate who seems to share most of my ideas!

I'd figure libertarianism would be more popular with those suffering from an ASD (that's if the awareness is there to care about such things).

Say, people being unable to force you to do this and that which can make you uncomfortable.

Libertarianism is attractive to me, on paper. It's the Libertarians I know personally who have put me off affiliating with their party. Too many of them seem to accept every conspiracy theory as Gospel, even when those theories are contradictory.

I'll keep stating "No Political Affiliation" until I see a consensus coalition within the Libertarian party.

You can't seem to get past the idea that it's not all about you. The fact of the matter is privatized healthcare and lack of social services for the needy leads to less people getting the help they need. What you've done as an individual is commendable, but the fact is charity on a whole doesn't work as well as government programs. On the whole, people with the means to contribute don't adequately contribute.

The only solution I can think of is to create optional taxes for programs. That way at least everyone gets to see. If you don't want to pay for a program, you can opt out and deduct the percentage of the total budget as a percentage of your total taxes. This is better than charity as it at least makes people think about where their money goes to. Of course it still won't work if there are too many greedy scrooges. It would still be marginally better than relying on charity programs (many of which are corrupt).


By using the term "able bodied" he is claiming that mental conditions are not legitimate disabilities. He is claiming that anyone who is on disability due to a mental condition is "a lazy bum", no matter how severe. No matter how long they have tried and failed. Why else would he bring it up? Also, because he is supposedly diagnosed with Aspergers, all people with that diagnosis should be able to work (in his mind). He doesn't consider other co-morbid conditions that he simply doesn't have.

Libertarian here

I am a conservative, not a racist nut job ... like some people ...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2443413

I'm no fan of Trump, but the author of the article you link is pretty despicable, too

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -is-white/

Last edited by looniverse on 23 Nov 2015, 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Oh you don't want to pay taxes? Yet you think you should get all the benefits of living in this country? interesting philosophy. I suppose you could always get very wealthy and join the wealthy elite....since they are above paying their fair share.

A lot of people born into wealth and upper class families have access to a lot of free passes the majority of the population does not especially those in poverty. Anyways I think I pretty much agree.

Due to my tendency to black-and-white thinking, for the first 20 years of my life I shared my parents' right-wing views. Then my obsession to research everything took over. I'd now describe myself as being socialist in some ways and libertarian in others. I mostly have an aversion to reactionary thinking, and there are reactionaries on both the left and right. If you have logical reasons behind your opinions, not unexamined beliefs, then we're on the same page.

Its funny how even bringing up the term 'left wing' has people screaming 'mine mine mine' as if the mere mention of 'left wing' puts all their hard earned cash in jeopardy. Sheesh if you don't want to pay any taxes whatsoever and it's stealing why not move somewhere without taxation?....There is nothing in the constitution that excuses people paying taxes.

The trend in right wing is be as stubborn and opposed to logic as you can.....'Whats mine is mine', well there wont be anything to be yours in the first place if problems in society like poverty, crumbling infastructure, full time workers making too low of wages to make ends meet ect. aren't improved.

Ever notice how right wingers seem to be evangelical Christians too?

(For those not getting the sarcasm, a basic rule is not to discuss politics or religion. Noticing that religion was missing from this love fest, I wanted to inject some of that into the discussion. I am trolling).

It makes me happy that you explained your own troll.

Your point is correct. It was a constitutional amendment passed during the Wilson administration that instigated the income tax.

However, that makes it legislatively possible to repeal that amendment. I didn't say probable, I said possible. I'd be all for repealing the 16th amendment and dismantling the IRS.