Page 3 of 3 [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is with me?
Aye 67%  67%  [ 4 ]
I am a coward. 33%  33%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 6

BoringAl
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Age: 119
Gender: Male
Posts: 182

23 May 2009, 9:53 pm

Kangoogle wrote:
BoringAl wrote:
Hmm regular murder/suicides done by social outcasts. That would make people accept and respect us... Or you know complete oppression and institutionalism.

As long as we don't have people waving "I am aspie" on the videos they do, then we are fine. If they start locking us up then they have to destroy their entire social order to do it.

We are nearly totally imprisoned anyway. The worst they can do is send us from the frying pan to the fire.

I didn't say aspie though, I said "social outcasts".

I think I understand. I had fantasies along these lines in middle school and high school. This was before aspergers was around in the US. I spent time talking to the school district shrink. I was flagged as potentially dangerous too. I am just glad this was pre-columbine or I really would have been made miserable by authorities.

If reprisals against bullies actually started everyone who is an outcast would be a suspect. Adults would be potential terrorists and kids would be doped up.

Of course the media takes the side of the victims (former bullies) rather than the killer. Read the write up on Cho Time magazine did after his incident.

Every act of violence is a step backwards in acceptance of those who are different.



Kangoogle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 903

23 May 2009, 11:07 pm

BoringAl wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
BoringAl wrote:
Hmm regular murder/suicides done by social outcasts. That would make people accept and respect us... Or you know complete oppression and institutionalism.

As long as we don't have people waving "I am aspie" on the videos they do, then we are fine. If they start locking us up then they have to destroy their entire social order to do it.

We are nearly totally imprisoned anyway. The worst they can do is send us from the frying pan to the fire.

I didn't say aspie though, I said "social outcasts".

I think I understand. I had fantasies along these lines in middle school and high school. This was before aspergers was around in the US. I spent time talking to the school district shrink. I was flagged as potentially dangerous too. I am just glad this was pre-columbine or I really would have been made miserable by authorities.

If reprisals against bullies actually started everyone who is an outcast would be a suspect. Adults would be potential terrorists and kids would be doped up.

Of course the media takes the side of the victims (former bullies) rather than the killer. Read the write up on Cho Time magazine did after his incident.

Every act of violence is a step backwards in acceptance of those who are different.

Cho did his video badly, that was the catch. If the video is made (and distributed properly), someone could make a great change for the good.



Ntstanch
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 113

23 May 2009, 11:36 pm

Kangoogle wrote:
arielhawksquill wrote:
Whatever, dude.

Doubtless the FBI is already on the way to your house, posting this to the Web the way you did. You're obviously about to go postal, and inciting other people to commit murder is a crime.

I am not inciting anyone to commit murder at all, in fact I have not told anyone to do anything. Merely I am just trying to understand the rationale behind people who go quietly. Surely there is none?

This is an academic conversation. Nor do I live in the US, so thankfully I am not subject to your laws.


" The rationale behind people who go quietly. "

Possibly that they feel as though enough in their life and world was broken to the point which put them in the position to consider displaying any more immaturity than the situation requires. Though being rational is subjective as far as I know.

A question I just spent about two hours asking myself is what I feel would seem more rational in a game of chess in which I am losing and considering a forfeit.

So In a 'more or less' metaphorical sense I can A: Throw the board to the ground and walk away ... B: Give up my efforts yet remain in the game ... C: Quietly get up and walk away ... with varied levels possible for each individually or in combinations.

I'll finish up in explaining that A and C would be the equivalent of suicide regardless of it applying to many other things ... though the three combined seem to require a balance in that if you chose B for too long you may eventually do A or B ... and what is required in order to balance those three appears to be the biggest puzzle due to constant hopelessness in itself will result in an overall imbalance.

Suicide is a tricky topic.


Edit: Fixed the few grammatical/wording errors left over after deciding to switch the ABC idea from a proposed question to a general thing to ponder.



Woodpecker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,585
Location: Europe

24 May 2009, 2:42 am

think that Kangoogle's logic might be reasonable in his mind but there are a series of problems.

1. The moral one 1.0, "who am I or you to judge who is fit to walk the earth ?"

2. The moral one 2.0, The action of one aspie going postal is likely to turn up the heat on the rest of us. I think it would be a selfish thing for one of us to go on a rampage partly becuase it will harm the interests of so many other aspies.

3. NTs tend not to learn from their own mistakes, let alone the mistakes of others. Car drivers tend to keep on having the same types of crashs according to the basic police driving manual.

So I think that Kangoogle is wrong, and needs to stop thinking of a violent death.


_________________
Health is a state of physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity :alien: I am not a jigsaw, I am a free man !


Kangoogle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 903

24 May 2009, 8:44 am

Ntstanch wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
arielhawksquill wrote:
Whatever, dude.

Doubtless the FBI is already on the way to your house, posting this to the Web the way you did. You're obviously about to go postal, and inciting other people to commit murder is a crime.

I am not inciting anyone to commit murder at all, in fact I have not told anyone to do anything. Merely I am just trying to understand the rationale behind people who go quietly. Surely there is none?

This is an academic conversation. Nor do I live in the US, so thankfully I am not subject to your laws.


" The rationale behind people who go quietly. "

Possibly that they feel as though enough in their life and world was broken to the point which put them in the position to consider displaying any more immaturity than the situation requires. Though being rational is subjective as far as I know.

A question I just spent about two hours asking myself is what I feel would seem more rational in a game of chess in which I am losing and considering a forfeit.

So In a 'more or less' metaphorical sense I can A: Throw the board to the ground and walk away ... B: Give up my efforts yet remain in the game ... C: Quietly get up and walk away ... with varied levels possible for each individually or in combinations.

I'll finish up in explaining that A and C would be the equivalent of suicide regardless of it applying to many other things ... though the three combined seem to require a balance in that if you chose B for too long you may eventually do A or B ... and what is required in order to balance those three appears to be the biggest puzzle due to constant hopelessness in itself will result in an overall imbalance.

Suicide is a tricky topic.


Edit: Fixed the few grammatical/wording errors left over after deciding to switch the ABC idea from a proposed question to a general thing to ponder.

Very interesting example. Now we extend it. Let us suppose that you were on a team, a team of similarly minded people playing many games of chess. Let us also assume that A benefits your team somehow, change it to throwing the rook at your opponents nose or something. Then at least your side has more of a chance of winning, even if you lose that individual game.

The problem here is that you have to realise its a team game in the first place.



Kangoogle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 903

24 May 2009, 9:00 am

Woodpecker wrote:
think that Kangoogle's logic might be reasonable in his mind but there are a series of problems.

1. The moral one 1.0, "who am I or you to judge who is fit to walk the earth ?"

Ah - but I have a way around that problem. One has to remember who has made an initial judgement here, in driving someone to suicide. We would be only judging people the very judgemental.
Quote:
2. The moral one 2.0, The action of one aspie going postal is likely to turn up the heat on the rest of us. I think it would be a selfish thing for one of us to go on a rampage partly becuase it will harm the interests of so many other aspies.

Not at all - if it is done properly then a whole segment of society would be involved. The majority lose by this vicious society.
Quote:
3. NTs tend not to learn from their own mistakes, let alone the mistakes of others. Car drivers tend to keep on having the same types of crashs according to the basic police driving manual.

Bullshit. People keep having the same kind of car crashes because they don't see it as a threat. Shooting / maiming a good load of school bullies will scare them enough to stop them doing it.
Quote:
So I think that Kangoogle is wrong, and needs to stop thinking of a violent death.

Its not my violent death I am thinking of. Just all of those who selfishly go without helping those of us left behind.



Ntstanch
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 113

24 May 2009, 12:42 pm

Kangoogle wrote:
Very interesting example. Now we extend it. Let us suppose that you were on a team, a team of similarly minded people playing many games of chess. Let us also assume that A benefits your team somehow, change it to throwing the rook at your opponents nose or something. Then at least your side has more of a chance of winning, even if you lose that individual game.

The problem here is that you have to realise its a team game in the first place.


This only reiterates the point made towards the end ... and is only an extension of its volume which suggests that a group of like minded people constantly doing A would in the long run be somehow different than a single game... only with company.

In this game ' forfeiting ' seems like either an off button or a reset button ... where reset means you lose your saved progress, and where the concept of an ' off ' button is totally subjective ... as is your opinion of what a game is and its significance.



sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

24 May 2009, 12:45 pm

The OP has broken the first rule of WP.

===================
WrongPlanet Rules
===================


Conduct
-----------
The following activities are unacceptable on WrongPlanet:

1. Posting offensive language, comments, video, or images.
Unacceptable content includes swearing; racist, sexist, homophobic language; behavior intended to provoke or belittle other members; violent or sexually demeaning content; sexual fetish; and discussion of excretory function. Posting graphic images or videos of people or animals being harmed is prohibited.

Merle
Moderator


_________________
Alis volat propriis
State Motto of Oregon