Continued Convo from Pan(en)Theism Thread on the Nature of Dialogue

[dauer]

I hope you don't mind, Shawn, I've moved our discussion here where it won't get in the way of talk about pantheism, panentheism and related idea.

I see it more as one entrenched set of biases rubbing up against another set of entrenched biases.

I don't disagree! And I'm glad you're willing to admit that you're displaying entrenched biases. But your biases were going against the direction of the panentheism thread. Theirs weren't.

find that it is more productive to be a bit cheeky in the face of rarified opinionation as it causes the true colors to show.

Well whether or not something is productive depends on a person's goals. And I didn't see many people in that thread responding in some terribly enlightening way to your interruptions of the flow. My sense based on changes in your posting habits is that lately you've had a chip on your shoulder for some reason about organized religion, theology and philosophy. Is there any truth to that? Do you want to talk about it?

That is far more enlightening than being forced to read pages of intellectual prattle which is just a show boat for ego's.

I don't believe that you honestly buy that. Firstly, in the name of TL;DR, you're not forced to read it. You choose to read it. Secondly, do you really believe that the people involved in these discussions are just show boating egos? That sounds more like a straw man argument than an attempt to describe another person's POV. It reinforces the types of boundaries that you want to get past. If you instead tried to relate to where people are coming from you might find you have more success at achieving your goals.

-- Dauer

 

[wil]

Bias....the book bias intrigued me. And this thread, and a public radio discussion on online journalists and bias touched on similar issues.

In the book it describes how hard it is for a reporter to seperate themselves from their bias and they just can't even see it when they print it. For when one senator does something untoward it is the Republican Senator from Idaho....but when a Dem does something that they have to report on it becomes the Congressman from Indiana... subtle, unintentional even, reporting the facts but just leaving out the party designation. Another example was the journalist that said..."I don't see how it is possible Bush won, I don't know ANYONE who voted for him" And the fact that that is true, is an indication of how indoctrinated that reporter was in her beliefs....she couldn't report the other side, she didn't know the other side existed.

Interesting stuff. We'd all like to think we can rise above it, but truly difficult.

 

[dauer]

Wil,

if you're looking for some excellent coverage of media bias in the religion news beat, check out getreligion.com.

 

[shawn]

I hope you don't mind, Shawn, I've moved our discussion here where it won't get in the way of talk about pantheism, panentheism and related idea.

I don't mind. Good Lord....I wouldn't want to get in the way of any intellectualism.


I don't disagree! And I'm glad you're willing to admit that you're displaying entrenched biases. But your biases were going against the direction of the panentheism thread. Theirs weren't.

Actually my biases are changeable and aren't really dug in very deep.
(Although some of the waters run very deep)
The more I learned, the more I realized how little I actually Knew. So I adopted an open-mind stance, as being the most reasonable position.
After all....at the end of the day, all everyone has is conjecture and opinion.




Well whether or not something is productive depends on a person's goals. And I didn't see many people in that thread responding in some terribly enlightening way to your interruptions of the flow. My sense based on changes in your posting habits is that lately you've had a chip on your shoulder for some reason about organized religion, theology and philosophy. Is there any truth to that? Do you want to talk about it?

If people have no response that is their choice, but I call things as I see them and there are lots who read but do not post.
Besides, it is important to call a bluff for what it is.
And no, I don't harbor any ill will for organized religion.
It is possible for some good to come from those things despite their obvious defects and deceptions.





I don't believe that you honestly buy that. Firstly, in the name of TL;DR, you're not forced to read it. You choose to read it. Secondly, do you really believe that the people involved in these discussions are just show boating egos? That sounds more like a straw man argument than an attempt to describe another person's POV. It reinforces the types of boundaries that you want to get past. If you instead tried to relate to where people are coming from you might find you have more success at achieving your goals.

Methinks you read too much into a flippant and cheeky remark.
But that is OK. I know you so much better now than I did before.

-- Dauer

Response in red.

 

[dauer]

Actually my biases are changeable and aren't really dug in very deep.

They've seemed pretty consistent of late, and they haven't appeared particularly open-minded. To me you've appeared somewhat condemnatory and antagonistic in recent weeks, most especially toward Thomas. I believe you mean what you say, that your biases aren't dug in very deep, but I think that when you say the waters run very deep it's a little closer to the truth.

After all....at the end of the day, all everyone has is conjecture and opinion.

That is a particular bias and, might I add, asserted as if it is true. If it is true that all everyone has is conjecture and opinion, then we have something more than conjecture and opinion. We have at least one truth. I believe we have a little something more than that and I think most relativists do too. But I'm open to the possibility that I could be wrong on both accounts.

Methinks you read too much into a flippant and cheeky remark.
But that is OK. I know you so much better now than I did before.

Forgive me. I have diagnosed but fairly mild asperger's and while I do well in my face-to-face encounters, I don't always get subtext very well when I'm limited to text online. If you don't say what you mean then I may treat your words literally. However I do think there's something deeper at work in your fairly consistent application of such cheeky remarks. I think you'd have far more to gain by being a little more vulnerable instead of distancing yourself from other people through them. Of course you may be far more comfortable being a little more open about your thoughts and feelings in your real life. This is the internet after all. Different people prefer different degrees of anonymity and privacy.

In any case, I really did want to check in and see if all was well with you. There's nothing wrong with being very angry with, or even hating, organized religion, intellectualism, philosophy or anything else in my mind.

-- Dauer

 

[Avi]

They've seemed pretty consistent of late, and they haven't appeared particularly open-minded. To me you've appeared somewhat condemnatory and antagonistic in recent weeks, most especially toward Thomas. I believe you mean what you say, that your biases aren't dug in very deep, but I think that when you say the waters run very deep it's a little closer to the truth.

That is a particular bias and, might I add, asserted as if it is true. If it is true that all everyone has is conjecture and opinion, then we have something more than conjecture and opinion. We have at least one truth. I believe we have a little something more than that and I think most relativists do too. But I'm open to the possibility that I could be wrong on both accounts.

However I do think there's something deeper at work in your fairly consistent application of such cheeky remarks. I think you'd have far more to gain by being a little more vulnerable instead of distancing yourself from other people through them. Of course you may be far more comfortable being a little more open about your thoughts and feelings in your real life. This is the internet after all. Different people prefer different degrees of anonymity and privacy.

In any case, I really did want to check in and see if all was well with you. There's nothing wrong with being very angry with, or even hating, organized religion, intellectualism, philosophy or anything else in my mind.

-- Dauer

As long as we are psychoanalyzing Shawn, I thought it would be fun to jump in .

I think Shawn has an interesting combination of styles. He tends to have some deep seated biases. I recall the Islamophobic picture that he showed of a Muslim man with several wives, which it turned out was Photoshopped, and when I called him on it he said he thought it was funny.

But I have also seen a very humble side of Shawn, and I have seen him attacked (as happens on this forum from time to time) and he has just let it slide off his back.

I also notice that Shawn is pretty challenging of conservative religious folks, and I can sympathize with that too.

So on balance I think he is a good guy !!That's why he is one of my "friends".

Now on the other hand, Dauer, I know you are very sensitive to sarcasm or as you are calling it here, "cheekyness", you have criticized me at times for this too. And I do not disagree with you that in general serious is better. I didn't realize that you are challenged with Asperger's. It is great that you are able to communicate so well in this environment.

So I think the solution is when Shawn gets out of hand just give him a little kick and all will be fine .

 

[dauer]

sarcasm or as you are calling it here, "cheekyness"

That's actually Shawn's word. I'd prefer to call it indirect communication. Of course to someone else it might be very direct.

I didn't realize that you are challenged with Asperger's.

I've told you as much before in the past on at least one of the occasions that I expressed my frustrations attempting to engage in dialogue with you. I wouldn't quite call it challenged though as I think I probably benefit from it more than I struggle with it. When I was younger and had fairly severe emotional disregulation along with a strong sensitivity to light, sound and touch, terrible time management and organizational skills and had a lot of trouble understanding other people who didn't seem to understand me much better than I understood them, then it would have been fair to say that I was challenged by it. At this point in time I'm not sure, if I went in for neuropsych testing again, I'd fit the diagnostic criteria because there doesn't seem to be any sort of clinically significant impairment in any particular sphere of my life. Most of the aspies that I meet appear to me like caricatures of myself.

It is great that you are able to communicate so well in this environment.

Well as I've said, online communication poses more difficulty than my normal encounters where at times I blend in entirely. I can come across as a little eccentric, but it seems that's most frequently attributed by others to my high intelligence. With online interaction not only is there a lack of non-verbal communication but, because the words are static, it's much easier to notice little details that would otherwise have been missed. For example, I don't like the excessive use of ellipses or smileys because it's not always clear to me when they're intended to communicate some additional meaning and when they're merely included due to habit or for color.

-- Dauer

 

[shawn]

Thank you all for the kind words....I am so very touched.....the empathy is overwhelming. Free psycho analysis, how lucky can I be.

So I think the solution is when Shawn gets out of hand just give him a little kick and all will be fine

Just to let you know.... I do kick back.
Usually in the back yard with with a beer that is.

But if that is the standard you wish to set, it should apply all around.....yes?

After all....at the end of the day, all everyone has is conjecture and opinion.

That is my opinion.
It is not unreasonable, as even our scientific knowledge is constantly being upgraded or overturned on a regular basis as new things are being discovered.
And when one gets into religious and philosophical grounds things get even sketchier as the elements of subjective experience and faith are paramount.

Perhaps the word cheeky isn't quite right....maybe challenging is better.
So many people have used positions of religious authority to foist a lot of BS on a lot of people so I feel compelled to standup to the BS slingers (or those I perceive as being BS slingers.....and in all fairness they are sometimes good people who have been misled and aren't really trying to BS others, they have actually swallowed the BS, hook-line and sinker themselves and now just regurgitate it out of habit), but, in any case, I think that in this day and age of weapons of mass destruction and distraction, we, as a species, cannot afford to tolerate the BS any longer.

(I quite liked the Bill Maher movie "Religulous" , even though I am not an atheist (and am quite antagonistic to their depressing cosmology) It still drives home an important point which is these religious fanatics which divide the nations cannot be tolerated any longer or they will be the death of us all.) So if I am a bit intolerant of what I perceive to be BS....well....too bad. And if I see that I am mistaken, then I will revise and reboot.

 

[dauer]

It is not unreasonable, as even our scientific knowledge is constantly being upgraded or overturned on a regular basis as new things are being discovered.

There is a big difference between scientific knowledge changing in the face of new data and us being entirely limited to conjecture and opinion. Do you consider it only conjecture and opinion that you and I are communicating on a web forum? If all we had was conjecture and opinion society couldn't function. It is not just my opinion that the laws in Massachusetts forbid public nudity.

Do you consider it only conjecture and opinion that if one person has 2 apples and another has 3 apples, the one with 3 apples has more apples? Or do differences in quantity exist?

There is a big difference between all statements being mere conjecture and opinion and the possibility that our knowledge claims are fallible. If you are sick with the flu, would you trust a person trained as a doctor or a person trained as a butcher more? Clearly, there is some qualitative difference between the opinion of the doctor about medical health and the opinion of the butcher about medical health. That doesn't mean that the doctor is infallible but at least as modern epistemologists are concerned, infallibilism has largely been dismissed. Certain truth claims are stronger than others, amount to more than conjecture and opinion. If you and a friend of yours are outside and you say that it's raining, and he says, "That's just your opinion" I think you'd probably find his statement peculiar. There are certain contexts within which you might question whether it's really raining at that moment but on a day-to-day basis we all trust that those types of observations amount to more than conjecture and opinion. We also have no reason to suspect that tomorrow the air will have turned into pudding. If a person tells me that tomorrow the air will turn into pudding, I will tell them that they're wrong. I know that tomorrow the air will still be air. I also know that tomorrow all of the laws of physics will still be in operation. Maybe our understanding of them will have grown, but they'll still be in place. Could I be wrong? Sure. But that doesn't make that statement mere conjecture or opinion.

So many people have used positions of religious authority to foist a lot of BS on a lot of people so I feel compelled to standup to the BS slingers

If all you have to go on if conjecture and opinion, why do you say that your BS stinks any less than anyone else's? Maybe you really do agree that there are some things we can know and that certain statements, due to their content or semantic nature, deserve greater epistemic privilege? If you're saying that we don't have any very strong way of verifying religious truths, I agree with you. At the same time, much of the debate in the pan/entheism thread had more to do with clarifying meanings and looking for logical consistency. You seem to be all for reason, just don't like when it's being applied to metaphysical questions.

It still drives home an important point which is these religious fanatics which divide the nations cannot be tolerated any longer or they will be the death of us all.

I don't disagree with you. However, I think you're mixing up different issues. One is political and one is epistemological.

The epistemological position that you've presented is: "All anyone has is conjecture and opinion." I've challenged that such a statement is a bit of an oversimplification, a cop-out if you will, that doesn't even seem to reflect your own position.

The political issue you have is the way that fundamentalists are bringing violence into the world. That does have to do, in part, with their notion of knowledge. Fundamentalists by definition believe that their beliefs are correct. But just because they are mistaken in their beliefs does not mean that all beliefs are merely conjecture and opinion. And I'm not quite sure what fundamentalists have to do with philosophical discussions. I have a hard time seeing Thomas as a dangerous fundamentalist. If anything, because he applies reason within organized religion, he is something of a force for good. That doesn't mean that I agree with him but I do agree to disagree with him. Thomas aside, what does your issue with fundamentalism have to do with people discussing the meanings of different words related to theology or the logical consistency of different positions? And how do your posts help to combat the political issue that you've outlined?

The way your recent posts have come across to me is, "Come on people! It's obvious you're all wrong so quit wasting your breath this stuff! If only you knew what I know you'd be right!"

Based on what you've just said, you don't believe that. But you do seem to believe that your opinion is more correct than theirs.

-- Dauer

 

[shawn]

There is a big difference between scientific knowledge changing in the face of new data and us being entirely limited to conjecture and opinion. Do you consider it only conjecture and opinion that you and I are communicating on a web forum? If all we had was conjecture and opinion society couldn't function. It is not just my opinion that the laws in Massachusetts forbid public nudity.

Do you consider it only conjecture and opinion that if one person has 2 apples and another has 3 apples, the one with 3 apples has more apples? Or do differences in quantity exist?

There is a big difference between all statements being mere conjecture and opinion and the possibility that our knowledge claims are fallible. If you are sick with the flu, would you trust a person trained as a doctor or a person trained as a butcher more? Clearly, there is some qualitative difference between the opinion of the doctor about medical health and the opinion of the butcher about medical health. That doesn't mean that the doctor is infallible but at least as modern epistemologists are concerned, infallibilism has largely been dismissed. Certain truth claims are stronger than others, amount to more than conjecture and opinion. If you and a friend of yours are outside and you say that it's raining, and he says, "That's just your opinion" I think you'd probably find his statement peculiar. There are certain contexts within which you might question whether it's really raining at that moment but on a day-to-day basis we all trust that those types of observations amount to more than conjecture and opinion. We also have no reason to suspect that tomorrow the air will have turned into pudding. If a person tells me that tomorrow the air will turn into pudding, I will tell them that they're wrong. I know that tomorrow the air will still be air. I also know that tomorrow all of the laws of physics will still be in operation. Maybe our understanding of them will have grown, but they'll still be in place. Could I be wrong? Sure. But that doesn't make that statement mere conjecture or opinion.



If all you have to go on if conjecture and opinion, why do you say that your BS stinks any less than anyone else's? Maybe you really do agree that there are some things we can know and that certain statements, due to their content or semantic nature, deserve greater epistemic privilege? If you're saying that we don't have any very strong way of verifying religious truths, I agree with you. At the same time, much of the debate in the pan/entheism thread had more to do with clarifying meanings and looking for logical consistency. You seem to be all for reason, just don't like when it's being applied to metaphysical questions.



I don't disagree with you. However, I think you're mixing up different issues. One is political and one is epistemological.

The epistemological position that you've presented is: "All anyone has is conjecture and opinion." I've challenged that such a statement is a bit of an oversimplification, a cop-out if you will, that doesn't even seem to reflect your own position.

The political issue you have is the way that fundamentalists are bringing violence into the world. That does have to do, in part, with their notion of knowledge. Fundamentalists by definition believe that their beliefs are correct. But just because they are mistaken in their beliefs does not mean that all beliefs are merely conjecture and opinion. And I'm not quite sure what fundamentalists have to do with philosophical discussions. I have a hard time seeing Thomas as a dangerous fundamentalist. If anything, because he applies reason within organized religion, he is something of a force for good. That doesn't mean that I agree with him but I do agree to disagree with him. Thomas aside, what does your issue with fundamentalism have to do with people discussing the meanings of different words related to theology or the logical consistency of different positions? And how do your posts help to combat the political issue that you've outlined?

The way your recent posts have come across to me is, "Come on people! It's obvious you're all wrong so quit wasting your breath this stuff! If only you knew what I know you'd be right!"

Based on what you've just said, you don't believe that. But you do seem to believe that your opinion is more correct than theirs.

In real life experience that has proved to be the case on more than just 1 or 2 occasions,......... to be fair, I know that I don't know everything, but I do know more than the average bear.

-- Dauer

Now you are picking nits m8.
I am sure you know what I mean with the conjecture and speculation statement.

Of course there is much that we have concluded which is apparently "sound" knowledge. Tried and tested and confirmed...repeatedly.
Obviously.
Now you are trying to smear me as being irrational.

The point behind my rants typically has to do with confronting peoples surity of their religious or philosophical stances.
As in.......don't be so close-minded..........be a bit more open to others ideas as you (broad brush here again, general statement) don't necessarily have it figured out just because some book says that it is so or some prophet or whatever.
I know it is a broad brush I use.
I am not writing a thesis in the forum, just kibitzing for some entertainment and mental stimulation.
At times there is actually some interesting dialogue and exchange.

 

[immortalitylost]

I think I see where you're coming from Shawn, especially with the 'all we have is conjecture and opinion at the end of the day' thing. And I agree with that. We can never really prove anything when it comes to God and religion, I believe. (<- more conjecture )

So, anyway, what I do is try to understand everything. Every way of looking at things. I, of course, like anyone I suppose, sift through it all, and make a kind of 'working model belief' out of all the beliefs that make the most sense to me. And I always try to keep my beliefs internally consistent.

But I'm always pleased when, listening to someone else's deeply held beliefs, I find some little part that makes sense to me, and that I can add to mine. I don't really like nitpicking either, but I've found that If I read through all of that, sometimes I can get a sense of where someone else is coming from.

And, like I've just found with Thomas, very surprisingly, I can sometimes find where we agree with each other, lol.

So, I guess what I'm trying to get at, is don't let all the little details and the fact that we can't really prove anything, get in the way of finding commonalities, and information, that you may not find any other way.

Oh yeah, and I promise not to kick you if you get 'cheeky', lol.

I don't kick people. It's against my morals.

 

[shawn]

Another point to mention is that seeing that this forum is "interfaith", this means we all come at the same basic group of ideas (those of spirituality and hence religion and philosophy) from a variety of differing positions.
So this means that we all will not agree.
Often we will have very different points of view.

My own personal spiritual position is one which provides me with the opportunity to say that all the religions of the world are truly contaminated with BS.
In fact, some are completely and utterly BS, with a few facts thrown in to give them some credibility.
I know this will not make me popular at the backslapping party.
You can say that I may think that my BS doesn't stink, but I don't think that at all.
To be fair, that could be directed at any poster who says that they have the truth and all the rest of us are lost and going to hell........that sounds like a big shovelfull of BS to me.

For example, I don't like the excessive use of ellipses or smileys because it's not always clear to me when they're intended to communicate some additional meaning and when they're merely included due to habit or for color.

But you seem like a bright lad who has overcome challenges before.
This is just another challenge.
Maybe lay off the coffee and start drinking wheatgrass smoothies to alkalize yourself and get rid of some toxins.

 

[dauer]

I am sure you know what I mean with the conjecture and speculation statement.

Of course there is much that we have concluded which is apparently "sound" knowledge. Tried and tested and confirmed...repeatedly.
Obviously.
Now you are trying to smear me as being irrational.

I'm not by any means trying to smear you as irrational, nor to pick nits. I'm trying to get a clear statement from you. The problem with assuming what you mean when you say that everything's merely speculation and conjecture is that some people say that and mean it quite literally. I was just trying to get you to clarify what you meant. It seems to me that this is much what other people are trying to do in other threads concerning theology and philosophy. However, you've made it pretty clear that you see attempts to clarify in that manner as pointless, and that's come into play in this thread now too.

You can say that I may think that my BS doesn't stink, but I don't think that at all.

That's the type of clarifying statement that I seek, as are some of the other things you've said. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, just to understand where you're coming from. I don't know if this thread has seemed like some sort of attack to you because of excessive "nitpicking", but it's just that type of questioning that helps me to understand other people's positions better. In that sense I echo a lot of what IM has said.

To be fair, that could be directed at any poster who says that they have the truth and all the rest of us are lost and going to hell........that sounds like a big shovelfull of BS to me.

I agree, and as someone who's fairly religiously liberal, I get a bit bothered when I see what I'd call dogmatic liberalism, more explicitly, when I see certain types of dogmatic universalism. Sometimes I call someone out on what appears to fall under that category and it turns out I'm wrong. I like when that happens.

Maybe lay off the coffee and start drinking wheatgrass smoothies to alkalize yourself and get rid of some toxins.

I used to be vegan, gluten-free, avoided refined sugars and quite a few other things. It's the way my brain's structured. I think differently. Over time I might come to get smileys and ellipses better but I'd rather invest effort into more meaningful pursuits. In most 'net conversation I can ignore the ellipses and smileys that're presented to me. Caffeine seems to enhance my cognitive functioning above and beyond what I think it does for most people and, although green tea seems to be the current earthy-crunchy favorite, coffee is very high in antioxidants.

 

[shawn]

Have you tried yerba mate?
It has caffeine and antioxidants as well, but doesn't acidify a person like coffee does.
Not that I have anything against coffee I happen to quite like it myself, but I find that it does alter my Ph if I indulge too much and caffeine in excess is not good for anyone.
I am not sure as to how your circumstance stacks up against ADD, but they have had good result using theanine.

As for the clarity issue you mention, it is true that we can come to understand basic laws in the universe of many kinds which has elevated our abilities greatly.
I think that there are also spiritual laws which are at play which influence things as well, but they have proved to be much more difficult to agree on and so we see a myriad of conflicting and contradictory ideas in this area.
This is what I am referring to when I say all we have is conjecture and opinion.
As these things seem to still be in the arena of subjective experience.

I have said repeatedly (and not merely on this forum) that I believe we are all One ( a gestalt if you will), that there is some kind of Creative Intelligence or Universal Mind which we can become aware of and that I have had personal experience which has caused these beliefs, but this doesn't seem to matter to many who refute such things as they are not in harmony with their beliefs and experience, and they either ignore such comments or attack them or the character of the person expressing them (myself or others).
This has been frustrating and so I have taken to saying such things as "all anyone has is speculation and personal opinion", as their ideas which I entertained as plausible, they hold as supreme, whilst trampling my ideas and others who have similar ones.
While I am not able to objectively prove the veracity of my beliefs, all the learned wordplay doesn't prove the veracity of the opposing beliefs either.
Just because some are able to reference obscure thinkers opinions couched in arcane phraseology does not make for proof as to the objective reality of the idea.

 

[Avi]

As for the clarity issue you mention, it is true that we can come to understand basic laws in the universe of many kinds which has elevated our abilities greatly.
I think that there are also spiritual laws which are at play which influence things as well, but they have proved to be much more difficult to agree on and so we see a myriad of conflicting and contradictory ideas in this area.
This is what I am referring to when I say all we have is conjecture and opinion.
As these things seem to still be in the arena of subjective experience.

I have said repeatedly that I believe we are all One ( a gestalt if you will), that there is some kind of Creative Intelligence or Universal Mind which we can become aware of and that I have had personal experience which has caused these beliefs...

Hey there, Shawno,

This post almost looks like one that Thomas would have written, it looks like you are starting to drink some of the interfaith Kool-aide, is that right, m8 .

 

[dauer]

I am not sure as to how your circumstance stacks up against ADD, but they have had good result using theanine.

Asperger's is more like the opposite of ADD. I focus very, very well. It's not really something I'd want to treat because I benefit from it most of the time. According to most research it's not medically treatable as it's related to the structure of the brain itself being a bit different. There are some folks trying to find a "cure" for asperger's and in my mind if they do and society embraces it then it'll probably result in some sort of silent genocide. I don't think anything but screening and gene therapy would rid the world of it, and I don't think it would be very good for humanity if that happened, not only because of the ethical implications but also because of how much individuals with an aspergian neurotype have given to society as a result of our thinking differently. For some people it is a disability. In my case it's more of a difference and generally plays as an advantage rather than disadvantage in my adult life. Frankly I'm somewhat critical of the whole notion that we have to fix people because they're different. If a person has a condition with a generally negative impact on their life then it makes sense to me that they be provided with whatever might help them to overcome those issues, but the mentality that suggests we should fix different thinking reminds me of "Harrison Bergeron".

The nature of the condition is very noticeable on standardized IQ tests. Most people have sub-test scores that are all in the same general range. For a person with asperger's their sub-test scores will stretch over a broader range. This irregularity is noticeable precisely because a 'normal' IQ range is based on the typical balance of cognitive abilities for a neurotypical individual.

This has been frustrating and so I have taken to saying such things as "all anyone has is speculation and personal opinion", as their ideas which I entertained as plausible, they hold as supreme, whilst trampling my ideas and others who have similar ones.

I understand your frustration. Lately, it seems like you've sunk down to their level.

-- Dauer

 

[shawn]

Well then, it is looks like it is time to move on then.
Get a fresh perspective.
In any case, I am starting a new endeavor this week (I would put up my website, but that would be shameless self promotion which is against house rules.....but for those interested they could PM me)
So there will be very little time for this sort of activity.
But I had an interesting time here and I can't say I didn't learn anything.
Ciao