Poor Atwat....

[Pescado]

They're not totally T thinking anyway (and I've previously expressed how dumb arse stupid that test is) - anger is confused with embarrassment - I had to explain what the difference was about two weeks ago - so emotions are still felt, and reacted upon, just not identified correctly, or they don't draw appropriate responses.  In conversation, rather than identify "laughing with" the default is always "laughing at".

...uh, isn't that how it is? Laughing requires something to laugh at. Something is ALWAYS laughed at. Laughing "with" merely means pointing at something else to laugh at. Just because someone is laughing, it does not mean they are laughing at you, but they are laughing at SOMETHING. It is typically considered impolite to point at the laughee when they might see you, as they might react poorly to this, but it is completely proper to do so if you are certain they will not witness the pointing, or you are protected from their retaliation by armaments, physical distance, or the immediate presence of a police officer (although this is unreliable). Like saying goes, as even the most immature encrustling knows, there must always be one Spathi that picks the short Ta-Puun stick.

That's not helpful - they still get hurt feelings, just they react differently and take it as a frustrating experience because they don't know how to express it.

Obviously, you have failed to explain to them that feelings are nonsense, and whatever they think it is, it does not matter: They should just crush it into a ball and bury it like radioactive waste. What does one do with radioactive waste afterwards? Simple: You drop it on your enemies at an opportune moment, poisoning them, their children, and their land. Pity about the land, but war is hell.

It is a fallacy to think that any child with Aspergers is emotionless - they display emotion - they just don't have any definition to that emotion and can't identify it.

Well, sure. That is because it is not logical, and is, in fact, a leftover relic of the evolutionary process. In time, it will pass. Particularly if people sensibly select against it, so that it might diminish with each passing generation until it ceases to exist.

Well it puts you through your paces, nevertheless. I can explain to the 12 that it is wrong to point out the giant lump on someone's face because it makes them feel bad, and the explanation is over. I try to explain that to the 1012 and the answer is "why does it make them feel bad - it's the truth" and much explanation is gone into why it might not be a sensible thing to point out the faults of others in a loud voice, and why that might hurt the feelings of the other person, and not be a good thing for him.

My explanation to "why" is simple: Who knows? It's one of those bizarre irrational behaviors of lesser beings. It is, however, fairly predictable, and can thus be manipulated accordingly. Try pointing and laughing from, say, the opposite side of a hidden navigational hazard that your victim is unaware of. Landmines work well for this purpose. What is funny will then get funnier. Also, you might suggest that it is not necessary to point out something if not doing so will bring the victim to harm in an amusing way that will entirely not be your fault at all, or if it simply results in absolutely no useful or funny purpose.

I can't see why stopping him from being punched in the face when he's older is a bad thing - or why I should try to raise a Pescadoean child for a non-Pescadoean world.  They're both very logical - already they have decided to be worshippers at the altar of science, and savvy peoples in a world of advertising.

It is a start. I suppose one cannot expecllyt too much from mere Calalilys. Calalilys suck and must be destroyed, after all.

Neither of my 12s are concerned with becoming ubermensch - one cares too much about morality and the environment, and the other is too lackadaisical about anything but science experiments. 

It is not typically a goal children concern themselves with. They are too young to be into long-term planning, especially when they are of inferior Calalily-based stock. As for "morality and the environment", sooner or later it will figure out that the main problem facing the environment is people, and that people must be eliminated if the environment is to be saved. The other one seems fated to be an egghead. Someone has to do it, I suppose. Not everyone is suited for the practical planning.

[calalily]

Oh my - this is the most loquacious I've ever seen you on PMBD - and twice in one month. 

...uh, isn't that how it is? Laughing requires something to laugh at. Something is ALWAYS laughed at. Laughing "with" merely means pointing at something else to laugh at. Just because someone is laughing, it does not mean they are laughing at you, but they are laughing at SOMETHING.

Laughing with is not the same as laughing at.  He will tell me a funny story about his day, I will laugh, he will take it personally as an affront.  Or I will point out that he chats a lot, and he takes that as a personal attack - that I am making fun of him.

Like saying goes, as even the most immature encrustling knows, there must always be one Spathi that picks the short Ta-Puun stick.

Wow - that's obscure.  I had to google it, found a whole diatribe about that and I still don't get it. 

Obviously, you have failed to explain to them that feelings are nonsense, and whatever they think it is, it does not matter: They should just crush it into a ball and bury it like radioactive waste. What does one do with radioactive waste afterwards? Simple: You drop it on your enemies at an opportune moment, poisoning them, their children, and their land. Pity about the land, but war is hell.

I don't want my children to live in bunkers. I don't do well with dank. Also, if it goes awry, I don't want them living at home for many years mooching off me and going to therapy. 

Well, sure. That is because it is not logical, and is, in fact, a leftover relic of the evolutionary process. In time, it will pass. Particularly if people sensibly select against it, so that it might diminish with each passing generation until it ceases to exist.

Pish. Emotion is not a leftover relic.  It is a fundamental reason as to why you have enemies, why you want a woman who can kill only with her thumbs. Without emotion, enemies are nothing to you, and Pescado is a Buddhist monk. It also happens to be the reason you are here - emotion for others and the expression of that were your conception.  Emotions are valuable and part of our future - without it there will be no selective evolution.

My explanation to "why" is simple: Who knows? It's one of those bizarre irrational behaviors of lesser beings.

Your explanation would fail - there would be much discussion into why they are bizarre, irrational, lesser.  You would be in that small space with a questioning child for far longer than I would be. 

It is a start. I suppose one cannot expecllyt too much from mere Calalilys. Calalilys suck and must be destroyed, after all.

It's not a start - it is my total modus operandi - not to conform just for the sake of conforming, but when logic suggests that however I act should be in my own or others' best interests, or for good reason. And I am touched that you put your little death threat in there - not just a matter of setting the newsbox and forgetting.

It is not typically a goal children concern themselves with. They are too young to be into long-term planning, especially when they are of inferior Calalily-based stock. As for "morality and the environment", sooner or later it will figure out that the main problem facing the environment is people, and that people must be eliminated if the environment is to be saved. The other one seems fated to be an egghead. Someone has to do it, I suppose. Not everyone is suited for the practical planning.

They are half Coolington ya know.  He's not half as calalily-like as I am.  Morality and environment 12 already knows that people are a big part of the problem, but not being in the field of weapons of mass destruction, he endeavours to convince people through cunning argument and activism.  And you're completely right - the other 12 is destined to be an egghead - tis his dream. 

[neriana]

Have I mentioned lately that calalilys are awesome?

[calalily]

Have I mentioned lately that calalilys are awesome?

  as are nerianas. 

[Pescado]

Laughing with is not the same as laughing at.  He will tell me a funny story about his day, I will laugh, he will take it personally as an affront.  Or I will point out that he chats a lot, and he takes that as a personal attack - that I am making fun of him.

But why is he telling you this story if he does not wish you to laugh AT something? Laughing "with" is a meaningless term. It is much like "allying with". Without an ENEMY, an alliance is meaningless. You ally WITH someone AGAINST something else, which may be undefined, but still is assumed to exist: Otherwise, it is meaningless.

Wow - that's obscure.  I had to google it, found a whole diatribe about that and I still don't get it. 

It's a metaphor for, well, everything. It basically says that someone always gets pwnt, I.E., picks the short Ta-Puun stick.

Pish. Emotion is not a leftover relic.  It is a fundamental reason as to why you have enemies, why you want a woman who can kill only with her thumbs.

...and, you know, if they were rational, they wouldn't have wound up as enemies. They became ENEMIES because they refused to be reasonable. As for why I want someone who can kill with only her thumbs, that is also rational. As all things ultimately derive from force, someone who is not adept from the most basic level in doing so is not someone I want polluting my gene pool.

Without emotion, enemies are nothing to you, and Pescado is a Buddhist monk.

I'm fine with that. People would stop being my enemies if they weren't so irrational, and I'm fine with that. I happen to enjoy killing them, but I don't let that prevent me from reaching a reasonable solution.

It also happens to be the reason you are here - emotion for others and the expression of that were your conception.  Emotions are valuable and part of our future - without it there will be no selective evolution.

Sure there would be. It would be a selective evolution guided by reason and logic.

Your explanation would fail - there would be much discussion into why they are bizarre, irrational, lesser.  You would be in that small space with a questioning child for far longer than I would be. 

Yes, but a little effort now avoids a lot of problems later. Once he realizes that it is THEY that are wrong, and that we are simply working around their buggy, crappy code, everything else falls into place. It is like EAxis code. Why are they bizarre and inferior? Because they are irrational. Surely even a mere Calalilyspawn can see that irrationality is inferior: Why else would it be pointlessly incomprehensible like such?

It's not a start - it is my total modus operandi - not to conform just for the sake of conforming, but when logic suggests that however I act should be in my own or others' best interests, or for good reason. And I am touched that you put your little death threat in there - not just a matter of setting the newsbox and forgetting.

Yes, but you must still die. Death to Calalily.

They are half Coolington ya know.  He's not half as calalily-like as I am.

Eh, half of something that sucks still sucks.

Morality and environment 12 already knows that people are a big part of the problem, but not being in the field of weapons of mass destruction, he endeavours to convince people through cunning argument and activism.

He will eventually learn that this is a futile endeavour. Lesser beings can learn only through pain and death: They are irrational. It is the only thing their tiny brains are capable of comprehending. They must ultimately destroyed for the betterment of mankind, for their presence exists only as a self-perpetuating cancer.

Have I mentioned lately that calalilys are awesome?

Weren't you souping? I seem to recall you souping.

[neriana]

I left MATY, Pescado, not here. Also, doesn't souping require throwing some kind of drama fit? I simply left. As you should know since we talked about it. But that's right, you're old and have a long beard and forget things all the time .

I do recall telling you you could use your new soup avatar or whatever it was on my profile at MATY, maybe that's what you're thinking of.

[calalily]

But why is he telling you this story if he does not wish you to laugh AT something? Laughing "with" is a meaningless term. It is much like "allying with". Without an ENEMY, an alliance is meaningless. You ally WITH someone AGAINST something else, which may be undefined, but still is assumed to exist: Otherwise, it is meaningless.

Such is the emotional lack of definition of the child with Aspergers - they don't gauge reactions well, nor do they anticipate reactions, or think about what reaction they might want. He may not intend it to be a funny story, or he hasn't considered at all how others will see that story. They don't understand social cues.

It's a metaphor for, well, everything. It basically says that someone always gets pwnt, I.E., picks the short Ta-Puun stick.

Ah. I'll never use it, but good to know. Thank you. 

Pish. Emotion is not a leftover relic.  It is a fundamental reason as to why you have enemies, why you want a woman who can kill only with her thumbs.

...and, you know, if they were rational, they wouldn't have wound up as enemies. They became ENEMIES because they refused to be reasonable. As for why I want someone who can kill with only her thumbs, that is also rational. As all things ultimately derive from force, someone who is not adept from the most basic level in doing so is not someone I want polluting my gene pool.

Well, if you didn't care about how others interact with you - as a machine bot doesn't care about what you think either - you would not mind if they were rational, irrational, yellow or whatever. Logic is not leant to great rages - the rage is because things are not going the way that the person raging wishes them to go.  Logical items do not resent others, or wish others to conform.

As for rationality in wanting a woman who can kill with her thumbs - you, according to your internet persona are without spawn, and have expressed distaste for any and all 12s, so which gene pool would anybody be pissing in, killing with thumbs or calalily-like?  You could marry one of your many fangirl types - one who squees and giggles at everything you say, and can barely squish a fly. Without a 12 of your own, there is no gene pollution, unless you are known for your properties of osmosis (which I highly doubt).

Without emotion, enemies are nothing to you, and Pescado is a Buddhist monk.

I'm fine with that. People would stop being my enemies if they weren't so irrational, and I'm fine with that. I happen to enjoy killing them, but I don't let that prevent me from reaching a reasonable solution.

You are the furtherest person from a Buddhist monk - ever. Unless one includes the fictional Shaolin-based monk Pai Mei and I could totally buy that.  All those things mentioned have emotive statements, or expressions of emotions in them - to enjoy killing, to be fine - these are statements about how you feel.

It also happens to be the reason you are here - emotion for others and the expression of that were your conception.  Emotions are valuable and part of our future - without it there will be no selective evolution.

Sure there would be. It would be a selective evolution guided by reason and logic.

Under a forced breeding program? How would people get into the mood (ie. lust) without emotion - without attraction and lust, there is no procreation to begin with.  Or would we just be given to test tubes and much poking? To what end - to remove all emotion - to work for a goal we don't care for once we have reached?

Yes, but a little effort now avoids a lot of problems later. Once he realizes that it is THEY that are wrong, and that we are simply working around their buggy, crappy code, everything else falls into place. It is like EAxis code. Why are they bizarre and inferior? Because they are irrational. Surely even a mere Calalilyspawn can see that irrationality is inferior: Why else would it be pointlessly incomprehensible like such?

Ah but that assumes that I will be the only person ever to tell them how things work - that there are not books and other sources of influence.  They will one day not care what I think as part of the independence process, and thus this will not save trouble now, but rather create problems in the future.  While I can tell them that irrationality is a fault, I cannot make it so that they live in a bubble, and are never questioned. Indeed, part of the purpose of schooling is to have them questioned and critiqued (both as people and their ideas, thoughts and preconceptions) by the group as a whole.

Therefore the idea that I would have the ultimate say is doomed - unless I like homeschooling. Which I don't.

Yes, but you must still die. Death to Calalily.

No caps? No explanation mark? People will talk. 

They are half Coolington ya know.  He's not half as calalily-like as I am.

Eh, half of something that sucks still sucks.

Sucks less. 

He will eventually learn that this is a futile endeavour. Lesser beings can learn only through pain and death: They are irrational. It is the only thing their tiny brains are capable of comprehending. They must ultimately destroyed for the betterment of mankind, for their presence exists only as a self-perpetuating cancer.

Rather than that he will be distracted by having something else better to do, or will go hardcore and never stop trying.  While I agree that there are a great deal of minds that will never understand, or care to try to understand, that doesn't mean that they should be destroyed. One must appeal to their self interest - and in the means of environment, that will be soon. In morality, that will only ever matter to him.

[missangelica]

But why is he telling you this story if he does not wish you to laugh AT something? Laughing "with" is a meaningless term. It is much like "allying with". Without an ENEMY, an alliance is meaningless. You ally WITH someone AGAINST something else, which may be undefined, but still is assumed to exist: Otherwise, it is meaningless.

Such is the emotional lack of definition of the child with Aspergers - they don't gauge reactions well, nor do they anticipate reactions, or think about what reaction they might want. He may not intend it to be a funny story, or he hasn't considered at all how others will see that story. They don't understand social cues.

It's not just about not understanding social cues.  It's also not knowing that they even exist!  I didn't know it was rude if you don't say "hi, how are you?" (aka small talk) as you pass by people you know.  (Oh and honestly telling someone that you're doing crappy is inappropriate apparently.)  I didn't know it was rude to not look people in the eye when talking to them.  For the rest of the population, this stuff is a given.  They pick it up while growing up without even knowing it but somehow I didn't and your son didn't.

It gets better if you're willing to take the lumps and learn from them.  The alternative of withdrawing into yourself and shutting the world out leaves a lot to be desired in my experience.

I still don't fully understand why people react illogically but I know well enough to not tell them that they're being illogical!

I still think honesty is the best policy even if the truth is hurtful, but I've found myself lying in the recent years because I've become weary of the f drama bomb.  I don't like it at all but I do understand now where there are times when fibbing could be considered necessary.  I prefer to say nothing at all if I can and often do.

I appreciate you talking to your son the way you do, Calalily.  I would of loved for someone to have done the same for me!  It would of saved me and everyone around me some grief.

[SoggyFox]

Pes, people tell me I'm irrational all the time, and I am not your enemy.  Of course, I also think I'm very rational - I also have emotions, and I'm proud of those.

And if your two 12s team up, Cala, they could probably come up with a great solution to saving the planet without wiping out -all- of humanity.  But personally, I think we'd be better off clearing off a lot of the extra population.  Then again, I know they will come back, and without a good measure to -keep- the population down, its a short term solution.

As for myself, what is frustrating is knowing logically that I'm not being made fun of, or laughed at or shunned, yet feeling it so strongly emotionally that it still causes me a problem.

[Paden]

From reading all of his spiel, I got one thing and that was "polluting his gene pool" (Almost wrote "poop" in there) and that makes me wonder if perhaps there's something that hasn't been announced?? Shall we be buying morning star baby rattles and chain mail diapers in preparation for a baby Pescado? (Not to mention lighting candles and praying for our own safety from the spawn of the FOJ?)

And one warning, Pescado, no matter how cold, reasonable and logical a woman may be normally, when she's carrying spawn, the emotions come into play with a vengeance. Aching backs, joints, muscles, will all become your fault, because it's your child! Besides, as everyone knows, everything is your fault any how! And if you tell her off for an emotional display, she may be tempted to use her thumb strength upon you and really, who could blame her? You're an obnoxious old shit at the best of times.

[neriana]

The idea that rationality and emotion are opposites, and that rationality is better than emotion, is myth. Without both logic and emotion, society is impossible. People are social animals, and lacking emotional intelligence is probably far worse for one's odds of survival and reproduction than not having "logic".

[Devilfish]

Without both logic and emotion, society is impossible. People are social animals, and lacking emotional intelligence is probably far worse for one's odds of survival and reproduction than not having "logic".

I think what Pes is getting at is this: what's so great about society? What so great about people? What you say is true, but so what? We could do without all that.

Keep asking 'why' and eventually someone gets bored or pissed or smacked in the face. Toddlers do it all the time.

[littlemisspirate]

Well my son has Asperger's - I wouldn't say that it's a horrid illness.

I am unconvinced this "illness" exists. This "Assburgers" business is nothing more than an F conspiracy to stigmatize proper, right-thinking T children.

Correction: stigmatize proper, left-thinking T children.  The left brain is, after all, where the seat of logic resides.

I would argue, as someone who is extremely gifted logically but less developed emotionally, that if the other six billion people on the planet are guided by degrees of emotion, I must at least understand the phenomena and be able to interact in that manner.  My mother and sister, not nearly as logical as I am but in possession of high social intelligence, are both master manipulators in social situations.  That's power, Pescado, whether or not it follows the dictates of reason.

Laughing with is not the same as laughing at.  He will tell me a funny story about his day, I will laugh, he will take it personally as an affront.  Or I will point out that he chats a lot, and he takes that as a personal attack - that I am making fun of him.

Out of curiosity, calalily, do you ask your son why he thinks you attacked him?  Maybe that's already something you're doing, but analyzing my emotional responses has often given me a foundation on which I can understand my own emotions, which is a first step to understanding others'.  Self-awareness, for me, has been a huge part of growing socially.  Until I understood myself, for example, I couldn't properly make and maintain eye contact.  And speaking out loud is nice because it forces a noisy mind to sort through everything and focus.  Again, that's been my experience, but even if I'm on the spectrum I don't have Asperger's.

[Devilfish]

What's all this talk about T children anyway? What are they? Is that like children of the corn or something? 

Goes to show what pure knowledge is good for: categorising people and putting neat little labels on them. Science says Asperger. I say person who is different from me, just like evry other damn monkey on this planet.

[deelink]

This was really informative and interesting, and I agree with this: "The idea that rationality and emotion are opposites, and that rationality is better than emotion, is myth. Without both logic and emotion, society is impossible"
And without society Pescado, you will be alone in a room in a desert. No internet, nothing.

Even laughing at people requires emotion. Even enjoying the smite requires emotion.
If all you did was sit and want people to die, you have given in to emotion.

But I know it's a metaphor, people are stupid, self centered and all social interactions are not guranteed to be pleasant. That doesn't mean they suck, it just means they are human.
And you can hate that all you want, but it's never going to change. Assholes are still going to roam the earth, forever and ever. Like roaches. Logic just can't kill them, because the don't follow a pattern of spawning.