Reply personal responsibility is a crock: here is why

Page 37 of 48 [ 755 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 ... 48  Next

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,608
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

05 Jun 2021, 12:53 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
I do wonder though. In all of AngelRho's sophisticated BS he may have given me a certain idea and if his idea of God exists maybe this may contribute to how certain things could be possible. Even if not, I still think it is awesome.

AngelRho says that you can't have anything be and not be in the same instance. But, what if the assumption we're working on is that there is such thing as an instance and that instance is always so. What if all instances are but temporary.

Let's look at an example and let's say we have a variable that can have the values True or False. But,does this value have to be 100% true all the time or 100% false all the time.

Let's say we have the variable we will call var.

var can have either true or false. But, this presumes that it is always 100% true or 100% false. What if this variable var can be 80% true and 20% false? Or, 1% true or 99% false? Or 50% true or 50% false? Instead of being an on or off switch it becomes more of a dial like a light dimmer.

Now let's take this variable var and we rotate the dial meaning we change the values. As we increase it to be 100% true it becomes less false and vice versa.

Now, what if one could rotate this dial faster? Maybe 2 miles an hour? 10 miles? 1000 miles an hour? 10,000 miles an hour? What if it was possible to rotate to the speed of light and beyond.

And, what if we could rotate at such faster and faster speeds that we can't even tell the position of the dial and the velocity of the rotation of this dial back and forth goes faster and faster to infinity. In such a way the position could be any and all positions.

So, maybe with infinite velocity and speed maybe it could be possible to have certain things be and not be getting closer and closer to both being true at the same time as we reach infinity.

Ummm...I think you lost me there. Things being true/false simultaneously AND in the same sense violate non-contradiction. It is possible for something to simultaneously true AND false in a different sense, or things can both be true/false in the same sense but at different times.

Schroedinger’s cat is generally accepted from what I understand is a metaphorical application of non-contradiction since either the cat is alive or dead. The state of particles when not one state or the opposite is assumed to be simultaneously both AND neither state. The Man In The High Castle fictional series has an interesting take on this. The NAZIs build a quantum machine that allows travel between their world and an “alt-world.” So-called “travelers” have the ability to move between worlds without the machine, but only if the traveler doesn’t already exist in the alt-world. If you die in this world, alt-you can travel to this world. But you cannot simultaneously coexist with your alt in the same world.

I don’t give much credence to QM. The behavior of particles is interesting, but I don’t have to worry about my couch disappearing with me into another universe once I sit on it. I am convinced, however, that driers are portals through the multiverse and someone out there is wondering where the heck all these socks are coming from.


AngelRho, I'm apologize for attacking you. And, I love QM and Schroedinger’s cat. I find it fascinating.

I wonder though. This discussion has intrigued me. I want to see if it is logically possible to prove you right and myself wrong.

I think I may know the underlying assumption that I and a lot of people may have that is faulty. I believe you define a contradiction as being something that is and not is in the same instance.

AND in the same sense. That’s important. It is possible for opposites to exist simultaneously in a different sense. It is also possible for opposites to exist in the same sense but at different times.

cubedemon6073 wrote:
But, let's go into the concept of instance and take a step back. What an instance is not a solid either or but more permeable but solid enough for us to perceive it as that instance and we as humans were designed this way and existence was designed this way. I'm not sure how to explain it properly. Let's say you have a plastic bag. It looks like a plastic bag, feels like a plastic bag, and behaves and acts like a plastic bag. People would see it and use it as a normal plastic bag. But what if existence or our aspect of existence was designed for this bag to be mostly a bag that would be used as a plastic bag but what the instance we perceive is but a projection for us and maybe there are other instances that this plastic bag is something else altogether.

QM is above my pay grade, tbh. I think good arguments fall apart once you start fusing too many concepts.

I’ve been working on fusing the concepts of projection and serialism in music. Classic 12-tone music integrates dynamics into the tone row along multiple dimensions. The earliest creators didn’t do this consciously, but it was only logical that later composers do so. I chose to expand the row beyond the 12 chromatic pitch classes, scale the range of pitches beyond the octave (up to an octave and a half), and quantize the results to the 12-TET equivalent of the melakartas. I was working within the dimensions of pitch, timbre, and time. A 4th dimension, intensity, is controlled by an external, independent matrix. Choices as to which transformations to use in the final composition are governed by pseudorandom numbers, as is the construction of the prime rows themselves. Arbitrary rules to get more specific results can be imposed, such as creating drones or generating Euclidean rhythms, and so forth. All of this is related to my master’s thesis from nearly 20 years ago, but calculating exactly which notes to write when was something I had to do by hand since I lacked the knowledge to automate the process. Python, and really any programming language, is well-suited for creating procedural programs to fully realize such a composition in an instant. I started out with Puredata, which proved too clunky. I learned Python, which performed vastly better but not quite so well suited to real-time work over several hours. This year I gave up and reworked my script to generate MIDI files long enough to cover the expected amount of time required. I’m still not happy with it. But at least it’s more reliable. Next year when I have time, IF I have time, I may see if Ruby is any better.

Eventually what I need to happen is to take musical decisions beyond 4 dimensions because my current MO is too limiting. N-dimensional matrices are perfect for what I want to do. I’m leaning towards E8 Lattice theory as a way of projecting into 4D vector space with the matrix shaping how both events at the beginning of a piece AND end inform the probability of either happening at all. Higher levels beyond the 4th dimension might be influenced by game theory. I’m thinking something like I Ching. And since this involves so many layers or dimensions, it makes sense to let machine learning models handle all the grunt work. The multi-dimensional model of music creation best explains in procedural terms why we get so much pleasant-sounding music and how music designed around primitive processes such as classic 12-tone tend to be so unpleasant and even harsh. The irony is that the inventor of 12-tone serialism believed that this was the music of the future. Clearly not, and this is an example of how Occam’s Razor can sometimes be defeated. Best explanations are always the simplest if trying to solve a problem; reality is complexity.

I’m not an expert in math, physics, or computer programming. I have successfully leveraged Python math to generate wavetables for the Waldorf Blofeld synthesizer. I’ve successfully used the math to plot dynamics curves to do what early serialists couldn’t: transition from one intensity to another. Serial music tends to be kinda “blocky.” So I know how to use things like logistic functions even if I don’t completely understand them. If I ever get to the point that I can integrate the physics and the data science to generate music intelligently, I’ll go back to school and write my dissertation on it.

For the moment I enjoy teaching teenagers, and I have plenty to do to keep myself sharp.

But to get back to your point about the bag, there’s actually a simpler explanation. Serialism in music results in some pretty awful stuff that mainly interests people with no taste in music and mathematicians. Yes, I’m somewhat exaggerating and being sarcastic. The question we often get asked is “why not just write the music you want?” It’s the obvious question. The answer isn’t relevant, but here it is, anyway: Music creation takes a lot of time and creative effort. If I “just wrote it,” I’d be limited to spending on average 8 hours for every minute of music written. But if I basically follow the same creative process in making music, I could produce YEARS’ worth of music in the space of a week assuming I had a computer and server working together continuously. It’s an impressive amount of power. Here’s my point: Is music any less music if it is created through a projected simulation? Is the result perceivably different in non-aesthetic terms? That last question is important because musical aesthetics can be created or imitated at will regardless of whether a human or computer generates it. It absolutely DOES NOT MATTER because human beings are capable of making things sound “mathy” or mechanical if they want to, and beginning composers often write blocky-sounding music. It’s a matter of lacking fluency in a particular musical language, and that just comes with practice and experience. So if it doesn’t matter if music is simulated or “real” (i.e. written by a human), music is still music. And your plastic bag, EVEN IF it is only a projection of a virtual plastic bag from n-dimensional vector space, is still a plastic bag. HOW it exists is irrelevant to the fact that it EXISTS at all.

I have no problem with the idea that our world MIGHT be a simulation. I think a simulated world might actually explain quite a few things. As to whether this world actually IS a simulation, well...again, that’s beyond my area of expertise. If it IS, does it make any difference?

cubedemon6073 wrote:
But here is my idea:

So, how can God create something which is both is and both isn't.

It’s not that difficult. You can do this yourself. Get some Legos. Now, you are going to create something and you’re going to name it “Fred.” Right now Fred doesn’t exist except in your mind. Now take your Legos and put them together however you like. Meet Fred! Fred previously did not exist EXCEPT in your imagination and your intention to create Fred. The NON-existence of Fred is only in your memory, so in your mind Fred simultaneously exists and does not exist. Now, in reality, Fred either exists or he doesn’t. He did not exist outside your mind BEFORE you created him. Therefore, Fred has both existed AND NOT existed. What’s relevant is that Fred did not exist and not exist AT THE SAME TIME.

Now, suppose you smash Fred with a hammer. What Fred WAS is gone. Fred only continues to exist in the sense that Fred’s REMAINS exist. So Fred DOES simultaneously exist and NOT exist, but his simultaneous existence and non-existence is understood through a different sense of what it means to exist or not exist. You can take this a step further and put Fred back together. The new Fred won’t be the same as the old Fred, but he’s still Fred (law of identity, A=A) and the same principle still applies. New Fred shows attributes of simultaneous existence/non-existence AND neither_existence/nor_non-existence since Fred’s states of being are 4-polar.

I think that is Biblically supported. In the Psalms, David wrote that God knew him before he was born. NT writers refer to converts as new creations. Jesus displayed different behavior after the resurrection—not a ghost, but supernatural actions that were ghost-like. Human beings existed in God’s mind prior to creation, so we pre-existed before our realization—simultaneously existing and NON-existing. We existed first as an idea, didn’t exist as material beings, DO exist, and will exist as spirit beings after we cease material existence, and will be resurrected as physical beings at some point in the future. Perfected existence requires the cessation of a previous existence exclusively as spirit beings. Existence as exclusively spirit beings requires the cessation of existence as both. Existence at all means the cessation of existing ONLY in God’s mind.

Also, if you envision time as a plane in 2D spacetime (ignore other dimensions for now), your existence AND non-existence stretches across the entire plane. At some point in the time dimension, you were not born yet, and further down you no longer exist. Across the space dimension you exist at certain points and not in others. So in the sense that one’s existence across spacetime is inconsistent from point to point. Taken as a WHOLE, you both exist and do NOT exist, and simultaneously you neither exist nor NOT exist.

What’s relevant here is that this does not constitute a contradiction because you are looking at spacetime at the quantum level versus spacetime at the macroscopic level. At any given POINT in spacetime, something either exists or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t exist at one point in space, it may exist at another point. It cannot simultaneously exist at both points. But just because it exists at one point in space and not the other does not mean it doesn’t exist at all. However, something can exist in two places at once at different times. It can also simultaneously exist and not exist (it didn’t exist before; it exists now).

To summarize:
A = a spacetime Cartesian plane
B = a point on plane A
C = a different point on plane A
Fred = a mortal, human being.

At time point 1, Fred hasn’t been born yet.
Time point 2, Fred has been born, but is neither at B nor C.
Time point 3, Fred is at B.
Time point 4, Fred is at C.
Time point 5, Fred is still alive, but neither at B nor C.
Time point 6, Fred is dead.

1. When we start, there is no Fred.

2. Fred exists, but not at B or C. He still exists, just not there. Because he exists at that point in time simultaneously at Not_B AND Not_C, that means BOTH Not_B AND Not_C happen to be one and the same even though they aren’t NECESSARILY the same...we could call that point D if we wanted.

3. Fred exists simultaneously at B AND Not_C; simultaneously Fred does not exist at Not_B AND C.

4. Opposite of 3.

5. Same as 2, but different point in time and POSSIBLY a different point in space as well. Reminder: think of this as a Cartesian plane.

6. Fred does not exist.

So within plane A, Fred both exists and doesn’t exist, Fred is at B and Not_B, Fred is at C and Not_C, Fred is at B and C, Fred is at Not_B and Not_C, Fred is alive and dead, Fred is neither alive nor dead—and that only covers slightly more than half the possibilities.

This doesn’t violate the law of contradiction because when you look specifically at when AND where Fred exists, Fred cannot occupy different spaces at the same time and still be Fred. He CAN occupy one space at one time or multiple spaces at DIFFERENT times. The sum of everything that happens in segments of spacetime is not within this particular scope of non-contradiction.

Of course, the universe at least appears to be n-dimensional and not as nice and neat as a Cartesian plane. There ARE other possibilities well beyond my limited grasp of these concepts. But the non-contradiction principle does not change in relation to logic because non-contradiction is more specific than that. If Fred seems to be in two different places at once, look again because you have missed something.




cubedemon6073 wrote:



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,933

05 Jun 2021, 1:45 pm



The Written Word Was Honored So Much in Early 'Biblical Days'

As Few People Were Literate Then, Perhaps Less Than 5 Percent

For Coming Centuries too; Egyptian Pharaoh's Built Pyramids Then Just

To Extend Their Lifespans in Edifice of 'Ka', Their Spirit After Their Earthly

Lives Were Gone; True Though, They Hired Other Folks to Do It; Basically With

Yes the Metaphor of the 'Trump Meme' of Golden Initials Stamped With Approval

Of Artisan Jobs Well Down, More Specifically, Pictograms in Them Days then...

Of Course, The Ability to Upload A Soul Into A Book Through

The Art of Writing Symbols We Name Letters Now

And Even Faster And More Efficient With

Digital Keyboards With even

More Compression of

Our Souls Uploaded in the

Speed oF LiGHT All Around the

Globe; Where Even 'Trump Size' Weight
ME ALL 243 Pounds of Soul And More Will ALL Around A Globe

Fit through This Fiber Optic Cable Now At the Speed oF LiGHT...

HA HA HA HA that would Have Been a Much More Amazing Trick than

A Physical Resurrection of Jesus Then; As True Even Then He was limited

to a Small Patch of Middle East Dirt; And Of Course He Never Wrote A Word;

So the Destination of His Soul Uploaded in Text Was All Up to Other Ghost Authors

And Not Him;

Okay, So Does Jesus

Really Exist; God Yes Stories

Do, Science Shows Humans React

The Same Way to Imaginary Stories As

They Do in Real Life Reality Shows Without Even

Any Smart Phone Cameras to Film; In Other Words, Flesh

And Blood Solo And More Efforts to Actually Live Now; Yet It's

True, Oh What

Will Words

Do From:

'50 Shades

Of Grey' to: Middle Age

Women And More and Less;

to the Creation of Jesus in A Story

Book Bible Who Comes to Be A Real Sugar

Pill Folks Take That Works For Healing Through

Emotions And Feelings That Come From Beneficial

Neurohormones And Neurochemicals too; The Thing

Is Again; It's Okay if You Believe All 'That Bible' has to say;

Yet It's True, Any Book That Would Have Come About Differently

Spoon-Fed to You a Similar Way would Have Likely Had A Similar Value to You Now;

As Long As the Gist of the Story was Similar; For It's True, Human Imagination And

Creativity

Brings

Reality

to Fruition

In Many Arts and Sciences

Still to Come; And Even Per John 14:12,

So Many Greater Works Than Attributed to Jesus

Like An Online Environment Where Everyone If they

Want to, Will Write Their Own Bibles; Be Their Own Priests;

And Fulfill Whitman's Prophecy too About the Old Pews Emptying Out

After the Last Grey Hairs Are Gone; And A Ton of New Bibles And Priests of their

Own Play Free As the Child Comes to Rule Over Both Patriarchy And Matriarchy Traditions Same

Now

Different

And Of Course,

That's Happening

Now; Hard to Miss If Ya Look Around...

MoraL A STory In This Way, 'Fred' May Not All the
Way Be Dead FoR A Thousand Years or so too...

Nothing i'll

Have

to

Worry

About of Course, Hehe..:)



_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,790

05 Jun 2021, 2:28 pm

AngelRho, what you said is perfect and makes sense to me. I think what's been happening between us was a major communication barrier. We wasn't at each other's frequencies sorta speak. What you wrote is the way my mind works. I don't know how to communicate any other way very well. Any other way goes over my head. Its like communicating in Chinese to me. When things are broken down like you have done it makes sense. It's sorta like my natural language. And, I do know programming very well including recursion, min-max algorithm, efficiency of algorithms like theta notation, etc.

When the average Christian speaks to me a lot of times I'm like huh.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,790

06 Jun 2021, 8:09 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
They say Sigmund Freud said this....and I find this most applicable:

“Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.”


Haven't a number of Freud's theories been debunked? I thought they were.

But, sometimes it is not simply a cigar. It may look like a cigar, smell like one and behave like one but what if it is not?

And, this is where I seem to butt heads with most people including a lot of those on here including but not limited to Fnord and AngelRho. Both members of WP and others seem to simply accept that certain things are true and that's it for them. A number of NTs I've met in my life are like that as well.

If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck then it is a duck. For a number of people this is so.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,608
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

06 Jun 2021, 10:51 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
They say Sigmund Freud said this....and I find this most applicable:

“Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.”


Haven't a number of Freud's theories been debunked? I thought they were.

But, sometimes it is not simply a cigar. It may look like a cigar, smell like one and behave like one but what if it is not?

And, this is where I seem to butt heads with most people including a lot of those on here including but not limited to Fnord and AngelRho. Both members of WP and others seem to simply accept that certain things are true and that's it for them. A number of NTs I've met in my life are like that as well.

If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck then it is a duck. For a number of people this is so.

Freud was the first to present an analytical model for behavioral analysis, and right or wrong Freud did help a lot of people. He was mainly the catalyst for an entirely new field of study. I personally prefer Jung if choosing between the two.

I’m more eclectic in my application of psychology, though I lean more towards behaviorists. My favorites include B.F. Skinner, Maslow, and Nate Branden. I don’t recall any mention of Branden back in college, and I think his approach has gone largely out of vogue. Sad, but it amounts to so many irresponsible parents totally ignoring and neglecting kids in my generation.

I do think Freud was on the right track, though. Much of our drive to do what we do is sexual. Men express a desire to dominate, women express a desire to be valued and protected. Successfully stimulating a woman to climax is immensely gratifying as is having a man who cares enough about you to do that. This manifests itself even in how we communicate with each other. In simplest terms, we all just want to feel important. People can “debunk” this all they want, but any time you want to make friends and influence people, all you have to do appeal to their self-interest, the things they are most passionate about. Get someone to talk about themselves by bringing up something they like and they’ll never shut up about it.

Unlike me, who never waits for an invitation...



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 104,510
Location: the island of defective toy santas

06 Jun 2021, 11:18 pm

^^^what do you think of carl rogers?



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,790

07 Jun 2021, 12:31 am

AngelRho wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
They say Sigmund Freud said this....and I find this most applicable:

“Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.”


Haven't a number of Freud's theories been debunked? I thought they were.

But, sometimes it is not simply a cigar. It may look like a cigar, smell like one and behave like one but what if it is not?

And, this is where I seem to butt heads with most people including a lot of those on here including but not limited to Fnord and AngelRho. Both members of WP and others seem to simply accept that certain things are true and that's it for them. A number of NTs I've met in my life are like that as well.

If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck then it is a duck. For a number of people this is so.

Freud was the first to present an analytical model for behavioral analysis, and right or wrong Freud did help a lot of people. He was mainly the catalyst for an entirely new field of study. I personally prefer Jung if choosing between the two.

I’m more eclectic in my application of psychology, though I lean more towards behaviorists. My favorites include B.F. Skinner, Maslow, and Nate Branden. I don’t recall any mention of Branden back in college, and I think his approach has gone largely out of vogue. Sad, but it amounts to so many irresponsible parents totally ignoring and neglecting kids in my generation.

I do think Freud was on the right track, though. Much of our drive to do what we do is sexual. Men express a desire to dominate, women express a desire to be valued and protected. Successfully stimulating a woman to climax is immensely gratifying as is having a man who cares enough about you to do that. This manifests itself even in how we communicate with each other. In simplest terms, we all just want to feel important. People can “debunk” this all they want, but any time you want to make friends and influence people, all you have to do appeal to their self-interest, the things they are most passionate about. Get someone to talk about themselves by bringing up something they like and they’ll never shut up about it.

Unlike me, who never waits for an invitation...


Palov's Dogs, right?



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,933

07 Jun 2021, 1:00 pm

AngelRho wrote:
I do think Freud was on the right track, though. Much of our drive to do what we do is sexual. Men express a desire to dominate, women express a desire to be valued and protected. Successfully stimulating a woman to climax is immensely gratifying as is having a man who cares enough about you to do that. This manifests itself even in how we communicate with each other. In simplest terms, we all just want to feel important. People can “debunk” this all they want, but any time you want to make friends and influence people, all you have to do appeal to their self-interest, the things they are most passionate about. Get someone to talk about themselves by bringing up something they like and they’ll never shut up about it.

Unlike me, who never waits for an invitation...





Interesting Seeing A 'Christian' Reduce Life

To Sex, Sex, Sex, And Sex, Apex
Of Orgasms Driving All of Life;

It's Worth Noting that

A 'Big Bang' Happened

And That's Not All, HAha...

Same Applies to Humanity;

Seems Ya Are Focusing On The Root

And Failing To Reach Heaven Leaves on Earth Here;
Heaven Is A Place of Giving; The Reward Is Intrinsic

For The Altruistic Who Fly With Agape Love of Giving For Real;

HA HA Ha, A Rapist or A Perverted Gynecologist Will Give A Woman

An Orgasm, With Either 'Tool' Applicable to Mechanical Action;

True There Are

Deeper Ways

of Love

Than

Below the 'Bible Belt'...

While It's True Psychopathic

Leaning Folks Love to Dominate

And Be Dominated Same in S And

M Ways, And He in Toxic Patriachy

of Church And State; Without Art

In SmART And HeART; Let's Just

Dance! Sing! There Are Those Far More

Evolved Than That NoW As Humanity

Breathes Higher Than Lower too FOR REAL...!

Again, 'Fowler' Has More To Say Than 'Maslow' This Way...

And There Are Arenas of Heaven on Earth Within Where Orgasms Don't Even Touch...

The Face of God Ocean Whole;

If You Do Not Feel

And Sense What

i Am Dancing

And Singing

Now; True, Ya

Just Have Not Arrived
At the Dance of Heaven Within On Earth Yet...

Give Heaven to A Woman Greater by Helping Her 'See'; Yet, Self-Heaven Required First....



_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,790

07 Jun 2021, 8:17 pm

We're not going to get anywhere with this whole God thing.

I would like to get back to the Original topic which is personal responsibility is a crock and here is why. What it comes down to is how much control of our lives do we have really? Honestly, I don't think the amount of control of our lives is as much as conservative/personal responsibility types purports it to be. I don't accept American philosophy on this.

As for independence, I don't think everyone can be independent. I think it is a huge mistake to try to force everyone to be independent. It does not work and how many of those end up homeless. How many of those with disabilities are able to get and keep a job that will pay for their cost of living including medical care? What is the ratio of those who are employed vs unemployed vs those not in the labor force?

I believe that there are certain things that one is owed. One thing I believe I'm owed is truth in advertising. If one goes to college or trade school what will be my return on investment? For the money students are to shell out including student loan debt what is their return on their investment? For all the money they're expected to shell out and all of the work they're expected to do in school what is their return on investment?

Now let's ask the same above questions with those with disabilities especially those with autism and ASDs. For an autistic person what is the return on investment for going to college and/or trade school at all? Are autistics more likely to be employed and afford the cost of living including medical if they go? How more likely? How much does the probability go up for success in the real world for the autistic person if he or she goes to college/trade school?

And, for every Temple Grandin how many disabled folks especially autistics are on SSDI and either unemployed or not in the labor force?



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 104,510
Location: the island of defective toy santas

07 Jun 2021, 10:20 pm

our system of higher education is but a racket, a giant one.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 77,132
Location: Queens, NYC

07 Jun 2021, 11:18 pm

Personal responsibility is not a crock.

When I said the cigar thing, I was talking about how people tend to overanalyze things.

I don’t exactly idolize Freud myself. But I find the cigar thing to be applicable....though I sort of wish it was said by Erik Erikson.

As for my theological orientation: I’m an agnostic atheist.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,790

08 Jun 2021, 12:49 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
Personal responsibility is not a crock.


Especially for those with disabilities and certain circumstances for those who are not disabled I respectfully disagree.

Quote:
When I said the cigar thing, I was talking about how people tend to overanalyze things.


I understand what you're saying. Let me ask this. Others say that a person is overanalyzing things. Is it that that person is overanalyzing or is that the others are not analyzing enough? Which is it? How do we tell?

Quote:
I don’t exactly idolize Freud myself. But I find the cigar thing to be applicable....though I sort of wish it was said by Erik Erikson.


I think people don't analyze things enough.

Quote:
As for my theological orientation: I’m an agnostic atheist.


Will you explain further please what that means?



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,608
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

08 Jun 2021, 6:20 am

Somehow I don’t think Peter Diamandis or Anousheh Ansari would agree that personal responsibility is a crock. People like that don’t take no for an answer and refuse to accept that a government agency is the only way to achieve their goals.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,608
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

08 Jun 2021, 6:42 am

I bet John Mackey could say a thing or two about personal responsibility. He’s never been a stranger to mistakes, failures, and running his mouth. His annual salary is $1 and his reward is getting to do what he enjoys most.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,790

08 Jun 2021, 7:34 am

AngelRho wrote:
I bet John Mackey could say a thing or two about personal responsibility. He’s never been a stranger to mistakes, failures, and running his mouth. His annual salary is $1 and his reward is getting to do what he enjoys most.


Image



Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 08 Jun 2021, 7:37 am, edited 2 times in total.

cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,790

08 Jun 2021, 7:35 am

AngelRho wrote:
Somehow I don’t think Peter Diamandis or Anousheh Ansari would agree that personal responsibility is a crock. People like that don’t take no for an answer and refuse to accept that a government agency is the only way to achieve their goals.


Huh! I have no idea what you just said.