Aspies For Freedom - "Like pet monkeys"

Such minor accomplishments may well make them closer to animals than humans if their behaviour is bad enough and their accomplishments small enough.

True, but there is a difference between genetic similarities and observable similarities and I can't imagine what the woman meant when she said "Like pet monkeys" is that they are genetically similar. She probably just meant they behave like monkeys and have lower intellectual capacity than most humans.

tenaciouscj Wrote:

Also, if you're 19, you should change your name to Louise19.

But seriously, can you really suppose that every person who goes to your university will get a good job when they leave? Will you? I seriously doubt it if you don't sit down and have a really good look at yourself in the mirror and take a reality check.

People who take on legal representation don't want a lawyer who simply thinks they are superior to their client; they want somebody who will win their case for them. This includes making convincing, logical, and well-thought-out arguments.

I haven't seen much evidence of those qualities in your comments over the past few months though. Given a few years, it is hoped that you might develop some qualities of humility and commonsense. You are very young so there is hope for you yet.

It depends what class of degree they get and what they do with the rest of their time. If they get a good 2.1 and do some extra curriculars from Oxford University then they will get decent jobs. The ones that don't tend to go to *** universities and do subjects that aren't worth anything.

My arguments are logical and thought out. They aren't convincing because they challenge your VISCERAL views. They go against the feelings, beliefs and upbringing of everyone in this thread and that is a tough fight for logic to make. You are all making sweeping statements about my abilities and my personal character. It is a very inefficient thread. No-one is challenging the logic of my argument. I have set out what I believe to be the purpose(s) of life and no-one has challenged those assumptions. I have set out what I believe is a logical argument for demonstrating that some people are doomed to fail at that purpose. No-one has challenged the step from a) to b) save for some points about the practicality of assessment. No-one has challenged the fact that some people are unable to achieve those purposes. Therefore I fail to see the fallacy.

Just because something is an unpleasant truth does not make it any less true.

You have no expertise in the legal field, and you quite clearly have no expertise in what constitutes a logical argument. If I need any reality checks i have tutors who are top Queens Council's to advise me I do not need a random person on the internet to give me career advice thankyou very much.

Oh and as for people who take on legal representation: criminals usually have no choice who they take as legal representation, I have a lot of respect for people who build and run businesses, I have a lot of respect for people who have intellectual property to protect, andi have no intention of going into any area of law where my clients are less intelligent than me.

Mahler5 Wrote:

Louise18 Wrote:

Oh and as for people who take on legal representation: criminals usually have no choice who they take as legal representation,��I have a lot of respect for people who build and run businesses, I have a lot of respect for people who have intellectual property to protect, andi have no intention of going into any area of law where my clients are less intelligent than me.

By your own argument-You would have to have clients who are less intelligent than you because otherwise YOU would be inferior intellectually to them, and therefore less worthy.
How will you know that they are less intelligent than you? Will you make them take an IQ test before you represent them?
How will you be able to judge and make an assessment of your client's intelligence?

No you do not. Clients pay for people with special expertise in the law and special expertise in a particular area of the law. Even a top lawyer cannot represent themself in a case. You can select your clients based on the area of law that you go into. If you go into company law you get far fewer stupid clients. And you don't even have to respect them. You just have to pretend to.

Mahler5 Wrote:

woman from mars Wrote:

Also I would add, how would you know that your clients aren't criminals?
Oh yes:-

Louise18 Wrote:

I would get told about the crime before I found out about the achievement. The crime would be in every newspaper. The achievement somewhere in the smallprint.

Smile WfM

Louise, you have suggested that your views are not naive- however-
-what about the "people who build and run businesses" that you say you have a lot of respect for..whose 'businesses' are built on greed and on the exploitation of others? And whose crimes are NEVER�reported in the newspapers..
And you are fooling yourself when you say that:
"criminals usually have no choice who they take as legal representation"
because often they DO have much money, which is then used to buy "the best" legal representation..

True. But I have very rarely seen a corporation do anything I consider to be morally wrong. I believe corporations should do whatever makes them the most profit. If they are up for a crime, they won't be hiring me, because I won't practice in that area of law.

Tigger_the_Wing Wrote:

Louise18 Wrote:

I did not say that the suffragette movement was not an achievement, or that consideration should not be taken for the generation people were brought up in and what opportunities they had. But to do that they had to have ambition, the desire to do something with their lives other than bring up children. They had to educate themselves at home. Formulate plans of how to change government policies, go against the crowd and fight for what they believed in. They could not have done that without some intelligence and knowledge. Those children sat in a special needs school who can't feed themselves, can't use a toilet and can't communicate could not have achieved what the suffragettes achieved. Great achievements require other qualities besides intelligence to make them happen, but they cannot be done without intelligence. And the more intelligent a person is, the more power they have at their disposal if they choose to use it.��

I despise my mother for not going to university in a generation where people had fought for her opportunity to go, and where she would not have had to have paid any of the costs herself. I do not react the same way to my grandmother being forced to drop out of grammar school to get a job in the war. But this is 2007 in the UK. It would be different in 1940, it would be different in Uganda. But in 2007 in the UK I do not think expecting someone to contribute to society at least as much as they take from it constitutes too much to ask or constitutes perfectionism. People have opportunities. It might not be a perfect system but people have free education, free school meals, and social services. There are opportunities for adults to brush up the skills they missed when they were young.��They have more opportunities than any generation before them, and working class people from those generations became successful and contributed, so I don't see what's wrong with expecting them to today.

Do you not see the difference between wishing that something is so, and despising people, including, for heaven's sake YOUR OWN MOTHER Rolleyes for not reaching your exacting standards?

Please stop. You must realise by now that absolutely no-one else thinks that it is OK. It is not OK under English Law. It is not OK under common decency. Your attitude to other people verges on the inhuman and yes, that attitude is exactly what led to Hitler's pogrom on the Jewish people. Remember, he started with the very people that you equate with monkeys.

Instead of abusing those less fortunate than you, why not vow to use your intellect to improve their lot? Now that would be a useful and long-lasting contribution to society.

English law does not making hating people a crime. It does not make giving people your respect, time or energy (excluding your own children) an obligation. I do not abuse anyone. I just don't respect people I am better than. That is not a crime, or a civil wrong in english law.

rossco Wrote:

Louise18 you have really amused me with your opinions (and let's face it they are just that and not very well thought out ones at that). The fact that you lord your superiority over the people you are discussing this wayward topic with has peaked my interest in debating this with you. For the record I am not an Oxford scholar. I have not got a degree. I am an ex-cleaner at an abattoir, so let's just say I am fair game here for an intellectual heavyweight like yourself.
Now a BIG problem I see with your premise is the understanding you seem to have of a lot of abstract concepts. They are not universal. Indeed words such as "value", "success", "respect", "intelligence" and the like mean different things to different people.
What efforts have you seriously made in defining these terms that are central in espousing your ideologies? It is not the sign of a good critical thinking mind that is not willing (or unable?) to define the parameters of such concepts. It is either saying I am allowing myself at any point to defend myself with "Yes but I didn't mean my argument to be taken or viewed in that light because what you believed I meant is not what I did mean" OR it is the assumption that everyone understands intrinsically that when you say an abstract word that their concept exactly matches your own.
Of course there is great risk in doing this. Whilst it does show you have a mind that allows itself to think about what the hell you are gibbering on about, it does expose your argument. You are unable then to redefine your argument without looking like you are scrambling IF your argument is unable to stand on it's own.

So how about it? Why don't you trawl through this couple of dozen of posts on this thread redefine what on Earth you were really trying to present and restructure and redefine what your argument was/is? Try it out on a "valueless" ex-cleaner. See how you go. It will hardly be a measure of critical thinking or academic fortitude or even intellectual superiority to soundly thrash me verbally on this forum, but.......I really think you are not that clever or that good at having people question you. I think it sounds like fun.

I will respond to this comment later as it requires more effort than the previous ones have done. It is, however, the most meritorious response I have had on this thread so far.

Stupidity is not classed as a disability. Therefore my remarks are not motivated by disability but by stupidity.

Also, it would depend on the interpretation of an 'insult'. Courts would be unlikely to take a broad meaning as they tend not to include in criminal liability anything which parliament may not have intended to incur criminal liability.

I am not interested in attention. I am interested in making my point.

Oh and incidentally, even if you are right about insulting being a crime. It still isn't a crime to hate someone, or to withold your respect from them. I really wish someone would put an edit button on this site. It would save a lot of double posting and confusion.

You see even that post was wrongly worded. It should have read even if you are right about some of my posts in this thread constituting an insult.

I am cramming for exams and will respond in two weeks to what people have said.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35