Posted by alexandra_k on February 20, 2015, at 22:24:19
In reply to Re: No more physics!, posted by alexandra_k on February 20, 2015, at 21:53:15
> If I was drunk and decided I wanted to walk along the overbridge railing just to, you know, have a little R&R... And then I fell... Then ACC would have covered me. Or if I was high... And thought I could fly...
> I keep thinking of 'a land before time'... 'did I fly??????'. 'noooo. you falled'.
> Whereas... Freaking the f*ck out and jumping... 'Jumping' never used to be considered 'recreation'. Or... Suicide attempts.. Were thought to have some kind of 'intent' such that they weren't an 'accident' (even though nobody in their right mind would surely have intended the extent of anything serious enough to need a claim???)> Anyway...
> Point being... ACC was denied for my accident / jumping / flying thing.
So... I was reading something the other day... This guy used some engineering something to measure 'information' and figured that autistics brains were processing more information in sensory deprived environments, or whatever.I mean... Some people like to think. No sh*t.
Anyway...
There was something, too, about deficits or differences or what the f*ck ever... In moral judgements.
Apparently... Autistic people don't think intent is relevant.
Huh. That is an actual moral theory. So... For example... An act utilitarian thinks that the right act to do is the act that promotes the greatest good for the greatest number of people. So... Say you do the act that *you think* will promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people but... Suppose that even though you succeed in the act, your act FAILS to promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Apparently the autistic people say that you morally did the wrong thing. You are responsible for that.
But other people don't. Other people think that people... Crying and expressing remorse and so on and so forth is an accurate / reliable / honest indicator of INTENT and that we should rely on these indicators of intent to mitigate. Aaaaaaaw that corproation person didn't MEAN to screw over people... Aaaaaaw they aren't responsible. Or aaaaaaaaaw that super popular athlete guy didn't MEAN to bash his wife... aaaaaaaaaaw clearly he's innocent.
Uh huh.
There was something about how 'once you tell autistic people this, they'll learn the 'rules' to make this finding go away'.
F*ck*ng arrogant *ssh*l*. Who says YOUR ethical theory is true / is likely to be true / is most legitimate?
?
Knowing that it's false is liberating... The ways of narrating intent. F*ck*ng secret... I swears...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:1076818
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20150214/msgs/1076956.html