Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 > Why? Politics. I wish our elected representatives (all parties) spent half as much time on actually governing that they do on political bickering. -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 At 08:07 AM 4/3/2004 -0800, you wrote: >Is my attitude here a function of my autism or a function >of my up-bringing among Quakers (who do not take oaths >because doing so would imply that it's okay to lie when > " not under oath " )? No way to answer that question for sure, >but I would consider it relevant information if other >auties find the whole " under oath " bit a puzzling fiction. > >Jane I'm as honest as they come. I was not brought up among Quakers but my honesty is probably nature and nurture in my case. I'm prone to the odd " white lie " ... but, under oath, " is Santa Clause real " ..... but I really had to stretch to find that. If I were " testifying " - yeah... somehow " truth " seems implied to me call us crazy eh?! -jypsy ________________________________ Ooops....Wrong Planet! Syndrome Autism Spectrum Resources www.PlanetAutism.com jypsy@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 > but I really had to stretch to find that. If I were " testifying " - > yeah... somehow " truth " seems implied to me > call us crazy eh?! I almost wonder if it has to do, not with lying, but with the fact that people are likely to be careless with language (exaggerated language, speculation, imprecise language) in informal settings, and the oath reminds them of the setting's formality and the importance of telling things with as much precision and accuracy as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 At 06:28 PM 4/3/2004 +0000, you wrote: > > > > but I really had to stretch to find that. If I were " testifying " - > > yeah... somehow " truth " seems implied to me > > call us crazy eh?! > >I almost wonder if it has to do, not with lying, but with the fact >that people are likely to be careless with language (exaggerated >language, speculation, imprecise language) in informal settings, and >the oath reminds them of the setting's formality and the importance of >telling things with as much precision and accuracy as possible. > > testifying would in no way be an " informal setting " for me, no matter where I was doing it -jypsy ________________________________ Ooops....Wrong Planet! Syndrome Autism Spectrum Resources www.PlanetAutism.com jypsy@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 wrote: >I almost wonder if it has to do, not with lying, but with the fact >that people are likely to be careless with language (exaggerated >language, speculation, imprecise language) in informal settings, and >the oath reminds them of the setting's formality and the importance of >telling things with as much precision and accuracy as possible. Ah. And in that case, the reason it seems to weird to me is that I would not make that distinction (between informal/sloppy-thinking and formal/clear settings)..... I'd still find it strange if someone to whom I had talked before about subject Y asked me to take an oath-to-tell-the-truth before talking about subject Y again. Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 Hi, I think the oath thing is a throwback to the time when people were more likely to think that god would strike them dead if they lied under oath. People do lie alot, and to cope with that I think the court system whereever it came from...decided to improve the likelihood of the person telling the truth by telling them that god was listenging and they would have to face his wrath... What came to mind when I read your post is about a friend, sort of, that I had in Montana. She was really a mess. she had used drugs an alcohol from pre- teen years and had sniffed inhalants..her brain was toast. She had symptoms of borderline personality. Very unpredictable woman. Anyway, I liked some things about her. She was trying to clean up her life at the time, on some level. She got really upset over something and her case worker showed up at her apt. to see if she was going to kill herself. She asked if my friend would " contract for safety " or somesuch thing. " Do you promise not to kill yourself? " Immediately I saw this as a stupid game. If a person wants to kill himself, then he will. If a person wants attention then he will say anything to get attention. I aksed her. " Did this business of contracting for safety, actually mean anything to you? " She said, " NO " It was a stupid game. If this works somehow in some situations, I can't see how it does. Camille > >I almost wonder if it has to do, not with lying, but with the fact > >that people are likely to be careless with language (exaggerated > >language, speculation, imprecise language) in informal settings, and > >the oath reminds them of the setting's formality and the importance of > >telling things with as much precision and accuracy as possible. > > Ah. And in that case, the reason it seems to weird > to me is that I would not make that distinction > (between informal/sloppy-thinking and formal/clear > settings)..... I'd still find it strange if someone > to whom I had talked before about subject Y asked > me to take an oath-to-tell-the-truth before talking > about subject Y again. > > Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 > I aksed her. " Did this business of contracting for safety, actually > mean anything to you? " She said, " NO " > It was a stupid game. If this works somehow in some situations, I > can't see how it does. It has to do with professional liability as much as anything, really. I had a problem in that I was always honest when asked whether I could " be safe " . Believe it or not, saying " No " enough times eventually got me called " manipulative " . I was apparently supposed to lie and say " Yes " to make their jobs easier. The problem is that even now when I've been quite happy for awhile and have no intention of doing anything dangerous to me or anyone else, how can I know *for certain* that at some point in the future I won't want to do something I shouldn't? I can't contract for what I can't predict. I have been told that it's a situation where lying can be necessary, though. Ugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 alfamanda wrote: > The problem is that even now when I've been quite happy for awhile > and have no intention of doing anything dangerous to me or anyone > else, how can I know *for certain* that at some point in the future I > won't want to do something I shouldn't? I can't contract for what I > can't predict. > > I have been told that it's a situation where lying can be necessary, > though. Ugh. It sounds very similar to a piece of the story I related before, where the authorities refused to return a woman's kids to her even after they learned that the kid's allegations of abuse were lies. The woman had AS, but had not disclosed that to the authorities for fear that it would automatically make her unfit in their eyes. One of the things that ticked the authorities off was that once they had cleared the abuse claims, and right after they told the woman that she should " just be honest, " when they asked her what she wanted them to do, she said " I want you to leave me alone and get out of my life. " It was the truth... but she was supposed to answer something like " I know you have a job to do, and I am glad you are out there protecting kids, but... " and something I cannot think of would go after the ellipsis. I often have difficulties with things like this. It's a game NTs play-- they tell you to be honest, but they don't want you to actually be honest. Everything seems like it has to be a guessing game with NTs; they can't ever just say succinctly what they mean without any silly mind games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 wrote: > > > > Why? > > Politics. > > I wish our elected representatives (all parties) spent half as much > time on actually governing that they do on political bickering. I wish they would spend more time bickering; it would keep them busy so that they can't screw things up by getting involved more than they already are. We have way too many laws as it is; unless the debate was on which laws to repeal, I say " Long live gridlock! " I had an idea not too long ago-- any legislator that votes on a bill should have to pass a quiz about that bill that would require him or her to have read the bill to pass. These days, most bills are so long, and legislators so unconcerned with their duties as elected officials, that bills are often voted on without ever having been read by anyone doing the voting. The politicians vote on the bill based on little blurbs about the bill's purpose and effect written by special interest groups. Now, I have nothing against special interests (I belong to a few special interest groups), but the legislators ought to read the bills themselves, and if the bill is too long, they should go on record as to why they are going to vote NO, and then they should do it.) Voting " yes " on a bill that a legislator has not read is a betrayal to all of the constituents. It is like signing a contract s/he has not read on behalf of all of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.