Aluminum Falcom wrote:Actually, if you DIDN'T have Asperger's Syndrome, you wouldn't have to make a post point out everything you just did. So by "aspie'ing out" and making a post that is totally a stereotypical Aspie post, you just confirmed the opposite of what you just said.
I spy with my little eye, a Catch 22.
Not quite. mszegedy said that he has Asperger's and yet acts perfectly normal. Falcom said that in saying so (the way he did, at least), mszegedy demonstrates that that is not true, presumably because saying so (in that way) is not perfectly normal. Presuming that Falcom's assertion is correct: if mszegedy had Aspergers and yet acted perfectly normal, and didn't say so (in that way), then it could be perfectly true that he had Aspergers and yet acted perfectly normal. No contradiction. We just wouldn't be having this conversation because mszegedy wouldn't have said anything, or he would have said something in a way consistent with (Falcom's conception of) perfect normality.
Consider, for analogy, the sentence "This sentence contains twenty-seven words." That is self-demonstrably false, like Falcom claims mszegedy's assertion to be. However, this is no problem at all with "This sentence does not contain twenty-seven words." Ok, it doesn't. No contradiction there. Likewise with the negation of mszegedy's statement.
For it to be a "Catch-22" (or just a paradox, if you will), you would need an additional self-contradictory negation of mszegedy's speech or speech-act: either remaining silent or asserting that "I have Aspergers and yet act perfectly normal" in a perfectly normal way would also have to imply that mszegedy is not perfectly normal, OR, asserting ""I have Aspergers and therefore do not act perfectly normal" would have to count as evidence of normality.
Interestingly, if Falcom's assertion did imply a paradox, that would trivially imply his assertion's falsehood via reductio ad absurdum: if Falcom's assertion implies that either mszegedy's assertion or its negation implies a contradiction, then Falcom's assertion implies a contradiction either way and is thus false. But since Falcom's assertion does not imply a paradox, it's just a matter of unsettled opinion whether mszegedy's post was self-refuting or not.
[EDIT: names corrected]