u/Forsaken_Tomorrow454

I am not shocked. I regularly feed meat to squirrels.

I’m trying to understand if this is an Asperger’s/autism thing, a literal-thinking thing, a high verbal reasoning thing, or just a me thing.

I constantly ask “why” questions because I’m trying to understand the structure underneath what someone is saying or whatever concept is being defined. I’m usually not asking to argue and I’m not trying to trap them. I’m trying to find the actual root cause, their logic, the assumption, the missing step, or the rule they’re operating from.

One time I Reddit I asked someone to explain their logic and I got downvoted about 1000 times because they thought I was being a douche bag and then playing dumb (common in my life).

So a lot of people seem to experience my “why” questions as pressure or criticism or disrespect or “interrogation” or me “refusing to accept their answer”. (it’s like: “I accepted your answer and now I’m asking a question which requires a new answer.”)

For example, someone will say something like:

“Don’t overthink it.”

And I immediately want to know:

Why is this considered overthinking instead of just thinking accurately?

Why is their first explanation supposed to be enough?

Why does asking for the mechanism behind something mean I’m resisting the answer?

Why do people get irritated when I ask for the specific reason behind their statement?

Why is “because that’s just how people are” treated like an answer?

To me, “why” is not an attack. It’s how someone would find clarity. (Right now I’m in the position of the “bruh” meme, face, hand and all.)

The strange part is that I feel like I could answer "why" almost endlessly. If someone asks me why I think or dosomething, I can usually keep going deeper and deeper into the reasoning chain. When it comes to explaining the reasons behind my own actions, decisions, or conclusions, I can usually identify and articulate the underlying structure accurately.

If I don't know the answer, I'll say I don't know rather than invent one. There is always another layer: motive, pattern, prior experience, emotional cause, social rule, biological reason (like instinct), linguistic reason, family dynamic, cultural habit, etc.

This is one of the reasons why I don’t find kids to be annoying. It is entertaining for me to be challenged by a child and be asked why to the point that would normally drive someone insane and pop capillaries in their eyes. But I can go much further than that.

With many people, it feels like they hit a wall after one or two layers.

They say what they think.

Then I ask why.

They give a surface-level answer.

Then I ask why that answer is true.

Then they get annoyed.

Suddenly the issue becomes my tone, my intensity, spiritual vibration, or the fact that I’m asking too many questions, anything other than the original question being asked.

This is where I get confused. If someone makes a claim, shouldn’t they be able to explain why they believe it? If someone tells me I’m doing something wrong, shouldn’t they be able to identify exactly what is wrong and why? If someone says my interpretation is incorrect, shouldn’t they be able to show the step where my interpretation failed?

And when the roles are reversed, I have no status drive. There is no insult. Just error correction. Unfortunately for most people, they perceive error correction as a “condescending” insult.

A lot of my life has felt like I’m being punished for needing the missing step.

People will say things like:

“You know what I mean.”

But I often don’t. Or I know what the words could mean, but not which exact meaning they intend. If I didn’t know what they meant, I wouldn’t have asked the question that led to them saying that I knew what they meant.

They’ll say:

“It’s not that deep.”

But to me, it is that deep if the unclear part is what decides whether I’m wrong, rude, confused, rejected, blamed, disciplined, or misunderstood.

Or

“You’re being difficult.”

But I’m usually trying to prevent confusion by forcing the vague thing to become specific. Why is that met with resistance?

When I claimed that I am in a world saturated with individuals that have a low IQ, that is not meant to be condescending, I mean it.

I’ve noticed this especially in emotional conversations, dating, family arguments, and social situations. People seem to communicate through implied meaning, tone, emotional shortcuts, and assumptions. I’m trying to communicate through exact meaning, stated logic, and traceable reasons but you could ask me about to my face. It wouldn’t stir emotion.

So when I ask “why,” I’m not just being curious. I’m trying to build a full map of reality so I don’t misread the situation, and fully understand out of respect for communication.

The problem is that other people often seem to treat “the request for the map” as offensive. (but can never give a logical reason why).

I don’t understand why asking for more precision makes people feel like I’m invalidating them. From my perspective, if I ask why, it means I care enough to understand it correctly. I would rather ask ten annoying questions than silently make the wrong assumption.

Do people get irritated with your “why” questions even when you’re genuinely trying to understand?

Is there a better way to ask for the missing logic without making people feel interrogated?

And is the ability to keep answering “why” deeper and deeper common here, or is that something separate?

People need to learn the difference between a symbiont and a parasite. If an animal is only capable of consuming dead tissue, rather than live cells, those “parasites” are only cleaning disease away. Because they are symbiotic.

Just because someone may have been fearmongered into washing their hands, doesn’t mean they need to be afraid of squiggly wiggly worms that finally become visible because they decided to look at their shit or watch a scary screen. 📺

I consume raw pork every week and raw salmon about every other. (I don’t care much for fish. I include it out of sentiment.)

A Symbiont cannot live in tissue that does not contain disease AKA dying or dead cells.

So if you don’t consume poison and you consume your natural diet (of naturally occurring and naturally kept food) and experience a low amount of stress, the likelihood that enough of these would live inside you enough for you to notice is very very slim.

Unfortunately, for most people, they eat heat-altered seed sludge, leaves, roots, and purposefully destroyed, carcinogenic-turned meat, many even inhale smoke, or drink the poisonous excrement of bacteria in the form of shots.

Here is the fundamental reality:

If you don’t eat your natural diet, other animals that are designed to consume dead tissue are going to live inside your body.

Every single time you divert away from your natural human instincts, environment, behavior, or diet, you degenerate into a weaker version of yourself on a genetic level and create the conditions for scavenging micro/macro organisms to live inside your body and clean it out.

It’s funny, it’s like people think that cells just die and they disappear. A healthy gut micro biome contains so much and many organisms that your human intestines make up less than 1% of the genetic material in your digestive tract.

When you take an antibiotic, that number becomes closer to 100%. And also there wouldn’t be any microorganisms for cleaning up the body.

…So there would be a buildup of death, which would lead to…

“Parasites”.

“In my opinion”, evolution requires a disturbing amount of preloaded order to be organized from chaos into specific flesh and behavior.

This isn’t even about God. I’m an agnostic pagan. For me, God is something that cannot be described nor defined by the human mind. Whatever created this place resides in “I don’t know how to describe that thing or whatever” territory (for me).

….With that being said, it’s very possible that the conditions for the resulting biology of supposed evolution could have simply been pre-calculated genius so the right patterns of genetic transcendence would occur.

Saying that a bird has different feathers “because of evolution“ is NOT ENOUGH.

For me, this is just as silly as when a vet tries to argue that dogs are different now because they’ve lived among humans for 100 years eating mostly bread in the last hundred years according to commercial food guidelines brought on by World War I. They are leaving out the reality that a dog’s stomach is not designed to process large amounts of starch in the absence of vitamins that can only be found in organs.

There is still the next step. From my (inappropriately diagnosed as condescending) perspective there’s still a question of WHY and HOW.

Why does evolution exist? What made evolution possible?

Just saying “the laws of physics allow it” or “life can emerge anywhere ‘where conditions permit’ in such a large universe” just scratches the surface of reality itself.

And let’s admit two things: 1. Asking why evolution is possible is a creepy question. 2. Saying “where conditions permit” is ignorant or stupid or a mistake in judgement.

I could not say those things without feeling incredibly insecure and suffering cringe Charley horses everywhere until I was a crooked ball.

Because again, the resulting question would always be:

Because…?/Go on…? Or Why?

Why are the laws of physics the kinds of laws that permit specific “random“ mutations that would depend on stable physics, chemistry, information storage, inheritance, mutation, or selection?

Knowing that all of that needs to be juggled in order for an organism to not end up a crooked mass that dies in sludge is hilarious.

It could also be said that what you are witnessing is planned development based on pre-placement and concurrent climate shifts that align in just the right way. A creepy way.

Why can’t scientist just say, we don’t fucking know why evolution exists, and therefore we can’t claim that it is fundamental. So it will forever remain a theory, because it could never be proven, because:

We don’t actually know what this is or why the fuck this substrate exists. :)

TLDR:

Evolution may explain how biological traits change over time, but it does not fully explain why reality contains the precise lawful structure that makes evolution possible in the first place.

For evolution to work, the universe already needs stable physics, reliable chemistry, information storage, genetic inheritance, mutation, selection pressure, and environmental alignment. That entire lineup feels too ordered and generative to wave away with “because evolution” or “where conditions permit.”

The deeper question is not “did evolution happen?”

The deeper question is:

**Why the fuck is evolution possible at all?**

And if scientists do not know why the substrate of reality exists, why physics permits life, or why matter can organize into genes, bodies, instincts, and behavior, then they should admit that evolution describes a mechanism inside reality, not the ultimate origin of reality’s architecture. :)