"And don't give me nonsense about humans who can't speak - that's always either a physical problem, or deafness so they never learned how. Fix those problem and they can speak."
Your library gets ripped off $80 (which is about right) because you left their books out in the car, yet somehow it's an infringement of your rights to be required to pay for what you deprived them of before you'll be allowed to borrow more of their stuff? Libraries are underfunded as it is; why should they be forced to eat the cost of *you* choosing to leave their books in the car?
Disability isn't usually a full-body/brain thing.
on
Internet Hunting
·
· Score: 1
Having one kind of impairment doesn't mean the whole body and/or brain doesn't work. What makes you think that having a disablility that makes traversing a forest difficult would have anything to do with aiming a gun, real or virtual?
Think about it: quads and paras are able to drive motorized wheelchairs and properly-equipped *cars* -- aiming a gun isn't likely to be a problem.
This "online hunting" seems a lot more to me like handing somebody a skateboarding game and claiming that makes up for their inability to use a skateboard designed for somebody with an average body. There's a LOT more to a hobby than just the momentary act.
If they want to accommodate physical disabilities, that's great. But accommodation does *not* involve separating somebody that's different... I don't want a fake version of reality apart from everybody else as a disabled person, I want to be able to participate with those I know/care about. If I can't find a way to do so, I move on to doing something else we *can* all paricipate in.
Given how upset disabled people are right now as we watch many of the support services being cut that others need to survive, if we could set the game up to hunt politicians and charge even a mere $5/month it'd make a *lot* more than targeting animals.:-)
(Unfortunately, we'd also be thrown in jail before the first check reached the bank, but still it's a nice thought.)
Re:disabled hunters.. survival of the fittest ?
on
Internet Hunting
·
· Score: 1
In a real-world situation, somebody with a disability that would impair hunting would be busy earning his/her keep doing tasks not affected by the disability. It's not significantly different from a disabled person in a city holding a job that the impairment doesn't directly interfere with... Not every single person has to handle exactly the same tasks, you know.:-)
Re:Hunters with disabilities
on
Internet Hunting
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Not the case. Hunter-gatherer societies were small enough that they could manage to be fairly protective of the rare people that were disabled, whether they were born that way (rare) or injured. Just because somebody becomes disabled doesn't mean their family or friends stop caring about them.
Re:An advanced society....
on
Internet Hunting
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Most of the disabled guys I know have very little problem getting laid (or finding long-term mates); I'm a disabled woman and I certainly haven't found it a problem... Considering this is a site full of *non-disabled* guys that can't manage to get laid, I rather think legalizing prositution would be far more to your advantage than theirs.
That was likely just to make you *feel* safer, as it wouldn't be particularly effective in reality. Ever tried glancing at photos for 10 hours and *really* paying attention to them, especially when half of those photos are outdated? Particularly if you're the inspector and only got 45 minutes of sleep the night before because you were busy stressing/prepping for the election?:)
The real protection is in the multi-step double-checking precincts do to ensure no name comes up twice in the county. The first-time voters are asked for ID (which by law can be as little as a utility statement) just so we can make sure that the person registered actually exists and isn't a fictional entity used for fraud.
I run a precinct, and we don't ask for ID either. If your name isn't already on our list, or if it is crossed out (already voted or listed as absentee) then we file your vote away as "provisional" and it is signature-verified manually by the county before being counted. Additionally, any crook could manufacture a photo ID; asking for one won't stop a determined cheater, just slow the process down.
Not everybody that knows a language thinks in it. Most autistics (including myself) think in motions, tones, colors, textures, music, images, combinations of those, or other sensory-based information. My particular type of thought is the spatially-based colors and textures.
Not technically true -- late 1997 is when Scour.net appeared, and I vaguely remember similar sites (like the *.box.sk network) being present around the same time. There was also the option of using Infoseek (or other search engines) to track down filenames on open FTP servers. It might not have been as easy as it is now, true, but to say that such things simply didn't exist in 1997 at all is inaccurate.:)
Could be a good advertising campaign for female players, though -- "don't have your concentration interrupted by a sudden mess, use the tampons that last!";)
Though to be a bit more serious, I always did think it bizarre that guys spending countless hours playing games full of splattering gore will completely freak out at an indirect reference to a period. That's like chasing storms as a hobby, then running away in abject terror at the sight of windshield wipers.
There are also a *lot* of disabilities that make it possible to stand but extremely tiring to walk, and one can certainly be "genuinely" disabled without having a severe mobility impairment! Saying the technology that helps people like that is just "enabling" them to be "lazy" is revoltingly uninformed.
One simple example would be multiple sclerosis. Somebody with MS can be *completely* disabled considerably before they lose the ability to walk, and in fact often never lose it completely. Small amounts of activity can tire them out, so having something like a motorized wheelchair makes the difference between being able to do one short activity before needing to go to bed for the day, and being able to lead something resembling a "good" life. There are many other disorders with the same effect as well.
Some disorders also require sporadic treatment with drugs (like prednisolone) that can cause massive (usually short-term) weight gain. Other times, it becomes a matter of being so impaired on a daily basis that something as simple as taking a shower is a struggle that requires a nap afterwards. It's not surprising that people unable to gather enough energy to do more than shower would ultimately gain weight, especially if they are also put on one of the meds that causes tissue swelling.
I'm not saying all cases are like this. I'm sure that there are people that choose not to exercise, refuse to eat right, and really are just using scooters because they're overweight. But don't go around slamming all people using motorized scooters or similar for being "lazy" when you have no idea how many have a legitimate illness that makes their everyday lives harder than you can even *imagine* life being.
That's not pride... *True* pride is using whatever resources are available to lead life to its fullest, without feeling ashamed to show others we are different. It is a *lack* of pride that would lead a person to restrict his/her enjoyment of life and visibility in public for fear "normal" people see their differences.
(Speaking here as a disabled but not mobility-impaired person, that uses technology to its fullest as I need to lead my life. If others think I'm somehow inferior for not being a clone of them, well, that's a reflection on their own bigotry, not something I'm going to halt MY life over.)
I know this'll doubtless get me modded down at the least, but I completely agree.
My BF told me recently that he really needs to get more RAM, as his Mac is constantly relying on the HD for virtual memory even though it has 512mb and basically all he has open is email and a few Safari windows. That strikes me as completely absurd -- my 256 meg system running XP doesn't grind the HD the way he described unless I *seriously* overload it (running Firefox with 15+ tabs, email, chatting, webcam, music, Photoshop, all simultaneously). Yet people jeer at MS for creating bloatware...? WTF?
I commented here months ago that whenever I found something (spyware-free, virus-free, adware-free etc) game/chat-wise that I thought we could use together, it turned out that there was no Mac equivalent... A Machead snarled that as a user of OS X, my BF should just learn to port stuff from *nix or write his own scripts. Again, WTF? To my logic, if I want to compile/code stuff, I go with a great free *nix OS, and if I want ease-of-use, I pay more to go with XP...paying a *lot* more for a system that will make it harder for me to just do what I want on a computer that then sucks resources to the point of needing huge upgrades just makes no sense to me. Sounds like the only thing that "just works" is Apple's marketing department!
That's a fine statement when you can afford food all month. If you're in a financial situation (for example, disabled) where you can't, wealth starts looking pretty damn good -- not because of envy, but because of hunger and possibly homelessness.
"If you really believe in equality you would see that sociey provides so much just because we are here."
Really? Like the fact that disabled adults unable to work are expected to live on *thousands* less than the national poverty level and can't get insurance or decent medical care? Or perhaps like the countless people that are involuntarily without a home and can't find a shelter that isn't either overcrowded or dangerous in the middle of winter?
"We are all better off with the current system than having a revolution based on envy and power lusting miscontents."
You try going a few days without food, then tell us all how wanting a better system is all about envy and power-lusting.
"Get some personal responsibility and learn to live with the fact that shit happens despite your best efforts to nerf the world."
I'm not a parent, but I can say from experience that after you've actually seen a loved one in severe pain or even watched them die, the above poster's attitude comes across not as insightful but inexperienced/immature/ignorant. It's a lot easier to sneer "shit happens" when you haven't had that shit happen to you.
"I don't think electronic voting is any more/less secure then paper ballots/punch machines..."
I run a precinct up in Northern California, where we're using Scantron forms, and I completely agree. Most people only see how "voting" is done on the surface -- they walk in, mark the ballot, and leave. It gives them a false sense of security, like once they walk through the doors of their precinct they're in some magical fantasy-land where there's no corruption, no mistakes, and so forth. They have no idea how much room for error, incompetence, and or corruption there is to succeed even with all of the double-checking that goes on.
I'm not saying that there aren't potential flaws in an electronic system; obviously there are. However, speaking firsthand, I think an election or two of volunteering would not only reverse people's negative attitudes towards electronic voting, but make them want to ensure human hands never touch their ballots again.
Personally, I *do* want to see Internet-based voting made secure enough to be a reality. There are so many issues with the absentee *and* in-person system that, done properly with enough double-checking, using the Internet would actually be an improvement. We use the Internet for just about everything else, and there's so much corruption in the absentee/real-life process as it is...and there's a lot of good that (again, if properly handled) could come from Internet-based voting.
My view might be skewed, though, by the reality that about half the clerks I've been in charge of had to be eliminated for corruption (you know you're in trouble when the clerk is trying to actively intimidate minorities into not voting), and the other half made serious mistakes due to over-fatigue covering for the bad/no-show volunteers. We corrected them, and all came out well in the end (I think), but all I can think of, knowing the fail-to-show rate here, is how screwy the votes must be for any precinct where only one person, or only the "bad" volunteers, bothered to show up.:-/
Oh, no, much more fun and appealing is to be a metrosexual AND have a gun. After all, if you have to actually physically scuffle with some jerk, it could get your clothes dirty or something.;-)
Besides, the look on people's faces is probably quite entertaining when they look around and see scented candles...ruffled satin sheets...artistic nature photographs...stylish laptop...new-age relaxation music...and assorted firearms.
(Luckily I already knew of my fiance's fascination with firearms before I wandered into his bedroom and saw that combination... I still raised my eyebrows a bit the first time just because a shotgun is simply not what one's mind expects to notice near a bottle of Herbal Essence shampoo, though.)
I'm not sure which hand one mouses with would actually make that much of a difference.
My father is a thorough leftie and has always used his right hand for mousing without a problem (he started back in the days when mice were symmetrical so this was his choice). I asked him once about it, and he said that for mousing, dominance didn't make much of a difference for him.
Last year, after developing a neurological problems that made lifting my right arm painful, I started mousing with my left hand. It took me almost no time to acclimate, and now as long as I have a non-curved mouse I can use either hand easily depending on which arm is functional.
What I keep wondering is whether there will ever be a mouse that fits or can be adjusted to fit long hands. I find most mice too tiny to use comfortably -- I have to either bend my fingers unnaturally, put my palm in an awkward spot to click, or otherwise hold the mouse in a fashion that puts an unusual strain on my hand/wrist.
The only thing is, there's a bit of a difference between two people of the same group making fun of themselves based on true experience, and one group sneering at another.
You've actually *probably* experienced this yourself. If you're hanging out with a friend, for example, and swapping jokes about being Jewish, you know it's just affectionate/respectful fun. But that's a totally different experience from hanging out with that friend, and having some third guy wander by to make a nasty comment about your heritage/religion.
As a side note, I do stick up for men when I find women slamming all guys for being "like X" when X is some trait that few/none of the men I know possesses. I don't believe in condoning an -ism through silence, and most of the time, I've found that other people present disliked the comments/"jokes" too, but just didn't want to speak up for various reasons.
Anyway, it doesn't piss me off when trollish pricks make fun of me on that count, just makes me that much more certain that they're losers. If anything, I usually am sitting here snickering at how childish they sound. *grin*
> You just listed 3 qualities that I have never seen > combined in the same woman
Then I feel sorry for you. I'm perfectly sane, I have a great deal of self-respect (which is why I won't date a guy that isn't interested in me as an equal, and yes, that does mean that I prefer to pay my half or for him), I have an IQ over 170 and a bachelor's from Berkeley.
> O buuuutt seriously. be glad we're calling it > "crazy". In a guy, the same things would have > him labeled either "idiot" or "jackass" that get > a woman labeled just.. "crazy".
If somebody of either gender is being a jackass, that's what I'd rather have people call it. Thing is, both genders have a wide range of intelligences and attitudes. Claiming that it's somehow inherent to one kind of person is in itself idiotic, and it'd take a lot less self-respect than I have to feel that being patronized in the manner you're suggesting is something to be *grateful* for -- I'm an adult, not a little kid.
Re:More IT Myths
on
IT Myths
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
> uh yea. slashdot is reflection of reality.
Real people post here... Those are real people's attitudes. *shrug*
Cutting meaningful words down to obscure the actual intent based on the person's gender is *exactly* the kind of shitty behavior I was talking about.
> young women need to stop being irrational, > double-standard holding, over-reactionary, > cat-fighting, back-stabbing, gold-digging, > know it alls.
All you're doing here is displaying the exact same gender-generalizing crap that I pointed out as being a factor AGAINST many Slashdotters getting dates with decent women. Entertainingly, in doing so, you yourself are being an irrational double-standard-holding over-reactionary know-it-all. Your point was again...?
Slashdot Mirror
"And don't give me nonsense about humans who can't speak - that's always either a physical problem, or deafness so they never learned how. Fix those problem and they can speak."
Not in the case of non-speaking autistics -- there's no mechanical failure involved, our brains (like those of other species) simply aren't designed to communicate via spoken words any more than non-human species are. We don't consider that a problem, and happily communicate in other ways; we have no interest in "fixing" the essence of who/what we are just because the average human happens to be different from us.
Your library gets ripped off $80 (which is about right) because you left their books out in the car, yet somehow it's an infringement of your rights to be required to pay for what you deprived them of before you'll be allowed to borrow more of their stuff? Libraries are underfunded as it is; why should they be forced to eat the cost of *you* choosing to leave their books in the car?
Having one kind of impairment doesn't mean the whole body and/or brain doesn't work. What makes you think that having a disablility that makes traversing a forest difficult would have anything to do with aiming a gun, real or virtual?
Think about it: quads and paras are able to drive motorized wheelchairs and properly-equipped *cars* -- aiming a gun isn't likely to be a problem.
Agreement here... If I had mod points, I'd certainly give one to you.
This "online hunting" seems a lot more to me like handing somebody a skateboarding game and claiming that makes up for their inability to use a skateboard designed for somebody with an average body. There's a LOT more to a hobby than just the momentary act.
If they want to accommodate physical disabilities, that's great. But accommodation does *not* involve separating somebody that's different... I don't want a fake version of reality apart from everybody else as a disabled person, I want to be able to participate with those I know/care about. If I can't find a way to do so, I move on to doing something else we *can* all paricipate in.
Given how upset disabled people are right now as we watch many of the support services being cut that others need to survive, if we could set the game up to hunt politicians and charge even a mere $5/month it'd make a *lot* more than targeting animals. :-)
(Unfortunately, we'd also be thrown in jail before the first check reached the bank, but still it's a nice thought.)
In a real-world situation, somebody with a disability that would impair hunting would be busy earning his/her keep doing tasks not affected by the disability. It's not significantly different from a disabled person in a city holding a job that the impairment doesn't directly interfere with... Not every single person has to handle exactly the same tasks, you know. :-)
Not the case. Hunter-gatherer societies were small enough that they could manage to be fairly protective of the rare people that were disabled, whether they were born that way (rare) or injured. Just because somebody becomes disabled doesn't mean their family or friends stop caring about them.
Most of the disabled guys I know have very little problem getting laid (or finding long-term mates); I'm a disabled woman and I certainly haven't found it a problem... Considering this is a site full of *non-disabled* guys that can't manage to get laid, I rather think legalizing prositution would be far more to your advantage than theirs.
That was likely just to make you *feel* safer, as it wouldn't be particularly effective in reality. Ever tried glancing at photos for 10 hours and *really* paying attention to them, especially when half of those photos are outdated? Particularly if you're the inspector and only got 45 minutes of sleep the night before because you were busy stressing/prepping for the election? :)
The real protection is in the multi-step double-checking precincts do to ensure no name comes up twice in the county. The first-time voters are asked for ID (which by law can be as little as a utility statement) just so we can make sure that the person registered actually exists and isn't a fictional entity used for fraud.
I run a precinct, and we don't ask for ID either. If your name isn't already on our list, or if it is crossed out (already voted or listed as absentee) then we file your vote away as "provisional" and it is signature-verified manually by the county before being counted. Additionally, any crook could manufacture a photo ID; asking for one won't stop a determined cheater, just slow the process down.
Not everybody that knows a language thinks in it. Most autistics (including myself) think in motions, tones, colors, textures, music, images, combinations of those, or other sensory-based information. My particular type of thought is the spatially-based colors and textures.
Not technically true -- late 1997 is when Scour.net appeared, and I vaguely remember similar sites (like the *.box.sk network) being present around the same time. There was also the option of using Infoseek (or other search engines) to track down filenames on open FTP servers. It might not have been as easy as it is now, true, but to say that such things simply didn't exist in 1997 at all is inaccurate. :)
Could be a good advertising campaign for female players, though -- "don't have your concentration interrupted by a sudden mess, use the tampons that last!" ;)
Though to be a bit more serious, I always did think it bizarre that guys spending countless hours playing games full of splattering gore will completely freak out at an indirect reference to a period. That's like chasing storms as a hobby, then running away in abject terror at the sight of windshield wipers.
There are also a *lot* of disabilities that make it possible to stand but extremely tiring to walk, and one can certainly be "genuinely" disabled without having a severe mobility impairment! Saying the technology that helps people like that is just "enabling" them to be "lazy" is revoltingly uninformed.
One simple example would be multiple sclerosis. Somebody with MS can be *completely* disabled considerably before they lose the ability to walk, and in fact often never lose it completely. Small amounts of activity can tire them out, so having something like a motorized wheelchair makes the difference between being able to do one short activity before needing to go to bed for the day, and being able to lead something resembling a "good" life. There are many other disorders with the same effect as well.
Some disorders also require sporadic treatment with drugs (like prednisolone) that can cause massive (usually short-term) weight gain. Other times, it becomes a matter of being so impaired on a daily basis that something as simple as taking a shower is a struggle that requires a nap afterwards. It's not surprising that people unable to gather enough energy to do more than shower would ultimately gain weight, especially if they are also put on one of the meds that causes tissue swelling.
I'm not saying all cases are like this. I'm sure that there are people that choose not to exercise, refuse to eat right, and really are just using scooters because they're overweight. But don't go around slamming all people using motorized scooters or similar for being "lazy" when you have no idea how many have a legitimate illness that makes their everyday lives harder than you can even *imagine* life being.
"too proud to use a wheelchair..."
That's not pride... *True* pride is using whatever resources are available to lead life to its fullest, without feeling ashamed to show others we are different. It is a *lack* of pride that would lead a person to restrict his/her enjoyment of life and visibility in public for fear "normal" people see their differences.
(Speaking here as a disabled but not mobility-impaired person, that uses technology to its fullest as I need to lead my life. If others think I'm somehow inferior for not being a clone of them, well, that's a reflection on their own bigotry, not something I'm going to halt MY life over.)
I know this'll doubtless get me modded down at the least, but I completely agree.
My BF told me recently that he really needs to get more RAM, as his Mac is constantly relying on the HD for virtual memory even though it has 512mb and basically all he has open is email and a few Safari windows. That strikes me as completely absurd -- my 256 meg system running XP doesn't grind the HD the way he described unless I *seriously* overload it (running Firefox with 15+ tabs, email, chatting, webcam, music, Photoshop, all simultaneously). Yet people jeer at MS for creating bloatware...? WTF?
I commented here months ago that whenever I found something (spyware-free, virus-free, adware-free etc) game/chat-wise that I thought we could use together, it turned out that there was no Mac equivalent... A Machead snarled that as a user of OS X, my BF should just learn to port stuff from *nix or write his own scripts. Again, WTF? To my logic, if I want to compile/code stuff, I go with a great free *nix OS, and if I want ease-of-use, I pay more to go with XP...paying a *lot* more for a system that will make it harder for me to just do what I want on a computer that then sucks resources to the point of needing huge upgrades just makes no sense to me. Sounds like the only thing that "just works" is Apple's marketing department!
"Wealth is a curse."
That's a fine statement when you can afford food all month. If you're in a financial situation (for example, disabled) where you can't, wealth starts looking pretty damn good -- not because of envy, but because of hunger and possibly homelessness.
"If you really believe in equality you would see that sociey provides so much just because we are here."
Really? Like the fact that disabled adults unable to work are expected to live on *thousands* less than the national poverty level and can't get insurance or decent medical care? Or perhaps like the countless people that are involuntarily without a home and can't find a shelter that isn't either overcrowded or dangerous in the middle of winter?
"We are all better off with the current system than having a revolution based on envy and power lusting miscontents."
You try going a few days without food, then tell us all how wanting a better system is all about envy and power-lusting.
"Get some personal responsibility and learn to live with the fact that shit happens despite your best efforts to nerf the world."
I'm not a parent, but I can say from experience that after you've actually seen a loved one in severe pain or even watched them die, the above poster's attitude comes across not as insightful but inexperienced/immature/ignorant. It's a lot easier to sneer "shit happens" when you haven't had that shit happen to you.
"I don't think electronic voting is any more/less secure then paper ballots/punch machines..."
:-/
I run a precinct up in Northern California, where we're using Scantron forms, and I completely agree. Most people only see how "voting" is done on the surface -- they walk in, mark the ballot, and leave. It gives them a false sense of security, like once they walk through the doors of their precinct they're in some magical fantasy-land where there's no corruption, no mistakes, and so forth. They have no idea how much room for error, incompetence, and or corruption there is to succeed even with all of the double-checking that goes on.
I'm not saying that there aren't potential flaws in an electronic system; obviously there are. However, speaking firsthand, I think an election or two of volunteering would not only reverse people's negative attitudes towards electronic voting, but make them want to ensure human hands never touch their ballots again.
Personally, I *do* want to see Internet-based voting made secure enough to be a reality. There are so many issues with the absentee *and* in-person system that, done properly with enough double-checking, using the Internet would actually be an improvement. We use the Internet for just about everything else, and there's so much corruption in the absentee/real-life process as it is...and there's a lot of good that (again, if properly handled) could come from Internet-based voting.
My view might be skewed, though, by the reality that about half the clerks I've been in charge of had to be eliminated for corruption (you know you're in trouble when the clerk is trying to actively intimidate minorities into not voting), and the other half made serious mistakes due to over-fatigue covering for the bad/no-show volunteers. We corrected them, and all came out well in the end (I think), but all I can think of, knowing the fail-to-show rate here, is how screwy the votes must be for any precinct where only one person, or only the "bad" volunteers, bothered to show up.
Oh, no, much more fun and appealing is to be a metrosexual AND have a gun. After all, if you have to actually physically scuffle with some jerk, it could get your clothes dirty or something. ;-)
Besides, the look on people's faces is probably quite entertaining when they look around and see scented candles...ruffled satin sheets...artistic nature photographs...stylish laptop...new-age relaxation music...and assorted firearms.
(Luckily I already knew of my fiance's fascination with firearms before I wandered into his bedroom and saw that combination... I still raised my eyebrows a bit the first time just because a shotgun is simply not what one's mind expects to notice near a bottle of Herbal Essence shampoo, though.)
I'm not sure which hand one mouses with would actually make that much of a difference.
My father is a thorough leftie and has always used his right hand for mousing without a problem (he started back in the days when mice were symmetrical so this was his choice). I asked him once about it, and he said that for mousing, dominance didn't make much of a difference for him.
Last year, after developing a neurological problems that made lifting my right arm painful, I started mousing with my left hand. It took me almost no time to acclimate, and now as long as I have a non-curved mouse I can use either hand easily depending on which arm is functional.
What I keep wondering is whether there will ever be a mouse that fits or can be adjusted to fit long hands. I find most mice too tiny to use comfortably -- I have to either bend my fingers unnaturally, put my palm in an awkward spot to click, or otherwise hold the mouse in a fashion that puts an unusual strain on my hand/wrist.
The only thing is, there's a bit of a difference between two people of the same group making fun of themselves based on true experience, and one group sneering at another.
You've actually *probably* experienced this yourself. If you're hanging out with a friend, for example, and swapping jokes about being Jewish, you know it's just affectionate/respectful fun. But that's a totally different experience from hanging out with that friend, and having some third guy wander by to make a nasty comment about your heritage/religion.
As a side note, I do stick up for men when I find women slamming all guys for being "like X" when X is some trait that few/none of the men I know possesses. I don't believe in condoning an -ism through silence, and most of the time, I've found that other people present disliked the comments/"jokes" too, but just didn't want to speak up for various reasons.
Anyway, it doesn't piss me off when trollish pricks make fun of me on that count, just makes me that much more certain that they're losers. If anything, I usually am sitting here snickering at how childish they sound. *grin*
"...sane self-respecting intelligent"
> You just listed 3 qualities that I have never seen
> combined in the same woman
Then I feel sorry for you. I'm perfectly sane, I have a great deal of self-respect (which is why I won't date a guy that isn't interested in me as an equal, and yes, that does mean that I prefer to pay my half or for him), I have an IQ over 170 and a bachelor's from Berkeley.
> O buuuutt seriously. be glad we're calling it
> "crazy". In a guy, the same things would have
> him labeled either "idiot" or "jackass" that get
> a woman labeled just.. "crazy".
If somebody of either gender is being a jackass, that's what I'd rather have people call it. Thing is, both genders have a wide range of intelligences and attitudes. Claiming that it's somehow inherent to one kind of person is in itself idiotic, and it'd take a lot less self-respect than I have to feel that being patronized in the manner you're suggesting is something to be *grateful* for -- I'm an adult, not a little kid.
> uh yea. slashdot is reflection of reality.
Real people post here... Those are real people's attitudes. *shrug*
> "(blah blah blah snip)sexist jackass(blah blah
> blah snip)"
Cutting meaningful words down to obscure the actual intent based on the person's gender is *exactly* the kind of shitty behavior I was talking about.
> young women need to stop being irrational,
> double-standard holding, over-reactionary,
> cat-fighting, back-stabbing, gold-digging,
> know it alls.
All you're doing here is displaying the exact same gender-generalizing crap that I pointed out as being a factor AGAINST many Slashdotters getting dates with decent women. Entertainingly, in doing so, you yourself are being an irrational double-standard-holding over-reactionary know-it-all. Your point was again...?