I don't do that, because I don't have this problem, so I can't really answer that. But what the hell, I'll try: perhaps it's not the man's inadequacy, perhaps it's the woman's demanding and manipulative personality. Especially if they're married. I mean, what's he gonna do, divorce her over the stupid passive aggressive games she's playing? Yeah, then it's not sex and no money while he's paying her alimony. Easier to just watch the show and write a scathing review.
And no, not marrying such a bitch is not an option, unless you want to imply that women aren't smart enough to hold off on playing these games until they've secured a defensible position (as in being owed alimony and half the household property). Give women some credit, here; even the most vicious of the lot aren't stupid.
Never said I was. I'm going to assume you didn't mean to come across as condescending and just let you know that you did.
You should be secure enough to be able to do so in any relationship.
There's that condescension again.
For a truly healthy relationship, that extends beyond TV watching habits.
And for the purpose of this discussion, which is about TV viewing habits, it, necessarily, does not. That said, yes, a relationship centered around liking the same TV shows would suck pretty damn hard. No, the reality is that my wife and I enjoy a lot of the same activities, and we do those activities together; and we introduce each other to new experiences, but we also don't push past the point where one of us decides we don't like something; that activity then becomes an "alone" activity, or something done with friends. And we're both secure enough to not worry about who those friends are. I'd say that's a pretty healthy relationship.
So, by grow a pair, do you mean tell her you're not watching the show, then end the relationship if she's going to still demand it and hold sex over your head if you don't comply? Some of these women are smart, you know, and wait until marriage (read: alimony) to start those games; the man gets punished either way for not complying with the woman's wishes. But yes, we men have all the power, so we're always the aggressors, right?
Maybe these women (a small minority, mind you) should grow a pair themselves and realize that there are consequences to trying to manipulate someone, especially if they've caught on and start fighting back. Some of these women aren't so lucky as to only have a negative review written about their favorite show, a lot of physical abuse is the direct result of these games. That's not to defend those men, they should show some restraint and not beat a woman over a tv show or some sex, but the woman (in those specific instances) could have avoided the whole ordeal by not playing stupid games.
And I say this as a victim of abuse. I dated a girl for a while who was... very opinionated. If I didn't agree with her it was a huge ordeal, screaming, yelling, throwing things, and if that didn't work she'd take a swing at me. Without fail I'd avoid her punch and she'd hit a wall, table, door, whatever else, and hurt herself, ending the argument. If it was minor, a bruise on her knuckle or something, I'd laugh at her for it; a few times she sprained, fractured, or broke something and that was less funny. I always said if she ever actually managed to hit me it would be over, I'd be gone, but it never got that far; she came at me with a knife one time and that was it. I got the knife away from her, started walking to the kitchen to put it away, and she ran up behind me and grabbed the blade (duh, what? why?) because (her words) "I thought you were going to stab me with it". Well, for starters, she'd have deserved it... after all, isnt that what she just tried to do to me? But I was walking away from her, in no way threatening, just relieved that nobody got hurt this time. Then BAM! She grabs the blade and, well, there goes that... trip to th ER, several stitches, and I get to look like an abusive asshole. That was it, I left after that.
But yeah, men have all the power, men are always the aggressors, right? Fuck off with that.
As for what's a "man's" or "woman's" activity: to those who actually recognize a difference (read: those who have these problems), anything the other gender expects them to do that they don't want to do. There are women out there who believe sex is a man's activity, for example, while men writing negative reviews of Sex and the City after being forced to watch it might think watching it is a woman's activity.
And as crappy as those relationships might be, if a man is faced with the choice between paying alimony (he doesn't have to watch his wife's shows anymore, but also no sex, so double-punishment when you stack it on top of alimony) and writing a review that might be read by the show's producer and lead to changes that might make the show more interesting to him, well... one of those can have a positive outcome for the man. You call it acting out, I call it making the best of a bad situation and trying in the limited way possible to improve things. Admittedly, Sex and the City is a bad example bexause the series has ended so, no, it isn't going to get better; but, then it's also a bad example of men sabotaging women's TV since the series already ended before the reviews were written. So, I guess I'll counter your questuon with one of my own: what does a review of a show that has already ended have to do with sabotaging women's TV shows?
How is that passive aggressive? If I have to watch it, I'm gonna do what I can to make the situation better for myself. It's not about complaining for the sake of complaining, it's about using the only channel available to attenpt to improve one's situation. Tha alternative, for those affected men, is to talk to their wives about it, be told "no Sex and the City, no sex" and either deal with that or divorce the bitch (and yes, anyone who plays those games is a bitch) and pay alimony for the foreseeable future. Or should we men just sit down, shut up, and take whatever women dish out?
Passive aggressive? How's holding sex over a man's head to get what you want (and then "having a headache" and not holding up your end) not passive aggressive? So even if you're right, even if the men writing these reviews are doing so out of passive aggression, why do women not expect that in response to their own passive aggression, and why are they not adult enough to accept it as the result of their actions?
Here's a hint: most do expect such a measured response (equal to the infraction the man is responding to) and accept it as fair. There are a very tiny and very vocal minority of women who view anything men do for themselves, or in response to the actions of a woman, as unfair; these women are bitches and should be ignored as such, not spoonfed positive reinforcement for the conflict they create. Don't get me wrong, the small but vocal minority of men who do the same shit (assholes) deserve plenty of credit for their contribution to the problem, but let's do the right thing, treat men and women as equals, and let the women (specifically bitches) have their share of the blame.
When we quit rewarding aggression (and a defensive response such as writing a review of something you know you are going to have to watch again in the hope that your voice is heard is certainly a defensive move) from either gender and treating aggressors like royalty, bowing down to them and kissing their asses, maybe we'll see some improvement in our society. It comes down to respect: my wife and I don't have these issues because we respect each other enough not to play stupid games. Sure, we joke, but that's all it is, just jokes; if I ever actually forced her ro perform a sex act in exchange for something she wanted me to do or buy for her, well, I'd be an asshole (and I'm not, at least by that measure). And if she ever actually withheld sex because I didn't watch a tv show with her, well, she'd be a bitch (which she is not).
Ask yourself, and answer honestly because this is for your own good (not just the poster I'm replying to; everyone who reads this): are you a bitch/asshole? Every time you demand something of someone, consider whether you are threatening punishment for noncompliance or if you are offering (or have already done or given) something equal in return. If the former, well, I hate to break it to you...
I view it as men voicing their opinion on something they're forced to endure under duress. Maybe they hold some hope that their voices will be heard and the show will incorporate some element to appeal to them since they're stuck watching it. Women want themselves included in men's activities, why is it wrong for us to expect the same?
Mhm. That's kind of what I was saying. Women aren't reviewing stuff they aren't watching (and neither are men), while men are reviewing stuff they are watching (and when they don't want to be watching it, they leave a poor review as a result).
I wasn't counting sports because A) I have no interest and B) I didn't think Monday Nigh Football would actually have ratings on IMDB. Turns out it does and some of the highest are from women. That said, the game is a social event (as you describe it) and the woman isn't being forced to make dinner for the man's friends, she's being hospitable to guests in her home (including the females of the group) and could just as well tell her husband to order some damn pizzas, no? And while she's in the kitchen she's not watching the game, while she's chatting she's not watching the game, in fact, it's not her husband holding sex (or anything else) over her head, it's her wanting to please her guests.
Not that there aren't better examples, just that yours sucked at illustrating your point. Come back with something better and we'll talk.
Actually, I'm in the room watching the same show because, as I said:
Fortunately, my wife and i enjoy the same shows, pretty much across the board, and respect each other enough to not force each other to watch what we don't like, so we don't have that issue.
But, again, if I have to endure it, I'm giving my input before, during, and after.
Not really; a lot of men are forced (under penalty of no sex) to watch their wife's shows, while men don't play the same game. That means men get stuck watching crap they don't like while women do not. Men, then, vent by reviewing the crap they have to watch, hoping that their voices will be heard and the experience will improve for them. Women, not being forced into watching men's shows, don't do this.
And yes, if you are going to force me into something, I am going to throw my weight around to make the situation more favorable for me.
Fortunately, my wife and i enjoy the same shows, pretty much across the board, and respect each other enough to not force each other to watch what we don't like, so we don't have that issue. My wife is not most women, though, and I am not most men, so I'm not speaking from personal experience, but simply relaying experiences shared with me by my other married friends. And if you don't want to take my word for it, fine, don't; read the rest of the discussion on this topic for a couple hundred other examples.
Yes, if that were happening, it would also be a problem. The school system shouldn't be telling anyone what field they should get into, it should be left to personal preference. Expose students to as many fields as reasonably possible (yes, including cotton) and let them decide what fits.
Sadly, though, he's absolutely right: hiring policies which take into account one's race, gender, or age do lead to missing out on top talent. Whether you're not hiring the black guy because he's black or you're not hiring the white guy because you "need" more black employees (because reasons?), your hiring criteria is no longer solely based on qualification and you will miss out on good talent and, inevitably, hire an inordinate percentage of poor-quality employees.
Note where I also mention age. A lot of tech companies don't want to hire anyone over 30 and that's coming back to bite the tech sector as a whole, in a very real way. Yes, don't hire people with experience. You know, people who've made (and learned from) the dumb mistakes, who've already solved the problems your company is going to encounter, who've been around the block a time or two and have seen things done the wrong way (and even, perhaps, done it themselves) enough times to know better today. Yeah, them. DO NOT HIRE. That seems wise.
I almost wasn't going to touch on gender because, honestly, it's just silly that it would even be considered. Well... it should be silly, but the reality is that, while the vast majority of women just want to come to work, do their job, and keep their noses clean just like the vast majority of men, a very small but very active and vocal (and damaging) minority of women have caused enough problems as to make women a liability in some workplaces. It's not that women complain when they're harassed; they should complain about that, and those who do are not the minority group I am talking about; I'm referring to those who complain about harassment where there was none. No, I don't think false harassment complaints are more prevalent than real ones, but the way harassment is handled in many cases is very "cover the company's ass", requiring the accused to prove they didn't do whatever was claimed, rather than the other way around. And, since you can't prove a negative... well... Like I said, very small minority, but very vocal, active, and damaging. Damaging to their own, that is, because a lot of companies will look for any excuse not to hire all but the most qualified of women as a result.
Should any of this be the way it is? No, I don't think so. I don't think age, gender, or race should ever factor into the hiring process, with very few exceptions. Exceptions like requiring applicants to be at least 18 to work in your restaurant if you serve liquor (this is a law in some places) or only hiring actors the same race and gender as the characters they're portraying; you know, where it's reasonable to expect that these things might be considered.
But no, we have affirmative action laws that require a company's employee population to roughly match the racial makeup of the wider population. I get it, those laws are meant to stamp out racism in the workplace, but here's the thing: they don't work. Not only do they lead to passing over a more qualified person because they're not of the race you need to hire at that moment, they don't actually do anything to curb workplace racism. Sure, the black guy or indian girl might get the job but, if the employer is racist, they won't get the same pay. What's a better solution? I don't know, but it probably starts with not forcing the employers who aren't going to treat them equally to hire them, so their job hunt ends with finding a workplace where they will be treated as equals. Will some people be offended when they walk into a place and see an all white male workforce, or all black, or all indian, all mexican, all whatever? Sure! And they should be; they should be offended enough to turn around, walk out, and not do business with that company. Take away companies' ability to point to the law and say "but we're compliant" when they're really not treating their employees equally; we've move forward enough, as a society, that the rest will sor
Must've been a while since you saw the movie. They did a complete psychological workup on the guy before the game started. One could argue that it's fiction and you have to suspend disbelief to think they could actually predict how he would behave in various situations, but there are more than a handful of people in the entertainment industry who make their living doing just that with a rate of accuracy so close to 100% as to be indistinguishable, so maybe the disbelief that must be suspended is a disbelief in reality.
it therefore follows that no children are autistic.
Uhm, I think you've perhaps not read BitZtream's entire post. If you'd made it just past the half-way point, you'd have read the following:
YES, there are children with real social issues, but thats a small percentage of the ones diagnosed as such.
And he's spot on about the vast majority of "autistic" kids, as well as the actual autistic kids.
Proof? I happen to know a couple, serial foster parents, who take in diagnosed autistic children as they enter the family services (family court) system, until they find a permanent adoptive home of reach legal age and become wards of the state. Last I'd heard, they'd fostered over 15 "diagnosed autistic" kids and, of those, 12 diagnoses were reversed within a year of them taking custody and imparting some structure, guidance, and (gentle) discipline into their lives. Now, these are kids the state gave them custody of with the explicit direction that, because they had a diagnosed mental condition, they must visit a psychotherapist at least once per month for the duration of their custody; if the reversal of a prior diagnosis was incorrect, there are 12 opportunities per year for the diagnosis to be re-applied. And it's the state providing mental health services as the children are technically wards of the state; it's not one doctor trying to save his reputation, it's whoever's available at the clinic the day of the appointment.
I don't have documentation because, on top of being private medical records, it's tied up in the family services system and I'm not directly involved so I can't get my hands on that; you can take my word for it or not, doesn't really matter to me. If you do take me on my word, though, that's an 80% false positive rate, which is pretty much in line with BitZtream's comment.
Not always. Case in point: me. Don't make absolute statements unless you are absolutely positive they're true or you're willing to be proven wrong. The biggest issue I see on the highways of northern California is passing on the right, something that is often unavoidable (if you want to actually get where you're going in a reasonable amount of time) due to people doing 55 in the left lane of a 65MPH interstate.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't do that, because I don't have this problem, so I can't really answer that. But what the hell, I'll try: perhaps it's not the man's inadequacy, perhaps it's the woman's demanding and manipulative personality. Especially if they're married. I mean, what's he gonna do, divorce her over the stupid passive aggressive games she's playing? Yeah, then it's not sex and no money while he's paying her alimony. Easier to just watch the show and write a scathing review.
And no, not marrying such a bitch is not an option, unless you want to imply that women aren't smart enough to hold off on playing these games until they've secured a defensible position (as in being owed alimony and half the household property). Give women some credit, here; even the most vicious of the lot aren't stupid.
You are not alone (not a snowflake;)
Never said I was. I'm going to assume you didn't mean to come across as condescending and just let you know that you did.
You should be secure enough to be able to do so in any relationship.
There's that condescension again.
For a truly healthy relationship, that extends beyond TV watching habits.
And for the purpose of this discussion, which is about TV viewing habits, it, necessarily, does not. That said, yes, a relationship centered around liking the same TV shows would suck pretty damn hard. No, the reality is that my wife and I enjoy a lot of the same activities, and we do those activities together; and we introduce each other to new experiences, but we also don't push past the point where one of us decides we don't like something; that activity then becomes an "alone" activity, or something done with friends. And we're both secure enough to not worry about who those friends are. I'd say that's a pretty healthy relationship.
So, by grow a pair, do you mean tell her you're not watching the show, then end the relationship if she's going to still demand it and hold sex over your head if you don't comply? Some of these women are smart, you know, and wait until marriage (read: alimony) to start those games; the man gets punished either way for not complying with the woman's wishes. But yes, we men have all the power, so we're always the aggressors, right?
Maybe these women (a small minority, mind you) should grow a pair themselves and realize that there are consequences to trying to manipulate someone, especially if they've caught on and start fighting back. Some of these women aren't so lucky as to only have a negative review written about their favorite show, a lot of physical abuse is the direct result of these games. That's not to defend those men, they should show some restraint and not beat a woman over a tv show or some sex, but the woman (in those specific instances) could have avoided the whole ordeal by not playing stupid games.
And I say this as a victim of abuse. I dated a girl for a while who was... very opinionated. If I didn't agree with her it was a huge ordeal, screaming, yelling, throwing things, and if that didn't work she'd take a swing at me. Without fail I'd avoid her punch and she'd hit a wall, table, door, whatever else, and hurt herself, ending the argument. If it was minor, a bruise on her knuckle or something, I'd laugh at her for it; a few times she sprained, fractured, or broke something and that was less funny. I always said if she ever actually managed to hit me it would be over, I'd be gone, but it never got that far; she came at me with a knife one time and that was it. I got the knife away from her, started walking to the kitchen to put it away, and she ran up behind me and grabbed the blade (duh, what? why?) because (her words) "I thought you were going to stab me with it". Well, for starters, she'd have deserved it... after all, isnt that what she just tried to do to me? But I was walking away from her, in no way threatening, just relieved that nobody got hurt this time. Then BAM! She grabs the blade and, well, there goes that... trip to th ER, several stitches, and I get to look like an abusive asshole. That was it, I left after that.
But yeah, men have all the power, men are always the aggressors, right? Fuck off with that.
As for what's a "man's" or "woman's" activity: to those who actually recognize a difference (read: those who have these problems), anything the other gender expects them to do that they don't want to do. There are women out there who believe sex is a man's activity, for example, while men writing negative reviews of Sex and the City after being forced to watch it might think watching it is a woman's activity.
And as crappy as those relationships might be, if a man is faced with the choice between paying alimony (he doesn't have to watch his wife's shows anymore, but also no sex, so double-punishment when you stack it on top of alimony) and writing a review that might be read by the show's producer and lead to changes that might make the show more interesting to him, well... one of those can have a positive outcome for the man. You call it acting out, I call it making the best of a bad situation and trying in the limited way possible to improve things. Admittedly, Sex and the City is a bad example bexause the series has ended so, no, it isn't going to get better; but, then it's also a bad example of men sabotaging women's TV since the series already ended before the reviews were written. So, I guess I'll counter your questuon with one of my own: what does a review of a show that has already ended have to do with sabotaging women's TV shows?
How is that passive aggressive? If I have to watch it, I'm gonna do what I can to make the situation better for myself. It's not about complaining for the sake of complaining, it's about using the only channel available to attenpt to improve one's situation. Tha alternative, for those affected men, is to talk to their wives about it, be told "no Sex and the City, no sex" and either deal with that or divorce the bitch (and yes, anyone who plays those games is a bitch) and pay alimony for the foreseeable future. Or should we men just sit down, shut up, and take whatever women dish out?
Passive aggressive? How's holding sex over a man's head to get what you want (and then "having a headache" and not holding up your end) not passive aggressive? So even if you're right, even if the men writing these reviews are doing so out of passive aggression, why do women not expect that in response to their own passive aggression, and why are they not adult enough to accept it as the result of their actions?
Here's a hint: most do expect such a measured response (equal to the infraction the man is responding to) and accept it as fair. There are a very tiny and very vocal minority of women who view anything men do for themselves, or in response to the actions of a woman, as unfair; these women are bitches and should be ignored as such, not spoonfed positive reinforcement for the conflict they create. Don't get me wrong, the small but vocal minority of men who do the same shit (assholes) deserve plenty of credit for their contribution to the problem, but let's do the right thing, treat men and women as equals, and let the women (specifically bitches) have their share of the blame.
When we quit rewarding aggression (and a defensive response such as writing a review of something you know you are going to have to watch again in the hope that your voice is heard is certainly a defensive move) from either gender and treating aggressors like royalty, bowing down to them and kissing their asses, maybe we'll see some improvement in our society. It comes down to respect: my wife and I don't have these issues because we respect each other enough not to play stupid games. Sure, we joke, but that's all it is, just jokes; if I ever actually forced her ro perform a sex act in exchange for something she wanted me to do or buy for her, well, I'd be an asshole (and I'm not, at least by that measure). And if she ever actually withheld sex because I didn't watch a tv show with her, well, she'd be a bitch (which she is not).
Ask yourself, and answer honestly because this is for your own good (not just the poster I'm replying to; everyone who reads this): are you a bitch/asshole? Every time you demand something of someone, consider whether you are threatening punishment for noncompliance or if you are offering (or have already done or given) something equal in return. If the former, well, I hate to break it to you...
I view it as men voicing their opinion on something they're forced to endure under duress. Maybe they hold some hope that their voices will be heard and the show will incorporate some element to appeal to them since they're stuck watching it. Women want themselves included in men's activities, why is it wrong for us to expect the same?
Mhm. That's kind of what I was saying. Women aren't reviewing stuff they aren't watching (and neither are men), while men are reviewing stuff they are watching (and when they don't want to be watching it, they leave a poor review as a result).
Or Slashdot's nesting is messed up and I thought you were replying to me. I see now that you were not.
I wasn't counting sports because A) I have no interest and B) I didn't think Monday Nigh Football would actually have ratings on IMDB. Turns out it does and some of the highest are from women. That said, the game is a social event (as you describe it) and the woman isn't being forced to make dinner for the man's friends, she's being hospitable to guests in her home (including the females of the group) and could just as well tell her husband to order some damn pizzas, no? And while she's in the kitchen she's not watching the game, while she's chatting she's not watching the game, in fact, it's not her husband holding sex (or anything else) over her head, it's her wanting to please her guests.
Not that there aren't better examples, just that yours sucked at illustrating your point. Come back with something better and we'll talk.
Uh, I think you replied to the wrong post...
Fortunately, my wife and i enjoy the same shows, pretty much across the board, and respect each other enough to not force each other to watch what we don't like, so we don't have that issue.
But, again, if I have to endure it, I'm giving my input before, during, and after.
Right, that's a different, but complimentary, point.
Not really; a lot of men are forced (under penalty of no sex) to watch their wife's shows, while men don't play the same game. That means men get stuck watching crap they don't like while women do not. Men, then, vent by reviewing the crap they have to watch, hoping that their voices will be heard and the experience will improve for them. Women, not being forced into watching men's shows, don't do this.
And yes, if you are going to force me into something, I am going to throw my weight around to make the situation more favorable for me.
Fortunately, my wife and i enjoy the same shows, pretty much across the board, and respect each other enough to not force each other to watch what we don't like, so we don't have that issue. My wife is not most women, though, and I am not most men, so I'm not speaking from personal experience, but simply relaying experiences shared with me by my other married friends. And if you don't want to take my word for it, fine, don't; read the rest of the discussion on this topic for a couple hundred other examples.
So, then, it's not that men are more likely to give a crappy review, it's that women (like men) don't review things they don't watch.
Point, set, match. Good game, sir.
No, I don't think Cortana was left out. Nobody has used Cortana yet in order to determine "her" worth.
To be fair, Amazon relays a certain subset of Echo requests to Google, so... yeah, now it'll all be in one place.
To be fair, if you're too stoned to walk in public.................
Yes, if that were happening, it would also be a problem. The school system shouldn't be telling anyone what field they should get into, it should be left to personal preference. Expose students to as many fields as reasonably possible (yes, including cotton) and let them decide what fits.
Sadly, though, he's absolutely right: hiring policies which take into account one's race, gender, or age do lead to missing out on top talent. Whether you're not hiring the black guy because he's black or you're not hiring the white guy because you "need" more black employees (because reasons?), your hiring criteria is no longer solely based on qualification and you will miss out on good talent and, inevitably, hire an inordinate percentage of poor-quality employees.
Note where I also mention age. A lot of tech companies don't want to hire anyone over 30 and that's coming back to bite the tech sector as a whole, in a very real way. Yes, don't hire people with experience. You know, people who've made (and learned from) the dumb mistakes, who've already solved the problems your company is going to encounter, who've been around the block a time or two and have seen things done the wrong way (and even, perhaps, done it themselves) enough times to know better today. Yeah, them. DO NOT HIRE. That seems wise.
I almost wasn't going to touch on gender because, honestly, it's just silly that it would even be considered. Well... it should be silly, but the reality is that, while the vast majority of women just want to come to work, do their job, and keep their noses clean just like the vast majority of men, a very small but very active and vocal (and damaging) minority of women have caused enough problems as to make women a liability in some workplaces. It's not that women complain when they're harassed; they should complain about that, and those who do are not the minority group I am talking about; I'm referring to those who complain about harassment where there was none. No, I don't think false harassment complaints are more prevalent than real ones, but the way harassment is handled in many cases is very "cover the company's ass", requiring the accused to prove they didn't do whatever was claimed, rather than the other way around. And, since you can't prove a negative... well... Like I said, very small minority, but very vocal, active, and damaging. Damaging to their own, that is, because a lot of companies will look for any excuse not to hire all but the most qualified of women as a result.
Should any of this be the way it is? No, I don't think so. I don't think age, gender, or race should ever factor into the hiring process, with very few exceptions. Exceptions like requiring applicants to be at least 18 to work in your restaurant if you serve liquor (this is a law in some places) or only hiring actors the same race and gender as the characters they're portraying; you know, where it's reasonable to expect that these things might be considered.
But no, we have affirmative action laws that require a company's employee population to roughly match the racial makeup of the wider population. I get it, those laws are meant to stamp out racism in the workplace, but here's the thing: they don't work. Not only do they lead to passing over a more qualified person because they're not of the race you need to hire at that moment, they don't actually do anything to curb workplace racism. Sure, the black guy or indian girl might get the job but, if the employer is racist, they won't get the same pay. What's a better solution? I don't know, but it probably starts with not forcing the employers who aren't going to treat them equally to hire them, so their job hunt ends with finding a workplace where they will be treated as equals. Will some people be offended when they walk into a place and see an all white male workforce, or all black, or all indian, all mexican, all whatever? Sure! And they should be; they should be offended enough to turn around, walk out, and not do business with that company. Take away companies' ability to point to the law and say "but we're compliant" when they're really not treating their employees equally; we've move forward enough, as a society, that the rest will sor
Must've been a while since you saw the movie. They did a complete psychological workup on the guy before the game started. One could argue that it's fiction and you have to suspend disbelief to think they could actually predict how he would behave in various situations, but there are more than a handful of people in the entertainment industry who make their living doing just that with a rate of accuracy so close to 100% as to be indistinguishable, so maybe the disbelief that must be suspended is a disbelief in reality.
^-- Says the AC...
'a repeat of something that was humorous a while ago under a different context'
like your sig?
I'm here all night, try the veal.
it therefore follows that no children are autistic.
Uhm, I think you've perhaps not read BitZtream's entire post. If you'd made it just past the half-way point, you'd have read the following:
YES, there are children with real social issues, but thats a small percentage of the ones diagnosed as such.
And he's spot on about the vast majority of "autistic" kids, as well as the actual autistic kids.
Proof? I happen to know a couple, serial foster parents, who take in diagnosed autistic children as they enter the family services (family court) system, until they find a permanent adoptive home of reach legal age and become wards of the state. Last I'd heard, they'd fostered over 15 "diagnosed autistic" kids and, of those, 12 diagnoses were reversed within a year of them taking custody and imparting some structure, guidance, and (gentle) discipline into their lives. Now, these are kids the state gave them custody of with the explicit direction that, because they had a diagnosed mental condition, they must visit a psychotherapist at least once per month for the duration of their custody; if the reversal of a prior diagnosis was incorrect, there are 12 opportunities per year for the diagnosis to be re-applied. And it's the state providing mental health services as the children are technically wards of the state; it's not one doctor trying to save his reputation, it's whoever's available at the clinic the day of the appointment.
I don't have documentation because, on top of being private medical records, it's tied up in the family services system and I'm not directly involved so I can't get my hands on that; you can take my word for it or not, doesn't really matter to me. If you do take me on my word, though, that's an 80% false positive rate, which is pretty much in line with BitZtream's comment.
You also misused QED, if that makes you feel any better.
Not always. Case in point: me. Don't make absolute statements unless you are absolutely positive they're true or you're willing to be proven wrong. The biggest issue I see on the highways of northern California is passing on the right, something that is often unavoidable (if you want to actually get where you're going in a reasonable amount of time) due to people doing 55 in the left lane of a 65MPH interstate.