# how people should be judged

Category: Let's talk

## Post 1 by yarden_lyre (Newborn Zoner) on Saturday, 16-Sep-2006 16:06:24

I see that sighted people judge a new people that they meet the first time, with their eyes. they look at the new person they have just met, and they jugde him through what they see in their eyes. that is really wrong. I think that people should be judged by their personality and not by how they look like. what do you think?

## Post 2 by laced-unlaced (Account disabled) on Saturday, 16-Sep-2006 16:09:38

i agree with you yarden.
someone may look really bad, but there persinality might be really nice. you never know, even though someone has bad looks, they might just be the best person you have met.
i think that sort of attitude is wrong. why can't sighted people give others a chance.
the only way a blind person can really judge someone is there persinality

## Post 3 by b3n (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Saturday, 16-Sep-2006 16:17:08

Its allright for us to say that as blind people, but you have to remember that if a sited or parshally sited guy looks at a girl, there gonna be put of if there not fit aren't they?
I guessthey just can't help it.
BEN.

## Post 4 by laced-unlaced (Account disabled) on Saturday, 16-Sep-2006 16:32:56

why? to me, i don't care if they are fit or not

## Post 5 by shea (number one pulse checking chicky) on Saturday, 16-Sep-2006 16:36:58

yeah, I would have to agree with BEN. It's easy to say your wouldn't judge someone by there appearance if you can't see them. It don't always work out that way. I have only been blind for going on six years. I'm here to tell you, as wrong as this may sound. If two peple came up to you and wanted to give you there number. your going to be more apt to talk to the one that takes care of himself and cares about there appearance. It's just a part of life. It naturally happens. I'm not saying beeing rude to the other one is right. But the one that takes care of themself is more likely to catch your eye. I still care about appearance. They may be the nicest 'person, and not care about what they look like. that's a major turn off for me. I'm not saying they have to be like extremely hot, but they better try to take care of them self! , In saying this. Even in the blind world, people tend to go by voices. I know i catch myself judging people by what they sound like. I know that's probably wrong, but it just happens.
Smiles. shea

## Post 6 by b3n (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Saturday, 16-Sep-2006 16:50:53

Dan, the only reason you don't care if there not fit or not is coz you can't see.
I also find myself going by the voice aswell.
BEN.

## Post 7 by DancingAfterDark (I just keep on posting!) on Saturday, 16-Sep-2006 17:07:53

Shea pretty much said whatever I might have said. Blind people do tend to do that with the voices, basing their attraction to someone (or lack thereof) on the voice. It's all about what's pleasing to you, and in the case of sighted people, things that are visually pleasing will of course appeal to them, just as with blind people, things that are...erm...auditorially pleasing will be appealing. Not sure that's a word, but hopefully you understand the point.
I don't necessarily think that a person's entire opinion of someone should be based on something like looks or voice, but it's perfectly natural for those things to be factors. The only reason you feel it's wrong is because, as has already been pointed out, it's not something you can understand, as you're not a visual person.

## Post 8 by The Roman Battle Mask (Making great use of my Employer's time.) on Saturday, 16-Sep-2006 21:45:03

I judge people as harshly as possible until they prove me wrong that way I'm not disapointed.

## Post 9 by Goblin (I have proven to myself and the world that I need mental help) on Sunday, 17-Sep-2006 8:13:33

As a goth I'm judged constantly and treated accordingly which I see as an indictment on society. I'm glad to be unable to see their nasty disapproving fake smiles.

## Post 10 by Bryan (This site is so "educational") on Sunday, 17-Sep-2006 10:25:50

i agree with angel77,

## Post 11 by nikos (English words from a Greek thinking brain) on Sunday, 17-Sep-2006 10:38:17

Personality and character are the most important but to be honest how people look like or sound like are also important.
Maybe blind people don't care as much about how people look but i am sure we wouldn't like it if for example somebody didn't smell good even if this person was the best personality and character so i think it is a lie just to say that we only care about personality.
But as i said if i had to choose between good looking and good personality i would probaply choose personality but if i could have both i wouldn't say no lol.

## Post 12 by Godzilla-On-Toast (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Sunday, 17-Sep-2006 20:28:51

I dunno. See, I'm not an idealist, so I'm not interested in fixing society as a whole. I have two bits of advice. First, whoever you are, people will judge you, period. Thing is, most of these self-appointed critics do not know you and probably don't care to know you. There's no point in pleasing a bunch of people you'll probably not want in your life in the first place. I am not advocating people groom themselves poorly or sloppily, but in the end, like the old song says, you can't please everyone so you've got to please yourself. Second, instead of giving yourselves headaches trying to change everybody else's minds, it may be a better idea to just make yourself an example of how you wish others to be. Some folks will get it and some folks won't and there's nothing wrong with that.

## Post 13 by UnknownQuantity (Account disabled) on Monday, 18-Sep-2006 4:27:01

Although it is a shame, it is a sad fact of reality that people are going to judge based on looks as well as personality, wrong or shallow as it is, people are going to, the same way people who are blind go on voice etc, sited people are going to go by looks. Now, don't get me wrong, that is not all they are going to go on, but it is going to make up at least some of the impression.

## Post 14 by The Roman Battle Mask (Making great use of my Employer's time.) on Monday, 18-Sep-2006 4:52:20

The bottom line is I want to be harpooning a dulfin with my flesh harpoon not a fucking blue wail.

## Post 15 by Goblin (I have proven to myself and the world that I need mental help) on Monday, 18-Sep-2006 10:00:37

Godzilla I couldn't agree more.

## Post 16 by Godzilla-On-Toast (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Monday, 18-Sep-2006 20:44:28

Oh, let me add one more little thought. It's not just the sighted that judge blind people unfairly. We can be unfairly judged by our fellow blind folks for any number of reasons. I'll let the rest of you come up with some of those reasons.

## Post 17 by DancingAfterDark (I just keep on posting!) on Tuesday, 19-Sep-2006 4:43:43

Lmfao Jared! Your charm never ceases to amaze.

## Post 18 by Goblin (I have proven to myself and the world that I need mental help) on Tuesday, 19-Sep-2006 8:11:13

Godzilla I've been judged unfairly for living instead of existing, for daring to push the limits of what is supposed to be possible.It's ridiculous, but I have to laugh at the knuckle draggers for adhereing to the destructive mantra of I can't and have no intention of trying.

## Post 19 by Godzilla-On-Toast (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Tuesday, 19-Sep-2006 14:42:40

But ya see, those folks you call knuckle-draggers will be judged by folks who see themselves as model independent people. What good is that?It's not going to change their attitude. You can't fix everybody.

## Post 20 by Raskolnikov (I'll have the last word, thank you!) on Tuesday, 19-Sep-2006 19:05:12

I'm reminded of the first time I associated with my blind peers. I stood there considering their words as they held a debate over who was more handsomer or prettier. The girls said that compared with Tom Cruise, Leonardo Decaprio was handsomer, and the boys said that compared with Mariah Carey, Jennifer Lopez was prettier.
I had to laugh inwardly as I reflected on the fact that such topics could be passionately debated by blind adolescents without realizing the obvious.
As I see it, though, a lot has to do with what the sighted world says about looks. If someone from the sighted world says this or that person is good looking, the blind hold onto that and it influences the way in which they conceive of beauty. When they don't hear such accolades or praise showered upon them, automatically they feel invisible. It's not that different from the sighted world.
The world is full of ugly and pretty people, and at the same time what one person considers ugly the other might consider pretty.
My advice: It's impossible to be esteemed by everyone, so we may as well make an effort to be esteemed only when we know we're truly loved of those by whom we desire to be esteemed. Only in this case, I believe, is it worthwhile to make an effort to be accepted by anyone.

## Post 21 by Godzilla-On-Toast (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Wednesday, 20-Sep-2006 1:06:47

Which kind of harkens back to my earlier post. Sure, I want friends and people who like me, but not everybody, thank you. I'll take a small group of devoted like-minded folks over a thundering herd any day.
As for my standards of beauty, they have nothing to do with what the sighted world believes and in fact, they ahve nothing to do with the physical body. A long time ago I decided that just becaue a person was beautiful physically did not mean they were beautiful in other ways. OK, so the sighted world judges beauty on the physical outside only. Good for them! I think I'll do something different which makes more sense to me.

## Post 22 by Raskolnikov (I'll have the last word, thank you!) on Wednesday, 20-Sep-2006 17:48:48

Godzilla on toast, I agree with you one hundred percent.
Speaking as one who knows what the sighted world considers ugly or pretty, I understand how physical beauty can get in the way of seeing the inner person. The sighted world goes a lot on what a person looks like, so much so that celebrities are the ones who begin fashion trends. I've seen girls trying to look like celebrities and end up looking like skeletons. The same goes for the guys.
I remember when I had a girlfriend all my friends told me she was ugly. But it didn't bother me because what mattered to me was that she made me feel good whenever we were together. She was a nice person. But back then, I admit, it did get in the way of seeing her inner person. Compared with other girls I saw, I could tell that she was less attractive, physically.
I don't know your status, but would it affect you in any way if your friends kept telling you that your girlfriend was ugly?

## Post 23 by blbobby (Ooo you're gona like this!) on Wednesday, 20-Sep-2006 18:52:16

Recently, I ran into an interesting article on this very topic. I'm going to reprint the entire thing in, probably, two posts, and you decide. To me, it's very frightening.
-----
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/print?id=123853
ABC News: Lookism: The Ugly Truth About Beauty
ABC News
Lookism: The Ugly Truth About Beauty
Like It or Not, Looks Do Matter
Commentary
By John Stossel
Aug. 23 — - We like to think of America as a meritocracy. A lot of us think we value people because of what they accomplish, or their character, or generosity,
or intelligence — that's what we thought mattered, but are we just putting blinders on?
More often than not it seems qualities other than skill, intelligence or character pay off. Here's an example. Anna Kournikova is ranked 37th in women's
tennis, and has never won a major singles championship. So, why is it that Kournikova makes millions more dollars from endorsements than players ranked
higher?
Looks don't only make a difference for women. Does New York Giants' cornerback Jason Sehorn get so much attention just because he's a top athlete? Is that
why he was featured in Sports Illustrated for Women?
You probably know about the famous Kennedy-Nixon debates — people listening on the radio thought Richard Nixon had won. Those watching TV thought the handsome
John F. Kennedy won.
When Texas Sen. Phil Gramm sought the Republican nomination for president in 1996, he said: "The real question is whether someone as ugly as I am can be
elected." Within months, Gramm dropped out of the race.
Did the press cover JFK Jr. so relentlessly solely because he was the son of a president? Would we have cared so much about Princess Di if she had looked
like, say, Princess Margaret?
Beauty and the Brain
It may seem obvious to most of us that people would prefer to look at beautiful faces. While beauty itself may be only skin deep, studies show our perception
of beauty may be hard-wired in our brains.
In studies conducted at Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers Itzhak Aharon, Nancy
Etcoff, Dan Ariely, Christopher F. Chabris, Ethan O'Connor, and Hans C. Breiter have used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology to look at the activity
in men's brains when they were shown pictures of beautiful women's faces. Breiter and his colleagues found that the same part of the brain lights up as
when a hungry person sees food, or a gambler eyes cash, or a drug addict sees a fix. Essentially, beauty and addiction trigger the same areas in the brain.
Some researchers link this addictive pursuit of good looks to evolution. Anthropologist Helen Fisher, suggests that primitive man might have unconsciously
thought that a pretty woman had a better chance of bearing healthy children.
To be continued.

## Post 24 by blbobby (Ooo you're gona like this!) on Wednesday, 20-Sep-2006 18:54:18

Continued from the above post.
The Long and the Short of It
Likewise, evolution may have led women to prefer taller men.
Women will take just about any shortcoming in a man, except in the height department, according to Andrea McGinty, who founded the San Diego-based dating
service It's Just Lunch.
McGinty helped ABCNEWS put together an experiment to test just how willing women are to date shorter men. We brought together several short men and asked
them to stand next to taller men. We invited groups of women to look at the men and choose a date.
To see if the women would go for short guys who were successful, ABCNEWS' Lynn Sherr created extraordinary résumés for the shorter men. She told the women
that the shorter men included a doctor, a best-selling author, a champion skier, a venture capitalist who'd made millions by the age of 25.
Nothing worked. The women always chose the tall men. Sherr asked whether there'd be anything she could say that would make the shortest of the men, who
was 5 feet, irresistible. One of the women replied, "Maybe the only thing you could say is that the other four are murderers." Another backed her up, saying
that had the taller men had a criminal record she might have been swayed to choose a shorter man. Another said she'd have considered the shorter men, if
the taller men had been described as "child molesters."
The desire for tall men begins very young, apparently. ABCNEWS gave elementary school students a test, asking them to match a small, medium or large figure
of a man with a series of words. The kids overwhelmingly linked the tall figure to the words strong, handsome and smart. The linked the short figure to
the words sad, scared and weak. More than half of the kids also chose to link the short figure to the words, dumb, yucky and no friends.
Add 'Lookism' to the List
To conduct an experiment, 20/20 hired actors — some great looking, some not — and put them in situations to gauge how often the "lookers" would get preferential
treatment.
In the first test, we put two women next to cars without gas in Atlanta. The women wore the same outfit.
Both Michelle and Tracey stood helplessly by cars with their hoods up. For the average-looking Michelle, a few pedestrians stopped but only made suggestions
as where she could walk to get gasoline. But for the beautiful Tracey, cars came screeching to a halt. More than a dozen cars stopped and six people went
to get Tracey gas.
The two actresses helped with our second test, at an Atlanta shopping mall where both women set up a table and sold calendars and teddy bears to raise money
for charity. Overall, it looked as if both women were doing well with their sales. Then we counted the money and found Tracey collected 50 percent more.
What if we tested something requiring qualifications, like getting a job? Looks shouldn't matter then but would they?
20/20 hired two men and two women to apply for jobs. The clearest difference between them was looks while they shared similar education and work experience
backgrounds. To match them up more closely, we rewrote their résumés to match.
Mark, who was our more attractive applicant, and Mike, the more ordinary-looking one, both had corporate experience and had run their own companies. Donia,
our more attractive female applicant, and her counterpart, Amy, both had been secretaries and saleswomen. A consultant trained them so their behavior matched.
Hidden cameras captured interviewers being warmer and friendlier to the better looking applicants and being less friendly to the other applicants. With
Amy and Donia, for example, one job interviewer told Amy employees got a 45-minute lunch break but with Donia the interviewer said there was a flexible
policy about lunch. Who got the job offer? Donia. Amy never even got a call back.
To be continued.

## Post 25 by blbobby (Ooo you're gona like this!) on Wednesday, 20-Sep-2006 18:56:11

We ran similar tests using Mike and the especially good looking Mark. Would looks make less of a difference when the interviewers were judging men? Apparently
not. On the first interview, for a sales job, the interviewer told Mike he'd call him later but he never called. With Mark, the interviewer was eager to
have him return for a tryout day.
"It's a non-conscious process," said Tom Cash, a psychologist at Old Dominion University. "They assume that more attractive people have an array of valued
characteristics."
We should add the bias of "lookism" to sexism and racism. It's just as bad but we don't need a federal program.
Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

## Post 26 by Goblin (I have proven to myself and the world that I need mental help) on Thursday, 21-Sep-2006 8:53:02

Godzilla your right mate... Another angle which hasn't been mentioned as we'er comparing beauty. Where would a good looking eloquent bloke of 6ft plus, in a wheelchair, fit in to a shallow survey on physical beauty

## Post 27 by chelslicious (like it or not, I'm gonna say what I mean. all the time.) on Friday, 22-Sep-2006 19:16:44

wow, frightening indeed!

## Post 28 by Godzilla-On-Toast (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Saturday, 23-Sep-2006 7:26:04

OK, let me address a couple of things so I don't have to make multiple posts.
First, as to the question of whether my friends' opinion of my girlfriend's looks would affect me, the answer is no, and that includes even if the relationship were a brand new one. I'm interested in being happy in my relationship and of course contributing to my girlfriend's happiness. Whether my friends are happy or unhappy because of it is their choice. Dropping a love interest because of what your friends think is a very self-conscious thing to do and it probably shows you have little regard to your own feelings and those of your potential love interest. Guess that makes me not a very good self-sacrificer like I'm supposed to be, but then again I don't necessarily do everything I'm supposed to do all the time. LOL!
As to the article, it doesn't frighten me a bit. As a cynic, to me it's just the kind of behavior I expect from most people. For one thing, even if our response to beauty wasn't hard-wired, we get this idea drummed into our heads that beautiful people are always kind and virtuous and are good through and through. Read those fairy tales again, kids, and you'll know what I mean. Granted, real life isn't so cut and dried, but that never stopped anybody from discriminating now, did it? I am not saying by any means that we should all love each other merely for breathing. That is impossible due to current flaws in the human nature software. However, people can at least atempt to look beyond using looks as the only way to judge whether you want to date or hire or befriend a person. Again, this involves questioning what society ahs taught you to believe and whether you think the risks of doing so are worth it.

## Post 29 by Goblin (I have proven to myself and the world that I need mental help) on Saturday, 23-Sep-2006 9:12:04

Ah I see the shallowness is not limited to the survey but is prevelant in and highlighted in sheer ignorance .Why should anyone be judged, when you have achieved perfection then you will have earned the right to pontificate over who and what is worthy of your attention.

## Post 30 by Raskolnikov (I'll have the last word, thank you!) on Saturday, 23-Sep-2006 15:27:48

When my girlfriend and I broke it off it had nothing to do with appearance. We were young and neither of us was looking for a long term relationship. That's what young people do: they experiment with different types of personalities to learn how their own personality fares or fits into their world.
Godzilla on toast, you make a lot of sense but you're speaking from the standpoint of a person who has never depended on the function or sense of sight when making decisions in life. The fact that we are sensual creatures is obvious and it impedes upon the way we rationalize about anything and everything that concerns us.
You speak very negatively of those who use sight when considering someone either for a friend, employee or mate. But whether we think about it or not, our senses (not only that of sight) play a big role even in the most insignificant matters. Judging someone based on appearance isn't something a person is "supposed to do," as you say, it's something a person (sighted in this case) can't help doing.
When we consider someone for a particular role, or when we ourselves are considered for a particular role, certain standards are involved that, if not lived up to, can be the cause of rejection.
You say you're cynical but it sounds more to me like you're antisocial because your views don't reflect those of a person who is immune to emotional abuse. You just don't seem like the type of person who'd keep cool if your appearance was made fun of. I don't think such a person has ever existed, either in the cultures of our day or in the cultures of the past.

## Post 31 by Godzilla-On-Toast (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Saturday, 23-Sep-2006 21:44:22

Damn, Raskolnikov, you sure do analyze things, don't you?
OK, let me take your points in reverse order. However, Understand I'm not interested in proving to anyone how right I am or to change anybody's mind, despite the fact that's what a lot of people think debate is for. I've discovered people are going to think exactly what they've decided to, especially in these polarized times, so what can ya do?
But anyhow, although I was never picked on because of my looks, I was picked on and yes, physically and verbally abused probably because I was a convenient and easy target. Luckily, the abuser realized what they did was wrong and was forgiven and has been nothing but nice ever since. I learned that most folks who make fun of you are not your friends, but just random strangers, so why give them the satisfaction of a reaction, which is what they want, plus, these people have already decided who and what you're about and will probably stubbornly stick to such ideas, so there's no point in proving anything to them anyway? These people are not and will never be my friends.
Next thing. Anti-social? Can't say I quite understand the term as you put it. Could you clarify a bit? I call myself a cynic because I don't believe people are basically good all the time or are very noble or benevolent. No, I don't think people are mean and awful and ugly on purpose, but people are a mix of good and bad bits, and the mix of such depends on the individual. However, I do believe that most people are motivated by self-interest in a lot of things, as in, they think of how things will afect themselves first. This isn't a judgment, just really an observation of how I think people tick. If I'm to remain sane and not make myself miserable, I have to accept this stuff instead of wishing and hoping everybody would just be all sweetness and light because I think they should. But also, I don't think that everything society believes is right just becasue society believes it. And, I think there are some folks who wish to question the things they're raised to believe, but fear some kind of punishment or rejection, so they feel they must go along to get along, and I'm against that. If that's anti-social, then so be it. I always thought anti-social meant either unfriendly or criminal. Shows how much I know I suppose.
Yep, you're damn right I speak negatively about those who judge others by looks. It may be something people can't help doing, but I still think it isn't right. I also believe there are people other than myself who are against discriminating against people because of how they look. They might be idealists or fools, but at least they have the guts to say it when most folks seem to see this behavior as a given. Again, it's imposible for people to like everybody just for breathing, but to purposely reject somebody for their looks when all they want is a fair chance in life or to be loved or get a job does not seem right. Yes, it happens, because people are how they are, but it still isn't what I call right. But this is how I see things.
And lastly, of course I speak from the perspective of somebody who's been blind all his life. This is what I know, because the concept of eyesight is something I just can't compute, so there's just no way I can speak from the perspective of somebody whose life I've never lived.
So, for good or ill or better or worse, there ya go. And yes, I do have my idealistic tendancies, because I used to be one and you just can't totally shake that sort of thing, but there's some stuff you can control and there's lots of stuff you can't in life, but it's still worth putting some ideas out there for folks to chew on that might be a little different from the usual stuff people are told.

## Post 32 by Raskolnikov (I'll have the last word, thank you!) on Sunday, 24-Sep-2006 2:01:03

Once again, Godzilla on Toast, I've gotta say you make a lot of sense. And if it seems like I analyze things to death, let me assure you that it's done in a friendly spirit. You see, my situation as a blind person is one that I've just entered into, and debating this topic with you has turned out to be very informative for me because I still struggle with worrying about how the world sees me now that I'm blind. So I hope that after you read this post you'll understand that the pressure I've put on you is serving a good purpose for me.
First of all, I can honestly relate to most of what you're saying. What I was having a problem with, though, was that in your earlier posts you kept going to the extreme of painting sighted people as persons out to discriminate against everyone and I admit to having perhaps mistaken your views as antisocial. I understand the concept of antisocial, not in the sense that an extremist would, but in the sense that it is behavior that goes against what is expected of a person living in any society. For example, if a person believes that he or she shouldn't have to say "good morning" in response to a greeting is what I would consider antisocial. But it's okay to have differing opinions, I mean, with words it's almost unavoidable because meanings are in people and not in words themselves. The rule 2+3=5 is always true, but no such rule exists for words.
When you say you mistrust any act that has the appearance of selflessness, don't you realize that you're doing exactly what sighted people do when discriminating against people based on appearance? To be clear, I agree with you in that taking things on face value is never safe, there are just too many fakes out there in the world. Of course, there are those who take it to the extreme, but discriminating against people isn't always wrong. At times it's necessary to do so just as you have now admitted to doing so when it comes to longheld beliefs.
You see, there are certain standards in any given culture that all must live up to and, yes, some of those standards by nature make discrimination a part of life. I guess this is something you'd refer to as being something you can't control or that can't be changed. But if you could see the way some people dress you'd understand that it's not wrong to judge them based on their appearance. Do you think a gang member would have a chance getting hired if he walked into the unemployment office dressed in gangster attire? Not even a girl who dresses like a prostitute would be accepted by her boyfriend's family. A lot of the discrimination that goes on in the world is based on such standards that many consider to be unfair. But I think you'll agree that to discriminate against persons in such cases is necessary. Nobody in their right mind would want to appear to be something they're not, yet out here there are guys who aren't gangsters getting shot and killed for dressing like gangsters. There are girls being abducted and getting raped because they dress like prostitutes.
If standards exist that serve the purpose of determining what a person ought to look like, then don't you agree that such standards are useful and necessary? I'm actually glad that such standards exist and that some intelligent people make an effort to uphold them because, if dressing like gangsters or prostitutes was the norm, there would be no values at all in this world. Some rules exist to dissuade people from doing the wrong thing, to keep 'em safe. I know you're not the type who'd sympathize with those who break traditional values, rules or beliefs, especially if they're good, but I'm just using this example to help you understand why the sighted discriminate against people based on their appearance when the situation calls for it.
I respect your opinion and consider it a valid one. Everything we've been discussing in this post is nothing new under the sun, but it's always good to keep these things in mind; at least I think it is

## Post 33 by Godzilla-On-Toast (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Sunday, 24-Sep-2006 4:37:04

I agree with your points about standards of appropriate dress and such. I guess what I'm talking about, though, is the types of discrimination that come from people just being mean and cruel and who need somebody or some group to victimize in the name of giving themselves a false sense of superiority. But for all I know, I probably do the same thing that I say I'm against. I have no illusions that I am consistent or easy to figure out. People aren't basically anything because we're not basic beings. We're complex and inconsistent and sometimes we even slog through the swamps of hypocrisy. Just the bugs in the current version of the software, to put it a certain way.
No problem on being analytical. I guess I'm not used to people wanting to pick my brain so much. You've gone about the whole thing nicely and politely and I appreciate that.
I think that's all I have now. If I have more to say I'll post another post, but right now I've run out of words.