Rather Amusing in a sad way:

[chaeotica]

Link snagged from another LJ
The Government Defines "Women"
Now I just have to find the bills...

Your brain: 60% interpersonal, 120% visual, 60% verbal, and 160% mathematical!

Congratulations on being 400% smart! Actually, on my test, everyone is. The above score breaks down what kind of thinking you most enjoy doing. A score above 100% means you use that kind of thinking more than average, and a score below 100% means you use it less. It says nothing about how good you are at any one, just how interested you are in each, relatively. A substantial difference in scores between two people means, conclusively, that they are different kinds of thinkers. Matching Summary: Each of us has different tastes. Still, I offer the following advice, which I think is obvious: Don't date someone if your interpersonal percentages differ by more than 80%. Don't be friends with someone if your verbal percentages differ by more than 100%. Don't have sex with someone if their math percentage is over 200%.

My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 69% on interpersonal You scored higher than 81% on visual You scored higher than 70% on verbal You scored higher than 85% on mathematical

Link: The 4-Variable IQ Test written by chriscoyne on OkCupid Free Online Dating

Okay, just because verbal isn't my thing doesn't mean I can't have friends for whom verbal is high.
*pouts*

Comments

[dawning-star.livejournal.com]

I guess my grandmother is no longer a woman. She'll be thrilled to learn that. *headdesk*

^.^

[chaeotica]

I'm sure my grandmother will be equally ecstatic.

[yukihyouchan.livejournal.com]

Wow! According to this I'm not a woman nor can I be your friend!

So much for overarching generalizations and definitions telling us who we are. ^_~

Your friend,
and fellow woman,
Megan

On the law thing

[chaoticogre.livejournal.com]

I bet that this law to try and warp further the fundamentalists' views on marriage and sex changes. It is an insult to women in general, but it mainly seems to target transgendered people to try to deny them rights.

That or they might be trying to do something evil to the age laws.


Also, if you want to go all legal and wordy about it, check the wording

"WOMAN- The term `woman’ means a female human being who is capable of becoming pregnant, whether or not she has reached the age of majority."

So in theory, a pregnant person is not capable of becoming pregnant anymore/further. So if you are pregnant, it proves that you were a woman. But you aren't anymore. No, now you're a pregnant... man? ???????


If they really wanted to get the effect that they wanted, they should have worded it something like "a woman is a female human who was born a female human and is of age" or "a woman is someone with two X chromosomes and no Y chromosomes who is not a child"


Personally, I ask, why do they need to define "woman" anyways?
The government should treat us all equally. It should turn a blind eye toward anything that seperates or divides citizens and should only take notice when people are acting in unfair manners because of said differences.

Restated, the only laws that should even mention one's age/sex/religion/ethnicity should be laws that state "Treat not others differently due to these or be punished by catapult."


Ramble ramble

Re: On the law thing

[chaeotica]

So in theory, a pregnant person is not capable of becoming pregnant anymore/further. So if you are pregnant, it proves that you were a woman. But you aren't anymore. No, now you're a pregnant... man? ???????
Or something like that. Maybe they're angling for a third gender? Or pregnant/menopausal women don't have rights? Who knows...

Restated, the only laws that should even mention one's age/sex/religion/ethnicity should be laws that state "Treat not others differently due to these or be punished by catapult."
I like this idea. Where should we put the catapult(s)?

catapult location

[chaoticogre.livejournal.com]

Well, I always liked the idea of having a catapult atop a mountain or near a large ravine, so the shots would go farther.

How about stationed above the Grand Canyon? That way people have a few more seconds of rapid falling to think about how much its going to hurt before they hit the ground.

You could also make adjustments on the catapult with every person fired to find the optimum angle for distance or total height (therefore maximum ground impact *splooot).