Steampunk

That hasn't really been my experience in the real world. Most people have a "treat others the way the treat you" attitude. Treat enough people like crap, and you'll have a hard time getting anywhere in the world. Television and movies really romanticize deception and make manipulative people seem really clever and successful. In my humble experience, people who exploit others with no regard for those around them get nowhere in life because people find out they can't be trusted, and tell others the same. Those who've already made it to the top will certainly take advantage of their leverage, but getting there means leaving other people with a good impression of you so they vouch for you when an opportunity comes along. Someone might exploit others for short term gains, but they destroy any long term prospects because no one in their social network will put in a good word for them. I think a big part of obeying laws also relates to understanding the laws in question. Some laws don't make any sense, so it's not unreasonable for people to ignore ridiculous laws. If you understand a law's intended function, I'd think you're more likely to obey it because you know why the law exists. Also, most laws are pretty common sense and don't require anyone to make dramatic changes to their lifestyle (with exceptions). I don't think anyone here is organizing a resistance to oppose the totalitarian decree of not smoking inside hospitals.

Grew up on the surface of Mars in West Texas. The sun is wonderful until you realize it's 112 degrees F outside with a 50 mph wind blowing 90 degree air. Some days, it was like standing in front of a giant hair dryer. Then there were days in the Winter when the sun would be out and it would look warm outside; but when you leave the house, you find out it's actually 18 degrees. I consider our beloved Sun to be the greatest troll of all because of this, sun burns, and computer/phone screen glare.

Here's a press release by the American Pyschological Association from 2010: http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/06/violent-video-games.aspx It cites a few different studies, but the general idea is that violent video games will only increase hostility in a certain demographic that already has aggressive tendencies. For everyone else outside that minority population, violent video games didn't have any affect on aggressiveness/hostility, and also provide other benefits. An APA press release in 2011 suggested that it may competitive video games that increase aggressiveness instead of violent ones: http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/08/video-games.aspx I believe there are some major studies underway to look at it again, but so far the consensus (at least from what I could find at the APA website) is that violent video games only have a significant impact on small children (which they shouldn't have access to if the game is rated for someone 17 years old) and people who already have anger issues. I was reading an article about violent television, which brought up an interesting point. It said, small children watching violent TV became more aggressive when the person committing the violence was considered a hero, or having done a noble thing. Kinda like how in action movies, the hero blasts the villain into mince with a missile and everyone cheers. This might suggest that it's not so much exposure to media violence itself that promotes violent behavior in children; rather violent behavior that is portrayed in a heroic light. In GTA IV, you murder people, I think the game makes it very clear that you are doing something "bad" since every cop in Liberty City wants a piece of your ass. What about games like Zelda (which you wouldn't think of as a violent video game) where Link stabs Ganon in the face, saves the world, and is regarded a legendary hero? Is it violence itself that's the issue, or does "heroic" or "justified" violence play a bigger role in promoting violent tendencies in children?

Morgan with Tiki as her mother rolls over enemies like a Panzer.

Nobody's denying there are bad and abusive parents out there. I don't believe that justifies saying family in general sucks, and I don't believe most hormonal, over-emotional teens who don't like being told what to do know what real abuse is.

Because fines and prison suck. People who don't obey laws tend to experience one or the other. Also, in the US, some employers won't hire people with domestic violence or felonies on their criminal record. I'm sure there are other problems that arise from an extensive criminal record. I think most renters/apartments perform background checks. I also think it can impact your ability to take out loans (but don't quote me on that). Basically, ignoring laws can screw you in many ways. Most people don't like being screwed in many ways and obey laws to avoid that.

I haven't been in this situation, so take anything I say with a grain of salt. I do believe having a family discussion about it is the way to go. If you need some kind of mediator or counselor, set one up. Homophobia (like any other phobia) is very deeply rooted and hard to shake. Hopefully, they will still accept you as part of the family (even if they don't like your sexual orientation). If not, it might be best to look at moving out and getting away from the situation if you are in a position to do so. I wouldn't run away without some kind of plan though. Make sure you have a means of taking care of yourself first. As for making friends, it's fairly simple. Find some clubs or groups with a theme your interested in (like a sports club, a hiking group, a gun club, Dungeons & Dragons, a book club, etc) and join. You'll meet a lot of people with a common interested, which will make befriending them much simpler. Even better, you'll have someone to do stuff with that you enjoy doing. Depending on your location, there might also be LBGT clubs/groups you can join if none of the other clubs appeal to you. The key is finding people who have something in common with you. Haven't found this to be the case in my experience. People can and do change, even if we don't want to. You may not have had an ideal childhood, but I'm willing to bet your family (be it biological or adoptive) kept you fed, clothed, and made sure you had some kind of house to live in. I'm fairly sure they sacrificed things that they wanted to do in life or things they wanted to buy, in order to make sure your needs were met above all else. Considering they did that without expecting you to pay back every cent they spent on you and for you to return all the things they got you when you move out, they don't sound so bad to me. I don't know how old you are, but I know many teenagers in real life who think their parent's are worst human beings that ever lived. They don't realize that, if those parents hadn't decided to have children, they could probably afford a nice house and a yacht and not have to listen to an ungrateful brat gripe about how those parents don't care about them. So? Who cares if they weren't hand-picked by you? If they look after you and make sure you have some quality of life, it really doesn't matter if you live in an ideal household. Doesn't matter, so long as that scum and those simpletons take care of you. If someone paid all my bills and made sure all my needs were met without wanting something in return, I wouldn't care if they were a complete asshole or if they had flunked out of high school. I may not get along with them, but I wouldn't have to if they were giving me a free ride through life.

Gotcha. I know my mother was on the brink of tears, and I was like "Okay, a tornado hit Ok City. That sucks." On a more personal level, I didn't really feel much when my grandfather passed away. Of course, I offered my condolences to family, and graciously accepted those from others. I didn't really feel compelled to do this, I just did it because that's what you do in those cases. People feel bad, and they don't want someone saying "eh, whatever. He was pretty old. It's not a big surprise."

I could be here all day listing off the Shakespearean sayings of President G.W. Bush. I think my favorite Bushism is "I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best." "Your Eminence, you're looking good." Bush to Pope Benedict XVI One more for the road: "I want to share with you an interesting program for two reasons. One, it's interesting and two, my wife thought of it, or has actually been involved with it. She didn't think of it, but she thought of it for this speech."

But how are we supposed to properly discuss a topic without spending pages bickering about something that has nothing to do with it? #sarkazm Anyway, like I said: I think I've made my point and there's no sense in going on (the Constitution is a debate all its own). I'll leave it up to you guys as to whether anything I've said makes sense.

Impossible to miss, yet you didn't explain what the Founders meant by a single one of them. If you are claiming that we can understand what Peter meant by his statements without relying on our own judgement to the extent that Peter's original message becomes diluted by our own assumptions of his meaning, then it stands to reason you can tell me what John Adams believed "securing the blessings of liberty" meant without filling in too many gaps with your own opinion. In both cases, we are presumably able to understand the operation of another's mind and rely on our own discretion to a minimal extent unless you mean that people make educated guesses about the author's intentions (which is largely at the mercy of the person interpreting). So, tell me if the drafters of the Constitution intended for government agents to search every airline passenger (or, let's say stagecoach passenger since they existed during that time) as per Amendment IV. You should also be able to tell me if they intended for Amendment II to refer to private gun ownership or state militias or both. I'm afraid simply saying "everyone knows what that means" doesn't quite cut it since there's a world of difference between the three choices. Considering a healthy number of people consider airport screening unconstitutional, it seems that not everyone knows what Amendment IV means either.

Hahaha, no need to apologize. I'm not bothered. I was picturing myself as the deadliest nerd alive.

Am I still mortifying and ridiculous? Because I rather like the sound of that.

Those statements are vague because the people who wrote the Constitution knew what they meant by those statements. It's like how we leave brief notes that don't make sense to anyone else, but we understand them because we know what we were thinking when we wrote them. Two hundred twenty-six years later, their "notes in the margins" don't make as much sense. Just like attorneys and the Constitution, even though someone may have the right qualifications, what they interpret may not be what the author intended. We can only guess what the meaning is using knowledge of a document's context and hope we get it right. At the end of the day though, it's purely arbitrary: something is considered factual or metaphorical simply because someone says so. We can't email John or Luke and ask them: someone has to make a judgement call based on what they think is fact or fable, and that someone is decidedly not a first-hand witness. A good example is the story of the Exodus. Is that a historic account or allegory? Which parts are factual and which aren't? It's all up to whomever is reading it. That's my point and I think I've made it, so I won't beat it to death.

I'm no barrister, but this gives me the distinct impression that people do not actually own the games (or any software) they buy nowadays: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/10/09-35969.pdf For those who don't want to read the entire court document, here is the Wikipedia article for Vernor vs. Autodesk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.#The_ruling It was a case where Autodesk, Inc took legal action against a guy trying to sell his copy of their software. The US Supreme court decided that he was a licensee, not the owner of a copy. Because of this, he didn't have any rights to resell the software. The logic being, the software (data on the disk) was what was valuable, not the disk itself. The terms of use he agreed to more closely resembled a licensing agreement rather than him buying a copy. He was essentially given permission to use the software indefinitely. This was back in 2010. The case pretty much established the idea that, so long as companies put a licensing agreement in with their products, or state that the buyer is a licensee of the software/service, they don't have any rights to the software. Since just about every software terms & conditions agreement reads like a license agreement, I'm afraid any sort of ownership of copies has gone the way of the Dodo. This really isn't a new thing, contradictory to popular belief. Here is a copy of a Nintendo 64 "Confidential License Agreement:" http://corporate.findlaw.com/contracts/operations/license-agreement-for-nintendo-64-video-game-system-nintendo-of.html Just goes to show, even over a decade ago, video game companies knew the power of the word "license" and were making good use of it. According to Sony, I do not actually own my PS3's software: http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html Nintendo 3DS EULA: http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/info/en_na/docs.jsp?menu=wiiu&submenu=wup-eula-agree Article I covers the grant of a revocable user license to the 3DS "services, software, and content." Bear in mind that, while the cartridge for the 3DS is hardware, the actual data (the game itself) is considered software. So, unfortunately, we can't even say that hard-copy game disks or carts are exempt from software licensing agreements because the game itself is still considered software despite being sold on a cartridge. While I don't know for sure, I'm willing to bet that Ninty could successfully claim in court that their games were software (and thus, covered in their system EULAs). The Xbox 360 EULA also states you are a licensee (licensed to use the software) of their console, not an actual owner. In fact, that's what EULA means: End User Licensing Agreement. they are licensing you (giving you permission) to use the software of their consoles. I don't want to spend all day reading EULAs, but I've also found some developers posting their own EULAs for their game software downloads. So far, the gamer doesn't so much own their game as they are allowed to play it unless I misunderstood something. Again, I am no attorney at law. If you know something I don't, I'd be very happy for you to share it.

I put it in spoiler tags, as this is off topic. If you can tell me what the founders of the United States meant by these laws If we were to take a group of lawyers from different socio-economic backgrounds, different schools of law, different fields of law, and different years of experience at interpreting law, do you believe they would all have the same interpretation of what these laws mean, and they would all agree with each other's opinion of how they apply? I personally do not believe so. That's just talking about people trained to read and interpret laws. Do you believe the average person agrees with everyone else as to what all this means? I wouldn't say so. It's not a minority that wants to make life difficult for everyone either: the right to bear arms is incredibly controversial. Many people want to do away with Welfare/SSI/Unemployment checks, and many people argue to keep them because that is part of the government's responsibility. The "Necessary and Proper Clause" is a bit tricky as well: does that give the government free reign to do whatever it wants so long as it's justified as "necessary and proper?" I'm not sure what part of the country you live in where everyone (Liberals, Conservatives, Moderates, etc) all agree and have the same understanding of what the Constitution promises, but I wouldn't mind seeing this place.

Yeah, BEXP is great for bumping up any uncapped stats after a unit has developed. Don't recommend using it to level weaker characters too much since there's no guarantee the stats that increase are the ones you'll want. Then you'll end up wasting all that BEXP if the wrong stats increase.

I don't think people dislike Brom. He just takes more effort that Gatrie and most people probably don't bother with him unless they want to. Most character reviews place him right up there with Gatrie though, and I've been happy with him in my playthroughs.

Not sure what everyone's upset about. It's a gaming console. It will play games. It meets the base requirement of a gaming console. It does other stuff. That's just extra. Not sure if it's $900 worth of extra, but it's extra nonetheless. I guess I don't really understand what people want from a gaming console other than to play games on it. Anyways, people don't want to buy dedicated gaming machines any more. They want an all-in-one entertainment system. That's where consoles are heading (and have been since last gen.) If you're going to drop close to a grand on something, it better do $900 worth of stuff. You don't actually buy the game: you pay your $60 for permision to use the game. Since you don't actually own it, you don't have any right to toy with it's code. Since Nintendo is giving you permission to use something that is theirs, they have full legal control over the terms those games are used. Not all companies are hard nosed about this: Fallout 3/NV and Elder Scrolls have a very strong modding community. In the strictest letter of the law though, you are taking someone else's intellectual property (the characters, the universe, the countries, the clothes, etc) and making changes to it without their permission. If they say you can't do that with their game, you have no legal leg to stand on. They have copyrighted (paid the government for legal protection of) their intellectual property which gives them full control over who can use their works and in what capcity. Another way to think of it: letting a friend use your car (fully paid for). You own the car and they want to take it to the grocery store. You agree to let them use the car under those terms/conditions. If that person took the car whenever they felt like just because you said they could use it that one time, you might take issue with that. If they borrowed the car, and brought it back with a different coat of paint, added personalized decals, swapped upholstery for leather, and had hydraulics installed (all without your permission) because they wanted to customize the car to their own tastes, I'd imagine most of us here wouldn't be thrilled to find that. Not an exact comparison, I know; but it's the same idea.

You are absolutely correct. No one will put a gun to your head and tell you to. It's something I've found to be a necessary skill when you're done with public school and throughout University though. Communication skills are just one of those things people need to have. People have been brainwashed into thinking they absolutely needed to have tons of friends and be social savvy. It's okay to be introverted or not social at all. As long as you have fun it's fine I don't think it's brainwashing. It's fairly well known that people with better connections and a larger friend network tend to get farther in their careers. It's all who you know and all that. As for body language, I wish it were that simple, but facial expressions, posture, etc are all part of communication. It's not really a matter of people lying for nefarious reasons. You might be on a date with a girl, and she's not really enjoying herself but doesn't want to say something to hurt your feelings. You can tell by how she carries herself whether she's enjoying herself or not. Things that like are what I meant. It's an interesting situation, for sure. I heard the tornado in Ok City killed a bunch of children and people. I realize it's something I should feel bad about. I realize why this is tragic and why I should sympathise for these people. I just don't though. It's kinda odd, like some switch in my brain is stuck in the "off" position or something. I do want to feel sorry for them...I just don't know how to I suppose.

You are absolutely correct. Still, that is exactly what both sides of this debate are doing, most likely for the sake of convenience. I would only say to this that I speak from my experiences with Christianity. The Christian faith I was raised with challenged evolution quite fervently. There are places in the United States where Christians want to stop teaching Evolution in high schools and teach only the Creation as the true story of man's origin. One might say these are not "real" Christians, mere fanatics; but this brings us right back to my earlier question. How does one determine who is and isn't a true Christian? So, we can either agree to discuss Christianity from a relative point of view where we may debate completely different Christian traditions (Baptists vs. Jehovah's Witnesses vs. Catholicism vs. "Charismatic" non-denominational churches), or agree on what particular denomination we want to discuss and completely ignore the others despite no evidence to show which of them is more "real" than the others. I chose to discuss my own experiences as that is what I know. Among those experiences is adamant opposition to Evolution. Your milage may vary, of course. This assumes that history is objective, which it is not. Historic accounts were written by people, just like us. People with their own bias (be it intentional or unintentional), their own reasons for writing those accounts, and found and interpreted by people who also have their own bias and motivations. Interpretation cannot be correct or incorrect like an objective fact because they are derived by people essentially guessing what something means. It may be an educated guess, but it is a guess nonetheless. Anyone who's studied U.S. political science understands this problem. There are many parts of the U.S. Constitution that simply don't make sense centuries after the fact. People have to guess what the founders of the country meant by certain phrases and sentences. That document isn't a fraction of the Bible's age, and there are still heated debates as to what the founders intended by writing it. Am I to assume that a compilation of documents writted much longer ago in several different dead languages that have been translated, retranslated, and modernized are crystal clear in their meaning? The Contitution is a Dr. Suess book in comparison, and we can't agree on what it says either. So, we can either think of Christianity as one united faith (even though it clearly isn't) and shove them all in to one group, or we can have shades of grey and have people debate from their own experiences and knowledge of the faith. I'm fine with either one, though I think the former is rather presumptuous and ignores a lot of internal differences in perspective.

First, I want to apologise to Espinosa. I wrote that post in a rush and didn't proofread it. Upon looking at it, I came across as abrasive and aggressive, neither of which were intended. Still, that's no excuse for rudeness, so sorry for jumping on you like I did. With that out of the way... I believe we both know better than that. They asked how people can be deluded enough to believe both, and I simply offered a psychological explanation of how the brain harmonizes conflicting information/ideas. Whether religion and science are truly conflicting is debate all its own, though many Christians would argue they aren't compatible. The type of Christianity I grew up with emphazised the need to idolize God. Of course, this opens the door to all manner of fanaticism, but such was very much endorsed in my experience with the religion. Still, that is one thing I've never understood about Christianity: how does one define a "true believer?" Of course. That was an inappropriate jab. The essence of my question is how this is determined. I don't know of any criteria beyond "because someone said so." This is a rather arbitrary process, which could certainly be described as "cherry-picking" by those who do not understand how such a determination is made. If it isn't arbitrary, then there must be set rules as to how a person might destinguish metaphor from fact without spending years in training to do so. You and Esau (assuming I understood you correctly) made it sound rather simple to do, and I'm only asking for an extrapolation or some guide that explains it. There are a few reasons for that (conversion by the sword being one). Christianity entrenching itself in Western socio-political culture is probably another factor. I believe a person should be ready to defend anything they choose to debate. If a Christian chooses to argue that they are right, they should be prepared to defend that. Learning the arguments against religion and finding counterpoints to those arguments can only benefit a Christian I would think. My point is, why doesn't the church include historic accounts that offer an opposing perspective to the other books of the Bible? Science does not actively prevent people from releasing studies that refute scientific theories. That is part of what makes science such an effective investigation technique: it allows contradicting evidence its proverbial day in court rather than dismissing these things in the name of continuity and convenience. The latter is, in my experience with Christianity, the approach religion takes.

Nonsense. Not only can anyone living on the ocean clearly see the horizon is curved on the sea, but the ancient Greeks actual estimated the Earth's circumference with amazing accuracy. It's called "cognitive dissonance." The brain invents a link between two opposing ideas so that peple can justify believing both. Provide evidence that this is the case and I will reconsider my position. Until then, yes I am. And I'm assuming your one of the "real" Christians? It's amazing how many Christians I know always talk about these posers, yet no matter what lifestyle they live or what they believe, they are always the real thing. I have long since given up in trying to understand how one determines the legitimacy of another's faith. First of all, only God and that superstitious lady know what kind of relationship they have with each other. How arrogant to assume you (not you personally, the proverbial you) know for a fact you are more of a real Christian than they are. That is my biggest problem with Christianity: there are dozens of denominations, all of which are the "true" Christianity and all the others are mere perversions of Christ's teachings. Would you mind posting a list of which are allegory and which are genuine historic fact? I'm afraid, after spending 18 years attending church, I still do not know how one determines which is fact and which is metaphorical. Atenism and Zoroastrianism predates Christianity, as do the polytheistic traditions of the Greeks and Norse. Just because something has been around a long time does not make it any more real. After 2,000 years, the Christians have not come an inch closer to proving God exists than when Christ lived. If people are going to argue that religion is truth, they need to be prepared to answer questions the opposition asks. If someone knows for certain that God exists and religion is fact, answering any questions skeptics have shouldn't be difficult. Does this include the Gnostic Gospels or the Gospel of Thomas? It's fine if we only study texts that support what we want to believe. To get a complete picture, we have to also study scriptures that may not agree with the rest of the Canon. I suppose Mathematics, computers, and language do the same, as it is the same thought process in each. Like Math and computing, Logic doesn't care if we like the answer it provides. Would you mind posting a list of which are fact and which are metaphorical? After spending 18 years as a follower of Christianity, I still do not know how church officials determine which are factual and which are allegory. If it's that clear to you, perhaps you could share with me which storys fall in each category, and how you determined that. Can you link to some that provide tangible, peer-reviewed studies with evidence that proves evolution is false? Evolution has been very well established, and any arguing it is false will need some very compelling evidence. To find proof that Evolution is valid, one only needs to look at a man-made breed of dog like a Corgi, Pug, etc. I also recall an experiment done with fruit flies (cannot recall which institute conducted it offhand, though) that showed trends in characteristics passed on from generation to generation that verified the theory of evolution. One cannot simply say "I think Evolution is nonsense." You need evidence that stands up to scientific investigation that supports your claim that evolution is false. If you can provide that, we can talk about Evolution having questionable legitimacy. Otherwise, a person is either playing devil's advocate or disagreeing with no real reason to do so.

I can only share my own experiences with Aspergers (I was diagnosed at 16, but it's something that I've lived my entire life with). Personally, I had no desire to make friends. Social interaction (even with people I enjoyed being around) was very mentally exhausting and uncomfortable. I suppose each person is different, but the last thing I wanted to do as a child with Asperger's was go meet people. As for teasing, bullying, etc, that's simply part of being in public school. I know that's not something people want to hear, but it's a sad fact of life. Teachers and parents should do what they can to discourage it, but it's just unrealistic to believe they are capable of spending every hour with every child to pounce on teasing or bulling every time it happens. I'm afraid that's just how some kids act, and there's no way to police it 24/7. I certainly understand friendships that fade away. I didn't keep in touch with many friends I made because I hated social interaction, and many of those people probably don't remember me well. Friendship/relationships are simply something that a person has to maintain. If you have no desire to, the other party won't want to keep the friendship alive by themselves. With FB, email, etc very common place however, it's much easier to maintain those connection without seeing them in person. Look those people up on FB and add them as friends. Get phone #'s and text. That way you can keep in touch if face-to-face communication is still difficult. I wish I could say there was an easy way around the social obstacles Asperger's Syndrome builds, but there really isn't. I had to just suck it up and force myself to interact with people IRL. Very difficult when AS cripples your social skills, and also kills your desire to go out and spend time with people, but it is an essential step. The good news is, the more you force yourself to do this, the easier it gets and the more socially savvy you become. Social interaction is no longer draining, and I actually find myself wanting to contact people now. The problem is, you have to be willing and driven to fight an uphill battle against natural disadvantages for a very long time in order to get to a point where social interaction is fun. You cannot do it by yourself either: you need people who can teach you how to socialize and interact with people. Those who don't have a social disability may have a hard time understanding why a person need to learn how to talk to someone, but that's literally what you'll have to do. You'll have to learn how to pick up on subtlety, read body language, and how to read between the lines to know what a person is really thinking when they're around you. That takes a lot of work and practice, but it is also necessary and I'd go so far to say that is the reason you've had such bad luck with friends. You just can't tell when they're genuinely interested in you and when they want something from you. I was the same way: when someone approached me, it honestly never occurred to me that they might have an agenda. As much as internet relationships may scratch your itch for interaction, I'm afraid that simply won't do it all your life. Humans are social creatures, and while each person's need for human contact may differ, everyone needs it in some dosage. I enjoy talking and debating on the internet, but it's not the same as being around real people. Before you go out and make friends though, I strongly suggest you learn how to be social by someone certified to deal with people suffering from social disabilities. There's a lot more that goes on than simply talking, but it's subtle and people who have these skills may not even be aware how much a person can say without saying a word. Learning to pick up on body language, ect. will help you identify the kinds of people who you want to be friends with and those who you should avoid. Something that always gets on my nerves is how people believe those with mental disabilities have "superpowers." I think Cracked.com did an article about this, and I wanted to slap the shit out of that writer. This gives people the idea that those with disabilities don't really have any challenges. So what if a person with Asperger's can't socialize? They're geniuses! Not exactly. Aspergers, in my experience, gives me the ability to spend hours obsessing over a topic and learning as much as I can about it. I can spend a day reading article after article about it, not eating or drinking or doing anything but obsessing over a certain topic. That's certainly helpful and makes it sound like Aspergers is something everyone would want to have. Problem is, Aspergers causes social problems that go beyond simple introversion. Affectionate physical contact (hugs, hand holding, etc)with people is uncomfortable. Not in an awkward "this is weird" way, but in a physically uncomfortable (like an itchy sweater) way. Being around people all day in school was so mentally exhausting that I would literally sit in a chair and stare into space for hours before I was mentally capable of doing anything because my mind was simply overstimulated. I'm sure every person gets to that point every now and then, but this was every school day: I'd have to "recharge" by sitting and literally veging out. I was incapable of making eye contact: it was like looking directly into the headlamps on a car. There were certain types of clothes I couldn't wear because they were downright painful. My parent's couldn't understand this because they didn't experience it and I didn't know how to explain it. A cotton button-up shirt was like wearing sandpaper. Speaking of parents, my parents went through hell. They didn't understand the challenges I had or the reason why I was unhappy or uncomfortable (which is hard for a parent to watch), and I was a downright exhausting child to be around. I certainly give full credit to my mother for putting up with it, as (in retrospect), I was a very difficult child to raise. I'm not wanting sympathy: I've managed to overcome the majority of these challenges (except empathy. I have to fake that, I'm ashamed to admit. I am incapable of feeling sorry for someone, but I do make an effort to show I care). I do want to make people aware of why psychologists consider Asperger's a disability when people seem to think it's some kind of superpower and why these people have entirely the wrong idea about the syndrome. There are legitimate issues that go above and beyond "being shy." There are advantages to Asperger's Syndrome (being able to obsess over things and develop an expertise in them, for example), but like all things, those come with a price. Sorry if I rambled a bit, but this is something I have a lot to say about.

I've done that countless times. That's why I drank copious amounts of alcohol before taking my last final exam in university. You may laugh, but a little bottled courage helped ease my horrible test anxiety. I only wish I'd started my special test preparation at the beginning of my second year.