Slashdot Mirror

http://videogames.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003951

All that said, here's a more non-biased look at the pro and con on whether violent video games translate into real-world violence.

Anecdotally, I stopped playing Grand Theft Auto after I noticed I was starting to drive more aggressively in real life. So your argument has me thinking about whether I should let my 12-year-old kid play games like Skyrim, Fallout, Mass Effect, etc., or tell him to stick with Minecraft.

You don't think it also may be that you thought about what you were doing and took the necessary steps to stop it? I used to drive recklessly as well. I had to be the fastest car on the road, period. I got married, popped out kids and my attitude changed overnight once I thought about it. My video game habits haven't changed one bit though.

All that said, here's a more non-biased look at the pro and con on whether violent video games translate into real-world violence.

Anecdotally, I stopped playing Grand Theft Auto after I noticed I was starting to drive more aggressively in real life. So your argument has me thinking about whether I should let my 12-year-old kid play games like Skyrim, Fallout, Mass Effect, etc., or tell him to stick with Minecraft.

One thing many people don't realise is that lactose intolerance is actually the norm in many ethnic groups (including Chinese). This isn't quite my field, but I read a paper on this once and it would seem before the development of agriculture almost all humans lost the ability to digest lactose after infancy. Lactose tolerance is simply an example of a recent, highly advantageous genetic mutation among groups with ready access to dairy animals (it's always good to have more food sources). Wikipedia, and other sites have more information.

I'm curious. Looking at this page - http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286 - it seems like felons are in fact allowed to vote in Minnesota, once they have completed incarceration + parole + probation. I wonder if this was taken into consideration when calculating the 1,099 felons who were "all ineligible to vote"?

Actually kids are allowed to drink alcohol - they're just not allowed to buy it. In most countries, and in most states in the US (details), kids are allowed to drink alcohol as long as their parents say it's okay.

Children that have not yet developed self-control usually have parents to do the controlling for them. If we want to do away with fast-food advertising due to childrens' lack of self control, by that logic we would have to do away with all advertising... or, a better solution; expect parents to make up for a child's lack of self-control.

Yours is an on objective and thoughtful comment. I would just like to add some more which I don't think is well recognized.

The individual mandate idea originated with Republicans and conservative think tanks. Hilary Clinton took up the idea, but Candidate Obama did not favor it, and had some sensible and insightful things to say about it (see link). Somehow the idea found its way into the healthcare bill, which then went on to be adopted without a single Republican vote. Yet Republicans who favored their own mandate-including bills earlier criticized the mandate when it was part of a Democrat bill (same link again). Anyone could be forgiven for being completely bewildered and whipsawed on this issue.

Anybody who thinks the facts given on the page linked are mistaken, please make your case. At this point, I don't have any axe to grind on this issue. Some of the people I respected on this issue have revealed themselves over time to be hypocrites, and I am wide open on this subject.

Yours is an on objective and thoughtful comment. I would just like to add some more which I don't think is well recognized.

The individual mandate idea originated with Republicans and conservative think tanks. Hilary Clinton took up the idea, but Candidate Obama did not favor it, and had some sensible and insightful things to say about it (see link). Somehow the idea found its way into the healthcare bill, which then went on to be adopted without a single Republican vote. Yet Republicans who favored their own mandate-including bills earlier criticized the mandate when it was part of a Democrat bill (same link again). Anyone could be forgiven for being completely bewildered and whipsawed on this issue.

Anybody who thinks the facts given on the page linked are mistaken, please make your case. At this point, I don't have any axe to grind on this issue. Some of the people I respected on this issue have revealed themselves over time to be hypocrites, and I am wide open on this subject.

Death can be reversible or non reversible.

<face-palm> Sorry, no. Just no. I don't care if you're an MD; words have meaning. If a person's heart stops and you revive him by cardio resuscitation, you are not reanimating a dead person. You are stopping a person from dying. I'll lay heavy odds that you would do the right thing if the patient's heart and breathing stop and the patient loses consciousness, because I have high regard and respect for anyone who has successfully passed through the grueling process of becoming a medical doctor. But I would argue that proper use of terms is particularly important in the field.

Wikipedia: "Death is the cessation or permanent termination of all biological functions that sustain a living organism." Cessation; not interruption.

Merriam-Webster.com: "a permanent cessation of all vital functions: the end of life."

Dictionary.com: "the end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism."

MedicalDictionary.theFreeDictionary.com: "Death is defined as the cessation of all vital functions of the body including the heartbeat, brain activity (including the brain stem), and breathing." Cessation, not interruption.

Euthanasia.procon.org: "the cessation of life; permanent cessation of all vital bodily functions. For legal and medical purposes, the following definition of death has been proposed-the irreversible cessation of all of the following: (1) total cerebral function, usually assessed by EEG as flat-line (2) spontaneous function of the respiratory system, and (3) spontaneous function of the circulatory system..." There are those pesky words again, permanent and irreversible.

The Definition of Death (Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy: "According to the organismic definition, death is the irreversible loss of functioning of the organism as a whole (Becker 1975; Bernat, Culver, and Gert 1981)." ... "According to the mainstream whole-brain approach, the human brain plays the crucial role of integrating major bodily functions so only the death of the entire brain is necessary and sufficient for a human being's death (Bernat, Culver, and Gert 1981)." ... "According to the higher-brain standard, human death is the irreversible cessation of the capacity for consciousness...Although no jurisdiction has adopted the higher-brain standard, it enjoys the support of many scholars (see, e.g., Veatch 1975; Engelhardt 1975; Green and Wikler 1980; Gervais 1986; Bartlett and Youngner 1988; Puccetti 1988; Rich 1997; and Baker 2000)." Each of those three definitions shares the necessary component of "irreversible".

The whole point of the prison system as it stands today is to rehabilitate criminals and release them back into society as free men.

If that is the case, then why is it that so many states have laws that prevent felons from voting even after they have served their sentence and been released?

If the purpose of prison is rehabilitation, not revenge, why is nothing done to prevent inmates raping other inmates? I don't mean a token gesture, either, I mean a commitment to ending it.

If the purpose of prison is rehabilitation, why is there capital punishment at all?

These rhetorical questions are asked with the intent of shedding light on the true purpose of the penal system.

If you go back to 1989, you'll see that The Heritage Foundation (a very conservative think-tank) floated the idea of the individual mandate for health insurance.

.

Through the 1990's, various Republicans submitted health care bills specifying the individual mandate.

The Republicans are, as usual, being quite hypocritical in their objections to the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Perhaps it is time for the Republicans to back away from their objection to everything and roadblock generation, and get down to the business of governing.

To be fair, many Republicans in Congress today were not there when individual mandates were discussed in the 1990s.

If you go back to 1989, you'll see that The Heritage Foundation (a very conservative think-tank) floated the idea of the individual mandate for health insurance.

.

Through the 1990's, various Republicans submitted health care bills specifying the individual mandate.

The Republicans are, as usual, being quite hypocritical in their objections to the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Perhaps it is time for the Republicans to back away from their objection to everything and roadblock generation, and get down to the business of governing.

To be fair, many Republicans in Congress today were not there when individual mandates were discussed in the 1990s.

.
Through the 1990's, various Republicans submitted health care bills specifying the individual mandate.

The Republicans are, as usual, being quite hypocritical in their objections to the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Perhaps it is time for the Republicans to back away from their objection to everything and roadblock generation, and get down to the business of governing.

.
Through the 1990's, various Republicans submitted health care bills specifying the individual mandate.

The Republicans are, as usual, being quite hypocritical in their objections to the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Perhaps it is time for the Republicans to back away from their objection to everything and roadblock generation, and get down to the business of governing.

It shouldn't be legal until it is demonstrated to be safe through rigorous research.

Wait... what? It is irrefutable that pot is not only less toxic than alcohol, it is effectively impossible to die from it. In fact, it's even less toxic and less addictive than coffee, the American drug of choice. I wouldn't dispute that it can have deleterious mid- to long-term effects, but the only correlation of violent crime related to marijuana seems to be drug cartel behavior (and jackbooted Feds, although I suppose that doesn't qualify as "crime" under the literal definition) which would be reduced, if not outright eliminated, by an end to prohibition.

Certainly, with such a ubiquitous drug, and the grossly disproportionate amount of Federal money spent on pot enforcement (not to mention costs of privately imprisonment), an end to prohibition and simple pot tax would take an enormous chunk out of the federal budget. In addition, there are enough thousands of local growers across the nation that a cottage industry would spring up literally overnight, creating both businesses and jobs. And (lest it go unsaid) the medical applications are exceptionally diverse; fantastically safer, and with infinitesimally fewer side effects, than even over-the-counter medications (aspirin kills hundreds of people every year), let alone prescription pharmaceuticals.

There's no shortage of legitimate studies on the effects of pot. Grabbing a link out of Google, I see one with 73 peer-reviewed studies.

Wow, that turned into a hell of an off-topic rant, sorry. Guess I had to get that off my chest.

There are some things AI is good at without being annoying, such as suggesting URL's as you type them, or suggesting the temperature so you don't burn your food. Good AI tries to prevent human error by suggesting alternatives.

So you voted for Gore, get over it already.

Felony is felony and there's a large range of things within that classification.

For instance, this may be a class-6 or 7 felony, while murder is a class-1 felony and rape is class-2.

But in many states you cannot vote if you're a felon. This sort of legislation would have massive unintended consequences.

The concept of the individual health insurance mandate originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182

or blocking teens from drinking with parents' permission

Just FYI, it would seem that most states don't do that.

It's not about a "blood for oil" trade. It's that the architects of the war grossly underestimated the costs of the invasion, and part of the pitch for the occupation was that the cost of war would be minimal considering that the money recouped from Iraq's domestic production would help to repay for the invasion. This link has a few good quotes:

"The bulk of the funds for Iraq's reconstruction will come from Iraqis -- from oil revenues, recovered assets, international trade, direct foreign investment -- as well as some contributions we've already received and hope to receive from the international community." -Donald Rumsfeld, 2003

There are only 12 states (Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming) where Felons may permanently lose the right to vote. I say may, because some of these 12 states have provisions where some Felons may apply for restoration of their voting rights. Further some only permanently restrict voting rights based the type of felony. For more information look here: http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

The real irony of it is that the system the Nevada Gaming Board has for checking slot machines, is the exact same system I'd like to see for electronic voting machines.

You can see which one they value.

The Gaming Board can also generate additional revenue based on the expected preference;

IN ORDER TO VOTE FOR CANDIDATE
  [SHARRON ANGLE]
PLEASE DEPOSIT ADDITIONAL
  [$40.00]

PRESS [HERE] TO VOTE FOR HARRY REID
OR WAIT 10, 9, 8, ... SECONDS.

The real irony of it is that the system the Nevada Gaming Board has for checking slot machines, is the exact same system I'd like to see for electronic voting machines.

You can see which one they value.

Legal pot states
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881

1. Alaska 98 1 oz usable; 6 plants (3 mature, 3 immature)
2. California 96 8 oz usable; 18 plants (6 mature, 12 immature)**
3. Colorado 00 2 oz usable; 6 plants (3 mature, 3 immature)
4. Hawaii
5. Maine
6. Michigan
7. Montana
8. Nevada
9. New Jersey
10. New Mexico
11. Oregon
12. Rhode Island
13. Vermont
14. Washington

Several recently (2006-2010) so it is probably gaining momentum.

What kind of experience can you have with pot that makes you want it illegal? Did things taste too good?

I mean, IANA marijuana user, and I'm also pro-legalization of all drugs, but the effects of casual THC ingestion are minimal. I know this because Wikipedia never lies... And neither does a pro-marijuana website.

You're really asking us to consider two choices here: 1) People are thinking, non-hypocritical beings who have tried the drug, thought about its effects and the effects of legalization, and decided it was not a good idea to legalize it. 2) People are nonthinking, hypocritical creatures who think all "bad" things, whether they've attempted them or not, should be illegal, regardless of the consequences of illegalization.

I know I really poisoned the well here, but... that's how I see it.

Prostitution is a misdemeanor and will not get one a lot of time in jail.

IANAP, nor a customer, but I do know some people. Let's just say that the state you get caught in has a lot do with your punishment. And misdemeanor doesn't always mean a slap on the wrist.

http://prostitution.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=000119

That is some serious jail time and fines for what is often an already economically disadvantaged group. If you are self-employed and unmarried, getting caught can mean losing your car and choosing to either pay $3,000 or spend a month in prison.

But if you do it for free or sell photographs of yourself doing it, or pay other people to do it in front of a camera, it's legal.

-b

Eh.. you can argue that alcohol and cigarettes are nearly as bad, that we should have more freedoms and that the government shouldn't control this aspect of our lives... and I think you would have a compelling argument... but the following are also very rational and compelling arguments for it being illegal.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=141

"Smoked marijuana damages the brain, heart, lungs, and immune system. It impairs learning and interferes with memory, perception, and judgment. Smoked marijuana contains cancer-causing compounds and has been implicated in a high percentage of automobile crashes and workplace accidents."

-- John Walters
Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy
Syndicated editorial
Mar., 2002

"3-4 Cannabis cigarettes a day are associated with the same evidence of acute and chronic bronchitis and the same degree of damage to the bronchial mucosa as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.

Cannabis smoking is likely to weaken the immune system. Infections of the lung are due to a combination of smoking-related damage to the cells lining the bronchial passage and impairment of the principal immune cells in the small air sacs caused by cannabis."

-- British Lung Foundation
"Smoking Gun: The Impact of Cannabis Smoking on Respiratory Health,"
a publicly disseminated report
Nov., 2002

"The most compelling concerns regarding marijuana smoking in HIV/AIDS patients are the possible effects of marijuana on immunity.

Reports of opportunistic fungal and bacterial pneumonia in AIDS patients who used marijuana suggest that marijuana smoking either suppresses the immune system or exposes patients to an added burden of pathogens.

In summary, patients with preexisting immune deficits due to AIDS should be expected to be vulnerable to serious harm caused by smoking marijuana."
-- Institute of Medicine Report
Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base
Mar., 1999

"This study validated several specific effects of marijuana abstinence in heavy marijuana users, and showed they were reliable and clinically significant.

These withdrawal effects appear similar in type and magnitude to those observed in studies of nicotine withdrawal [...]

Craving for marijuana, decreased appetite, sleep difficulty, and weight loss reliably changed across the smoking and abstinence phases. Aggression, anger, irritability, restlessness, and strange dreams increased significantly during one abstinence phase, but not the other."

--Alan J. Budney, PhD et al.
Professor, University of Arkansas Center for Addiction Research
"Marijuana Abstinence Effects in Marijuana Smokers Maintained in Their Home Environment"
Archives of General Psychiatry
Oct., 2001

The most compelling resulting conclusion, in my mind, is that it puts both yourself and those around you at unreasonably high risk.

IMHO, I definitely don't think it's on par with hard drugs, it's probably about on par with alcohol + cigarettes. I'd have no problem with it being legal, but I do believe that the reasons for it being illegal are perfectly rational. Many people have never done it, it has lots of bad press and legalizing it will require a massive shift in momentum though.

If felons were barred from serving in the Senate / Congress, then all you'd have to do is get people you don't like convicted of little petty things which may technically be felonies (due to their positions) and you could control who was in charge.

Yeah, we just do it indirectly, through citizens, by preventing felons from voting in many states (under varying circumstances). Even for what should be petty things like possessing a few ounces of a controlled substance.

If felons were barred from serving in the Senate / Congress, then all you'd have to do is get people you don't like convicted of little petty things which may technically be felonies (due to their positions) and you could control who was in charge.

Yeah, we just do it indirectly, through citizens, by preventing felons from voting in many states (under varying circumstances). Even for what should be petty things like possessing a few ounces of a controlled substance.

Well, I strongly suggest you check out ProCon.org for quotes and stances (which summarizes nicely without flipping between candidates' websites directly). Googling for key phrases has served well to get invited OpEd pieces on the matter, although I have yet to find another good statistical summary.