I DID take the second meaning, and still feel it misrepresents what I was trying to say. Oh well, it doesn't really matter, no one wants to have sex with me anyway: I'm good, but not by choice;)
Actually, I don't want anything to do with meaningless sex and I may, at times, look down at people who engage in it regularly. However, I usually stop myself and blame my arrogance on jealousy. After all, I have no right (ultimate "right," not legal right -- and I don't mean God) to judge someone else when their actions affect me in no way whatsoever.
Not quite on-topic with the thread, but difinitely for the article... When I read the summary, I wondered: how does this fall under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration? Is someone seriously going to eat this device? Does an appropriate (or maybe just appropriately-named) division of the government even exist to look at things like these?
And also, why is it that/. decided suddenly to hold me back for five minutes just because I can think and type faster than some others? To give them a "chance to post?" THEY HAVE THE FREAKING CHANCE I DO. Maybe the time length should be based on Karma or something... Just seems stupid.
> In other words, constant stimulation of the pleasure center would fairly quickly become the new baseline,
Please excuse my ignorance, I haven't taken a biology class since HS, and never anything on neurology, nor psychiatry... If this is true, does it also work in reverse?
I am a relatively depressed person, although I believe it is because of the crappiness of my life, and not chemical imbalances (statistically, if there are people with genuinely "good" lives, there are people with genuinely "bad" ones).
If I am constantly given negative stimuli, would the baseline not drop, making me feel happier in general, even though absolute quality of life remains unchanged?
> > Not everyone has "meaningless sex." > You're right, it's a bad thing that should be avoided.
That's great timing, because I was just reading a thread where someone's signature was the definition of "Straw Man Fallacy."
Just because I said "not everyone does something," it does not follow that I suggest that thing is good or bad. There are people who have "meaningless" sex (not really meaningless, it just doesn't have the meaning you demand be attributed to sex) and are still happy. They may be rare, but rare != nonexistant, and more importantly rare != wrong.
> you don't have to live in the sticks. it's not a requirement.
Except that they can't make enough money working there to save up & pay the amazingly & unnecessarily high costs of living of one of the places you happen to be able to afford to live.
> if you fuckers slow down in construction zones I wont thor shit at your car.
If you are standing where I'm driving (assuming I'm on the road), you need to GET THE FUCK OFF THE GODDAMNED ROAD, YOU MORON! If my office was on the double yellow lines of a highway I would expect people to fly past me!
YOU CHOSE TO WORK HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION, YOU KNOW WHAT A HIGHWAY IS USED FOR!
I don't get that thing... It looks like he doubled the length of one spiral (one revolution) after the first three... wouldn't it end up looking nicer if it didn't have that huge gap with arrows pointing everywhere?
> Never forget that those that believe outnumber those that don't by an overwhelming margin
And the number of people who believe something different outnumber the current popular religion. To continue that thought, everyone is insane because "everyone else" will always outnumber their own group. "The Truth" isn't based on the number of people who believe it. Or at least, I don't think it is... y'never know.
> It makes her feel good that she's doing the right thing standing up for her convictions that explicit lyrics are bad
Standing up for your convictions is good. Wonderful. Forcing others to live by your convictions is very bad. Considering they were school children, I would agree with the end result, but I would suggest you make sure she understands that she does not have the right to remain unoffended. Otherwise, she could become one of the people that tries to get laws passed because she doesn't like something, not because it's actually harmful.
> He even refuses to sit in the driver's seat for the fun of it when the car is parked
And that shows a good grasp of reality? Not knowing the difference between sitting in the driver's seat and actually driving a car? Again, the end result is great (not driving before he's allowed) but I question the methodology (they seem to have learned the ideas themselves, so that may not be the correct word) and the analysis.
> you probably also don't believe smoking causes lung cancer.
I don't buy this 100%, but it is interesting nonetheless, and is a good example of how something can be misrepresented and then become the basis for a national movement to restrict rights.
> It's no more acceptable to point the finger exclusively at parents as it is at Rockstar games
Not exclusively, but they require a larger portion of the blame. You sound like a bad parent trying to wriggle his way out of any accusations of being a bad parent. Remember, half of all parents are below average: even ones with the best intentions.
> the morality of a business which profits on a POTENTIALLY harmful product is questionable.
The morality of McDonalds is certainly questionable. That doesn't mean there's a "Your Ass Will Get _X_ Sizes Bigger" rating applied to them on the side of every restaurant.
What about video game companies that put out both cutesy G-rated games and also 'M' rated ones. Are they selectively bad & good depending on the project at the time? More than 80% of all products are "potentially" harmful. The potential is in how it's used. If everyone used games as a way to have fun, they are dangerous to no one. However, a lot of these games are used as stress relievers. Some people play GTA:SA so that they DON'T go out and kill someone. Some people play GTA:SA and it makes them more agitated.
That is not the fault of the game, it is the fault of the individual, coupled with...:
> almost EVERYTHING contributes to the society we live in
...everything else in the world. Yes, individuals contribute to "society," (which is pretty abstract, as there is no worldwide "society") everything in a society affects the individual, NOT JUST A SINGLE GAME, nor is the game very influential, ultimately.
It seems much more likely that if someone was going to kill someone else, the cause was completely external to a game, although the game may allow them to fantasize about it a bit more, possibly causing them to steep in their own anger for longer than if they had gone for a bike ride or a hike. That is, if they CHOSE to do those things. They could also sit around sharpening knives and cleaning their guns, like a hundred rednecks I know.
To say that only bad things can come from video games is horribly idiotic and such a statement has no basis in reality. After all, there are TONS of extremely talented programmers out there who would not have touched a computer if they hadn't played those neat games as a kid.
When the government and media glorify killing (when it's "our side" that commits the murder, at least), how in the world can it be surprising that people are more desensitized to death? Look further back in history. Violence has always been there, it's just been a bit more in the open since people realized what death was actually like (video feeds from Vietnam, etc, to present).
If you want to know where a lot of kids got the idea that killing is okay, why don't you ask their dads to retell the stories about how they were so proud to have killed "three dozen goddamned chinks." Then wonder if they got their murderous ideas from video games...
> it is the fault of the child's parents who have failed to instruct the child in the fundamental differences between fantasy and reality
I agree with you, but you have to keep in mind that these are the same parents who believe there is a big ghost in the sky watching their every move who will decide if their eternal fate is living in clouds or being tortured in a pit of fire. They have their OWN problems with the difference between fantasy and reality...
Why the hell is this news? Artists have done this for a long time. I've been doing that for a while. Is this somehow news just because it includes someone who used to be famous? Okay, hat about Trent Reznor? He released the song "Only" in 4 different AUTHORING formats (IE, Apple Garageband, Sony Acid Pro) for people to remix, & whatnot.
It's very nice that they are doing it, and I'm happy about it (I'm a Clash fan) but to act like they are the first, or even on the upswing of a trend is ludicrous.
> I have always wondered what the effect of the 'man in moon' was on early humans.
I wonder if the same side of the moon was even facing Earth when early humans existed. Maybe there is an even cooler "image" on the other side of the moon. Like if you tilt your head 20 degrees, squint, and shake violently, you see the image of a couple doing the tango. For the sake of science, we must rotate the moon!
Slashdot Mirror
Ultra-Meta-Monster-Dupe-Breaker... TEN THOUSAND!!!
I DID take the second meaning, and still feel it misrepresents what I was trying to say. Oh well, it doesn't really matter, no one wants to have sex with me anyway: I'm good, but not by choice ;)
Actually, I don't want anything to do with meaningless sex and I may, at times, look down at people who engage in it regularly. However, I usually stop myself and blame my arrogance on jealousy. After all, I have no right (ultimate "right," not legal right -- and I don't mean God) to judge someone else when their actions affect me in no way whatsoever.
> know how many celebrities are on the Big Drug Co. payrolls [...] hint: many
Please name one, with some proof.
> tom cruise for [...] pointing out the obvious: neuroscience is a huge con.
I don't believe that is his intent, or else he would not buy into a much bigger con, namely scientology.
> He lost a lot of his memory
Perhaps it works for other people because it causes them to forget what was depressing them in the first place!
(Please excuse me for making a joke at your friend's expense, it isn't directed at anyone in particular and was not intended to be hurtful)
> Please remember that the FDA has approved
/. decided suddenly to hold me back for five minutes just because I can think and type faster than some others? To give them a "chance to post?" THEY HAVE THE FREAKING CHANCE I DO. Maybe the time length should be based on Karma or something... Just seems stupid.
Not quite on-topic with the thread, but difinitely for the article... When I read the summary, I wondered: how does this fall under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration? Is someone seriously going to eat this device? Does an appropriate (or maybe just appropriately-named) division of the government even exist to look at things like these?
And also, why is it that
> In other words, constant stimulation of the pleasure center would fairly quickly become the new baseline,
Please excuse my ignorance, I haven't taken a biology class since HS, and never anything on neurology, nor psychiatry... If this is true, does it also work in reverse?
I am a relatively depressed person, although I believe it is because of the crappiness of my life, and not chemical imbalances (statistically, if there are people with genuinely "good" lives, there are people with genuinely "bad" ones).
If I am constantly given negative stimuli, would the baseline not drop, making me feel happier in general, even though absolute quality of life remains unchanged?
> Excuse me, sir, but did you just say butt frenzy?
Yes he did, and for the life of me, I can't figure out if he was intending to say something else...
> > Not everyone has "meaningless sex."
> You're right, it's a bad thing that should be avoided.
That's great timing, because I was just reading a thread where someone's signature was the definition of "Straw Man Fallacy."
Just because I said "not everyone does something," it does not follow that I suggest that thing is good or bad. There are people who have "meaningless" sex (not really meaningless, it just doesn't have the meaning you demand be attributed to sex) and are still happy. They may be rare, but rare != nonexistant, and more importantly rare != wrong.
Breathing is a privilege!
> you don't have to live in the sticks. it's not a requirement.
Except that they can't make enough money working there to save up & pay the amazingly & unnecessarily high costs of living of one of the places you happen to be able to afford to live.
> if you fuckers slow down in construction zones I wont thor shit at your car.
If you are standing where I'm driving (assuming I'm on the road), you need to GET THE FUCK OFF THE GODDAMNED ROAD, YOU MORON! If my office was on the double yellow lines of a highway I would expect people to fly past me!
YOU CHOSE TO WORK HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION, YOU KNOW WHAT A HIGHWAY IS USED FOR!
> I have wound up hurting girls that I have been in relationships with. [...] I thought of the sex as meaningless
Just because YOU have does not mean that everyone else has. Not everyone has "meaningless sex."
> I also think that it's a bedrock condition to a fulfilling life.
So no Catholic priest has ever led a fulfilling life? Or a Buddhist monk? Again, what works for you does not necessarily work for everyone else.
> I am fairly sure that being faithful to one person and building a family is what happiness is all about
Just because you require that does not mean that anyone else does. Not everyone derives happiness from simply procreating with one particular person.
I don't get that thing... It looks like he doubled the length of one spiral (one revolution) after the first three... wouldn't it end up looking nicer if it didn't have that huge gap with arrows pointing everywhere?
> Women like the maturity.
No, they like feeling mature (but not old), so they desire people who they think will make them look more mature.
It's like looking at a real-life MC Escher image...
> Never forget that those that believe outnumber those that don't by an overwhelming margin
And the number of people who believe something different outnumber the current popular religion. To continue that thought, everyone is insane because "everyone else" will always outnumber their own group. "The Truth" isn't based on the number of people who believe it. Or at least, I don't think it is... y'never know.
> It makes her feel good that she's doing the right thing standing up for her convictions that explicit lyrics are bad
Standing up for your convictions is good. Wonderful. Forcing others to live by your convictions is very bad. Considering they were school children, I would agree with the end result, but I would suggest you make sure she understands that she does not have the right to remain unoffended. Otherwise, she could become one of the people that tries to get laws passed because she doesn't like something, not because it's actually harmful.
> He even refuses to sit in the driver's seat for the fun of it when the car is parked
And that shows a good grasp of reality? Not knowing the difference between sitting in the driver's seat and actually driving a car? Again, the end result is great (not driving before he's allowed) but I question the methodology (they seem to have learned the ideas themselves, so that may not be the correct word) and the analysis.
> you probably also don't believe smoking causes lung cancer.
I don't buy this 100%, but it is interesting nonetheless, and is a good example of how something can be misrepresented and then become the basis for a national movement to restrict rights.
> sounds like conservatism to me.
"Classical Conservatism," which is almost entirely different from modern Conservatism (and the complete opposite of Neo-Conservatism).
> It's no more acceptable to point the finger exclusively at parents as it is at Rockstar games
...everything else in the world.
Not exclusively, but they require a larger portion of the blame. You sound like a bad parent trying to wriggle his way out of any accusations of being a bad parent. Remember, half of all parents are below average: even ones with the best intentions.
> the morality of a business which profits on a POTENTIALLY harmful product is questionable.
The morality of McDonalds is certainly questionable. That doesn't mean there's a "Your Ass Will Get _X_ Sizes Bigger" rating applied to them on the side of every restaurant.
What about video game companies that put out both cutesy G-rated games and also 'M' rated ones. Are they selectively bad & good depending on the project at the time? More than 80% of all products are "potentially" harmful. The potential is in how it's used. If everyone used games as a way to have fun, they are dangerous to no one. However, a lot of these games are used as stress relievers. Some people play GTA:SA so that they DON'T go out and kill someone. Some people play GTA:SA and it makes them more agitated.
That is not the fault of the game, it is the fault of the individual, coupled with...:
> almost EVERYTHING contributes to the society we live in
Yes, individuals contribute to "society," (which is pretty abstract, as there is no worldwide "society") everything in a society affects the individual, NOT JUST A SINGLE GAME, nor is the game very influential, ultimately.
It seems much more likely that if someone was going to kill someone else, the cause was completely external to a game, although the game may allow them to fantasize about it a bit more, possibly causing them to steep in their own anger for longer than if they had gone for a bike ride or a hike. That is, if they CHOSE to do those things. They could also sit around sharpening knives and cleaning their guns, like a hundred rednecks I know.
To say that only bad things can come from video games is horribly idiotic and such a statement has no basis in reality. After all, there are TONS of extremely talented programmers out there who would not have touched a computer if they hadn't played those neat games as a kid.
When the government and media glorify killing (when it's "our side" that commits the murder, at least), how in the world can it be surprising that people are more desensitized to death? Look further back in history. Violence has always been there, it's just been a bit more in the open since people realized what death was actually like (video feeds from Vietnam, etc, to present).
If you want to know where a lot of kids got the idea that killing is okay, why don't you ask their dads to retell the stories about how they were so proud to have killed "three dozen goddamned chinks." Then wonder if they got their murderous ideas from video games...
> it is the fault of the child's parents who have failed to instruct the child in the fundamental differences between fantasy and reality
I agree with you, but you have to keep in mind that these are the same parents who believe there is a big ghost in the sky watching their every move who will decide if their eternal fate is living in clouds or being tortured in a pit of fire. They have their OWN problems with the difference between fantasy and reality...
Split.
Why the hell is this news? Artists have done this for a long time. I've been doing that for a while. Is this somehow news just because it includes someone who used to be famous? Okay, hat about Trent Reznor? He released the song "Only" in 4 different AUTHORING formats (IE, Apple Garageband, Sony Acid Pro) for people to remix, & whatnot.
It's very nice that they are doing it, and I'm happy about it (I'm a Clash fan) but to act like they are the first, or even on the upswing of a trend is ludicrous.
> When would all of the gunfights occur, when there's no "high noon"?
Well, there would be, but you might have to wait a few thousand years for the suns line up in the right place before your duel.
> I have always wondered what the effect of the 'man in moon' was on early humans.
I wonder if the same side of the moon was even facing Earth when early humans existed. Maybe there is an even cooler "image" on the other side of the moon. Like if you tilt your head 20 degrees, squint, and shake violently, you see the image of a couple doing the tango. For the sake of science, we must rotate the moon!
> I'm sorry, did you miss the parts in history class where more free, western type nations had the biggest, baddest militaries first?
Was the Roman Empire considered "free?"