Actually, I do agree with you 100%. At this point, I don't think there's any doubt in my mind that what Bush did was nothing short of Treason. The Downing Street Memo is essentially the smoking gun that Bush lied to the world in order to start an unnecessary war that has cost unimaginable damage to human lives, our world image, and the economy.
However, I'm simply stating here that when people here take every chance they can to take a dig at him, especially in totally unrelated articles, it does not make us, the supposed side of Justice, if I may be so crass, look very fair. It just tends to annoy those who aren't as thoroughly convinced.
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that in politics, you can't just accuse someone of treason like this so late in the game. Bush's image in the eyes of both the world and in the eyes of Americans is so far down the shitter that I don't think there's any way in Hell he could ever become popular again (hence my original comment). It's just a matter of time, waiting for him to make his next big screw up, and then striking while the iron's hot, to blow that out of proportion, and to add in charges of treason.
I don't particularly like this idea, but Congress doesn't seem to be responding to the letter I sent about increasing political efficiency by replacing everyone's desks with some gallows.
Okay, you're probably right. Let's up that dosage to 5 hours a day... or what have you. These are rough estimates, so let's just say "a lot."
But in your hypothetical, again, we must ask ourself: WHY is he sweating, crying, and pacing? I don't believe it's because he physically needs TV. It's a case of what does the TV supply him with? Perhaps it helps keep his mind off the problems in his life. Maybe he has a strong desire to be accepted, and finds it easier when he watches a lot of TV, and as such, has a lot to discuss with people who also watch a lot. Perhaps he's an obsessive completionist, and can't miss an episode of a show.
In all of these cases, it's not the TV that makes him feel this way, it's his own thought patterns. A lack of television does not make him sick. It is the lack of services provided by a TV. If he could get his fix of knowing what happened on $SHOW or what happened in the life of $CELEBRITY, he would more than likely be fine with that. Anything resembling withdrawal would more than likely be related to a social disorder, rather than an addiction.
Now, if a man did have a physical addiction to a television set... I don't know. What if I walked through this wall beside me? It's obviously impossible, but if it happened, I suppose it WOULD be possible. Probably best to assume, however, it doesn't happen unless some sort of new evidence suggests otherwise.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or foolish or not. But anyway...
It is indeed a physical object. But what I'm saying is a "physical addiction" is when the body will go through withdrawal. In other words, not using/consuming your addiction will cause you to act/appear/become ill. In the case of a mental addiction, I mean that being separated from the addiction may not be pleasant, but it will not cause you to develop a sickness. Someone who smokes a pack a day for 30 years will have problems not smoking for a single day, and his body will show it quite prominently.
A man who watches an hour of TV everyday for 30 years will not get sick if he spends a whole day outside (at least, he won't get sick from the separation from the TV. Flora, fauna, and the nasty sun... now THEY can be a man's bane.)
And 100% of people who still bring up "Bush stole the election in 2000" jokes in every topic. =)
(No offense. I do believe it happened, but... it happened. Making fun of Bush now is a lot like beating up a man with broken arms and legs. Sure, you could, but... why bother? What else can you do to him that hasn't already been done?)
But as far as bad taste goes, look at any list of top sellers in any field.
Whaddya know, 8 million people bought Madden 0X again, even though it's the same game as last year, with a new guy on the cover! Hmmm... Bill O'Rielly's book on the best-seller list? O R(iel)LY? Hey! (Popstar who can't sing)/(Rap artist who sings about crimes he never did) just went quintuple super ultra platinum again! At least until everyone forgets him by next week.
Also, try walking into a fashion or decoration store sometime. I'm against the death penalty, but if bad taste were legal and I were a judge, I'd send half of the USA to the gallows.
Well, this is probably why I'm not going to be a psychology major.
I do think my point stands, though. The Internet is not a physical addiction, and it's not all bad. The only harm from overuse of the Internet, for the most part, is the opportunity cost of what else you could be doing with that time (for example, exercise, socializing in person, working on a cure for cancer, etc.) And some time spent on the net has its benefits. Just as alcohol in small doses can have its benefits (IIRC).
I think the key difference is all in substitutions. The Internet can be substituted. The Internet is merely a delivery system. Information, shopping, socializing, and, of course, pornography, are all available in other sources. With an addiction to nicotine and alcohol, there is no substitute. Going without these causes the person to go into withdrawal. So behavioral training vs. medication is probably a good place to start in defining something as a habit (bad or not) vs. an addiction.
IANAP (I am not a psychologist) I think the OP is more or less trying to point out that there's a difference between physical addictions (alcohol, nicotine, harder drugs, etc.) and mental addictions (gaming, sex, though rarely both in the same individual =p).
To be fair, ANYTHING can be mentally addicting in the right individual.
Suppose a child enjoys cleaning, to a degree. Now suppose that during that child's life, s/he uses cleaning as an excuse to avoid his/her mother or farther when he hears issues involving domestic abuse, or other problems at home. Over time, the child starts to clean whenever anything even remotely stressful happens. Got a B on your report card and not an A? Clean. Car won't start? Clean. Overcooked dinner? Clean.
What we'd have here is a classic case of a coping mechanism, though it may seem to be like an actual addiction. Studies find child to be addicted to cleaning even after the room is spotless! No.
So there, I do suppose that was a weak example, but my point is that whether or not there is actual withdrawal physically is the key here. Does cocaine physically harm you if you take enough and then stop? Yes. Does Marijuana/other opiates? I'm not an FDA agent, but I'd say no. Long term, I don't doubt it can screw with your brain, but I think that counts as "long term effects" and not "withdrawal."
Maybe the Internet can seem to be addicting because so many people find comfort in it. It informs us, entertains us, and often gives us at least some mean of widespread, cheap communication in a world where things seem to grow more impersonal by the day (Arguable, but many feel this way). So, I'm sure in this case, the Internet does not count as an addiction because, as the OP said, it's a symptom, not the disease. It's a sign of problems people face in modern society.
Not to be rude, but do you have any sources to verify that? Last I heard, the percentage of taxes paid by the rich were dropping extremely quickly. But perhaps that was only corporations (which are legally considered a person) and maybe only in the U.S.
In either case, some data to read up on this would be appreciated.
To be serious for a second, the problem is with the people who DO listen to the lunatics. And sadly, there are more than a few of them.
And have you ever tried to shower without your eyes open? It's damn hard! Good luck even FINDING the bathroom. Besides, blind people touch EVERYTHING. Meaning they... touch... themselves... Oh, my poor virgin mind! God cleanse my mind's eye!
Where I live, in New York, yes, we sometimes had naked pictures in our textbook, with nary a word of complaint from anyone.
However, there really are people in this country who are outraged by the demonic, seductive, and totally inappropriate images of naked female bosoms on websites designed to discuss breast cancer. Honestly, what good could come from talking about "Satan's Tits," as they should be properly called?
To be fair, I'm sure almost all 1st world nations have people like this. They just tend to have a larger voice in America (from my perspective) whereas in other countries, the majority seem quicker to tell them to sit down, shut up, and realize that 99.9% of people who bathe each day will see at least one set of genitals per day.
As silly as this may sound, but I think Playboy is a good example of how ridiculous I feel the government is in regulating obscenity... including pornography.
Despite being 20 and male, I've never read an issue of Playboy (and no, I'm not gay, I'm just about asexual), but from what I've seen, I'd be hard pressed to say it has "no artistic value" or societal value at all. We're not talking about an exaggerated woman etched on a building with spraypaint. It's professional photographers and models doing their job.
I don't know, but I'm just strongly against any form of government or societal control over what is "obscene." We have freedom of speech, not freedom of selective sight and vision, or the freedom to never have to see or here what we don't like. If you don't like what someone is doing, you have the right to tell them to fuck off (though don't be surprised if they express the same feelings unto you).
If you want to keep Playboy or Maxim or whatever out of Young Sebatian's hands, just teach him why he shouldn't do something, try to watch him, and that's it. ('Cause 2 things parents need to note: Kids are resourceful and will likely find NEW ways to get what they want, regardless of what YOU say. And believe it or not, children have minds, can think and, gasp, might even have some responsibilty for their actions! And secondly, saying, "NO, YOU CAN'T HAVE THIS!" tends to make people want something MORE.)
Public shifts blame of problems onto society. More on this story after our special report, "The Sky: It's Blue."
Anyway, why should we be so unaccepting of the National Association of Marlon-Brando Look-Alikes? They are good people, and serve our communities well, even fending off pedophiles!
I really have to agree with you. I mean, if you think about it, a lot of geeks may have some grudges against Gates, but are they REALLY that big a deal? Sure, we joke about the Borg and all that, but let's compare Microsoft's business to Halliburton's or *Insert Oil Company Here*.
Outside the BSoD and Open Source jokes, Bill Gates is a respectable person, I'm sure most of us will (if grudgingly) admit. And I like the idea that logic and fact (Or at least SOME kind of observable data) could be used to make decisions, rather than gut instinct, faith, or however else you want to call making decisions via a dart board.
I feel this discussion has gone on far too long and so I will attempt to make this brief.
Yes, I do say that a uniform does not buy respect. Yes, to earn a uniform, you need to go through rigorous training that I will easily admit I could not personally complete (at least willingly). However, this does NOT mean you're a good person. It teaches you skills and gives you access to sources beyond the scope of any normal person. It does not, however, teach restraint, morals, responsibility (beyond "How to Not Get Fired"), etc.
But I think where we vary is in our definitions of "common courtesy." That kind of includes presuming that the person in question knows the basics of their job. Of course I'll trust a cop's directions. Why? Because it's his job to know the area. Same as I'd trust a librarian over a cop to help me find a book in the library, and a doctor to tell me what food is more likely be better for my health than some random "expert" of the week on the news.
But the way you insinuate things, a cop, regardless of what he tells you, should have more weight than anyone else. I disagree. When it comes to things outside his job description, I have every right and reason to be suspicious. What if I'm on the street and a cop randomly asks to see my ID? There's no law that says I have to hand it over. Why is he even asking? He's not a hall monitor, and it isn't middle school. If he had a good reason to ask me, he wouldn't even NEED to ask me. Or another example. A cop comes to my door and asks to search my house. The answer will be a flat out "no." There's a constitutional ammendment against unwarranted searches. What does he want to see in my home? I know I've done nothing wrong. He could just want to plant something there. Odds are? Probably 1/100 if not less. If he had a good reason to search my home, he'd have a warrant. He has no lawful right to be in my home uninvited, just like everyone else.
To me, it's naive to simply automatically trust anything said to you by someone in a uniform. Humans are humans, end of story. Power corrupts, and cops have more power than the average person. Does this mean I think most, or even a quarter of cops are crooked? Of course not. But I'd be willing to bet there's more than you think. And as is the popular saying these days, with great power comes great responsibility. I have certain rights under the law, and I will not just give them up because a cop, fireman, soldier, judge, whatever asks me to for no given reason. (And have you thought for a second WHY these rights exist?
Okay, so that wasn't so short, but I don't care. My point is that when it comes to enforcing the law, or asking about a neighborhood, or something else in a cop's job description, hey, no problem. But beyond that, they're like everybody else. I don't take legal advice from a TV repairman, and I'm not going to ask a lawyer about how to get in shape. As such, when a cop asks me to do something that isn't a part of enforcing law, why should I comply?
(And to partially answer that myself, my father would tell me "Cops have stupid regulations that often keep them from doing legal things to gather information." And as I tell him, "Then fix the information channels." It's not my job to make the cop's job easier. Because, as I've said, if a cop truly has reason to believe something has to be done, he doesn't HAVE to ask me.)
Free bird? Ha! Dolphins have their own song and dance number. I've seen it myself.
So long and thanks for all the fish So sad that it should come to this We tried to warn you all but oh dear... oh dear... You might not share our intellect Which might explain your disrespect For all the natural wonders that grow around you... So long so long so long and thanks... for all the fish...
Okay, I hate to troll, but I've had it up to here with this bullshit.
Let me put this as simply as possible. THAT'S NOT WHAT I FUCKING SAID. There have been many, many posts that speak on this, and I don't know how clearer we can make it. You are wrong. You are entirely wrong. We've broken it down, and you've misinterpreted my meaning entirely.
Here's what I said: "People are people, and whether or not they deserve respect is based on their actions, not their occupation or clothing."
You, however, seem to think that means in an emergency I would not even let them near me. Like, if I were in a burning building, I would somehow refuse a fireman's help because I inherently distrust him.
This is, of course, pure bullshit. An emergency worker, working in an emergency, is, by definition, doing his job. The cop who radios in a tow truck to help is worthy of respect. The one who just stares and then leaves is not. But before this, there's "common courtesy."
I'm truly not sure how to make this any clearer. What you thought I said is not what I said AT ALL. Period. End of story. We even broke it down grammatically. If this still doesn't satisfy you... I have no clue.
In response to your comment, I think the US Government is... *DOING A FANTASTIC JOB!*
I mean, seriously, why the fuck... *HAVEN'T THEY BEEN GIVEN MEDALS YET?*... I was surprised they weren't on the list... *OF SEXIEST POLITICIANS EVER.*
You know what? The government can go suck... *A DELICIOUS LOLLIPOP BECAUSE THEY CERTAINLY DESERVED IT. VOTE INCUMBENT! GOD BLESS AMERICA!*
(Note: This comment is a joke. As much as I hate some of the things America does on the Internet [and off it, but let's not get into that(You just did, asshole)] it's far from these places. For now, at least.)
As the OP, let me just say "thank you" for standing up and defending the meaning of what I said. You put it much better than I ever could (as someone who is diagnosed with a mild form of autism, clear language is not always so easy for me). I'm sorry to have started this whole mess which you got tangled up in due to my somewhat unclear language. But, again, I thank you.
Actually, I am the OP, and he is 100% right in his interpretation of what I meant. All I've stated was that just because one is in a uniform does not mean you are a good person, essentially. Now, the problem with how you're interpreting this is you're suggesting, then, that I will expect some form of corruption and will show him no act of decency. This is where you are wrong. He is a human being, and as such, does deserve the idea of "innocent until proven guilty."
How this varies from what you say is like this:
Show me a picture of a cop. Ask me to say whether he is corrupt or not. At this point, I can't say. I have no data on this man, no history, so making a judgment on a person without any data beyond his name and occupation is stupid, at best. Now, if that cop were at my front door talking to me, he'd at the very least, get what any other person at my door would get. I'd be as friendly as possible, though I'd be hesitant to invite him inside without a given reason. (If, for example, he had news to give me, and wished to sit down to give it to me, then of course I'd give him a seat. Or if it were a warning about a series of burglaries or some such, it's the same deal. But "Can I take a look around your home?" without a search warrant will be greeted the same as it would be for anyone else: sorry, but I can't let you do that. Call it healthy universal paranoia, or whatever you want, but I do prefer to know why someone wants to be in my house. Respect is a two-way street, and it's my constitutional right to refuse a search without a warrant, and as someone whose job it is to defend, enforce, and uphold those laws, he HAS to respect that.)
I think where you got caught up in all this, and I'm sorry if this was misleading, is in the "jack-shit" line. This does not equate to inherent distrust and rudeness, as you seem to imply. They are quite two different things. In your example, if a cop pulls up to my car, which has fallen in a ditch, of course he deserves to know what happened, specifically, as would ANYONE who pulled up. This is called common courtesy. The line jack-shit was refering to the fact that if you come up to me, you don't deserve one iota more of anything than anyone else does, regardless of whether or not you're in a uniform. If he then proceeds to try and help me get out of the ditch, well, then he has most certainly earned my gratitude and respect, as he has demonstrated that he is doing his job well (and if it's not a cop, that he is a good samaritan). This is most certainly worthy of a level of respect and trust I would not give someone I do not know. Everyone gets common courtesy, but any more than that requires some work.
I'm not sure how else to put it to make it any simpler. But this goes for all people. When I work at my store, it feels like 75% of my customers are complete idiots (to be fair, I'm currently at a Toys 'R' Us. Soccer moms don't tend to have the highest level of patience and logic skills as many other demographics). But this does not mean each and every person who comes up to me I instantly declare to be an idiot. If you come to me, and ask for help, I will gladly show you all the common courtesy and helpfulness anyone else in that position deserves. If you start acting selfish or rude or just plain stupid (such as demanding things which cannot be done by me or anyone else because of corporate policy or what have you), don't be too surprised if I'm not willing to go that extra mile to find what you want or to save you the maximum amount on your cupons.
Again, this, and the jack-shit line demonstrate only, and I repeat ONLY, means that one's outfit does not inherently require better or worse treatment. No one gets special treatment, period.
Good God, stop putting words in my mouth. All I said was that a uniform != respect. I said nothing about automatically hating/disrespecting a man in a uniform. I was trying to also point out that man != uniform. Some people are fucking sick. Some people are just corrput. Some are good people. Some are saints. The uniform doesn't cause that or fix that.
And sadly, my family has a long history of involvement in the military as well as emergency aid and fire fighting, and even the police. And straight from their mouths come more examples of assholes with badges and people who shouldn't be wearing said uniform. (Sometimes, it's even that relative). So, pardon me if I offend, but I don't believe that the enlistment process for certain jobs (such as being a soldier or a cop), do the best job of getting rid of some of the douchebags. It's certainly better than nothing, but...
Look, all it boils down to is that I will not automatically respect someone because they're in a uniform. Not a soldier, cop, or firefighter. I will, however, respect them for doing a good job. If I were stuck in a ditch, do you seriously think I'd think poorly of a cop who pulled over to help me? If so, well, you're just plain wrong. That would be a cop, you know, doing his job, and quite well, might I add. I do see examples of these people, and I respect them for the work they do. Just as I respect the teachers I have and have had who did their jobs well, but not the ones who clearly were clueless jerks.
At the end of the day, a uniform is nothing but a pile of cloth. The people within remain. No one, in any job, immediately deserves respect or disrespect until their actions are observed. Not you, not me, not the garbage man, not a cop, and not anyone else.
A uniform does not means you should respect someone. It's the actions of the person in the uniform that need respect, or sometimes, a lack thereof. Cops can be corrupt and bad people, too. Soldiers can be sadistic assholes who are for the most part, worthless except for their ability to kill.
This, however, does not mean all cops and soldiers are like that. But by no means are they all saints. Stressed out or not, you don't have the right to beat someone when it's not a necessity. I can certainly understand the desire to (I currently am a student part time and work retail part time. I deal with more morons per day than I care to calculate, but the people cops must deal with... I don't envy them.) But that's still no better a justification than "she was asking for it" as a defense for rape.
There are good cops and soldiers out there, and while I don't always agree with what they do (moreso for the soldiers), I respect their patience, and their dedication for helping people. But that doesn't mean anyone in a uniform deserves jack shit from you. Some of them are still assholes. As the saying goes, a turds a turd, no matter how you dress it up or polish it off.
I know this logic isn't very sound, but given the "Scandals" and such we have heard of employees at Diebold vowing to see Republicans take office and the such... Well, the Republicans DIDN'T win, for the most part. If I had heard more from some high level CEO in the company saying that he was dedicated to seeing that *insert Democratic candidate here* gets elected/re-elected... I'd be a bit more suspicious. So, it can feel sort of like either Diebold's evil plots for global domination through wayward voting machines was thwarted by a tuxedo-clad secret agent or they just plain didn't cheat.
Ironically, the Tower of Babel, having removed all barriers of communication on the planet, has been the cause of more bloody wars than anything else in history.
The Tower of Babel, being so mind bogglingly useful and improbable, has also been used as the final, clinching proof of the non-existance of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing." "But the Tower of Babel gives it away, doesn't it?" says man. "It proves you exist, which, by your own logic, means you don't." "Oh my, I hadn't thought of that," says God, and quickly disappears in a puff of logic. "Oh my, that was easy," says man, and for an encore, goes on to prove black is white and is promptly killed at the nearest zebra crossing.
In all seriousness, putting our towels to the side for a second, doesn't anyone find the name ironic? I mean, I'm not a religious scholar, (I'm agnostic) but wasn't the Tower the CAUSE of different languages in the Bible? They wanted to build a tower to Heaven, so God supposedly made everyone on it speak a different language so they couldn't finish their work, I believe. (although I suppose they could have just as easily come up with a system of hyroglyphics or other pictorial ways of communicating what needed to be done. Though maybe the problem was that some languages sounded kinda similar, so one person's "Get to work, now, you lazy bum" is another man's "Go home and get some rest, we'll send you your checks tomorrow, you sexy stud."
Jack Thompson has persuaded me to become a lawyer for this very reason. All I have to do is call myself an "expert" in a field, even if I know something about it... let's say "cars." Now I just walk up to my local dealership and say "I need to test this new Jaguar for the public good! Give me a brand new Jaguar or I'll sue you!"
Then you can carry around special business cards. I'm a gourmet expert! My meal is free or I'll sue you! I'm a alcohol inspector. I'll need to sample and take away your finest wines to make sure they're safe for consumption. If you don't comply, I'll sue you for putting the public in danger!
He's a dumbass nutjob, plain and simple, but he's also shrewed enough to convince people who, like him, also have no idea what the Hell they're talking about. That's the scary part.
Haha, I kind of figured this was coming. to tell the truth, all I know of Doom I learned from watching others play. The earliest FPS I ever played was Goldeneye (That's not to say I haven't played many games. I've been playing since I was 3 years old, just never got into FPS until late 90's)
But my point was though (as I'm sure you're aware) Doom is about as great a tutorial for combat as Tetris is for Construction. Hell, I'd be more willing to say SimCity is more likely to lead you to crime. And politics. But I repeat myself.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I do agree with you 100%. At this point, I don't think there's any doubt in my mind that what Bush did was nothing short of Treason. The Downing Street Memo is essentially the smoking gun that Bush lied to the world in order to start an unnecessary war that has cost unimaginable damage to human lives, our world image, and the economy.
However, I'm simply stating here that when people here take every chance they can to take a dig at him, especially in totally unrelated articles, it does not make us, the supposed side of Justice, if I may be so crass, look very fair. It just tends to annoy those who aren't as thoroughly convinced.
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that in politics, you can't just accuse someone of treason like this so late in the game. Bush's image in the eyes of both the world and in the eyes of Americans is so far down the shitter that I don't think there's any way in Hell he could ever become popular again (hence my original comment). It's just a matter of time, waiting for him to make his next big screw up, and then striking while the iron's hot, to blow that out of proportion, and to add in charges of treason.
I don't particularly like this idea, but Congress doesn't seem to be responding to the letter I sent about increasing political efficiency by replacing everyone's desks with some gallows.
Okay, you're probably right. Let's up that dosage to 5 hours a day... or what have you. These are rough estimates, so let's just say "a lot."
But in your hypothetical, again, we must ask ourself: WHY is he sweating, crying, and pacing? I don't believe it's because he physically needs TV. It's a case of what does the TV supply him with? Perhaps it helps keep his mind off the problems in his life. Maybe he has a strong desire to be accepted, and finds it easier when he watches a lot of TV, and as such, has a lot to discuss with people who also watch a lot. Perhaps he's an obsessive completionist, and can't miss an episode of a show.
In all of these cases, it's not the TV that makes him feel this way, it's his own thought patterns. A lack of television does not make him sick. It is the lack of services provided by a TV. If he could get his fix of knowing what happened on $SHOW or what happened in the life of $CELEBRITY, he would more than likely be fine with that. Anything resembling withdrawal would more than likely be related to a social disorder, rather than an addiction.
Now, if a man did have a physical addiction to a television set... I don't know. What if I walked through this wall beside me? It's obviously impossible, but if it happened, I suppose it WOULD be possible. Probably best to assume, however, it doesn't happen unless some sort of new evidence suggests otherwise.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or foolish or not. But anyway...
It is indeed a physical object. But what I'm saying is a "physical addiction" is when the body will go through withdrawal. In other words, not using/consuming your addiction will cause you to act/appear/become ill. In the case of a mental addiction, I mean that being separated from the addiction may not be pleasant, but it will not cause you to develop a sickness. Someone who smokes a pack a day for 30 years will have problems not smoking for a single day, and his body will show it quite prominently.
A man who watches an hour of TV everyday for 30 years will not get sick if he spends a whole day outside (at least, he won't get sick from the separation from the TV. Flora, fauna, and the nasty sun... now THEY can be a man's bane.)
And 100% of people who still bring up "Bush stole the election in 2000" jokes in every topic. =)
(No offense. I do believe it happened, but... it happened. Making fun of Bush now is a lot like beating up a man with broken arms and legs. Sure, you could, but... why bother? What else can you do to him that hasn't already been done?)
But as far as bad taste goes, look at any list of top sellers in any field.
Whaddya know, 8 million people bought Madden 0X again, even though it's the same game as last year, with a new guy on the cover!
Hmmm... Bill O'Rielly's book on the best-seller list? O R(iel)LY?
Hey! (Popstar who can't sing)/(Rap artist who sings about crimes he never did) just went quintuple super ultra platinum again! At least until everyone forgets him by next week.
Also, try walking into a fashion or decoration store sometime. I'm against the death penalty, but if bad taste were legal and I were a judge, I'd send half of the USA to the gallows.
Well, this is probably why I'm not going to be a psychology major.
I do think my point stands, though. The Internet is not a physical addiction, and it's not all bad. The only harm from overuse of the Internet, for the most part, is the opportunity cost of what else you could be doing with that time (for example, exercise, socializing in person, working on a cure for cancer, etc.) And some time spent on the net has its benefits. Just as alcohol in small doses can have its benefits (IIRC).
I think the key difference is all in substitutions. The Internet can be substituted. The Internet is merely a delivery system. Information, shopping, socializing, and, of course, pornography, are all available in other sources. With an addiction to nicotine and alcohol, there is no substitute. Going without these causes the person to go into withdrawal. So behavioral training vs. medication is probably a good place to start in defining something as a habit (bad or not) vs. an addiction.
IANAP (I am not a psychologist) I think the OP is more or less trying to point out that there's a difference between physical addictions (alcohol, nicotine, harder drugs, etc.) and mental addictions (gaming, sex, though rarely both in the same individual =p).
To be fair, ANYTHING can be mentally addicting in the right individual.
Suppose a child enjoys cleaning, to a degree. Now suppose that during that child's life, s/he uses cleaning as an excuse to avoid his/her mother or farther when he hears issues involving domestic abuse, or other problems at home. Over time, the child starts to clean whenever anything even remotely stressful happens. Got a B on your report card and not an A? Clean. Car won't start? Clean. Overcooked dinner? Clean.
What we'd have here is a classic case of a coping mechanism, though it may seem to be like an actual addiction. Studies find child to be addicted to cleaning even after the room is spotless! No.
So there, I do suppose that was a weak example, but my point is that whether or not there is actual withdrawal physically is the key here. Does cocaine physically harm you if you take enough and then stop? Yes. Does Marijuana/other opiates? I'm not an FDA agent, but I'd say no. Long term, I don't doubt it can screw with your brain, but I think that counts as "long term effects" and not "withdrawal."
Maybe the Internet can seem to be addicting because so many people find comfort in it. It informs us, entertains us, and often gives us at least some mean of widespread, cheap communication in a world where things seem to grow more impersonal by the day (Arguable, but many feel this way). So, I'm sure in this case, the Internet does not count as an addiction because, as the OP said, it's a symptom, not the disease. It's a sign of problems people face in modern society.
Somewhere in here is a "women drivers" joke waiting to be born.
Not to be rude, but do you have any sources to verify that? Last I heard, the percentage of taxes paid by the rich were dropping extremely quickly. But perhaps that was only corporations (which are legally considered a person) and maybe only in the U.S.
In either case, some data to read up on this would be appreciated.
To be serious for a second, the problem is with the people who DO listen to the lunatics. And sadly, there are more than a few of them.
And have you ever tried to shower without your eyes open? It's damn hard! Good luck even FINDING the bathroom. Besides, blind people touch EVERYTHING. Meaning they... touch... themselves... Oh, my poor virgin mind! God cleanse my mind's eye!
Where I live, in New York, yes, we sometimes had naked pictures in our textbook, with nary a word of complaint from anyone.
However, there really are people in this country who are outraged by the demonic, seductive, and totally inappropriate images of naked female bosoms on websites designed to discuss breast cancer. Honestly, what good could come from talking about "Satan's Tits," as they should be properly called?
To be fair, I'm sure almost all 1st world nations have people like this. They just tend to have a larger voice in America (from my perspective) whereas in other countries, the majority seem quicker to tell them to sit down, shut up, and realize that 99.9% of people who bathe each day will see at least one set of genitals per day.
As silly as this may sound, but I think Playboy is a good example of how ridiculous I feel the government is in regulating obscenity... including pornography.
Despite being 20 and male, I've never read an issue of Playboy (and no, I'm not gay, I'm just about asexual), but from what I've seen, I'd be hard pressed to say it has "no artistic value" or societal value at all. We're not talking about an exaggerated woman etched on a building with spraypaint. It's professional photographers and models doing their job.
I don't know, but I'm just strongly against any form of government or societal control over what is "obscene." We have freedom of speech, not freedom of selective sight and vision, or the freedom to never have to see or here what we don't like. If you don't like what someone is doing, you have the right to tell them to fuck off (though don't be surprised if they express the same feelings unto you).
If you want to keep Playboy or Maxim or whatever out of Young Sebatian's hands, just teach him why he shouldn't do something, try to watch him, and that's it. ('Cause 2 things parents need to note: Kids are resourceful and will likely find NEW ways to get what they want, regardless of what YOU say. And believe it or not, children have minds, can think and, gasp, might even have some responsibilty for their actions! And secondly, saying, "NO, YOU CAN'T HAVE THIS!" tends to make people want something MORE.)
Public shifts blame of problems onto society. More on this story after our special report, "The Sky: It's Blue."
Anyway, why should we be so unaccepting of the National Association of Marlon-Brando Look-Alikes? They are good people, and serve our communities well, even fending off pedophiles!
I really have to agree with you. I mean, if you think about it, a lot of geeks may have some grudges against Gates, but are they REALLY that big a deal? Sure, we joke about the Borg and all that, but let's compare Microsoft's business to Halliburton's or *Insert Oil Company Here*.
Outside the BSoD and Open Source jokes, Bill Gates is a respectable person, I'm sure most of us will (if grudgingly) admit. And I like the idea that logic and fact (Or at least SOME kind of observable data) could be used to make decisions, rather than gut instinct, faith, or however else you want to call making decisions via a dart board.
I feel this discussion has gone on far too long and so I will attempt to make this brief.
Yes, I do say that a uniform does not buy respect. Yes, to earn a uniform, you need to go through rigorous training that I will easily admit I could not personally complete (at least willingly). However, this does NOT mean you're a good person. It teaches you skills and gives you access to sources beyond the scope of any normal person. It does not, however, teach restraint, morals, responsibility (beyond "How to Not Get Fired"), etc.
But I think where we vary is in our definitions of "common courtesy." That kind of includes presuming that the person in question knows the basics of their job. Of course I'll trust a cop's directions. Why? Because it's his job to know the area. Same as I'd trust a librarian over a cop to help me find a book in the library, and a doctor to tell me what food is more likely be better for my health than some random "expert" of the week on the news.
But the way you insinuate things, a cop, regardless of what he tells you, should have more weight than anyone else. I disagree. When it comes to things outside his job description, I have every right and reason to be suspicious. What if I'm on the street and a cop randomly asks to see my ID? There's no law that says I have to hand it over. Why is he even asking? He's not a hall monitor, and it isn't middle school. If he had a good reason to ask me, he wouldn't even NEED to ask me. Or another example. A cop comes to my door and asks to search my house. The answer will be a flat out "no." There's a constitutional ammendment against unwarranted searches. What does he want to see in my home? I know I've done nothing wrong. He could just want to plant something there. Odds are? Probably 1/100 if not less. If he had a good reason to search my home, he'd have a warrant. He has no lawful right to be in my home uninvited, just like everyone else.
To me, it's naive to simply automatically trust anything said to you by someone in a uniform. Humans are humans, end of story. Power corrupts, and cops have more power than the average person. Does this mean I think most, or even a quarter of cops are crooked? Of course not. But I'd be willing to bet there's more than you think. And as is the popular saying these days, with great power comes great responsibility. I have certain rights under the law, and I will not just give them up because a cop, fireman, soldier, judge, whatever asks me to for no given reason. (And have you thought for a second WHY these rights exist?
Okay, so that wasn't so short, but I don't care. My point is that when it comes to enforcing the law, or asking about a neighborhood, or something else in a cop's job description, hey, no problem. But beyond that, they're like everybody else. I don't take legal advice from a TV repairman, and I'm not going to ask a lawyer about how to get in shape. As such, when a cop asks me to do something that isn't a part of enforcing law, why should I comply?
(And to partially answer that myself, my father would tell me "Cops have stupid regulations that often keep them from doing legal things to gather information." And as I tell him, "Then fix the information channels." It's not my job to make the cop's job easier. Because, as I've said, if a cop truly has reason to believe something has to be done, he doesn't HAVE to ask me.)
Free bird? Ha! Dolphins have their own song and dance number. I've seen it myself.
So long and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this
We tried to warn you all but oh dear... oh dear...
You might not share our intellect
Which might explain your disrespect
For all the natural wonders that grow around you...
So long so long so long and thanks... for all the fish...
Okay, I hate to troll, but I've had it up to here with this bullshit.
Let me put this as simply as possible. THAT'S NOT WHAT I FUCKING SAID. There have been many, many posts that speak on this, and I don't know how clearer we can make it. You are wrong. You are entirely wrong. We've broken it down, and you've misinterpreted my meaning entirely.
Here's what I said: "People are people, and whether or not they deserve respect is based on their actions, not their occupation or clothing."
You, however, seem to think that means in an emergency I would not even let them near me. Like, if I were in a burning building, I would somehow refuse a fireman's help because I inherently distrust him.
This is, of course, pure bullshit. An emergency worker, working in an emergency, is, by definition, doing his job. The cop who radios in a tow truck to help is worthy of respect. The one who just stares and then leaves is not. But before this, there's "common courtesy."
I'm truly not sure how to make this any clearer. What you thought I said is not what I said AT ALL. Period. End of story. We even broke it down grammatically. If this still doesn't satisfy you... I have no clue.
In response to your comment, I think the US Government is... *DOING A FANTASTIC JOB!*
I mean, seriously, why the fuck... *HAVEN'T THEY BEEN GIVEN MEDALS YET?*... I was surprised they weren't on the list... *OF SEXIEST POLITICIANS EVER.*
You know what? The government can go suck... *A DELICIOUS LOLLIPOP BECAUSE THEY CERTAINLY DESERVED IT. VOTE INCUMBENT! GOD BLESS AMERICA!*
(Note: This comment is a joke. As much as I hate some of the things America does on the Internet [and off it, but let's not get into that(You just did, asshole)] it's far from these places. For now, at least.)
As the OP, let me just say "thank you" for standing up and defending the meaning of what I said. You put it much better than I ever could (as someone who is diagnosed with a mild form of autism, clear language is not always so easy for me). I'm sorry to have started this whole mess which you got tangled up in due to my somewhat unclear language. But, again, I thank you.
Actually, I am the OP, and he is 100% right in his interpretation of what I meant. All I've stated was that just because one is in a uniform does not mean you are a good person, essentially. Now, the problem with how you're interpreting this is you're suggesting, then, that I will expect some form of corruption and will show him no act of decency. This is where you are wrong. He is a human being, and as such, does deserve the idea of "innocent until proven guilty."
How this varies from what you say is like this:
Show me a picture of a cop. Ask me to say whether he is corrupt or not. At this point, I can't say. I have no data on this man, no history, so making a judgment on a person without any data beyond his name and occupation is stupid, at best. Now, if that cop were at my front door talking to me, he'd at the very least, get what any other person at my door would get. I'd be as friendly as possible, though I'd be hesitant to invite him inside without a given reason. (If, for example, he had news to give me, and wished to sit down to give it to me, then of course I'd give him a seat. Or if it were a warning about a series of burglaries or some such, it's the same deal. But "Can I take a look around your home?" without a search warrant will be greeted the same as it would be for anyone else: sorry, but I can't let you do that. Call it healthy universal paranoia, or whatever you want, but I do prefer to know why someone wants to be in my house. Respect is a two-way street, and it's my constitutional right to refuse a search without a warrant, and as someone whose job it is to defend, enforce, and uphold those laws, he HAS to respect that.)
I think where you got caught up in all this, and I'm sorry if this was misleading, is in the "jack-shit" line. This does not equate to inherent distrust and rudeness, as you seem to imply. They are quite two different things. In your example, if a cop pulls up to my car, which has fallen in a ditch, of course he deserves to know what happened, specifically, as would ANYONE who pulled up. This is called common courtesy. The line jack-shit was refering to the fact that if you come up to me, you don't deserve one iota more of anything than anyone else does, regardless of whether or not you're in a uniform. If he then proceeds to try and help me get out of the ditch, well, then he has most certainly earned my gratitude and respect, as he has demonstrated that he is doing his job well (and if it's not a cop, that he is a good samaritan). This is most certainly worthy of a level of respect and trust I would not give someone I do not know. Everyone gets common courtesy, but any more than that requires some work.
I'm not sure how else to put it to make it any simpler. But this goes for all people. When I work at my store, it feels like 75% of my customers are complete idiots (to be fair, I'm currently at a Toys 'R' Us. Soccer moms don't tend to have the highest level of patience and logic skills as many other demographics). But this does not mean each and every person who comes up to me I instantly declare to be an idiot. If you come to me, and ask for help, I will gladly show you all the common courtesy and helpfulness anyone else in that position deserves. If you start acting selfish or rude or just plain stupid (such as demanding things which cannot be done by me or anyone else because of corporate policy or what have you), don't be too surprised if I'm not willing to go that extra mile to find what you want or to save you the maximum amount on your cupons.
Again, this, and the jack-shit line demonstrate only, and I repeat ONLY, means that one's outfit does not inherently require better or worse treatment. No one gets special treatment, period.
Good God, stop putting words in my mouth. All I said was that a uniform != respect. I said nothing about automatically hating/disrespecting a man in a uniform. I was trying to also point out that man != uniform. Some people are fucking sick. Some people are just corrput. Some are good people. Some are saints. The uniform doesn't cause that or fix that.
And sadly, my family has a long history of involvement in the military as well as emergency aid and fire fighting, and even the police. And straight from their mouths come more examples of assholes with badges and people who shouldn't be wearing said uniform. (Sometimes, it's even that relative). So, pardon me if I offend, but I don't believe that the enlistment process for certain jobs (such as being a soldier or a cop), do the best job of getting rid of some of the douchebags. It's certainly better than nothing, but...
Look, all it boils down to is that I will not automatically respect someone because they're in a uniform. Not a soldier, cop, or firefighter. I will, however, respect them for doing a good job. If I were stuck in a ditch, do you seriously think I'd think poorly of a cop who pulled over to help me? If so, well, you're just plain wrong. That would be a cop, you know, doing his job, and quite well, might I add. I do see examples of these people, and I respect them for the work they do. Just as I respect the teachers I have and have had who did their jobs well, but not the ones who clearly were clueless jerks.
At the end of the day, a uniform is nothing but a pile of cloth. The people within remain. No one, in any job, immediately deserves respect or disrespect until their actions are observed. Not you, not me, not the garbage man, not a cop, and not anyone else.
A uniform does not means you should respect someone. It's the actions of the person in the uniform that need respect, or sometimes, a lack thereof. Cops can be corrupt and bad people, too. Soldiers can be sadistic assholes who are for the most part, worthless except for their ability to kill.
This, however, does not mean all cops and soldiers are like that. But by no means are they all saints. Stressed out or not, you don't have the right to beat someone when it's not a necessity. I can certainly understand the desire to (I currently am a student part time and work retail part time. I deal with more morons per day than I care to calculate, but the people cops must deal with... I don't envy them.) But that's still no better a justification than "she was asking for it" as a defense for rape.
There are good cops and soldiers out there, and while I don't always agree with what they do (moreso for the soldiers), I respect their patience, and their dedication for helping people. But that doesn't mean anyone in a uniform deserves jack shit from you. Some of them are still assholes. As the saying goes, a turds a turd, no matter how you dress it up or polish it off.
I know this logic isn't very sound, but given the "Scandals" and such we have heard of employees at Diebold vowing to see Republicans take office and the such... Well, the Republicans DIDN'T win, for the most part. If I had heard more from some high level CEO in the company saying that he was dedicated to seeing that *insert Democratic candidate here* gets elected/re-elected... I'd be a bit more suspicious. So, it can feel sort of like either Diebold's evil plots for global domination through wayward voting machines was thwarted by a tuxedo-clad secret agent or they just plain didn't cheat.
Ironically, the Tower of Babel, having removed all barriers of communication on the planet, has been the cause of more bloody wars than anything else in history.
The Tower of Babel, being so mind bogglingly useful and improbable, has also been used as the final, clinching proof of the non-existance of God. The argument goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."
"But the Tower of Babel gives it away, doesn't it?" says man. "It proves you exist, which, by your own logic, means you don't."
"Oh my, I hadn't thought of that," says God, and quickly disappears in a puff of logic.
"Oh my, that was easy," says man, and for an encore, goes on to prove black is white and is promptly killed at the nearest zebra crossing.
In all seriousness, putting our towels to the side for a second, doesn't anyone find the name ironic? I mean, I'm not a religious scholar, (I'm agnostic) but wasn't the Tower the CAUSE of different languages in the Bible? They wanted to build a tower to Heaven, so God supposedly made everyone on it speak a different language so they couldn't finish their work, I believe. (although I suppose they could have just as easily come up with a system of hyroglyphics or other pictorial ways of communicating what needed to be done. Though maybe the problem was that some languages sounded kinda similar, so one person's "Get to work, now, you lazy bum" is another man's "Go home and get some rest, we'll send you your checks tomorrow, you sexy stud."
Jack Thompson has persuaded me to become a lawyer for this very reason. All I have to do is call myself an "expert" in a field, even if I know something about it... let's say "cars." Now I just walk up to my local dealership and say "I need to test this new Jaguar for the public good! Give me a brand new Jaguar or I'll sue you!"
Then you can carry around special business cards. I'm a gourmet expert! My meal is free or I'll sue you! I'm a alcohol inspector. I'll need to sample and take away your finest wines to make sure they're safe for consumption. If you don't comply, I'll sue you for putting the public in danger!
He's a dumbass nutjob, plain and simple, but he's also shrewed enough to convince people who, like him, also have no idea what the Hell they're talking about. That's the scary part.
Haha, I kind of figured this was coming. to tell the truth, all I know of Doom I learned from watching others play. The earliest FPS I ever played was Goldeneye (That's not to say I haven't played many games. I've been playing since I was 3 years old, just never got into FPS until late 90's)
But my point was though (as I'm sure you're aware) Doom is about as great a tutorial for combat as Tetris is for Construction. Hell, I'd be more willing to say SimCity is more likely to lead you to crime. And politics. But I repeat myself.