"Scientists at McDonald's University have used Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to show that a brain network responsible for suppressing hunger or compulsive behaviors became less active after study subjects watched several short clips from popular commercials depicting acts of eating. These changes could render people less able to control their own hunger. Although research has shown some correlation between exposure to media food advertisements and real-life consumption, there has been little direct neuroscientific support for this theory until now. 'Depictions of steaming hot food have become very common in the popular fast food ads,' said researcher Christopher Kelly. 'Our findings demonstrate for the first time that watching media depictions of food does influence processing in parts of the brain that control behaviors like hunger.' The full research paper is published on the The Public Library of Science, a peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication, that publishes all its articles under a Creative Commons Attribution License."
Who does your argument benefit? Who benefits from them believing in something else? Is your motive altruism, or is really from the same vein as the arguments the those that would hit you on the head with a Bible, saying "Thou Shalt Believe!!"?
Is your motive to watch the tv debates and stand up when the question comes on, saying "That's what I'm talking about! Take that! You unbeliever!"
Or is your motive to persuade them to look at what you are bringing to the table? Are you trying to change their [potential leaders-however unlikely] hearts and minds, or are you grandstanding?
There is a very similar OSS research project called Ferret by a prof at UMD. I used to be IT support for an institution he is a member of. (Institute for Systems Research)
Slashdot Mirror
"Scientists at McDonald's University have used Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to show that a brain network responsible for suppressing hunger or compulsive behaviors became less active after study subjects watched several short clips from popular commercials depicting acts of eating. These changes could render people less able to control their own hunger. Although research has shown some correlation between exposure to media food advertisements and real-life consumption, there has been little direct neuroscientific support for this theory until now. 'Depictions of steaming hot food have become very common in the popular fast food ads,' said researcher Christopher Kelly. 'Our findings demonstrate for the first time that watching media depictions of food does influence processing in parts of the brain that control behaviors like hunger.' The full research paper is published on the The Public Library of Science, a peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication, that publishes all its articles under a Creative Commons Attribution License."
What if they reply, "time doesn't really exist, it's really just an illusion"?
Who does your argument benefit? Who benefits from them believing in something else? Is your motive altruism, or is really from the same vein as the arguments the those that would hit you on the head with a Bible, saying "Thou Shalt Believe!!"?
Is your motive to watch the tv debates and stand up when the question comes on, saying "That's what I'm talking about! Take that! You unbeliever!"
Or is your motive to persuade them to look at what you are bringing to the table? Are you trying to change their [potential leaders-however unlikely] hearts and minds, or are you grandstanding?
There is a very similar OSS research project called Ferret by a prof at UMD. I used to be IT support for an institution he is a member of. (Institute for Systems Research)
http://www.enre.umd.edu/faculty/cukier.htm
http://ferret.sourceforge.net/
Your uniqueness will be added to our own.