"I agree. The teachers unions force me to pay their salaries. The army forces me to pay for wars."
This is ridiculous, no one is forcing any of that on you.
You have the option of not paying. The problem is you don't like the consequences for that behavior.
Also, you always have the option of leaving. And no I don't mean that in a "if you don't like it get out" manner, but in a " if you find the government distasteful, you have the option of using the methods available to you, including finding residence in a place more to your liking".
So stop acting like you're being forced to do anything.
Also, if you plan to do genuine work in this area, you need to divest yourself of the negative connotations you assign to "pornography".
One last thing, this
"Internet porn is really an epidemic on a more quiet level, I believe."
is your bias, nothing more. There are real, legitimate uses for pornography, and assuming it is an "epidemic" makes it appear that your objections come from puritanical motives.
Re:Web, a Distraction at Work
on
Hooked On The Web
·
· Score: 4, Informative
"Marijuana on the other hand results in modification of the reward pathway system in the brain. So there is an actually psychochemical difference in the brain which leads to addiction. Between the two, marijuana actually modifies the brain negatively while email only distracts."
This is completely wrong.
The current models indicate that the reward pathway is indeed modified in people who are dependent, but that is not because of a particular substance.
Simply stated, the BEHAVIOR causes the brain to rewire itself in such a way that certain reward pathways are strengthened, while others atrophy. When engaging in certain behaviors, the brain issues rewards, leading to more of that behavior.
The specific substance/activity is irrelevant. The rewiring takes place in the same manner, regardless of substance or activity.
Now it is also possible to become physically dependent, as in the case of heroin where withdrawal has very real physical effects, but that is particular to each substance. There are also drugs, such as cocaine and MDMA that cause physical damage in the brain, but that type of damage can't be reliably tied to specific behaviors.
In short, the changes in the reward pathways are the same regardless of what a person is dependent on.
So, in most cases you're not actually dependent on a behavior (like sex) or a chemical (like coke) but on your own brain's rewards.
"I really wish these people had taken the time to realize this before putting out a sensationalist piece of work."
I wish you'd taken the time to educate yourself so that you don't spread disinformation. Seriously, if you plan to talk about things like this, take them seriously enough to know what you're talking about.
PS, my information is current as of 6 months ago. If there is new information that you think I might be interested in, please post it.
Do me a favor. Look up "addiction" in the DSM, and thell me what it says.
You'll be looking a long time, because it's not there.
Just because the people who do research on this subject have to simplify it for the masses does not mean that the subject is "pseudoscience". It just means that the subject is too academic to be discussed without simplification.
However, if you look up "substance abuse" or "substance dependence" you'll find the criteria for each diagnosis, and amazingly, they'll make perfect sense.
Don't bag on psychology because you're too ill informed to appreciate what they're doing.
"Every failing that a person has is now some addiction or other problem that is beyond their control."
No, that's just your over simplified misunderstanding of the subject.
The idea here, and in most therapy related to the subject, is that certain biological functions change in such a way that aberrant behavior become more difficult to notice and treat.
You won't find a single therapist worth a damn who says what you claim is being said.
So the first question is why attack me personally for pointing out flaws. They may not be flaws to you, or in your immediate vicinity, but that just you and your vicinity.
A few quick things. Look up Interstate-4 in Orlando. Parking lot for about 3-4 hours a day. It's the main artery in and out, and it's also been under construction for, for, forEVER. So don't talk to me about late or any of that other shit. The road is shitty, the people who plan it do a shitty job, and it infects the entire city with its traffic inducing touch. Yuck.
And you can make your case that that's only one spot, but you know it's not. And more importantly, it's a case study in how goverment runs things here.
And you want me to trust my health to that?
Here's the deal.
And no, I'm not pro-corporation. While is it always with the false dichotomies? I just don't believe the government can do the job. If I were hiring the government, I woud ask it in the interview "What kind of record of accountability do you have? Are you willing take correction, and respond to constructive criticism?"
And the worst part? I WISH the government were able to do the job. Really. I want to be able to trust it witht the important things.
But I can't, and I have to seriously question people who do.
So that leaves corporations. And while they can often be worse, they're ruled by profit, in a predictable way. That's not much, but it's better than what the government offers.
"Maybe you're just a lousy good for nothing lazy parent who can't be bothered to structure your kids life a bit so they're mature enough to sit down and learn something that isn't "Radical" or "funtastic!""
That's funny for reasons you'll never know, but I won't justify it with a response. You're above that.
Did you expect to make me feel bad? All you've done is reinforce my point.
Your son has responsibilities. Great raise the kid, do a GOOD job, and you have reason to be proud.
But that doesn't change the fact that he owes money. You're not allowed to ignore those things.
But whatever. You've decided, so good luck. Seriously. But I have a serious question to ask. Why haven't you dropped the a-bomb and threatened the creditors?
Settle or get nothing. That's what you tell them, and from the sound of it your son is exactly what the bankruptcy process is for.
It's not a character check. It doesn't mean you're a bad person. It just means you had money problems. If THOSE came from character problems, well then you'll have to fix that.
And no business worth a shit will take nothing over something. It just doesn't work that way.
"Hmm. A guys says "major illness effectively means bankruptcy", you say "bullshit", then he posts facts that point out directly that it's not bullshit, that millions of Americans have gone into bankruptcy in just the past few years because of medical bills, and you have the gall to say that?"
Of course, because I'm right. Instead of being a twit and assuming things you don't know, listen for a second ( you won't but I'll pretend anyway).
ME: I have no money EVIL CORPORATE HOSPITAL: PAY US OUR MONEY!!! ME: I REALLY have no money, and if you don't settle with me and take a little, you'll get nothing when I file bankruptcy.
Likely answer #1 EVIL CORPORATE HOSPITAL: NO WE MUST HAVE OUR MONEY!!! ALL OF IT!!! EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW YOU'RE RIGHT AND WE'LL GET NOTHING.
or
Likely answer #2 EVIL CORPORATE HOSPITAL: Fine. Let's take a look at your financial situation and come to some agreement.
"As for the rest, I love the attitude. "Hey, they just write it off, no big deal, everybody wins, right?".
And let me guess, you've never had to file for bankruptcy? Because it's most certainly not the walk in the park you make it out to be. Your live is living hell for *years*. I'll be interested to hear your response to my little play."
Funny you should mention that, because I wasn't planning on sharing but now I will.
My mother went into the hospital around fall of 90, with some stomach pains. While in the waiting room her gall bladder burst. I have no idea if you understand how serious that is, but it's no appendix. Serious life and death shit. I got a phone call to come down and see her, fast. You know why they make calls like that.
Now, if that wasn't bad enough, she had just gotten divorced from my day. She was self-employed, and hadn't gottten insurance yet. I'll wait and let that sink in. Oh, and the reason for the divorce? Money of course. Her business failed a few years before, and thigns went to shit. They had to... wait for it...
file bankruptcy.
So no, I've never filed for bankruptcy. I just watched my mom go through it while I was taking care of her, after getting divorced and having no income for 3 months while recovering.
She didn't seem like she was in hell, and if she were still around I'm sure she'd tell you you're a pussy for even suggesting it.
"The various hospitals, doctors and specialists' collection agencies have made his life a miserable hell to the point where he's unwilling to answer the telephone."
You're absolutely right, I would love to talk to your son.
The first thing I would say is instead of ignoring your obligations because they inconvenience you, try working with the people you owe money to.
And that's how it's done by the way. However, if you do it like your son did, then of course they'll hammer you. And you deserve it.
If you don't work with them, they have no choice to play hardball, and they have no way of knowing how much money you have until you honestly tell them.
And frankly, if you were a decent parent, you would have told him this a long time ago. The fact that you're portraying him as a victim may have something to do with his poor sense of responsibility. Is that the same thing you do every time he gets in trouble?
PS, have you even considered the possibility there may be something to what I've said? What if you were able to help your son? Perhaps instead of railing against someone who tells you a truth you dislike, you could ask for more information and make both of your lives better.
Which are roundly criticized as being poorly designed and managed.
"using your government mandated safety test passing vehicle,"
Which still isn't very safe, and is also far more expensive and heavier than necessary, because of said government mandates.
"your kids likely attend public school"
Yeah, this one's self explanatory.
"and can get public emergency health care."
This one could be better, but it could be MUCH worse too. I'll call it a push.
"You're subject to government standards for food and bio safety regulations (FDA, NIST and a dozen others...), etc..."
Which also makes food more expensive, and are routinely ignored, hence the need for a massive beauracracy to make sure they're not ignored, which fuels greater more sophisticated attempts to get around the standards.
So out of five examples, the goverment pooches 4 of them, and gets passing grades for the fifth. Great job Government!
"Usually when a government project screws up it's because the contractors bidding on the work are corrupt (either incapable or incompetent or both)."
No, when the GOVERNMENT screws up, it's the GOVERNMENT screwing up. When it's the contractors, it's the contractors. Are you incapable of differentiating between the two?
"Video games are. Something that is interactive is more "intense" than something that is passive. So interactive violence is more intense than passive violence. The more intensive the violence, the more psychologically damaging it is."
Do me a favor. Go find some evidence to support this idea. I'll wait til you do.
You'll be looking a long time, because the research clearly indicates that people who play video games do not generalize their behaviors into every day life. It's actually pretty overwhelming evidence at that.
Now, why you think otherwise is an interesting question, but only because I'd like to know why you're acting so certain about something which is completely wrong.
"Have some imagination, though, and see why people have (it's true, and well-documented, not just sensationalism) been creeped out by this idea for decades..."
All right, I'm imaginging I'm surrounded by ill-informed Luddites somewhere in Manhattan... (bonus point for the observant)
"The surviving relatives of the "near deceased" would have to give the go-ahead to rip off the face of their beloved, assuming they will no longer need it."
Jesus Christ, use inflammatory language much?
This would only happen if a person had agreed to be an organ donor in the first place, so please stop trying to make it appear that such a procedure would be done without the donor's consent.
Slashdot Mirror
"The Dead's backtrack on their standards shows how corrupting law can be."
Don't blame the law. Humans have been hypocrites since before laws existed.
Yes, it's true.
I'm sure this lady doesn't have a monopoly on bad taste.
"The voters made this mess."
So, I've noticed you don't seem to be including yourself amongst "the voters". At least it seems that way.
That leads me to ask if you voted. Because if you did, you're culpable, and if you didn't, you are also culpable.
The other options of course are that you're a child, in which case you can't vote, or aren't eligible for some other reason.
So which is it?
"I agree. The teachers unions force me to pay their salaries. The army forces me to pay for wars."
This is ridiculous, no one is forcing any of that on you.
You have the option of not paying. The problem is you don't like the consequences for that behavior.
Also, you always have the option of leaving. And no I don't mean that in a "if you don't like it get out" manner, but in a " if you find the government distasteful, you have the option of using the methods available to you, including finding residence in a place more to your liking".
So stop acting like you're being forced to do anything.
Why is it that your response to a post that starts "jury nullification not withstanding" is about nothing but jury nullification?
Do you mind if I ask what class this was for?
Also, if you plan to do genuine work in this area, you need to divest yourself of the negative connotations you assign to "pornography".
One last thing, this
"Internet porn is really an epidemic on a more quiet level, I believe."
is your bias, nothing more. There are real, legitimate uses for pornography, and assuming it is an "epidemic" makes it appear that your objections come from puritanical motives.
"Marijuana on the other hand results in modification of the reward pathway system in the brain. So there is an actually psychochemical difference in the brain which leads to addiction. Between the two, marijuana actually modifies the brain negatively while email only distracts."
This is completely wrong.
The current models indicate that the reward pathway is indeed modified in people who are dependent, but that is not because of a particular substance.
Simply stated, the BEHAVIOR causes the brain to rewire itself in such a way that certain reward pathways are strengthened, while others atrophy. When engaging in certain behaviors, the brain issues rewards, leading to more of that behavior.
The specific substance/activity is irrelevant. The rewiring takes place in the same manner, regardless of substance or activity.
Now it is also possible to become physically dependent, as in the case of heroin where withdrawal has very real physical effects, but that is particular to each substance. There are also drugs, such as cocaine and MDMA that cause physical damage in the brain, but that type of damage can't be reliably tied to specific behaviors.
In short, the changes in the reward pathways are the same regardless of what a person is dependent on.
So, in most cases you're not actually dependent on a behavior (like sex) or a chemical (like coke) but on your own brain's rewards.
"I really wish these people had taken the time to realize this before putting out a sensationalist piece of work."
I wish you'd taken the time to educate yourself so that you don't spread disinformation. Seriously, if you plan to talk about things like this, take them seriously enough to know what you're talking about.
PS, my information is current as of 6 months ago. If there is new information that you think I might be interested in, please post it.
Do me a favor. Look up "addiction" in the DSM, and thell me what it says.
You'll be looking a long time, because it's not there.
Just because the people who do research on this subject have to simplify it for the masses does not mean that the subject is "pseudoscience". It just means that the subject is too academic to be discussed without simplification.
However, if you look up "substance abuse" or "substance dependence" you'll find the criteria for each diagnosis, and amazingly, they'll make perfect sense.
Don't bag on psychology because you're too ill informed to appreciate what they're doing.
"Every failing that a person has is now some addiction or other problem that is beyond their control."
No, that's just your over simplified misunderstanding of the subject.
The idea here, and in most therapy related to the subject, is that certain biological functions change in such a way that aberrant behavior become more difficult to notice and treat.
You won't find a single therapist worth a damn who says what you claim is being said.
Ok. I have a question to ask, and I'll seriously consider your answer.
Is it "whackjob" or "wackjob"? Or should I just stick with kook?
Nutjob maybe?
YES ANARCHY NOW!!!
Overthrow the government in the name of the proletariat!
Blegh, whatever kook. Tell it to Che or somebody else who takes cranks like you seriously.
I love you guys, you always make me laugh.
So the first question is why attack me personally for pointing out flaws. They may not be flaws to you, or in your immediate vicinity, but that just you and your vicinity.
A few quick things. Look up Interstate-4 in Orlando. Parking lot for about 3-4 hours a day. It's the main artery in and out, and it's also been under construction for, for, forEVER. So don't talk to me about late or any of that other shit. The road is shitty, the people who plan it do a shitty job, and it infects the entire city with its traffic inducing touch. Yuck.
And you can make your case that that's only one spot, but you know it's not. And more importantly, it's a case study in how goverment runs things here.
And you want me to trust my health to that?
Here's the deal.
And no, I'm not pro-corporation. While is it always with the false dichotomies? I just don't believe the government can do the job. If I were hiring the government, I woud ask it in the interview "What kind of record of accountability do you have? Are you willing take correction, and respond to constructive criticism?"
And the worst part? I WISH the government were able to do the job. Really. I want to be able to trust it witht the important things.
But I can't, and I have to seriously question people who do.
So that leaves corporations. And while they can often be worse, they're ruled by profit, in a predictable way. That's not much, but it's better than what the government offers.
"Maybe you're just a lousy good for nothing lazy parent who can't be bothered to structure your kids life a bit so they're mature enough to sit down and learn something that isn't "Radical" or "funtastic!""
That's funny for reasons you'll never know, but I won't justify it with a response. You're above that.
Did you expect to make me feel bad? All you've done is reinforce my point.
Your son has responsibilities. Great raise the kid, do a GOOD job, and you have reason to be proud.
But that doesn't change the fact that he owes money. You're not allowed to ignore those things.
But whatever. You've decided, so good luck. Seriously. But I have a serious question to ask. Why haven't you dropped the a-bomb and threatened the creditors?
Settle or get nothing. That's what you tell them, and from the sound of it your son is exactly what the bankruptcy process is for.
It's not a character check. It doesn't mean you're a bad person. It just means you had money problems. If THOSE came from character problems, well then you'll have to fix that.
And no business worth a shit will take nothing over something. It just doesn't work that way.
"Hmm. A guys says "major illness effectively means bankruptcy", you say "bullshit", then he posts facts that point out directly that it's not bullshit, that millions of Americans have gone into bankruptcy in just the past few years because of medical bills, and you have the gall to say that?"
Of course, because I'm right. Instead of being a twit and assuming things you don't know, listen for a second ( you won't but I'll pretend anyway).
ME: I have no money
EVIL CORPORATE HOSPITAL: PAY US OUR MONEY!!!
ME: I REALLY have no money, and if you don't settle with me and take a little, you'll get nothing when I file bankruptcy.
Likely answer #1
EVIL CORPORATE HOSPITAL: NO WE MUST HAVE OUR MONEY!!! ALL OF IT!!! EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW YOU'RE RIGHT AND WE'LL GET NOTHING.
or
Likely answer #2
EVIL CORPORATE HOSPITAL: Fine. Let's take a look at your financial situation and come to some agreement.
"As for the rest, I love the attitude. "Hey, they just write it off, no big deal, everybody wins, right?".
And let me guess, you've never had to file for bankruptcy? Because it's most certainly not the walk in the park you make it out to be. Your live is living hell for *years*.
I'll be interested to hear your response to my little play."
Funny you should mention that, because I wasn't planning on sharing but now I will.
My mother went into the hospital around fall of 90, with some stomach pains. While in the waiting room her gall bladder burst. I have no idea if you understand how serious that is, but it's no appendix. Serious life and death shit. I got a phone call to come down and see her, fast. You know why they make calls like that.
Now, if that wasn't bad enough, she had just gotten divorced from my day. She was self-employed, and hadn't gottten insurance yet. I'll wait and let that sink in. Oh, and the reason for the divorce? Money of course. Her business failed a few years before, and thigns went to shit. They had to... wait for it...
file bankruptcy.
So no, I've never filed for bankruptcy. I just watched my mom go through it while I was taking care of her, after getting divorced and having no income for 3 months while recovering.
She didn't seem like she was in hell, and if she were still around I'm sure she'd tell you you're a pussy for even suggesting it.
Yes, she sure would.
"The various hospitals, doctors and specialists' collection agencies have made his life a miserable hell to the point where he's unwilling to answer the telephone."
You're absolutely right, I would love to talk to your son.
The first thing I would say is instead of ignoring your obligations because they inconvenience you, try working with the people you owe money to.
And that's how it's done by the way. However, if you do it like your son did, then of course they'll hammer you. And you deserve it.
If you don't work with them, they have no choice to play hardball, and they have no way of knowing how much money you have until you honestly tell them.
And frankly, if you were a decent parent, you would have told him this a long time ago. The fact that you're portraying him as a victim may have something to do with his poor sense of responsibility. Is that the same thing you do every time he gets in trouble?
PS, have you even considered the possibility there may be something to what I've said? What if you were able to help your son? Perhaps instead of railing against someone who tells you a truth you dislike, you could ask for more information and make both of your lives better.
If you were a good parent that is.
Because that's EIGHT HUNDRED DOLLARS.
I'm talking real bills, not the pissant stuff you're trying to toss around.
If you're forced into bankruptcy because of 800 bucks, then you have some serious explaining to do.
Read my other reply to you, then try harder to use you brain.
What does any of that have to do with MY post?
READ IT AGAIN
"people who genuninely can't afford care, the hospitals usually write it off"
When you have some statistics that actually apply to what I said, you can reply.
More importantly, stop acting like bankruptcy is AIDS or something, you're being fucking ridiculous.
"You drive on public highways,"
Which are roundly criticized as being poorly designed and managed.
"using your government mandated safety test passing vehicle,"
Which still isn't very safe, and is also far more expensive and heavier than necessary, because of said government mandates.
"your kids likely attend public school"
Yeah, this one's self explanatory.
"and can get public emergency health care."
This one could be better, but it could be MUCH worse too. I'll call it a push.
"You're subject to government standards for food and bio safety regulations (FDA, NIST and a dozen others...), etc..."
Which also makes food more expensive, and are routinely ignored, hence the need for a massive beauracracy to make sure they're not ignored, which fuels greater more sophisticated attempts to get around the standards.
So out of five examples, the goverment pooches 4 of them, and gets passing grades for the fifth. Great job Government!
"Usually when a government project screws up it's because the contractors bidding on the work are corrupt (either incapable or incompetent or both)."
No, when the GOVERNMENT screws up, it's the GOVERNMENT screwing up. When it's the contractors, it's the contractors. Are you incapable of differentiating between the two?
"I could care less about this."
So you're concerned about it too then?
I think you meant "I couldn't care less" which is how I feel about the opinions of people who say "I could care less".
"Video games are. Something that is interactive is more "intense" than something that is passive. So interactive violence is more intense than passive violence. The more intensive the violence, the more psychologically damaging it is."
Do me a favor. Go find some evidence to support this idea. I'll wait til you do.
You'll be looking a long time, because the research clearly indicates that people who play video games do not generalize their behaviors into every day life. It's actually pretty overwhelming evidence at that.
Now, why you think otherwise is an interesting question, but only because I'd like to know why you're acting so certain about something which is completely wrong.
"Umm, you misspelled sell it to a collections agency for $.30 on the dollar, and the collections agency makes the patient's life hell."
No I didn't dipshit, the hospitals aren't stupid enough to go after people with no money, but apparently you're stupid enough to think they do.
"Have some imagination, though, and see why people have (it's true, and well-documented, not just sensationalism) been creeped out by this idea for decades..."
All right, I'm imaginging I'm surrounded by ill-informed Luddites somewhere in Manhattan... (bonus point for the observant)
"Technically, face transplants are not medically necessary."
Opinions like this are dark reminders of the day when "mental health" wasn't important.
"Funny, most people I know pray they don't live in the US when they get ill, as a major illness effectively means bankruptcy."
Bullshit.
There are dozens of ways out of such a situation, and in the cases of people who genuninely can't afford care, the hospitals usually write it off.
"The surviving relatives of the "near deceased" would have to give the go-ahead to rip off the face of their beloved, assuming they will no longer need it."
Jesus Christ, use inflammatory language much?
This would only happen if a person had agreed to be an organ donor in the first place, so please stop trying to make it appear that such a procedure would be done without the donor's consent.