I personally believe the world is in pretty bad shape. I think a complete restructuring is needed. I see charity as dealing in a small way with terrible symptoms rather than addressing the disease. I plan to write a book on all this and if I can start a non-profit organization to focus on looking at a global societal system that is vastly better. Deluded or not this is the way I see it and the best way I can be charitable. Not to boast, but to respond to your implications, my life would be way easier if I dropped this. I am considering going to university again and changing career in a bit of a risky move to help further my knowledge for this work. If I was just thinking for myself it is likely I would just code for the rest of my life and be pretty wealthy.
> Or is it you just want to "arm chair quarterback" someone else's work?
> I have more respect for people who actually do charity rather than complain.
So just because someone does something good we can't think about how to do it better? Are all charities to be free from criticism?
I briefly worked for a charity and door knocked from house to house. I despised it and quit after a week. The way it worked was the people collecting money get a percentage of the money they collect and the more they get, the more the percentage rises. Eventually they get 80% of the money people give. I mean I understand you have to pay your workers, but that is ridiculous. Anyway bit of a tangent, but yes charities can be improved.
Just to be clear, I fucking love Penny Arcade. I would have been through their comics maybe 4 times. I think they are awesome dudes and the world needs more of them. However, that doesn't mean they can do no wrong. If I were to "complain" to them, I would be much more sure of my argument before hand. I know they are busy and I wouldn't waste their time unless I was sure and could back myself up. All I did was pose a question and an argument to a forum. I'm pretty sure the foundations of the earth aren't shaking.
I have read that twice before and it doesn't answer my question.
Yes it is called child's play, I get it, it is about making the children in hospital play. My question was why not refocus the charity to achieve greater good. I am not totally convinced otherwise, but good points made that are not in the about page are:
- hospitals don't appropriately allocate funds to providing entertainment to the children - there are already mechanisms in place for donations to the hospitals, thus if the charity focused on this it is doubling up to a degree - a charity needs to be specific to an extent to survive or flourish
And how is the parent calling me out for being lazy?
> Just like it would have taken way less time for me to ignore your self-pitying remarks and just donate to Child's Play myself. I guess I just felt the need to lash out AND donate to charity. Off I go.
I have more respect for people who don't boast about doing good things..
Congratulations on acting like an arrogant 13 year old.
You can argue that my line of thinking is wrong and indeed others did. They raised points I hadn't considered and gave information I didn't know about and I largely agree with them.
But seriously, what is the point of your post? You make no arguments, give no information, just loosely and arrogantly state that I am missing the point. Since doing this has no hope of convincing me of anything or conveying information, which is generally the point of discussion, I can only assume that you get off on treating people like they are idiots not worthy of an explanation. Or perhaps you want others to read your wicked comeback.
Seriously, this is for me the biggest problem with slashdot. Posts that seem to belong on a Jerry Springer get moderated up, as if like Jerry Springer the crowd wants to see conflict and people getting burned. Isn't this a site of intellectuals and scientists? Or is it a site of people with emotional problems who feel the need to lash out at random people to make themselves feel big?
Can someone clarify when someone talking on their cell phone is obnoxious?
The way I see it. If someone is talking on their cell phone near you it is the same as them talking to a friend near you. You can hear them both. So does that mean people have to whisper to their friends in public or find someplace with no one else around to speak?
Sure there are limits. People around us can be obnoxious, but I don't see how a cell phone changes anything. I think this move towards sanitizing our environments of any annoyance, particularly people talking, is taking things a bit too far.
Good on them for starting a charity that does a lot of good. However, can someone tell me why not just send the hospitals money instead?
This means you cut out the middle man of amazon so the hospitals effectively get more money and it also means the hospitals can use the money as they see fit. I agree games and toys are important, but sometimes new medical equipment is more important. Regardless I figure let the hospitals decide.
The thing is I am very protective of my gmail account and never use it to sign up to any websites that are at all dubious. Doing so I have managed to avoid getting any spam whatsoever. I realise that the mail servers can access my message, but I would guess that it is hard for someone with malicious intentions to set up their own mail server and have people use it. If true then email seems fairly safe after all.
I just wanted to mention that there also those children who have unreasonable standards asked of them by their parents and don't receive enough love or attention. I think such children typically turn into overachievers and do very well in school (not that this will make them happy). So I wouldn't say that poorly parented children always do worse.
Yeah, it means prestige/honor. You might argue that "prestige" doesn't capture the true essence of "mana", but I'd argue that you don't know the true meaning of "prestige". Unless you can articulate what's missing, you can't say there's a gap in the meaning. If you can articulate the diference, then you've demonstrated the English is perfectly capable of communicating the concept--- it just doesn't have a singular word for it.
You may not be able to explain the gap in the meaning, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. I would take the word of someone who knows both words and says that they don't really match up.
There's nothing magic about having a special word for something. If it's truly an important concept, a word will be created for it, or borrowed from another language. Language is a living, flexible tool. It can adapt to anything.
You are wrong. Language is indelibly entwined with culture. You can't truly understand some words unless you understand the cultural concept they represent. Take the Japanese word "genki" for example which roughly translates to happy or healthy. That word is an encompassing adjective to describe a person as being in a right state of body and mind (I am approximating, I don't claim to understand the concept fully). So you see, you need to fully understand their culture to know what they consider right in this context. Thus there is no translation into English unless you want to explain the Japanese mindset and culture along with the translation. This would be more like a thick book rather than a cluster of words and even then the reader might not get it.
I agree Opera is a top notch product, but it isn't for everyone and it is NOT clearly superior. I know you didn't say this, but that is the feel I get from your post. I also haven't see the lack of respect you describe, at least in the +5 comments. Most people here prefer Firefox for the extensions and I tend to read that a lot, but I don't see people putting Opera down baselessly and being modded up, which I think is what is really important. There will always be comments from zealots.
Anyway for me, I use Firefox primarily for the extensions. I use many developer ones and currently have 20 installed. I tried Opera and was really impressed with the speed. It felt really snappy and nice. However, the difference may be impressive against Firefox when you look at the percentages, but in actual time it is pretty insignificant. Especially when you consider the time it takes to load a page compared to the time spent reading the page. I also found the Opera interface a bit annoying. I love the default barebones Firefox interface. Opera is too shiny and little things annoy me, like how the address bar is below the tabs (I looked but couldn't figure out how to change this).
If one day Opera has equal extension support I would give them another shot. But to be honest, I'm not really looking for a browser given how happy I am with Firefox. My quibbles with it, such as rendering speed and some CSS rendering bugs, don't bother me much compared to its awesomeness. I also trust these issues will continually improve.
It's not just an euphemism, it's what happens after you die, according to that religion. Just like christians prefer to believe in heaven and hell than that it ends for ever.
The prospect that it's the end of the line at some point, is freakin' scary for a lot of people. It's not just religion that gets built on that, but also stuff like trying to be remembered somehow afterwards, or trying to make enough kids that the line will go on that way. (It's why countries where survival is a crapshot people make 10 kids or more, while after they get sanitation, medicine, etc, it eventually dawns upon them that if 1-2 kids are just short of guaranteed to survive, you don't really need more.) Anything to maintain a belief that somehow it's not really game over.
I think it is a huge misconception that theists believe in an afterlife or reincarnation because they are scared that death is the end. Most people believe what their parents and their culture taught them. This is a good because whilst it would be nice to ponder and validate everything we are taught as children, we don't have the time or the means. Thus we absorb the wisdom of our elders and generally they instill their beliefs in us. So, the vast majority of theists are not weak minded or really scared that death is the end. They just happened to grow up in a religious environment. I'm sure there are cases where fear that death is the end is the tipping point, but generally it doesn't count for much.
This truth has been obvious to me as I have friends who are Christian, but are strong willed and intelligent. Further more they would never push their beliefs on anyone or look down on you for not believing. Their religion is just part of who they are, it's that simple.
I believe Sony are testing the waters in the UK precisely because they don't care so much about that region. This could move could have serious backlash.
We are not meant (have not evolved) to do hours upon hours of repetitive work with a faint connection to our wellbeing. Sure by doing this work the company receives benefit and thus we earn our paycheck, but I think the connection is too esoteric for our bodies to understand. As such we get bored, which is our bodies way of saying "stop fucking around and do something to help yourself". So we drink loads of coffee to make this work fun and rewarding.
I personally refuse to take a drug to make boring shit interesting unless I am really tired or bored.
Hardcore folks don't like to admit it, but Mario and Zelda are relics of the past. It's become quite clear that Nintendo is losing interest in remaking the same old games over and over.
I'm assuming this refers to the classic Mario and Zelda type games, since when you consider all the various shoot offs (Mario [insert sport name here], etc.) the rate is definitely increasing. However, even when you just look at the more classic Mario and Zelda formula games, there is no sign that they are going away. You have..
Zelda: The Twilight Princess (2006, Wii, GC)
Zelda: The Phantom Hourglass (2007, DS)
Super Mario Galaxy (2007, Wii)
Super Paper Mario (2007, Wii)
New Super Mario Bros (2006, DS)
Sure Nintendo is diversifying, but there is no sign that they are giving up their beloved franchises.
On the other hand, Miyamoto did say "This will be, without a doubt, the last Zelda game as you know it in its present form", but it is not like they are going to ditch it completely.
I disagree. Obeying rules and working together are drilled into Japanese children to a ridiculous degree. Everyone really is exceedingly honest and considerate of others. I doubt the thought enters their heads that they could avoid paying the bus fare. It really is staggering how honorable they are.
I do agree that it would be very hard to work back into people good books which I believe is because they see such selfishness as unconscionable.
I think it is worth noting that almost all vending machines you see in Japan are just drinks and they do contain various healthy options such as tea. They aren't going to make the population obese.
Incidentally I haven't been able to find the used school girl undies vending machines. About the most unusual thing I have seen is batteries.
Haha, I like mornings:)
The morning is when my brain is fresh and I work happily and quickly. Then I usually go out and eat a big lunch then come back and try not to sleep through the rest of the day.
It is good that you think of your employees and that you try, but I suspect you come off as rather phony.
I have had managers that always ask me how I am when they see me. Not just once in the morning, but every single time they come to my desk for something. I can see their brains ticking over..
1. Engage relationship management of employee. 2. Say what they actually came over to say.
We might have a little conversation, but it is so obvious they couldn't give a crap about what I am saying. I remember one particularly bad time when I walked into the office and my manager said "How are YOU? How was your weekend?", then said it again about 2 minutes later when he came to my desk for something.
Granted your techniques are a step above this, but it is still an attempt at manipulating your employees albeit for the good. It is likely they are aware of this, even if it is just a feeling and feel like you don't respect them because of it. I suggest just being yourself. Treat your employees like they treat each other. You may not have so many conversations with them, but when you do your interest will be real. They will pick up on your honesty, respect you and feel respected.
The point is it IS a joke. It doesn't mean that prison rape is acceptable in the least. Our jokes often touch on the heinous, but the fact that they are merely hypothetical means you can laugh without condoning the contents of the joke really happening.
I'm sorry but I must ask, have you ever been addicted to anything? You don't seem to understand it at all.
Treating addiction is a two pronged approach. (I would separate tobacco addiction from what I am saying, since the physical addiction is so potent that having a weak or strong character doesn't matter so much, although I would say it plays a part in getting addicted in the first place)
1. Treat the addiction. Limit exposure, keep busy, get out into a new environment that doesn't remind you about whatever you are addicted to, etc. 2. Treat the emotional problems. This may have to come second, especially if someone is physiologically addicted to a drug.
This way the addiction itself is combated and the reality that the addiction helps escape is made easier to deal with.
I doubt anyone claims a stigma caused their addiction, but in no way does a stigma help, be it internal or external. An internal stigma, which I would say is being hard on yourself is one of the reasons for having a low self esteem and being susceptible to addiction. It makes escapism more attractive. I totally agree you have to take responsibility for yourself, endlessly blaming other people for your state is just destructive. However the path out of addiction and low self esteem is understanding the reasons behind them both. When the state itself of addict has an internal stigma, then there is internal pressure that such a state should never have been gotten into in the first place. This makes it harder to look at the origins and the truth that, such a state was gotten due to being weak of character and that they need not blame themselves but look at why they are weak.
> that's what is so insidious about addiction: the real battle is avoiding addictive behaviors from the beginning. that's why there needs to be a social stigma to addiction.
> In the Netherlands, Italy, Germany and now in Great Britain decriminalization of simple marijuana possession has enabled them to decrease the use of cannabis. The reason is very interesting. They reckon that because the forbidden fruit syndrome was not attached to a decriminalized substance like cannabis, they found that use, particularly among youth, declined quite substantially, which is very interesting.
So a stigma makes such addictive behaviours more attractive.
Understanding, acceptance and even pity help a person who is addicted. A stigma does not.
Admittedly you struck a nerve with me. Maybe I misunderstand, but you seem to be saying..
Non-physiological addiction is very distinct from physiological addiction and was invented to shift the stigma of being weak from weak people, where it really belongs.
I am saying there is not much difference and that addiction, obsessively doing something, is not always present in weak people. It is something separate that they are more susceptible to and I think needs to be addressed first before such people can look to growing stronger, should that be something they want.
likewise, i would say a number of other "addictions" are really just trendy bullshit terms in order to decrease the stigma attached to being weak in character. such as "sex addiction" or "gambling addiction"
So you think a stigma on being weak in character is a good thing?
You talk like someone who did not have a bad childhood and has no understanding of what being weak is like.
I was someone who was weak in character in the past, simply because I had a crappy childhood. Thus I was susceptible to addiction and found myself addicted to marijuana for about 5 months and later world of warcraft for about 6 months. Sure, people who are weak in character are more susceptible to addiction, as the high so starkly contrasts with their depressing lives.
Such people are to be pitied and for those that have big enough hearts helped. How do you think you would do having no friends, oppressive critical parents, no self esteem and riddled with doubt and self hatred? It is fucking difficult hole to get out of my friend. I was lucky enough to be instilled with a spirit of hard work along with all the negative, thus after years of work I am much stronger and now happy.
but everyone from the casual layman to the hardcore professional needs to understand that something that acts on the brain directly via biochemical manipulation needs another word to describe what it does that a habit forming activity that sucks you in via simple sensory stimulus. there's a simple bifurcation of meaning here that needs to be addressed if indeed my terminology is wrong.
There is but not quite as you term it. There is physiological addiction and psychological addiction. Some drugs such as herion result in a withdrawal phase where the body physically sick and drives the person to take more of the substance. Other like LCD don't. People can still get addicted but the body doesn't add to the drive.
Still, the line is blurry, just as the line between drug addicitions and non-drug addictions is blurry. Like games for example, studies have shown that when playing games dopamine activity increases in the brain. Do you know what else causes dopamine activity to increase? Speed (which is typically methamphetamine).
So anyway. Typically people who are addicted are weak people with difficult pasts. The point is they are obsessively doing something as a form of escape. We need to help such people work through their problems, not pontificate about whether it is a habit or an addiction.
I think a big factor in this is the pressure that firstborns receive from the parents to succeed. Parents tend to pile their hopes onto the first child but are more relaxed the second time around.
I like to believe that even people who haven't heard of Firefox or Opera are able to use and benefit from their advanced features. If you teach them about such things that is.
Ok I agree with you that a rapist does more damage to society than a spammer.
My point was that it may seem brutal, but enough inconvenience for a number of people does amount to more than a life. Otherwise it would be worth it everyone walking around on tippy toes to ensure there is no death. Death is a part of life and I think it more important people live freely and happily rather than hold the existence of everyones life as all important.
So what I am saying is that the equation is not as simple as 1 death > infinite inconvenience. I think society and the judicial system should reflect this.
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations on overcoming it. I really don't think you have anything to be ashamed of.
> Why don't you start your own charity then?
I personally believe the world is in pretty bad shape. I think a complete restructuring is needed. I see charity as dealing in a small way with terrible symptoms rather than addressing the disease. I plan to write a book on all this and if I can start a non-profit organization to focus on looking at a global societal system that is vastly better. Deluded or not this is the way I see it and the best way I can be charitable. Not to boast, but to respond to your implications, my life would be way easier if I dropped this. I am considering going to university again and changing career in a bit of a risky move to help further my knowledge for this work. If I was just thinking for myself it is likely I would just code for the rest of my life and be pretty wealthy.
> Or is it you just want to "arm chair quarterback" someone else's work?
> I have more respect for people who actually do charity rather than complain.
So just because someone does something good we can't think about how to do it better? Are all charities to be free from criticism?
I briefly worked for a charity and door knocked from house to house. I despised it and quit after a week. The way it worked was the people collecting money get a percentage of the money they collect and the more they get, the more the percentage rises. Eventually they get 80% of the money people give. I mean I understand you have to pay your workers, but that is ridiculous. Anyway bit of a tangent, but yes charities can be improved.
Just to be clear, I fucking love Penny Arcade. I would have been through their comics maybe 4 times. I think they are awesome dudes and the world needs more of them. However, that doesn't mean they can do no wrong. If I were to "complain" to them, I would be much more sure of my argument before hand. I know they are busy and I wouldn't waste their time unless I was sure and could back myself up. All I did was pose a question and an argument to a forum. I'm pretty sure the foundations of the earth aren't shaking.
I have read that twice before and it doesn't answer my question.
Yes it is called child's play, I get it, it is about making the children in hospital play. My question was why not refocus the charity to achieve greater good. I am not totally convinced otherwise, but good points made that are not in the about page are:
- hospitals don't appropriately allocate funds to providing entertainment to the children
- there are already mechanisms in place for donations to the hospitals, thus if the charity focused on this it is doubling up to a degree
- a charity needs to be specific to an extent to survive or flourish
And how is the parent calling me out for being lazy?
> Just like it would have taken way less time for me to ignore your self-pitying remarks and just donate to Child's Play myself. I guess I just felt the need to lash out AND donate to charity. Off I go.
I have more respect for people who don't boast about doing good things..
Congratulations on acting like an arrogant 13 year old.
You can argue that my line of thinking is wrong and indeed others did. They raised points I hadn't considered and gave information I didn't know about and I largely agree with them.
But seriously, what is the point of your post? You make no arguments, give no information, just loosely and arrogantly state that I am missing the point. Since doing this has no hope of convincing me of anything or conveying information, which is generally the point of discussion, I can only assume that you get off on treating people like they are idiots not worthy of an explanation. Or perhaps you want others to read your wicked comeback.
Seriously, this is for me the biggest problem with slashdot. Posts that seem to belong on a Jerry Springer get moderated up, as if like Jerry Springer the crowd wants to see conflict and people getting burned. Isn't this a site of intellectuals and scientists? Or is it a site of people with emotional problems who feel the need to lash out at random people to make themselves feel big?
Can someone clarify when someone talking on their cell phone is obnoxious?
The way I see it. If someone is talking on their cell phone near you it is the same as them talking to a friend near you. You can hear them both. So does that mean people have to whisper to their friends in public or find someplace with no one else around to speak?
Sure there are limits. People around us can be obnoxious, but I don't see how a cell phone changes anything. I think this move towards sanitizing our environments of any annoyance, particularly people talking, is taking things a bit too far.
Good on them for starting a charity that does a lot of good. However, can someone tell me why not just send the hospitals money instead?
This means you cut out the middle man of amazon so the hospitals effectively get more money and it also means the hospitals can use the money as they see fit. I agree games and toys are important, but sometimes new medical equipment is more important. Regardless I figure let the hospitals decide.
I wonder if that is true though.
The thing is I am very protective of my gmail account and never use it to sign up to any websites that are at all dubious. Doing so I have managed to avoid getting any spam whatsoever. I realise that the mail servers can access my message, but I would guess that it is hard for someone with malicious intentions to set up their own mail server and have people use it. If true then email seems fairly safe after all.
Beautiful post.
I just wanted to mention that there also those children who have unreasonable standards asked of them by their parents and don't receive enough love or attention. I think such children typically turn into overachievers and do very well in school (not that this will make them happy). So I wouldn't say that poorly parented children always do worse.
I agree Opera is a top notch product, but it isn't for everyone and it is NOT clearly superior. I know you didn't say this, but that is the feel I get from your post. I also haven't see the lack of respect you describe, at least in the +5 comments. Most people here prefer Firefox for the extensions and I tend to read that a lot, but I don't see people putting Opera down baselessly and being modded up, which I think is what is really important. There will always be comments from zealots.
Anyway for me, I use Firefox primarily for the extensions. I use many developer ones and currently have 20 installed. I tried Opera and was really impressed with the speed. It felt really snappy and nice. However, the difference may be impressive against Firefox when you look at the percentages, but in actual time it is pretty insignificant. Especially when you consider the time it takes to load a page compared to the time spent reading the page. I also found the Opera interface a bit annoying. I love the default barebones Firefox interface. Opera is too shiny and little things annoy me, like how the address bar is below the tabs (I looked but couldn't figure out how to change this).
If one day Opera has equal extension support I would give them another shot. But to be honest, I'm not really looking for a browser given how happy I am with Firefox. My quibbles with it, such as rendering speed and some CSS rendering bugs, don't bother me much compared to its awesomeness. I also trust these issues will continually improve.
It's not just an euphemism, it's what happens after you die, according to that religion. Just like christians prefer to believe in heaven and hell than that it ends for ever.
The prospect that it's the end of the line at some point, is freakin' scary for a lot of people. It's not just religion that gets built on that, but also stuff like trying to be remembered somehow afterwards, or trying to make enough kids that the line will go on that way. (It's why countries where survival is a crapshot people make 10 kids or more, while after they get sanitation, medicine, etc, it eventually dawns upon them that if 1-2 kids are just short of guaranteed to survive, you don't really need more.) Anything to maintain a belief that somehow it's not really game over.
I think it is a huge misconception that theists believe in an afterlife or reincarnation because they are scared that death is the end. Most people believe what their parents and their culture taught them. This is a good because whilst it would be nice to ponder and validate everything we are taught as children, we don't have the time or the means. Thus we absorb the wisdom of our elders and generally they instill their beliefs in us. So, the vast majority of theists are not weak minded or really scared that death is the end. They just happened to grow up in a religious environment. I'm sure there are cases where fear that death is the end is the tipping point, but generally it doesn't count for much.
This truth has been obvious to me as I have friends who are Christian, but are strong willed and intelligent. Further more they would never push their beliefs on anyone or look down on you for not believing. Their religion is just part of who they are, it's that simple.
I believe Sony are testing the waters in the UK precisely because they don't care so much about that region. This could move could have serious backlash.
Exactly.
We are not meant (have not evolved) to do hours upon hours of repetitive work with a faint connection to our wellbeing. Sure by doing this work the company receives benefit and thus we earn our paycheck, but I think the connection is too esoteric for our bodies to understand. As such we get bored, which is our bodies way of saying "stop fucking around and do something to help yourself". So we drink loads of coffee to make this work fun and rewarding.
I personally refuse to take a drug to make boring shit interesting unless I am really tired or bored.
I'm assuming this refers to the classic Mario and Zelda type games, since when you consider all the various shoot offs (Mario [insert sport name here], etc.) the rate is definitely increasing. However, even when you just look at the more classic Mario and Zelda formula games, there is no sign that they are going away. You have..
- Zelda: The Twilight Princess (2006, Wii, GC)
- Zelda: The Phantom Hourglass (2007, DS)
- Super Mario Galaxy (2007, Wii)
- Super Paper Mario (2007, Wii)
- New Super Mario Bros (2006, DS)
Sure Nintendo is diversifying, but there is no sign that they are giving up their beloved franchises.On the other hand, Miyamoto did say "This will be, without a doubt, the last Zelda game as you know it in its present form", but it is not like they are going to ditch it completely.
I disagree. Obeying rules and working together are drilled into Japanese children to a ridiculous degree. Everyone really is exceedingly honest and considerate of others. I doubt the thought enters their heads that they could avoid paying the bus fare. It really is staggering how honorable they are.
I do agree that it would be very hard to work back into people good books which I believe is because they see such selfishness as unconscionable.
I think it is worth noting that almost all vending machines you see in Japan are just drinks and they do contain various healthy options such as tea. They aren't going to make the population obese.
Incidentally I haven't been able to find the used school girl undies vending machines. About the most unusual thing I have seen is batteries.
Haha, I like mornings :)
The morning is when my brain is fresh and I work happily and quickly. Then I usually go out and eat a big lunch then come back and try not to sleep through the rest of the day.
It is good that you think of your employees and that you try, but I suspect you come off as rather phony.
I have had managers that always ask me how I am when they see me. Not just once in the morning, but every single time they come to my desk for something. I can see their brains ticking over..
1. Engage relationship management of employee.
2. Say what they actually came over to say.
We might have a little conversation, but it is so obvious they couldn't give a crap about what I am saying. I remember one particularly bad time when I walked into the office and my manager said "How are YOU? How was your weekend?", then said it again about 2 minutes later when he came to my desk for something.
Granted your techniques are a step above this, but it is still an attempt at manipulating your employees albeit for the good. It is likely they are aware of this, even if it is just a feeling and feel like you don't respect them because of it. I suggest just being yourself. Treat your employees like they treat each other. You may not have so many conversations with them, but when you do your interest will be real. They will pick up on your honesty, respect you and feel respected.
I laughed.
The point is it IS a joke. It doesn't mean that prison rape is acceptable in the least. Our jokes often touch on the heinous, but the fact that they are merely hypothetical means you can laugh without condoning the contents of the joke really happening.
I'm sorry but I must ask, have you ever been addicted to anything? You don't seem to understand it at all.
Treating addiction is a two pronged approach. (I would separate tobacco addiction from what I am saying, since the physical addiction is so potent that having a weak or strong character doesn't matter so much, although I would say it plays a part in getting addicted in the first place)
1. Treat the addiction. Limit exposure, keep busy, get out into a new environment that doesn't remind you about whatever you are addicted to, etc.
2. Treat the emotional problems. This may have to come second, especially if someone is physiologically addicted to a drug.
This way the addiction itself is combated and the reality that the addiction helps escape is made easier to deal with.
I doubt anyone claims a stigma caused their addiction, but in no way does a stigma help, be it internal or external. An internal stigma, which I would say is being hard on yourself is one of the reasons for having a low self esteem and being susceptible to addiction. It makes escapism more attractive. I totally agree you have to take responsibility for yourself, endlessly blaming other people for your state is just destructive. However the path out of addiction and low self esteem is understanding the reasons behind them both. When the state itself of addict has an internal stigma, then there is internal pressure that such a state should never have been gotten into in the first place. This makes it harder to look at the origins and the truth that, such a state was gotten due to being weak of character and that they need not blame themselves but look at why they are weak.
> that's what is so insidious about addiction: the real battle is avoiding addictive behaviors from the beginning. that's why there needs to be a social stigma to addiction.
Taken from: http://ideas-canada.ca/medmj/canusage.htm
> In the Netherlands, Italy, Germany and now in Great Britain decriminalization of simple marijuana possession has enabled them to decrease the use of cannabis. The reason is very interesting. They reckon that because the forbidden fruit syndrome was not attached to a decriminalized substance like cannabis, they found that use, particularly among youth, declined quite substantially, which is very interesting.
So a stigma makes such addictive behaviours more attractive.
Understanding, acceptance and even pity help a person who is addicted. A stigma does not.
Admittedly you struck a nerve with me. Maybe I misunderstand, but you seem to be saying..
Non-physiological addiction is very distinct from physiological addiction and was invented to shift the stigma of being weak from weak people, where it really belongs.
I am saying there is not much difference and that addiction, obsessively doing something, is not always present in weak people. It is something separate that they are more susceptible to and I think needs to be addressed first before such people can look to growing stronger, should that be something they want.
So you think a stigma on being weak in character is a good thing?
You talk like someone who did not have a bad childhood and has no understanding of what being weak is like.
I was someone who was weak in character in the past, simply because I had a crappy childhood. Thus I was susceptible to addiction and found myself addicted to marijuana for about 5 months and later world of warcraft for about 6 months. Sure, people who are weak in character are more susceptible to addiction, as the high so starkly contrasts with their depressing lives.
Such people are to be pitied and for those that have big enough hearts helped. How do you think you would do having no friends, oppressive critical parents, no self esteem and riddled with doubt and self hatred? It is fucking difficult hole to get out of my friend. I was lucky enough to be instilled with a spirit of hard work along with all the negative, thus after years of work I am much stronger and now happy.
There is but not quite as you term it. There is physiological addiction and psychological addiction. Some drugs such as herion result in a withdrawal phase where the body physically sick and drives the person to take more of the substance. Other like LCD don't. People can still get addicted but the body doesn't add to the drive.
Still, the line is blurry, just as the line between drug addicitions and non-drug addictions is blurry. Like games for example, studies have shown that when playing games dopamine activity increases in the brain. Do you know what else causes dopamine activity to increase? Speed (which is typically methamphetamine).
So anyway. Typically people who are addicted are weak people with difficult pasts. The point is they are obsessively doing something as a form of escape. We need to help such people work through their problems, not pontificate about whether it is a habit or an addiction.
I think a big factor in this is the pressure that firstborns receive from the parents to succeed. Parents tend to pile their hopes onto the first child but are more relaxed the second time around.
I like to believe that even people who haven't heard of Firefox or Opera are able to use and benefit from their advanced features. If you teach them about such things that is.
Ok I agree with you that a rapist does more damage to society than a spammer. My point was that it may seem brutal, but enough inconvenience for a number of people does amount to more than a life. Otherwise it would be worth it everyone walking around on tippy toes to ensure there is no death. Death is a part of life and I think it more important people live freely and happily rather than hold the existence of everyones life as all important. So what I am saying is that the equation is not as simple as 1 death > infinite inconvenience. I think society and the judicial system should reflect this.