68 Forum Posts by "jcorishas"
At 3/23/08 11:14 PM, Grammer wrote: More in-depth research by the APA, with professionals referenced at the bottom, as all scholarly sources should
Grammer, games like basketball, football or soccer increase aggression in not just the players but the fans as well, why aren't we banning minors from watching or playing them? Where is the study that shows video games cause more aggression than normal competition creates?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=URwiZLZipeg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q84dHZACah4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EyIDsGXI658
The important question is not whether playing violent video games increase aggression (because a million things can do that) but whether playing video games cause violent tendencies to emerge; all the studies conducted by the APA are severely lacking in the proper methodology and data needed to make any conclusion to that effect.
This tirade against video games echoes the moral panics that swelled up against movies and rock and roll and is just as baseless; the idea that video games cause violent tendencies is ludicrous. I've watched violent movies, listened to "violent" music and played violent video games all my life and I'm as gentle as a lamb. Hell, I'd wager that 97% of all gamers in the world have done nothing more violent than a fist fight.
At 3/19/08 11:12 PM, RadioactiveRabbit wrote: This is IMO best UFO book of all time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariots_of _the_gods
It's very outdated though.
Erich von Däniken is a fraud, everything in that book was either a forgery or has been refuted.
At 3/19/08 09:32 PM, Hell-Frog wrote: Some of you guys are really dumb. First, some of you say that there's no way life can exist outside our planet. If you didn't know this already, the sun is a STAR, meaning that all those stars you see in space could support life. You can't possibly tell me that out of the billions upon billions of stars that there isn't a rock out there with life on it.
I don't think anyone is foolish enough to argue that Earth is the only life sustaining planet in the universe, that's just silly. Right now, everything we know about life comes from our understanding of this planet and our solar system. If we assume that our planet's formation and the way life emerged on it was not a special occurrence then we can conclude that other Earth-like planets exist and probably have life on them but whether that life has contacted us or if it is even intelligent is impossible to say.
What I find hard to believe is that aliens have contacted us. Consider this, if we live in a truly relativistic universe, faster-than-light travel would be physically impossible and that severely lowers the chances of another alien race of similar advancement or intelligence coming into contact with us. Only an incredibly advanced or an incredibly desperate race would attempt the 100,000+ year journey to our little blue orb. Do you think after the 100,000+ years needed to get here that they wouldn't make themselves known? Probably not. Also, the evidence for extraterrestial contact is suspect at best. I'd 90% of it is fake, 9.99% is secret military projects and maybe 0.01% is something worth investigating.
There is also the off chance that we are the most advanced race of intelligent beings in the universe (or at least in our galaxy). Sad, I know but possible.
At 3/7/08 09:45 PM, KennyD wrote:At 3/7/08 09:36 PM, jcorishas wrote:But if you wanted to drink it, should the government have the right to stop you?Umm, remember Prohibition ?
Oh yeah, that spectacular failure. The only thing it accomplished was giving the Mafia it's foothold in America. Also, you didn't answer my question, if you wanted to drink bleach (or beer or whatever), should the government have the right to stop you?
At 3/4/08 05:43 PM, Christopherr wrote: And just to put the icing on the cake, have this. Marijuana makes you a worse student and can possibly cause a number of mental disorders. So uh... sit and spin.
Did you ever think that those that already do poorly in school would be be likelier to partake in marijuana smoking? Also, being an alcoholic wouldn't help you in school or improve your health either.
Both drugs could adversely affect your performance but one is legal. Logically both drugs should be legal or illegal and, since all drugs have adverse effects, all drugs should be legal or illegal.
At 3/3/08 12:48 PM, dySWN wrote:At 3/3/08 11:48 AM, evilXbanana wrote: Really the only way for you understand is see firsthand that drugs are not so bad. So yes, hit that meth and get back to me.I don't need to try drinking bleach to know that it would be generally not in my best interests.
But if you wanted to drink it, should the government have the right to stop you?
Figured I'd waste my vote on Ron Paul.
At 2/15/08 08:35 PM, Gwarfan wrote: Can someone please give me a plausible reason as to why Capitalism is an unfair or unjust economic system?
Well, I guess monopolies are a downer (and impossible to solve without government regulation), the supply and demand system could be abused, wealthy countries have upper hand on poorer countries, resources that could be used for a need are wasted on a luxury (farmland in Ethiopia used to grow cocoa for Hershey's chocolate to be exported instead of food, for example).
I think that's it.
At 2/11/08 12:06 AM, public-enemy1 wrote: Next semester, I have to start a foreign language. I'm leaning towards German or French.
I'd say learn Spanish since it's the closest to English, has simple grammatical rules and a lot of the world speaks it. Watching a lot of Spanish TV would help you get the hang of pronunciation and the difference between formal and informal terms.
Do any of you speak a foreign language? If so, which, and how difficult was it to learn?
Well, my mother tongue is Spanish. I learned English in grade school and from watching TV. English was pretty easy to learn since it has a large number of similarities to Spanish. Immersing yourself in another language speeds up the learning process so I'd recommend listening to Spanish music, watching Spanish TV, maybe reading some Spanish children's books (not books like "Don Quixote" until your proficient). I'm currently teaching myself French but it's a bastard to get the hang of.
At 2/8/08 11:45 PM, AznWarlord wrote: Many politicians are adopting the policy of fighting terrorism with diplomacy.
First of all, Muslim Extremists hate America. I don't believe we will ever come to diplomatic terms, let alone, schedule a meeting.
So how would it actually work?
The purpose of diplomacy in the Middle East is not to appease the Muslim extremists but to take away their power over the moderate Muslim majority. A regular Muslim doesn't give two shits about America, he's too concerned with his family, his job, etc. and he thinks the extremists are (ironically) extreme. Then one day, the US bombs the shit out of a part of the Middle East (maybe his family is collateral damage) and start occupying it. All of a sudden, the extremists start sounding reasonable.
If we can take away the extremists appeal to the common Muslim (which is the fear and anger caused by US intervention) then we can greatly reduce their numbers in all but the most despotic of nations.
At 2/7/08 03:06 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote: Am I the only person who still reads books here? I read this in Clarence B. Carson's Welfare State. I'll find the book and give a quote.
Thanks in advance.
I don't think so. The school system here in Florida is run by conservatives and I never noticed a liberal slant in my textbooks.You're lucky, it's a lot worse in the north.
I doubt it. Miami Dade county alone has 26 F schools. The only thing the school system excels at is incompetency.
At 2/7/08 09:48 AM, ABsoldier17 wrote: I would just like to say that FDR with his policies did crash the markets a second time. What brought us out of the depression was people investing in the market again.
Never heard that before. I always thought that FDR's policies and the war boom were what got us out of the Depression. If you could be so kind as to post a link?
And yes there is a liberal slant in education. It's because the administrators who have been running the education department for the last 20 years used to have long hair, bare feet, experimented heavily with drugs and sex, and protested frequently. That's right HIPPIES!!!
I don't think so. The school system here in Florida is run by conservatives and I never noticed a liberal slant in my textbooks.
At 1/31/08 07:47 PM, Brick-top wrote: "Do you consider the idea of there being extra terrestrial life somewhere in out galaxy if not the universe a plausible idea?"
Sure, there's gotta be life somewhere else, even intelligent life.
I'm not sure about the 5000 alien sightings.
Me neither. If faster than light travel is possible, maybe. If not, then the odds of an alien race traveling for hundreds, if not thousands of years to our little blue planet and not making themselves known are incredibly low. Also, you ever notice that UFOs in pics from the 50-60s look a lot less high tech than the ones "seen" now? Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
At 1/24/08 10:06 PM, Grammer wrote:At 1/24/08 09:38 PM, SolInvictus wrote: i think the argument was that violence hasn't increased since videos came around therefore violent video games cause nothing.Not like you're actually making this argument, BUT IN CASE SOMEONE DOES.
http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anders on.html
Here you go, enjoy.
At 1/19/08 11:56 AM, alanoink wrote: The Republican party would take over in the South, and everyone would be happy because there were no Democrats to ruin it or create fighting.
You know that Lincoln was the Republican candidate for president and it was the southern Democrats that were for slavery, right?
At 1/18/08 10:11 PM, Grammer wrote: So I take it you think you can equate God's morality to that of a human. You need to understand: God can do whatever he wants. If God wants to take your life, your family away from you, your money, he can do what he pleases. Because he's God, he gave it to you in the first place. If he gives, he can take away.
So, your saying God is good because he is the most powerful? Grammer, this is nonsensical. How can moral absolutes (those proclaimed in the bible) exist if anything the deity does is "good"? By your logic, God could take away your money, your family, your life and torture you for eternity in hell even if you lived all your life as a good Christian and still be "good". The God you describe is a tyrant and should not be worshiped.
This might be off topic but here goes. Let's say prostitution is legalized and it only exists in "safe" brothels. Who is going to run the brothels? Is it going to be Post Office, Walmart or Mom-and-Pop type of operation? What's to stop the same problems (drug abuse, violence, etc.) from occurring? Will prostitution be dehumanizing, liberating or both?
Also I say a documentary on the Bunny ranch (a legal brothel) and it inspired these questions. The guy who ran the place certainly gave off a pimp vibe and half the girls looked coked out of their minds. I'm just saying, maybe legalizing prostitution might create the same problems on a larger scale if done wrong.
Oh shit, I gave him a good review! Goddamn it!
http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/listen/1 11955
Yet another shameless plug. Listen to the whole thing and review it if you can, I always love feedback.
At 12/3/07 04:16 PM, JerkClock wrote: Well it's more like people with low IQ's do that, intelligent people would know better than to judge intelligence that way.
Please JerkClock, people are petty and belligerent, especially in groups. An intelligent person's just gonna find a quicker way to stick a knife in your back.
At 12/2/07 08:42 AM, JerkClock wrote: Which is argumentum ad populum fallacy. I personally don't have a problem with either view, but do think that quite a few conform to one side or the other because of being raised that way and not because they objectively believe it.
I realize that its a argumentum ad populum fallacy but that doesn't make it any less true. People judge others intelligence by how close their views match their own, add in polarization of groups and you have clear enmity between Republicans and Democrats. I'm independent so I don't have a problem with either side (most of the time) but, in general, people think their views are right and based on objective evidence (duh) and attribute others differing opinions to flaws in character (or retardation). It's not right but that's human nature, bro.
At 12/2/07 04:08 PM, oligarch wrote: I am inclined to believe the Venezuelan government on this one given the CIA's history in Latin America.
Please, I know the CIA's history in Latin America and that is irrelevant. Chavez is creating imaginary enemies to frighten his people and justify his extremism, when someone questions him or his ideology they are branded enemies of Venezuela and are accused of plotting his overthrow. He has accused the King of Spain of masterminding the 2002 coup attempt (without any evidence), he has accused the US and Columbian president of planning invasions (also without any evidence), he has called Venezulans who oppose him traitors, are you inclined to believe that? The country moves closer and closer to a dictatorship with each passing second so I ask again, how can you continue to support him?
At 12/2/07 02:58 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Communism, and its "socialist" cousin is the antithesis of democracy. The platform is supposedly about equality and equal distribution of the fruits of the economy, however in order to achieve this promised equality, the government needs enormous power. Once the power is consolidated, they rarely if ever maintain democracy and fulfill their promises.
I agree with you 99%. The only thing is I would have said Communism is the retardation of socialism. Socialist democracies can and do exist but I guess it hinges on what you'd call socialist.
At 12/1/07 08:47 PM, ElGufoPazzo wrote: Living in SoCal, every single person is a democrat, except for my family (and obviously a few others but that's aside the point). I'm a not a raving bible republican but I am a republican none the less and if you admit that you are, here, everyone thinks you're an idiot and makes up random republican disses because they think that you're IQ mut be 75. I don't have a problem with you, why do you have a problem with me?
They probably think your Republican because that's how you were raised, instead of you intelligently deciding to be one. Because of how they were raised, they think you can't grasp some simple truth that they all can and you must have a different opinion because your stupid (because they can't be wrong, you know).
If you switch Republican to Democrat it still works though.
If abortions were deemed illegal, the pro-life "crusade" would probably end there. You must realize not every pro-lifer is a bible-thumping Christian, I can see where you can get that impression but it is not true. Unless America changes drastically in the next decade you can masturbate without fear.
But....let's say, for arguments sake, that pro-lifers (after gaining this victory) try to push for other things. Let's assume the majority of pro-lifers are conservative and that the majority of conservatives are Christians and that the majority if Christians are against sex education in schools, premarital sex, birth control and masturbation. If these premises were true then a push to outlaw sex education in schools, premarital sex, birth control and masturbation could be possible by that same group because the grass roots movement would (theoretical) already be in force and avenues for political influence established.
Mother Theresa could be made the patron saint of the movement because she was vehemently against abortion (even in cases of rape or the death of the mother), premarital sex and birth control of any kind (not even to stop the spread of AIDS). Normal people (not pro-lifers or conservatives) could be "seduced" by the image of the movement enough to support it or not stand in it's way and politicians would just jump on the bandwagon for the good publicity. If the above premises were true this could be possible (but be glad they aren't).
At 12/1/07 07:31 PM, oligarch wrote: Venezuelan counter-intelligence recently uncovered a CIA plot destabilize and then briefly invade Venezuela on the day of referendum.
Damn Oligarch, consider the source of this "intelligence" and who benefits from this from this supposed discovery (Chavez on both accounts). This is a ruse so people will vote yes on Sunday, so he can become a dictator. I definitely called it when I said Chavez was a tyrant in the making. He has publicly called people who have voted for him in the past and who would vote no on Sunday traitors of the highest order. He's using fear and lies and threats to corrupt the democratic process, he wants to be a king, how the hell can you continue to support him?
What's the difference between Pope John Paul II and Madeleine McCann?
The pope died a virgin.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Being a cynic is not necessarily a bad thing, unless you think your a "bastion for truth" and everyone else are just "sheep lazing in the sun", then your just being an asshole. To be a well adjusted cynic you need to have a sense of humor; you can see the foibles and cruelties of the human condition as well as your own faults but you can still laugh about them, they can't break you.
I forget who said "Expect the worst in people and you're never surprised" but sometimes you are, there's a surprising amount of good people out there. A happy-go-lucky person might have his head in the sand but a cynic's got his head up his ass most of the time. You have to take the good with the bad in order to see the truth.
At 11/12/07 11:48 PM, Memorize wrote:At 11/12/07 11:27 PM, tony4moroney wrote: I'm frankly surprised at the amount of FDRs. Ok not really. But FDR isn't the liberal 'god', to whoever mentioned that.He actually took means to support the country. Ways even Bush wouldn't dare go towards. Today, we have much more freedom than that of the 40's, and it's idiots like you who claim that our freedoms are being stripped away.
Memorize, can you elaborate? By "means to support the country" do you mean his Alphabet Soup programs and other programs like Social Security? And what do you mean we have more freedom now than in the 40's and how can this be attributed to FDR? Sure, we're not being put in internment camps anymore but how does that disprove our freedoms are beings stripped away now (by way of illegal wire tapping, search and seizures, etc.)?
I don't think you can really argue there was a 'best' president given that there were different circumstances that afflicted many of them during their presidencies.
What other way can you judge a president than by his actions, Tony?
And on that note: What if JFK was never assassinated?
He'd probably be a mediocre president considering his previous actions 'til then, he didn't have the know how to get things done and once the sex scandals came to light he would have lost the people's support.
Imagine if the Civil War hadn't of happened, would Abe have still granted full rights to blacks then?Um... he always considered it an inherent evil fueled by greed...
I have to concur. If Lincoln was a friend to slavery, why secede? He probably would have bought them all and freed them if he had the chance.
I have to disagree with the OP. While there are many people who sign up (to be cannon fodder, basically) because they're "dumb asses", there are many different reasons for joining the military and they actively look to recruit the best and brightest.
