At 9/30/09 04:53 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

I think its mostly a thing of moderation...

Yeah but in a perfect world you shouldn't eat any of those things...
aw : (

In other news I recently read I shouldn't eat with skinny overeaters because my brain will make me then over eat and I will be fat.

maybe. Like you're not supposed to use big plates for your food.... ... which sounds crazy but who knows.

At 9/30/09 05:02 PM, Grub-Xer0 wrote: Clinical studies show that eating is bad for your health.

Yes my grandparents ate every day and now...they're dead.
But the people in Ethiopia don't eat and they still die...

.....
NO I'M GOING TO DIE :,(

Ignore him like I ignore 99% of the comments in this forum.

At 9/30/09 04:49 PM, citricsquid wrote: people who shouldn't try and be funny: poxpower.

You are pathetic. Go away.

:,(
:,(

- Fruit juices
- mammal meat
- anything deep fried
- chips / cheetos / pretzels and that kind of crap
- baked good
- sweets/ candy
- ice cream / poscicles / sorbets etc.
- cheese
- butter
- vegetable oil
- smoked anything
- BBQed anything
- white/ brown sugar
- bread in all its form
- most breakfast cereals
- peanut butter / jelly / spreads in general
- cream/ whole milk / animal milk in general
- soft drinks
- beer / liquor... probably wine
- excrements

WE CAN'T LIVE ANYMORE I TELL YOU
:,(
:,(

Wait, I heard recently that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A CHILD IN 1990, is that true and why would GLENN BECK HAVE RAPED AND MURDERER A CHILD IN 1990?

At 9/30/09 11:23 AM, Proteas wrote:

You asked how it could be bad for people, I answered.

I can't believe you don't understand what's being asked.
If anyone's reading this, please tell him in your own words cause I'm done trying.

Yeah you answered by saying it bothered you so little that YOU FORGOT ABOUT IT.

That's your opinion

No, IT'S WHAT YOU SAID.

No, the onus is on you to prove you are right.

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND PROVING NEGATIVES.
You probably never will.

We're telling you that there is no quantifiable measure of psychological behavior based on any numerical scale

THEN STOP SAYING IT HAS AN EFFECT THAT WARRANTS CENSORSHIP.
What is this, a circus act?
"Yeah swearing is really bad. I won't prove it, I can't show you evidence and I admit there's no way to measure mental pain, but trust me, it's so bad that it should be regulated by the government".

Does it make the kid achieve less in life for reasons other than assholes reacting badly to his language?

Didn't I just argue that point earlier?

You don't understand the difference between the effects of swearing and the effect of other people's reaction to the swearing.
That's like saying being gay is bad because you will be excluded from jobs and the military.

GET IT YET?

you're the only one in the world who can act and do as they please regardless of the consequences,

Again, let me use that logic back at you:
"So you think you can be gay and talk about gayness on television even though it offends me and my religion? You think you're the only one who has the right to act how you want?".

You don't understand the difference between DOING SOMETHING and PREVENTING SOMEONE FROM DOING SOMETHING.

Whenever you want to prevent someone from doing something, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO NEEDS THE REASON.

The only problem with that; pain is still subjective.

No, this is a machine that will be able to register how much pain you are feeling in objective terms.
What's subjective about pain is the mental reaction to it.

In which case, I'd say again: if you react too strongly to too little pain, then THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM.
It wouldn't be so hard to measure the average tolerance for pain of humans regardless of culture. But good luck measuring the average tolerance to the word "fuck" and "cunt".

At 9/29/09 10:58 PM, Proteas wrote:

You asked how it could be bad for people, I cited instances of very real situations in real life

I didn't ask you how people react to swearing, I asked you evidence that the very act of swearing or hearing swear words, regardless of what other people think, is bad for someone.

No, the question was, and I quote; "List all the horrible scars you have from seeing this and explain to me how it damaged you as a person," and I answered you.

Yeah you answered by saying it bothered you so little that YOU FORGOT ABOUT IT.

You can't base what's normal and abnormal behavior of a human on laws and customs.

What would you use it on, then?

On what functional humans have in common maybe?
How come some really normal people swear a lot and some really normal people don't? Doesn't that hint that swearing is a non-factor in the development of a person? In which case, why the hell should it be regulated?

People bitch about cigarettes and alcohol being taxed when they're scientifically shown to KILL YOU SLOWLY but they let it slide when swearing, a completely benign habit, is censored?

At 9/30/09 01:43 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote: Laws and customs are based on what's normal and abnormal human behavior.

Every country has different laws.
That's weird, I thought all humans were the same species.

So, what you're saying is... human laws should not have anything to do with human behavior.

No, I'm saying laws should not be based on things that are cultural and have no scientific basis.

Give me the science. Give me the studies.

Give me a fucking break with this shit.

NOOOOOO, FACTS! ARRRR IT BURNS

Um, no. There's a difference between being ignorant of local laws and customs and being in blatant disregard of local laws and customs.

Yes, but you have to figure out whether I'm in the right for disregarding it or not.
If you simply take the stance that "if it's the custom/ law, just do it" then nothing will change and we'll still have crazy laws that make no sense.

That isn't even for me to judge -- all I'd know is that you were acting counter to how I'd want you to act (in this case, not conforming to "proper attire")

Now you're mixing what I'd do in a private building vs what I can and can't do as a citizen in public.
And my answer is still the same as when I was talking about the BBS: if you own something, it's your right to make up any rules you want and kick out the people who don't like it.

But I'd argue it's your responsibility to make those laws fair and logical. I'd say that responsibility wins on democracy the bigger your organization gets. For instance, if you have 10 000 employees, it's heavily frowned upon for you to make up rules like "no women". Because that's not fair. And when you're dealing with something the size of an entire country, I say your laws damn well better be based on studies and hard logic before you pass them.

I want you to define what "physical, measurable [behavioral] problems" in a child

It's not upon me to do this really since you're the one claiming it has an effect of some sort. I can't try and guess what effect you're trying to allude to.
A good benchmark would be: does it make the kid worse in school? Does it make the kid achieve less in life for reasons other than assholes reacting badly to his language? Does it make the kid prone to violent behavior? Self-destructing habits?

But hey... you're not one to force your will on anyone else right?

I don't even have the power to do it. All I can do is discuss it and hope people change.
Man I'm like Hitler, trying to force people into a discussion of what laws are best based on evidence rather than opinions!
Maybe I'm one of those evil "intellectuals" Glenn Beck warned us about.... NOOOOO

Give me the science and studies that prove a knee to the face is quantifiably worse than a lifetime of lost pride, self-respect, self-worth, etc.

Huh I don't claim any of this.
If you've been trained by your culture to react SO BADLY to insults and swearing not even directed at you that you have problems after, then IT'S ALL ON YOU. It is not my job to change my life so you stop being fucked up in the head.

No kid is born with a reaction to any particular word. Banning a word? Nonsense.
All kids are born ( well..almost) with the ability to sense physical pain and emotional pain caused by behavior that is NOT cultural. Picking on someone has nothing to do with the words you use, you can do it in any language and any culture.

Selecting specific words thinking it amounts to shit is worthless.

It is also not quantifiable in any objective scientific terms.

Eventually we'll be able to: http://www.howtocopewithpain.org/blog/11 83/using-mri-to-measure-pain/
And pretty soon actually.

The major difference between physical and mental pain is that physical pain cannot be prevented through culture or conditioning. Only through physical training or injury.
Mental pain however is heavily dependent on culture. So that means that we have to live in a world where you have to constantly walk on broken glass everywhere you go to not offend some dumbass who could just suck it up instead of being able to express yourself freely as you should be able to ANYWHERE, ANY TIME.

At 9/29/09 08:54 PM, Proteas wrote:

I could get wrote up or fired if I cussed at my job (as I am sure you would as well), and if I do it loudly enough in a public place I can get arrested for obsecenity and disturbing the peace.

You confuse what's the law and what's science.
Where the scientific evidence that swearing is bad for anyone? ???
??? Where's the scientific evidence that a child raised on the word "fuck" is somehow worse off? Where is that?

Actually, the image has all but been blocked from my mind. So you could say I have mental scarring in the form of a repressed memory with regards to that image.

Repressed memories are bullshit in case you hadn't kept up.
You can make people create memories from whole cloth. There was an entire episode of "bullshit" on it actually..wasn't there?
Anyway they're not the first and not the last to point it out.

Not to say that I don't consciously know what tubgirl is, but I can't easily put a mental picture to it right now.

The question was: how did it destroy your life?
And is that a typical result of seeing tubgirl?

So far all I think happens is people get grossed out for 2 seconds and move on. Yes, let's outlaw that! Being grossed out from time to time? I don't want to live in that kind of society!

So you think you ought to have the right to randomly swear on tv and not have people offended by it?

They can be offended, but they can't come in and fire me or fine me.

NOT to use them

You are aware that so far, the ONLY reason you have is "cause it offends some people"?

At 9/29/09 09:08 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

despite the fact that swearing is not considered socially-acceptable in schools, courts, congress, restaurants, hotel lobbies, retail stores...

Yes so are women without head scarves in Muslim countries.
You can't base what's normal and abnormal behavior of a human on laws and customs.

basically anywhere people are expected to act in a civil manner.

Civility is subjective. The LAST thing you want to do is base laws on subjective and cultural things.
Give me the science. Give me the studies.

So, I'd say that not being able to refrain from swearing or not being able to distinguish when it is or isn't appropriate IS in fact a behavioral problem in and of itself.

Do you realize how insane this sounds?
You'd brand anyone who doesn't have proper etiquette as having "behavioral problems". Behavioral problems that warrant censorship laws to prevent!

for concrete evidence that foul language is unacceptable in a wide variety of social environments... then sorry, I cannot supply the desired proof for such as asinine pair of requests as that.

I want evidence that foul language CAUSES ACTUAL PROBLEMS.
Physical, measurable problems in the child.

Good luck proving that. I'd say you'd be elligible for Jame Randi's million dollar challenge if you managed to because nothing about this would make any sense given the logic of the universe we live in.

who don't necessarily have the same sensibilities as you.

I understand that, but laws shouldn't be based on people's opinions, they should be based on science.
And this one clearly is NOT.

The point is that offending others because you don't give two shits about what they think is uncivil behavior

Being civil shouldn't be the law, especially given that what "being civil" means changes from place to place and time to time.

then people have just as much right to offend your face with a clenched fist as you have the right to offend their ears with a vulgar slur.

This is nuts. You're actively excusing violence as a response to being offended voluntarily or not.

just like it doesn't make it okay for someone to hit you with a left hook to the jaw just because they think they could eat the same punch with no problem.

Pain is not a social construct.

At 9/29/09 05:33 PM, Proteas wrote:

If I'm right, I'm right.

Prove it.

Prove what? That swearing isn't harmful?
I can't even find any studies.
This is a pattern with you. You demand proofs of negatives. If I tell you "there's no evidence of X" then you'll demand "prove there's no evidence of X".

Like right now. Where's the evidence that swearing is bad for anyone? I can't find it.

And your counter-argument is "oh yeah well I won't bother proving it because then you'll just argue about it".

So why did you even bother replying to anything anyway?

Just goes to show that everyone reacts differently to the same image.

So you're traumatized now I see. List all the horrible scars you have from seeing this and explain to me how it damaged you as a person.

There's a difference between the one or two swear words as used in those movies and the sexually explicit and vulgar language used in such movies as Reservoir Dogs, pox. You know that.

We were talking about jump scares.

But you just said that you wouldn't force anyone to obey your will.

*sigh*
Yes, in society there comes a time where you have to tell people to not take away your freedom. If you somehow equate this to taking away THEIR freedom to take away MY freedom, then have fun living in that world.

Correction; he's using his right to free speech

Destroying other people's property is not the right to free speech.

At 9/29/09 06:15 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

I know of little kids (e.g. from four to seven years old) who swear like sailors and have all sorts of behavioral and disciplinary issues at home and at school.

If you can somehow prove swearing causes behavioral problems, then do it already.
"swearing" is not a behavioral problem in and of itself.

Remember mod meet several few years ago when RedCircle got punched in the face for what he blurted-out standing outside of Friday's? THAT is the real world for you.

So? What's the point of that? Saying that we should obey to the threat of violence for using certain words? I can't say the N-word cause if I do and someone punches me, then he was right and I was wrong?
Banning the n-word is an insult to black people. It's saying "hey, you're so fucking stupid and violent that this word will make you flip out, so we'll leave it out of our vocabulary for now".

People can get fined, fired, or FUCKED-UP for what comes out of their mouths.

So let's change it.
What are we waiting for?
13 years of South Park and they're still bleeping the word "fuck" while Cartman is feeding a kid some chilly made from his own parents. What kind of retarded society is this?

At 9/29/09 04:45 PM, TheStonePilot wrote:

Can one of the mods lock this for the crazy blabbering it is?

You know what? This time I will lock this.

Not because I think it's the stupidest shit ever, which it probably is ( I mean, infowars, come on ) but because... what the heck are we supposed to do with a one-line opening post to a 2 hour video?

People, if you want to discuss a video or a news story, please give us the major points from it and launch a discussion/debate.
Don't just post a link or paste an article.

On the subject of the BBS being a private property: yes, that is true, they can make whatever rules they want. But as citizens, I think they have a responsibility to make their service fair and their policies based on what's logical.
If they stand up for free speech by saying "yes, swear all you want" then I think that's more commendable than a site like Fark.com that says "well fuck this, I want to be popular so you can't swear on this site".

Each new pussy rule you enforce on your website makes you more of a tool. Of course if you don't care because it makes you rich, then that's your choice but you're still a tool.

Personally I would rather be a rich tool than a poor defender of freedom. But on the reverse, once you do get to be rich and powerful enough, I'd say it's time to stand up for yourself and use that power.

At 9/29/09 02:14 PM, Proteas wrote:

If you're going to censor pornographic or violent imagery to shelter young people, don't you think it would be equally valid to do the same with things that are mildly obscene and the like?

Well first off, you have to figure out why you should ban violence and sex in the first place.
That's step 1. I Don't think anyone's ever provided evidence that it should be done anyway. From attacking music to video games to movies, the critics at every decade has used the same arguments backed by nothing but their own "gut feeling".

Show me the evidence that it really fucks kids up to see violence or porn and then we can go from there.

And has been stated before, you are not a representative sample of the population

That doesn't matter. If I'm right, I'm right.
You can't vote on reality.
Does seeing tub girl has effects so great that it warrants censorship of any kind?

That's what the "R" rating is for

Spider-Man had some, The Mummy had some etc. It's not restricted to R-rated or even PG-13 rated movies.

Then what are you arguing for?

That there is an organization that polices this thing based on the demands of a tiny minority of droning old crones with a big mouth and a lobby. Rather than let each show and advertiser deal with it on their own, they put themselves above it all and reserve the right to police everything.

Children (especially young children) are like sponges;

That's not evidence of anything.
Show me any sort of concrete evidence that societies with violent/obscene/ swearwords media incite more violence than those that don't.

Same difference.

A spammer is not using his right to speech, he's just there to fuck the board up and cost ressource. It's vandalism basically, i.e. defacing another person's property ( the BBS ) for your enjoyment.

At 9/29/09 02:56 PM, amaterasu wrote:

You are right, but is there still not design behind the evolution?

What's designed in artificial natural selection.
In nature, the selection only cares about what survives long enough to pass on genes. But using computers, we can decide that the process cares about how fast an helicopter blade turns.

It's the exact same thing applied to engineering and sped up. It will only get cooler as time goes on. Imagine designing tanks and having them fight against each other in a computer simulation to see which one is the best!

This is all part of the "singularity" thing where there will be a point at which humans will design self-improving machines that will just accelerate progress exponentially. Imagine designing a machine that uses this process to design a faster processor. Then you use that one to design another machine etc.
It's way way out of what humans can do with their brains alone.

At 9/29/09 03:50 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

^ This bears repeating because it shows how pointless this thread is. ^

It's not about this particular instance but about the very existence of the FCC and things like the FCC.

Pox -- do you have a huge problem with ratings on movies and television shows?

Quite frankly I haven't thought out what all the things the ratings warn against and what their effects on kids could be, but I'm pretty sure it's : nothing.

At any rate, I'm PRETTY SURE that swearing doesn't fuck kids up, so that should be entirely left out. And the same goes for violence and a pretty hefty dose of butt-grabbing.

If you're talking about a straight-up porno video or a really scary movie, then I think you might have more of a case to censor it. But even then, countless kids in the 80s grew up on horror movies, Mortal Kombat and using the internet for porn. I dare you to tell them appart from anyone else in a double-blind study.

Hell, NG is supposedly an edgy site and we have content ratings here for the Flash Portal too. Care enough to complain about all that? I doubt it.

Yeah I think it's stupid that NG has to pander to this crap.
And I think it's even more stupid that websites like Fark.com and Zug.com use autofilters on their forums to turn words like "fuck" to "fark".

or did you click some link and *bam* there it was?

I've done both and it doesn't phase me.
The only reason I encourage the "nsfw" thing is that the entire society is so uptight that some people could actually get in trouble for seeing this at work. I'm absolutely not afraid that it will traumatize anyone.

What they should warn against is those fucking jump scare movies. Sooner or later it'll give a guy a heart attack and then someone will actually have a real case to ban something from movies or force them to have warnings.

Would you have clicked if you already knew it was going to be something grotesque?

Regardless of that, I would never force anyone to obey my will.
If it annoys me, I'll avoid it. I don't have to force everyone else to not do it.

On the other hand, NBC broadcasts their content for free, to everyone, and all that is paid for by the companies that air advertisements for their products during the commercial breaks.

That's not the point. The idea is: what's the basis for banning swear words?
Other than pure whim?
Where's the evidence that it "corrupts the young" or whatever insane reasons they could possibly have to go around annoying people with this?

... the funny thing in all this complaining is that -- as a forum moderator -- Pox is an agent of censorship himself.

Not really, considering the way I mod.
I mostly delete spammers. Fortunately for me, 99% of the people who post porn, racial slurs and swear words are doing it just to spam.

I ALWAYS WIN STEVE.
ALWAYS.

At 9/29/09 12:20 PM, Elfer wrote: Interesting read, evolutionary algorithms are now capable of solving design problems too difficult for human "intelligent designers"

DIS IS THE FEW TIURE

At 9/28/09 08:30 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/28/09 08:10 PM, poxpower wrote:

And I don't know what is considered vulgar in Canada, but I'm guessing that your refusal to answer my question about it indicates that, no, they don't swear on tv in canada without it being censored.

What we do in Canada doesn't have anything to do with this.
It's simply insane to ban some words. It's nonsense.

At 9/28/09 08:42 PM, Emerald-Mara85 wrote:

You just want to have your way or no way at all.

I demand to NOT be constrained by their opinions and you accuse me of being a brat?
Well you are a

T
O
O
L

If we didn't have different cultures

what's that got to do with this? haha

At 9/28/09 09:51 PM, Proteas wrote:

She wasn't fired, and they aren't getting fined! The network censored themselves in later broadcasts, what's the damn problem here?!

The problem is that there is an FCC that dictates what words you can and can't say.

At 9/28/09 05:15 PM, Proteas wrote:

It's the Discovery Channel, they are mainly into educational and informational programming, swearing and use of other vulgarities

A "vulgarity" doesn't exist. It's an artificial construction of language and culture. It has no basis in the real world.
It's exactly as stupid fining someone because they use the word "cunt" and "shit" as it is to deny them to depict the prophet of Islam. Neither of those rules have any basis in fact, they are only meant to pander to the interest of people who have decided they get to control what you can and can't do at no benefit to them.

It's basically like me saying you can't eat carrots. I gain nothing from it and you lose the right to eat carrots.

It's retarded.

At 9/28/09 03:49 PM, Proteas wrote:

Drawing a picture of Mohammed; against the religion of Islam, can incite religious zealotry

Yes yes and that chick WAS ASKING FOR IT, dressing so provocatively!

kid might see it, they ask Mommy and Daddy what that word means, and then they actually have to get off their ass and be a parent who is actively involved in their child's upbringing for a change... which pisses them off, so they write the FCC complaining about the problem, which causes fines to be levied against the networks and in turn squashes freedom artistic expression.

That's still terrorism.
"Do what I want or else!"

What is this nonsense?
I remember that Mythbuster episode about shit where they couldn't say the word shit on their show. My, how are the parents going to explain the word shit to their kids? They'll be traumatized that's for sure.

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/20 09/09/snl-won%E2%80%99t-fire-new-cast-me mber-jenny-slate-dropping-f-bomb
blah

Yep this is the society you live in. Saying "fuck" on national tv in that network could have cost her her job.

Worse, the FCC will fine you and/ or networks for letting it slip apparently.

If anyone here can explain to me what's different about this and, say, a rule about not being able to draw a picture of Mohammed, please let me know! Swear words: American's prophets.

At 9/27/09 09:55 PM, mrgreg846 wrote:

Yes. I'm talking to a brick wall, and you're talking to a brick wall. I think we can both agree on that.

No, YOU'RE a brick wall.
A brick wall built by a retarded man-child.

At 9/27/09 06:03 PM, Bendt wrote: Starting tomorrow I'm going to start and say "yes" to everything.

I'm going to say "Yes" to everything for a week.

I'll update daily to what I've said "yes" to and brought me something good.

really? Sweet.
Keep logs on it and if it's decent, do you want me to host it on here: http://www.thepoxbox.com/ ?
I'm always interested in people doing things like this and writing about them.

At 9/27/09 05:05 PM, CashClock wrote:

There's actually already been weird patterns on the ground and found structures that look like ancient buildings,

There's no buildings on Mars.
You're no doubt referring to the "faces on mars" and all of that sort of nonsense.
What do you think are the chances that, in thousands of satellite images of a rocky surface, you won't find ONE group of rock that looks like something?

Also I'd say a face on mars would be extremely poor evidence of alien life since there's probably a very low chance that they have faces to begin with.

Life on Mars, if there is any or ever was any, is probably extremely primitive and microscopic.

It's a dump that has almost nothing we want.
It's not even WORTH conquering, especially at the insane cost it would come at both in money and in US army lives.

The taliban are straight out of medieval europe. Outsiders can't deal with those numbskulls, the only change will come from within. We have to spend efforts to rebuild the country with secular values. Once the people become rich and educated enough, the taliban will be FUCKED.
But that'll take decades.

At 9/27/09 12:21 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

Devils advocate;

What's the point when it comes to religion?
It's made up, untestable and dealing with magic powers. You can't possibly ever fail to find an explanation to anything and everything.

Of course most religions fuck that up because they're not written with any sort of consistency, they're just giant collections of dozens of illiterate primitive peasant's thoughts on life and the universe.

How about this. All life forms on the planet have a soul.

Man that's a terrible explanation. Just say the total of all lifeforms in the universe is in balance. Who gives a shit right? It's untestable. When 10 000 ants are born today, 10 000 aliens die in some far off galaxies. Whoopee

Hell this reincarnation shit could be used to explain lots of problems that have been ongoing for ages & never seem to stop

Wow really? Some that can't be explained by biology? I gotta hear that. People act like animals... yes I truly need reincarnation to explain why that is... what else could explain it? The theory of evolution? Nah

At 9/26/09 10:49 AM, Toadenalin wrote:

Technology frees up people from certain types of labour and will therefore create new industries in other.

Yeah but it doesn't follow that it will employ the same amount of people.

they can consume 6.3 hotdog

There's only 24 hours in a day, you can't consume endless products and services.

At 9/26/09 06:27 PM, mrgreg846 wrote:

Because I actually read the definition of reincarnation before deciding if I believed in it or not?

ROFL, so you "know" it's true if it came out of a book? A book another normal person who can't possibly for sure know how reincarnation works... Not surprising.

My God.. can anyone this retarded really exist?

At 9/26/09 11:24 AM, Elfer wrote:

is anyone else completely baffled by the fact that shakespeare is a mandatory part

People don't realize it but reading Shakespeare is the equivalent of reading the scripts to movies.
Which is one notch down from actually watching movies.

At 9/26/09 11:26 AM, mrgreg846 wrote:

Wow, so biochemistry is a hobby? And music can't a hobby? And studying music makes you a graphic designer? I'm confused.

Prime example of how bad the school system is right there.
THIS GUY CAN VOTE PEOPLE.

At 9/26/09 11:21 AM, mrgreg846 wrote:

Yeah and you "know" that how? Are you a God or some immortal being? lol

Because I actually read the definition of reincarnation before deciding if I believed in it or not?

You totally misunderstand... But whatever. You keep on thinking you know everything.

Yeah you're not impressing anyone.

At 9/25/09 11:36 PM, mrgreg846 wrote: like band/music.

No one should learn music in school.

What schools should do more of is help you figure out what you want to do hobby-wise at a young age. If you want to be good at something, you have to start ASAP but ultimately, we don't need dancers and actors, it's just entertainment. I'd rather form one biochemist than 40 graphic designers.

At 9/26/09 12:47 AM, mrgreg846 wrote:

One theory I have is that this world is just one big hell where we learn lessons until we learn them all and reach nirvana and get to leave to be with others who've learned.

That makes no sense :o
Reincarnation doesn't help you learn anything, it just resets you over and over and over again.

That's like saying you want to attain ultimate wisdom by wiping your memory clean every week. Good luck.

At 9/25/09 11:01 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

They don't have the cognitive ability to understand the situation or what is in their best interests down the road.

Based on what?
?
What should they be able to do and how do you test for it?