I couldn't agree with you more. I find it hilarious that eco-zealots pretend that the automobile would die if not for some kind of government subsidy. Isn't that called "projection"? The killer app of the automobile is that I can get in my car and drive to work, or Disneyland, or anywhere in between, whenever I want, on a whim. If your favorite government-subsidized project can't compete with that, then you have to fall back on religion to make up the difference.

"Let them eat cake." 21st-century edition. ("cake" implies: local, organic)

What the Soviets did in Afghanistan registers as "forcing peace" to you? I'm guessing that the violent suppression of the anti-communist uprising in Hungary in 1956 also registers as a "peace mission" to you. Likewise, perhaps those millions of starved Ukrainians is merely an exaggeration or malignant propaganda to you.

Oh, and Cuba has free, awesome health care for all.

"Democracy" is probably one of the most abused words in political discourse. What does it mean to you? What does it imply?

"Eternal, unflinchingly rigid caste system", perhaps?

Plenty of people do NOT correctly guess that I am gay. I'm a software developer. I wear a wedding band. I like football (NOT soccer). When I open of mouth to speak, rainbow glitter doesn't spray out.

Person: (sees my wedding band) So, what's your wife's name?

Me: We're not married.

Person: (confused) Why not?

Me: Because the state will not allow us to marry.

Person: (ultra confused and not getting it) Why would they not allow you to marry?

I've had that conversation multiple times. I hate coming out to people. I would much rather someone else tell them when I'm not anywhere nearby. Coming out to a straight person is just saying this to someone's face: "Hi, I'm gay, which means I probably do all sorts of sexual things that you find incredibly disgusting. Now, judge me positively. I'm waiting."

Keen in mind that some gay guys could dress up as the ugliest, most offensive drag queen, and there would still be some straight people who STILL could not correctly guess. There's a whole spectrum of being clued-in.

I appreciate that you don't care. Honestly, I do. It makes life easier for gay people who live in a world where there's a great many people who DO care and are willing to do something about that problem.

My biggest worry (but it wasn't that big of a worry) about facebook when I signed up was the fact that I state myself "in a relationship" with another man. I like facebook for giving one thing: details about the goings on in the lives of people I care about that I wouldn't have known otherwise. And that is very powerful and very significant. That aside, I've been friended by old acquaintances pre-coming out and surprise!

Then again, maybe it wasn't that much of a surprise to those people. People do talk outside of facebook. But there's no question about it now -- no pretending with a lot of people who might have had only suspicions before. The ads that might be shown to me concern me the least. Then I think about whom the study may intend to protect.

Note to gay teenagers: It gets better. Hang in there!

It reminds me of a discussion about griefing that I read about a few months ago on some internet forum. Naturally, the "real" players were mocking the "carebears" and the latter was levying the usual futile appeal to empathy.

Q: But don't you feel bad that you've just ruining someone else's experience?
A: Why should I feel bad?

Naturally, the "griefers" just couldn't understand this appeal to empathy. There's a reason for that. One of these "griefers" went on to try and reverse the appeal, arguing along these lines, "But you just don't understand the thrill of killing people in a game." It honestly made me think of a rapist. ("But you just don't understand the thrill I get from raping women.")

Honestly, I think that the biggest harm that we (those of us with empathy) do to ourselves is to diminish "griefers" by giving them a name like "griefers".

They already have a name.

The way to write that more honestly is this:

"If you want to be the best developer you can be, then you will have to give up spending time with your children."

Of course, that applies to every single professional field, not just programming. Do you want to fully excel at your career, or do you want to fully enrich your childrens' lives? You can't have both, and half-assing one will necessarily half-ass the other, because both of them demand nothing less than the most valuable currency you have: your precious time.

Priorities.

I sense you're being snarky, which isn't nice to do when playing with people's retirement. OF COURSE the money will be there when you retire.

Additionally, the retirement age will be 91 when you retire.

Enjoy your golden years! They're the best years of your life!

I am sure that the world has no shortage of people who are less intelligent than you.

My question to you us, are you blaming the victim? As in, placing fault on the victim for a failure to make good choices? If you are, then you are arguing, "The stupid deserve to suffer, and other people have the right to abuse them for being stupid." Which is exactly the argument that people who bilk money from elderly people on fixed incomes use. It's the argument that psychopaths use.

It is evil and illegal to deprive people of life, liberty, or property through force or fraud no matter how stupid they are and no matter how much the predator enjoys it. People who do that to others, no matter how stupid the victim is, deserve to be prosecuted by the state and preferably incarcerated where they can't harm others.

I pine for the days of /. having exactly 4143 members. It was cool as long as n==4143. It was all downhill after that.

That was ten years ago. The internet is weird.

This is where the conversation becomes deeper and more psychological. What is the line between moral corruption and violence? And, furthermore, is a child capable enough of understanding that not all violence is immoral?

For instance, were allied soldiers behaving immorally when they shot German soldiers? Meaning, if my son plays any number of WWII shooters, then is the violence "acceptable" because it involves winning by means of being an Allied soldier killing Germans? Or will that kind of play end up having a corrupting effect (aggression) anyway? I'm torn on this, but I lean toward "no violence".

(A more poignant example of moral violence that is beyond the scope of this discission is: Is a woman immoral for shooting a man trying to rape her?)

I won't chew you out because what you're suggesting is kind and helpful instead of condemning and critical.

Since I am a gay adoptive parent, I don't have the luxury of being merely a good parent. I have to be better than all the straight parents. This is because whatever troubles my son has are going to be attributed to his not having a "normal" family by some people. I dislike having that kind of pressure, but I accept the consequences of my choices. I don't think my son is ready for such an open-ended game like Black and White 2 yet. I have actually considered letting him watch the movie "Grave of the Fireflies" recently to show him that war isn't like a video game. Anyway, sorry to get too personal, but it's only to show you that I put deep consideration into the type of media that my son is exposed to. Is it impossible to have complete control over what he sees? Of course not. But I just don't have the latitude to be blase about it because the stakes are so high. Thanks for listening, and I hope you understand why I take all of this so seriously.

I noticed that as well. That said, his work isn't published on his personal website. It's published on the APA's web site and is therefore the APA's voice. I can conclude three things:

1. The APA vetted his work and considers it valid.

2. The APA did not vet his work, but let him post his work as the voice of the APA anyway.

Additionally, search for "video games" on the APA's search site and see what you come up with.

I want to test your own bias. Suppose a video game producer produced a game called "KKK Warrior" in which you got the take the role of a KKK member and go on missions to murder black people, blow up black churches, and assassinate black political leaders, all while top-notch voice acting related the "heroic struggle" against the [insert vicious racial slur here]. You would complete missions and earn rewards based on killing black people and destroying black property. Do you think that people who play this game would be more likely to become aggressive toward black people?