Everyone hates ads, except for the shit they like.
Everyone hates ads, except for the shit they like.
Our kids need to learn to question - think - explore - analyze - and know that ITS OK!
This is the fundamental problem. Our children aren't taught to question, or think, or explore, or analyze. They just google it if they have a question. What about multiple data sources? What about the ability to determine a sources validity? What about the crazy concept that a bad source CAN deliver valid data. You have to learn how to vet it.
Also, take the stigma off of ignorance. I often proclaim my ignorance before questioning someone who has knowledge on a subject. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant, if you take steps to remove that ignorance. It's willful ignorance that needs to be addressed.
Last, don't be a douche when someone asks you something that you see as plainly obvious. These people are just learning, regardless of age. My biggest hurdle has been getting people to understand why science is about disproving instead of proving. That takes a bit of time, but after that - the other concepts become pretty easy to grasp because the FRAMEWORK is there.
Sorry, not buying it.
Show me the PHYSICAL need to gamble. Show me the Gambling DTs. It's not a disease, its a lack of an ability to control yourself.
I'm sick and tired of having options for my behavior limited because some fool can't control themselves. Why should I have a limit put on me on how much I choose to wager because someone else might "have a problem"?
The guy in camo is what competition shooters call a mall ninja. He can't shoot, was never in the military, but wants to be a bad ass. That's why he had a big elaborate gun, he bought his way in. You see them at competitions wearing shirts that say "Blackwater" and hats that say "C.I.A".
Bunch of damn tools.
When you can define the rudimentary start of a Jungian Archetype, and map the process that creates it, we can talk.
Until then, shut the fuck up.
Seriously. I would hate to see a human brain that functioned without personality.
My understanding is that string theorists are TRYING to come up with disprovable tests. That kinda gives them an edge.
For full disclosure, I use the terms god and physics interchangeably.
I'm pretty sure the dog shit eating cancer thing can be disproved.
For instance, using this method, you might conclude that all
Well, using some fancy lingual gymnastics you could say "/.ers are anti-noncompetative enthusiasts of options who dig porn" and probably be pretty accurate.
Religion itself is benign.
It's when a PERSON decides they are going to leverage it in order to force a behavior that the shit gets all fucked up. Usually this person is working under the delusion that they have a more substantial grasp on the concept than others. They misinterpret their certainty as a hard fact that is the fulcrum of the leverage they employ on others who lack their degree of "faith" (read certainty) or wish that they too could have that degree of certainty in their lives.
"Turn the other cheek" does not prey on the weak, "pay me money or the guy who said turn the other cheek won't think you did enough" is. The difference is what a person does with it.
And your definition of a religion is?
Any system of belief that requires you put faith in a knowingly non-disprovable dogma before you can label yourself a follower?
The above poster has it dead right: nobody plays games to reflect on the nature of the human condition.
If a game was made with the intent of doing such a thing, it would get played for that very reason. No one read "To Kill a Mockingbird" or "The Scarlet Letter" because they were looking to "reflect on the nature of the human condition" either. They read them because they were either forced to, we're looking for intellectually stimulating entertainment, or had the book recommended by a source they trust.
Books read with the intent of "reflecting on the nature of the human condition" are philosophy, sociology, anthropology, medical, and psychology texts. You have to purposefully go for those items too.
The big mistake is that there is an assumption that the intent of the reader/player is directly linked to the affect on the player/reader. I know that "The Dragonlance Chronicles" had a greater emotional impact on me than "The Scarlet Letter", yet guess which one I read under the auspice of "consuming great literature" (that I was forced to).
If we want to criticize games for not delivering an emotional and spiritual impact in the same volume and manner as books, you have to compare them on an equal scale. Books have been being written for Thousands of years, video games have been being made for 50 years. In a metaphorical timeline, that's about equivalent to "we just got an alphabet together yesterday".
Ummm...if you don't have the money why the hell do you still get the content?
Ok, but how about how the bible erodes the family unit cause Adam was originally with Lilith and then dumped her for Eve.
Societies live and die by their ability to enforce and adjudicate their laws.
A law by itself is just some words on a piece of paper.
"Would I turn on the gas if my pal Mugsy were in there?" "You might, rabbit, you might!" -- Looney Tunes, Bugs and Thugs (1954, Friz Freleng)