mooeypoo
Moderators-
Posts
5698 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by mooeypoo
-
Yah, Jennifer Government had a corporation for a government, it was just a very poor one (hence their need to "rustle funds" every time they wanted to pursue a crime). It's an extreme criticism of capitalism. The book, btw, was almost called "Capitalizm". Which one, though.. see, our society is changing. I can say that, yeah, incest is genetically wrong, but then again - as we grow in terms of genetic manipulation in general, we may have an ability to eliminate these genetic 'problems' in children before they are born (speaking of movies, this is "Gattaca" style ) and then incest is no longer "bad" genetically; it doesn't *matter* genetically.. Also, there was an argument that gay marriage is bad genetically because Gays cannot bear children - but then, with so many abandoned starving kids around the world, the adoption options that Gays have may actually be considered more MORAL than getting pregnant by test-tube or something like that. The point is that Genetics is science, and as such it is changing. What is "right" and "wrong" today may not be like that in the future; this is why we need to constantly analyze and think about our situation. This, in my opinion, is a case where the debate is actually more important than the conclusion - the fact we are HAVING a debate, we each get 'better' with our own conclusions of morality, or at the very least we re-examine them, which is always something good. Government is supposed to protect your safety and your freedom against people/factions who have an interest against it. It should *not* have a bearing on morality. I agree. I don't think states should have a law about it either, even though I agree that incest is not something that should be encouraged at all. Rules are not the way to go, though, imho, is all I'm saying. You're right, and you actually seem to go with MY point here.. we shouldn't let the government control these things; we should let the government make sure we are safe and free enough, (and hopefully educated in *how* to conduct critical thinking) so that *we* can make those individual choices for ourselves. Of course there isn't.. that's why this debate is so interesting Right. I agree. We shouldn't "cry" about that. We should 'fight' against it in the proper channels -- in attempting to CONVINCE people that we're right. And if we manage to create a generation of free-thinkers and critical rational thinkers, we may actually have GREAT and WONDERFUL discussions on our hands by people trying to convince others that they are right. There's no place for a legislation, unless these things are *hurting* people's safety or freedom. I am not sure, but I would guess you wouldn't recommend more government interference because of the way it is done *today*. I would agree on that, but I don't think that's the only way that it could (or SHOULD) be done. Again wew should look at the north-western European countries, they're actually pretty good examples of very decent basic education for rationality. Far from perfect, but VERY good relatively. Also, I didn't mean the government souldn't interfere at all (there's no use for a government if it doesn't interfere.. it exists TO interfere.. laws are 'interfering' with your 'freedoms', right?) I mean that in terms of LGISLATION it shouldn't interfere in such matters. Education does come from the government, and SHOULD be pluralistic. Not in the term of "my opinion of what pluralism is" but rather conserve the constitution -- EQUAL freedom for *all* humans. If you educate your country that equality is important, that rationality is an extremely important value and that morality should be deduced personally as long as it doesn't hurt anyone (yes, have the government enforce THAT, it's its job - to make sure there's freedom), you gain BETTER society. Look at north western europe! the education there is excellent, and see how enlightened they are, relatively, and how science takes a very big part without 'eating' religion away. It is a LOT about the way government is treating issues of freedom of the individuals and NOT meddling with things it 'shouldn't'. Laws are always limiting individual freedom, but I - as a citizen - accept them even when they're "bothering" me (whatever it may be) because I understand they stand for *my* protection against prosecution and to protect my SAFETY. But when laws are made to protect an idiology of a faction, you start questioning their validity. That, in my opinion, is where legislation should stop and education begin. If you educate to rational thinking and critical thinking (again, north western europe is an excelleng example), you gain THINKING citizens who at the very least *know* what they each stand for, why, and how. And they respect the state they live in WHILE remaining free to adhere to whatever set of morality they have. It's better to have people follow what they believe in (IE, educate them that freedom is GOOD) than enforce it on them forcefully (by law). ~moo
-
Stupid Israeli military, we have such boring titles for everything. You guys have the best military in the world. Seriously. What other military can someone actually aspire to become a DILDO? I'm so thinking about joining now......
-
Allow me to be the whistle blower of logicl fallacies again here, but what you're saying is "Slippery Slope" argument. I do agree that it's a VERY problematic situation to control, but that doesn't mean you *can't* find ways to control it. Better legislation and probably a strong committee may be able to solve this. But claiming that if we do it we'll fall to an endless extreme is the slippery slope, and i'm not sure it should be valid as an argument by itself. BTW - maybe this can be equated to medical committees on other countries? I should research this but I heard there are some things like that in Europe (not with organ donation but pregnancies I think) but the point is the same, and if there's proof it works properly on other places, it may worth checking the methods here too. I must tell you, THIS i trust less than a committee... I see how 'opting out' of mailing lists, telemarketing and 'special lists' here is like, and I am not sure it's a good idea to have 'organ donation telemarketers' picketing on people on the phone to urge them to donate their body parts. There are many ignorant people - and MANY ignorant *poor* people - that can be taken advantage of. At least the other idea has a committee that if operates well, can make sure the person donating *knows* what he is getting into. I guess what I'm saying has a flavor of 'slippery slope' too, but I still put more faith in a regulated committee (at least in a potential of one) than just opening it up for advertisement junkies pushing donations on you. Anyways, my two cents. ~moo
-
... is this for real??
-
I agree completely, which is why I keep researching Logical Fallacies and trying to better my ability to recognize them -- REGARDLESS of the "sides". I agree with that absolutely and 100%. Demagoguery is *never* good, "my side" or not. It's a matter of understanding how to avoid it in speech and how to recognize it. That's not entirely true. First, religion does depend on everyone else (the 'amount of how much it depends on others is depending on the religion) - Evangelicals, for example, believe that they have an OBLIGATION to save *you and me* whether we want it or not, hence their usage of brainwashing children. Global Warming -- as much as it is often used alongside demagoguery (i must say -- not always, let's keep it under the right proportion) -- is not talking about harming anyone. I don't support the way certain demagogues portray the 'solutions' for Global Warming at all, but I do find differences between that and religion. For one, it's based on scientific inquery; we just need to make sure we are skeptical of the PEOPLE speaking about it (as we should be in ANY subject..) and make sure they are using facts and not fallacies to convince us of their 'right' way. This entire debate focuses ONLY on evangelical extremists. We are not talking about the moderates (though there is much to talk about them too, but that's for another debate) so of course we're sticking to extremes. If you want to talk ONLY extremes, then you are perfectly right - the GW and Evangelical *extremists* are using very similar methods, and they are *both* dangerous to use. It's not so much dangerous in terms of 'safety', but rather dangerous in terms of methodology -- brainwashing is NEVER good, and demagoguery is never good either, in my opinion, at least, no matter how "right" the subject matter is. This is one case where the end NEVER justify the means. We need to work on education so we don't have demagogues controlling people's mindsets in *all* works of life, whether we find them 'true' or not. Fear is one thing. Scaring the shit out of little children by threatening their FAMILY is going to burn forever in hell is another. There's a reason why certain movies and scenes are banned for certain ages - the child's mind is not grown enough to separate reality from fantasy, and that's more than just being 'afraid' of falling, it's developing hysteria or phobia. For that matter -- I want my children to be afraid of deadly snakes, so that they will be safe not go hugging every deadly hissing thing they see, but I would *NEVER* create a phobia against it; I would never treat my child as if he is so friggin stupid that he cannot make his own choices -- even in THESE things. I will use education, I will explain. And even if certain things are - at certain ages - to be put as "yes and no" subjects (like 'don't cross the road it's dangerous!') it is because of their age and an immediate danger to their safety, not because of my need to create an everlasting phobia against cars to a point where they will not leave hteir houses, or forbid their loved ones from driving altogether. It's not so much the message I complain against - it's the MEANS to get that message to the public (and children specifically). I think regardless of the subject it is *wrong*. Global warming, evangelism, road safety or deadly snakes -- there's a right way and wrong way. But then again... morality is subjective, isn't it? ~moo
-
I really hope I'm not going to be savagely attacked on this one, but I had to share a thought with you guys. We are talking about demagogues using 'all means necessary' to bring people to think as they do: specifically SCARE tactics with children. This is close to brainwashing, and if you've seen the movie "Jesus Camp", there are many more manifestations for it. I am going to make a link with something MUCH MUCH more sinister, and the intention is not to equate anyone to it, it's just to raise a moral and conscious thought about this. It is possible, btw, that I make this link because of my subjective past, but anyways: The methods using a demagogue scare-tactics along with brainwashing and "we are the best because we know the truth" brainwashing and extremist "anti-all-who-don't-share-my-opinion" tactics slightly reminds me of the Nazis. This is an extreme example, and yet - we need to remember that this Evangelical generation (specifically if you've seen "Jesus Camp" and read some reports and essays by Evangelical Children, you can see that) is raised on the notion that there's going to be an ideal war, where the unbelievers are destroying the chance for the believers. And 'better yet' - a "war" where unbelievers need to be led (even forcefully, if you consider brainwashing, scaretactics-for-children, etc, forcefully, as I do) to the "truth". They want a nation that follows their set of dogmas regardless of what others want. This gneeration is now young, but it will grow up to be the leaders of the future of this movement. I think this is something we should seriously consider. I think that education scares the living hell out of me in this country, and in other parts of the world. I just wish I had an idea what to do. ~moo p.s: Im sharing a thought here, so.. uhm.. don't kill me over the extremism of it.. I admit it's extreme, and I don't mean to equate anyone to Hitler. Yet.
-
I'm not sure it is.. I think preserving ORDER is the job of the law. Murder is illegal because it isn't in favor of order; for that matter, murder in the name of the state *is* legal (death penalty) so the law itself has nothing to do with morality, or else the death penalty would be 'illegal' as well. The problem is that morality is subjective. Always. Government should bother itself with preserving order and keeping people safe: so actions that *are NOT* 'victimless' - like rape and murder - should be illegal to preserve the safety of people. Actions that are considered immoral but are not actively hurting anyone should be the concern of social debate, taboo and education. If you allow the government to legislate morality in the broader sense, you end up with laws like those that oppose abortion (because some people find that immoral) or oppose gay marriage (same) or, for that matter, that oppose incest. I know this is a bit of a 'slippery slope' argument, but there is a problem to NOT go there in terms of morality: where do you stop? Who is this "grand legislator" (like Rousseau built him) that makes sure the general will of the people is preserved vs. the subjective morality of certain factions? If we have a tolerant society, our country/state laws should preserve safety and freedom. That's *IT*, technically. Morality is not supposed to be an issue of the governmet because it's not supposed to BE democratic. It's subjective. And unless your (not you you, broader 'you') morality is HURTING people, or taking away their FREEDOM, you're allowed -- and, truthfully, should be encouraged -- to have your own set of morality. We should make sure that our education system raises generations that know how to THINK about things in a way that their moral standards are logical. But even within the logical/rational community there are different morals. The best example is Vegans and Vegeterians vs. Meat-Eaters.. *personally* I don't see the morality behind Veganism in the way that we are biologically, socially and technologically built, but someone else can device a VERY rational explanation for his set of morals. As long as it doesn't hurt *my* freedom (or anyone else's) or my safety, it is NO BUSINESS for the government to decide upon. Yup, I agree. But your next section -- -- I disagree with, for the reasons above. The reason murder is different than alcohol is that murder is against the citizen's SAFETY and FREEDOM. Alcohol isn't. The best example with YOUR example, btw, is the fact that today you don't have a ban against alcohol in law, but you DO have a ban against misusing alcohol (DUI/DWI, etc). Why is that? Because drinking alcohol is your freedom; your right -- as long as you don't *hurt* or *risk* anyone else's safety. I think that's a perfect example for what I'm trying to say.. hope I made myself clearer through the ramblings though ~moo btw-- I think my political science teacher would be extremely proud of me. I managed to put Rousseau, tidbits of Mill and a large part of Hobbes in my own theory. I demand an A from the forum
-
Actually, it shows what happens to an overly-capitalistic countries.. there is no "government" anymore, really... And.. uhm.. States? what states? There are "Acquired Countries". Check out the map And speaking of books on this subject, I think Idiocracy (2006) makes a good point about incest - but I think it's a point about the EDUCATION and not the actual law. Good movie. ~moo It's also the major problem with it. The fact our society connects incest with gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research (I'm not talking about *you* specifically, ecoli, just saying this seems to be a common thread in society especially of the laymen -- education plays a part here again) is worrying. The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that if we *educate* well, we won't need our government to interfere with stuff that it has no right to interfere with. "Victimless crimes" is a problematic definition, but it's quite true - it's victimless, and relies on a subjective set of morals, so the government shouldn't interfere in it. I think we sometimes expect our law system to compensate our lack of ability to actually do good with our education system. Look at Europe: Abortion is absolutely legal, and yet there are far far less abortions going on than in the United States. Stem Cells are legal in some states in Europe and also - the percentages of abortion is not bigger. Gay marriage doesn't make more gays or more 'activist' gays either. It's all about education. The government should maintain order and the constitutional rights of all *humans*. Anything beyond that is imperialism, and could be viewed as the goal of a subjective faction. Funny.. I just read/studied about the Federalist Paper #10 and #51. He's talking about factions and their dangers.. I think those type of laws (Gay marriage, Stem Cell research, etc) are a perfect example for a *FACTION* law. ~moo
-
This is a good point, but there are so many other things that hurt society in a biological and genetic manner, like food consumption and air polution and even - some may claim - evangelical homeschooling, that rejects scientific advancements and raises a society that has no value for advancements. I don't see incest as a good thing at all, but I think this is a valid argument as to what should be an issue of law and not.. If the people involved are concenting adults, then their problem is ignorance not criminal. I don't see why these should be sent to prison - we will benefit our societ MUCH MORE if we stop stamping these sorts of 'crimes' as unlawful and start *educating* society to understand the consequences. Those are my two cents, anyways. ~moo p.s: You should read "Jennifer Government". It's awesome.
-
Guys, I was wondering - anyone knows what he claims is supposed to be the active effect of the expansion? What.. someone's blowing hot air into the earth? It's the accumulation of all the human flatuses ? I'd love to know how he explains that.. oh.. and I *loved* the way the continents twist around to fit one another as he goes 'backwards' in time, as if they're made of flexible rubber... that's hilarious. ~moo
-
Here's a YouTube lecture I did on the differences between MASS and WEIGHT using a very effective method of science education, I think.. muaha. I'm sure you'll enjoy the pun of it, if not the actual lecture Enjoy... ~moo p.s: I thought science is commonly using the metric system, hence the confusion..? pounds, as far as I understood it, is both mass and weight (which is uberodd, but.. whatever) and is also a mistake in my lecture. But.. the point is made and it got some attention and some good amount of people interested in science, so.. goal achieved, i guess
-
Don't underestimate the power of a greeting. I start posting threads in chinese, you'll know it's going GREAT! hehe
-
I think you mean "Newton" and not Grams. Grams are a measurement of MASS It's a common misconception ~moo
-
I know I'm jumping in the middle here again but I had a thought about this -- Isn't claiming that "If you restrict something in the freedom of speech, you will end up restricting all freedom of speech" a slippery-slope argument? The idea that there may be rights that are more important than *some aspects* of the freedom of speech right (for instance, the rights of the family; so the Phelps should not be allowed to use *personal attacks* -- isn't this slander, btw? -- or something like that) doesn't mean that we will end up with no freedom of speech at all. I think that freedom of speech is important above many other rights, but that doesn't mean it should come at all costs; I do believe that the laws against Slander were created for that -- they, in principle, restrict the freedom of speech -- but they do that for a reason deemed as a GOOD one by society. What I'm trying to say is that I'm not sure *how* or *what* should be banned, but I don't think that the Freedom of Speech should be ultimate and untouched. Claiming that if we touch it we'll end up losing it altogether is the slippery slope argument, and it's not supposed to be valid, as much as I understand where it comes from. Just a thought. ~moo
-
None, and not because I don't want to -- it's because I don't take a Chinese course at school, I'm studying with a friend and with Pimsleur disks. That's why I was looking for another person to speak to and practice.
-
If they're both the same shape (hence, eradicating differences in air resistance) then it's true for air, too ~moo
-
Hey there. I am actually studying Chinese now, so not only will I be happy to speak English with you, I'd love it if you return the favour and speak Chinese with ME! I must be frank, though, I'm not a native English speaker so my english isn't as great as the others, but for speaking and grammar, I'm pretty decent. MSG me on the forum if you want - the website you gave asked for registration and something went wrong with mine (I'll try again tomorrow). cheers, ~moo
-
Oookay here's the solution. Thanks to all who helped in the SFN Chatroom, you guys have been awesome! Here's the full algorithm: disp('--(b)-- Without For Loop:'); % represent t in terms of y(x): t = [0:0.1:4]; x = 5.*t-10; y = x.^2-4*x+4; dist= (x.^2+y.^2).^(1/2); R=min(dist) % draw a new equation (circle) with radius R circX=[-R:0.1:R]; circY=(R.^2-circX.^2).^(1/2); circY2=-circY; figure; subplot(2,2,1);plot(x,y); axis([min(x) max(x) min(y) max(y)]); title('[P#20-b] Fig 1: Y(x) function'); subplot(2,2,2);plot(circX,circY,'r',circX,circY2,'r'); axis([-(max(circX)+.1) (max(circX)+.1) -(max(circY)+.1) (max(circY)+.1)]); title('[P#20-b] Fig 2: Circle (Radius = Min Distance)') % look for intersections: % 0= x^4-4x^3+21x^2-32x+(16-R^2) newD=16-R^2; rootsvec=[1 -4 21 -32 newD]; xVal=[roots(rootsvec)]'; yVal=xVal.^2-4*xVal+4; DistVals=(xVal.^2+yVal.^2).^(1/2); %find the index of min(DistVals) inside DistVals: AnswerIndex=find(DistVals==min(DistVals)); minX = xVal(AnswerIndex) minY = yVal(AnswerIndex) %draw the 'line of distance': DistX=[0:0.1:minY]; DistY=DistX; %add this to the figure: subplot(2,3,5);plot(x,y,'b',circX,circY,'r'); hold on;plot(minX,minY,'mo');text(minX+.1,minY+.1,'Shortest Distance from Origin'); hold on;plot(DistX,DistY,'m--'); axis([0 (max(circX)+.1) 0 (max(circY)+.1)]); title('[P#20-b] Intercepts of Fig 1 and Fig 2'); Basically, I found the minimum distance from the origin (which i already knew how to do) and then created another equation of a circle with radius equalling the minimum distance. Equating the two equations (y(x) and the cirlce) gave me the points that match, which gave me the corresponding X/Y values. I also made sure the algorithm outputs the graphs so it's understood what I did there with the circle and the y(x) equation. Thanks again to all who helped. Apparently, this is above and beyond what the professor asked, so I am getting extra credit for this (well.. I *did* bust my behind on it ) so I guess it was worth it. ~moo
-
Yup this guy is doing that for years. He's also claiming the earth is hollow or something like that. Check this out, from the awesomeness of the "Skeptic's Guide" - an interview with Neal Adams: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsguide/podcastinfo.asp?pid=51 Pretty.. uhm.. sad. ~moo
-
Yeah me too .. I didn't mean to sound mocking or anything, I really do want to see how they decided on measuring these things...it's not as easy as it sounds for sure.
-
Hmm. Like who? Like which PHYSICAL theory was reject at face value recently? I would suggest a bit of substantiation to such an extravagant claim. I can actually give you a list of a few "weird" theories that are not only NOT blocked but actually pursued. Some of them might even be accepted at some point, if the substantiation is checked out. How do you know? Did you DO that experiment and proved relativity wrong? You obviously DIDN'T. So I would suggest changing the wording on this statement to say that if the experiments are performed, they may prove relativity to be false. Don't pretend to know what you don't. If you didn't DO the experiment, you don't know. The sun *is* the mass center of the Solar System. Check these out: http://www.solarviews.com/eng/solarsys.htm Did you mean "The mass center of our GALAXY" maybe? Oii oii. Okay, there *is* an explanation for Mercury Perihelion: http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html is one example. Read it. I have to tell you: Every time anyone makes extravagant claims with mocks against science ("foolish physicists", etc) and then substantiates his claims by using *ONLY* his OWN WEBSITE, I find it unscientific to say the least. Substantiation is needed, my friend, and using your own text to prove your own text is equated to proving the bible's truthfullness by using the bible's text. Get over yourself, seriously. Using ad hominem attacks is juvenile and gets people angry (justly). If you want anyone to take you seriously, stop MOCKING PEOPLE and start substantiating. I can explain every theory I want by being RATIONAL or by being EMOTIONAL. If your theory is so perfect, avoid making juvenile mockeries and start being concise and RESPECTFUL, so we can actually concentrate on what you're saying and not get annoyed by the logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks you're constantly making. And about your question: Did they really NOT answer questions, or did *you* not look the answers up, or not understand these answers? Plea for Ignorance is still a logical fallacy. Avoid it. You said so. Well.. posting your OWN WEBSITE as a substantiation to your 'because' means exactly that: Because you say so. You can't declare something false because YOU say so. Either perform your experiments and become famous for proving it wrong, or stop mocking everyone to cover for your own incompetence to undersrtand the theories or the meaning of the scientific method. "Because if the experiment is done it will be proven false" is void statement. Either PROVE IT WRONG, or stop pretending to be all knowing. You don't know what your own experiment will show; you GUESS. That's why experiments are *TESTED* and not just hypothesized on. Empty generalized statement without proof. I'm sure at some point we will find other, better theories, or better applications of our current theories. However - yours is so empty and unsubstantiated, that I doubt it will come from you. I urge you to come back to us when that happens, though. Where? Proof? Why do you say that? In all countries? Which countries if not all? Again an empty, generalized claim without proof or substantiation. you didnt convince me of that at ALL. All you did was claim that you know better, all the while you don't conduct any worthwhile experiment or do ANYTHING AT ALL to substantiate your claims. It seems all you have left is logical fallacies; now I'm not surprised why there are so many Ad Hominem attacks here. PROOF, PROOF! Why? Where? All over the world? EVERYONE!? All countries are alike?! It's all one big conspiracy?? Geesh. Proof, man. Proof. Yes yes yes. We all block physics. All the brand new theories, experimentation and hypothetical work that's been done ALL OVER THE WORLD in multiple countries with multiple methodologies -- they are ALL part of this 'let's block physics for the benefit of MONEY!' conspiracy. You are the only one with the truth! yes yes yes. The only reason we don't know that truth yet is because your experiments are SO TRUE that they don't even need to be done. It's obvious they'll work. Right. Good luck with that. Okay, seriously now, you need to stop mocking people. That's pissing me off. I start to seriously not care if you are right or wrong, just because of your god-like attitude... take YOURSELF seriously, so we can too. Riiiiiiiight. Good luck with that. ~moo p.s: Should I even EXPECT a reply? This guy seems to be posting a thread and running off... he has about 12 open threads out of 15 posts he made. What's with the mumbo-jumbo spammin these days...
-
I think that the best here is the COMPLETELY meaningless titles. Like these: "Memory span as the quantum of action of thought" (<-- memory span as an amount.. of energy... WHAT!?) "The information entropy of working memory capacity" (<-- how is CAPACITY have anything to do with entropy... or energy.. or.. geesh) I give up.
-
That's interesting. I'd love the resources.. But I can't help but wondering: These are anecdotal evidences. Asking people is an evidence that should be taken, but also under consideration that it is anecdotal. Then again, I am not sure how else you can measure that. I can give you another anecdotal evidence to the contrary of what you are saying and tell you that Psycholotherapy/Counselling did help me, and even though it has been a very long time since I had some, it still helps me. I consider it one of the best decisions I've ever make. I am aware, however, that it depends on the person *and* it depends on what type of psychologist/therapist you're going to. I have many friends who were thorroughly disapointed with theirs. The methodology used is also something that should probably be taken into consideration. My therapist was just 'there'. She just listened, and her major role was to "light up" things I've said (without noticing, mostly.. geesh the power of slip-ups ) and caused me to think about them. That how I consider myself to make a difference and progress. But this is anecdotal. It's an experience. It's not much of a proof. And neither are these questionairs, if we are talking about empirical evidence pro/con psychotherapy/counselling. I also noticed that in America the counselling is a bit more directed towards "statements" -> defining 'psychological states' to their patients eventually. In europe (as far as I know of it, at least), it is not as common to reach "statements" at the end of such 'therapy'... In any case, measuring the success of such therapies is hard because the potential effectiveness has a lot of variables; the person receiving it, the person giving it, the methods chosen, the amount of time, the bias of both of them, etc. That's always the case when dealing with psychology, isn't it? ~moo
-
Won't those two just give us anecdotal evidence (which.. uhm.. are fallacious and unneeded for a logical debate) ? I think this matter can be discussed using logical methods, you don't have to use people who are religious or people who play video games. You just have to evaluate the data. I wish someone could actually research these things properly. I am not sure how, maybe psychological evaluations before and after of kids going into shows like that (or sermons that preach using scare-tactics) Anyone has any ideas how could this type of research be done? I am not only talking about Christianity, either.. a lot of other religions has it, so the research needs to be done about the *METHODS* used, not necessarily about the specific religion.. ~moo
-
I think it's very bad for boys too, but yes, they're terrible. Which gets me wondering, btw -- how is this not PG rated (at the very least!)? Aren't there laws against that? You show HALF the things in a TV show at night and you have to put a disclaimer on it... weird. Yes, of course I realise that.. but watch it. There is no commentary. The documentary can be taken either way, actually. And people in the church show it around as "lookie here this is what we do, yay!". I am just putting my OWN interpretation on it. But yes, do watch it (I actually watched it on Netflix-Online-Movie so I didn't waste a shipment on it..) I think the bigger question here is -- What *can* we do about this? As rational people who care about society and reducing ignorance.. what can we do? Legally.. socially... this is really frustrating. ~moo