ffa1mf

@grannywils-I do agree with you and should probably have explained that particular point a bit better than I did. When I wrote that I was thinking about being at a school recently and the teacher was teaching a health subject dealing with "wash your hands, brush your teeth, take a bath" etc. and this little girl raised her hand and asked what should she do because there had been no water in her house for sometime because it was too expensive. I don't disagree that all children need an education, but if they are troubled or distracted by problems or have situations that are road blocks to them being educated, then what exactly is being accomplished by forcing them to go to school and learn in a specific manner that this is the way life is and what the expectations are from them? I do not believe that little girl went home that night and followed the instruction she was given in class that day that identified to her what people do and what is expected of her in maintaining a healthy life style. Is the answer just we ignore any other problems and just give them a "better" education? Well, I couldn't have answered that question better than you did; and that goes beyond just providing an education, but solving the problems that exist that are road blocks to them obtaining an education. As for the Newt (or any other politician) and his beliefs and concerns - he's a politician and if he actually does do something about the issue of poverty and children I'll be the first to tip my hat to him - but please don't ask me to hold my breath while I'm waiting.

Before reading this - understand I have absolutely no specific interest in the politics in the US except how it would effect my country. I am also not defending NG, all I’m trying to present here is a different perspective on what I hear NG saying. Anyway, NG was discussing his philosophy of radical ideas and measures to end the culture of poverty in the USA. Again, whether I agree or disagree with his ideas is not the issue here but what NG said. In the meeting at Harvard, the discussion was on poverty in the US. He said "You're going to see from me extraordinarily radical proposals to fundamentally change the culture of poverty in America and give people a chance to rise very rapidly." In explaining or providing an example of what he felt would be a “radical” idea to answer a question asked by one of the students, he said, “Core policies of protecting unionization and bureaucratization against children in the poorest neighborhoods, crippling them by putting them in schools that fail has done more to create income inequality in the United States than any other single policy. It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child laws, which are truly stupid. You say to somebody, you shouldn't go to work before you're what, 14, 16 years of age, fine. You're totally poor. You're in a school that is failing with a teacher that is failing. I've tried for years to have a very simple model. Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they'd begin the process of rising.” So, what is more important; protecting unions and the bureaucracy at the expense of people suffering from poverty or implementing programs, even though they may be radical, to address poverty? Is forcing children to be in school, that isn’t giving them an education because the child’s thoughts are not on school but on the hunger in their stomach, the best way to deal with the problem? Is it right to have legislation that restricts people from doing things they feel is their hope to break free of poverty? Are building a work ethic, an understanding of money from labor, developing pride in oneself and school and perhaps neighbourhood, as well as the understanding that it is possible to break free of poverty bad ideas? While I don’t think NG explained very well or expressed his thoughts very clearly, and certainly didn’t have a very good program outline, I don’t specifically find fault in the concepts he suggested through his answer. My biggest issue with all this is the media anyway as, at least in North America, they no longer report the facts or the news, they twist, distort or slant the facts and too often make up the news to fit their own agendas. And if you believe the media is fair and impartial, well, I have a treed, seaside lot with a cabin and yacht for sale in Kansas – cheap.

I suppose I used the word "justified" in the context that if Mr. Gold had been a member of the resistance or doing something against the soldiers, his being singled out and shot would have made more "sense" within the context of the movie storyline or at least provided a clear reason as to why he was shot. However, I suspect Mr. Spielberg used the scene to demonstrate not just the brutality, but also the absolute disregard the soldiers had for the inhabitants of the ghetto.

@MajKrAzAm-I don't disagree with your interpretation, but there is nothing that suggests Mr. Gold did anything other than not move fast enough or that he was the head of a household (the people who left before him were obviously family) and made an example of for not doing as he was told immediately and making the guards having to come to the door and call them out. All persons in the ghetto were registered as to names and where they lived (there is two or three scenes on this) so the guards would have had lists with names and locations. Everyone else was moving as directed to the plaza as the guards were yelling for everyone to get out, but the Gold family were still inside with the door closed. It may just as easily been that they were not moving fast enough for the guards or made the guards mad because they had to knock on the door to get them moving out. I have watched that scene a number of times and can't actually hear what Mr. Gold says after he identifies himself or after the guard grabs him. Again, I don't disagree with your interpretation, but if he was shot for being a spy or in the resistance or for doing whatever, it is almost as if the guards actions are justified, but consider if he had done nothing wrong, and was shot just for not responding fast enough. Regardless - just one powerfully brutal scene.

The liquidation of the ghetto was not because of any reason other than to exterminate the jewish people. The soldiers were under orders to clear the ghetto and that anyone who protested, resisted or even if they didn't move fast enough were to be shot as an example to others to ensure they obeyed and left the ghetto. The man was shot not because he was "wanted" or in the resistance or for any other reason than because he did not obey immediately and without question and began to protest his eviction from his home. It is difficult to hear on the movie, but I had always thought he said "What is happening? I have done nothing...." as he did not understand why he was being forced from his home. He did not understand that the eviction was not because he didn't pay his rent or for some "reasonable" reason, but because the jewish people were being rounded up and sent to extermination camps. His crime was protesting and under the law of the time and place that crime was punishable by death - immediately.

@Proximitus - PM me an e-mail address and I'll send you mine or make you one.

Best house to live in is one you build yourself in the CS. I've got a nice house in Cropsford with a fenced yard and stable so the horses I usually have stay in the yard and are safe. Its got an underground "Me" shrine that holds all the stuff I collect (not quite 30 manniquins, but close). Nice simple layout without a whole bunch of stuff I don't want. Took about 2 hours on the CS to make. Using a couple of other mods readily available from the Nexus I can decorate it to be whatever I need it to be for whatever type character I want to play as; rogue, adventurer, highwayman, mage, farmer, merchant - whatever. Easiest thing is build your own house in the CS to meet your own gaming needs.

@Nintii - Did you even read the article? More importantly, did you understand it? You should also realize that the author and his partner (Bushman) were cited in 2007 by the APA for "improperly calculating data and producing fallacious results" and their research lost any recognition from the APA or other accredited bodies. While I appreciate the link to an opinion paper from 2003, published by a discredited researcher, one should really try and gain research from respected and verified sources if they intend to debate a point. I am going to rely on the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health, The Journal of Adolescent Health, and The British Medical Journal who concluded a worldwide study in 2009, of 130,000 individuals (both male and female gamers). Their conclusions of the study in a nutshell; No conclusive link exists between video game usage and violent activity. The studies focused specifically on serious aggressive behavior and concluded that video game violence is not related to serious aggressive behavior in real life. Yes, gamers did tend to be somewhat more aggressive after playing a video game, but the effects were short-term. The study identified that children already predisposed to violence were affected by violent games. The long-term outcome study of youth found no long-term relationship between playing violent video game and youth violence or bullying and that aggressive children tend to select more violent video games, not the inverse. They did make an interesting note on your comment regarding school shootings and the blame placed on video games. I wrote it down so I could reproduce it here: The moral panic over violent video games is doubly harmful as it has led adult authorities to be more suspicious and hostile to many kids who already feel cut off from the system. It also misdirects energy away from eliminating the actual causes of youth violence and allows problems to continue to fester. The strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure. What say I? People shouldn't pull any old piece of opinion off the web and try and use it to debate a point, particularly when they do not understand it or know what it is. Additionally, people who have no insight or concept of the specifics of an individual criminal incident should really learn to keep their thoughts to them self. My brother was one of the emergency room practitioners at the hospital that day BTW. Persons with no idea of what happened or why and who make absurd statements tend to be thought of as extremely rude and insensitive to human tragedy. Lastly, while I appreciate your deep expertise in the area of human behaviour, I'll stick to my sources of information (a doctorate in psychology) rather than yours.

Wow, nine 14 minute videos posted to YouTube by a conspiracy theorist about how there is a world-wide strategy led by the CIA and US government trying to make everyone dumb and control the population by mind control and behavioral conditioning to increase corporate profits. Now I'm convinced - imprinting by pornography must be a fact!

Yes, grannywils, that particular idea on imprinting is good for a laugh. However, I wonder how many of these debaters realize just how obnoxious and disgusting the pornography industry is, particularly those who think it harms no one and its OK so long as "no one gets hurt" and there are "consenting" adults. I suppose its just a lark to some to watch a porn movie, but after the number of years I spent as an investigator its simply that there is no one who is not being hurt by pornography (except those who profit from it) and it isn't a problem in one or another part of the world but across the globe. Sure, its worse in some places than others, but that doesn't excuse the idea that its OK to watch a porn movie and support a wide system of human abuse that has enslaved literally thousands of men, women and children around the world. Frankly, I cannot imagine anything so boring and wasteful of time as watching a porn movie. I'd just as soon watch paint dry.

Best laugh I've had all week - the "imprinting" of males to pornography. Better stop playing violent games like Oblivion and Skyrim as these might "imprint" you too, to violence and killing. This pseudo-psychology has been around for a number of years and has been discredited by numerous agencies and doctors. Its not the violence or the pornography that causes "imprinting" of the individual and their problems with sex or violence, its the individual who is already "imprinted" who has the problem - regardless of the amount of pornography or violence they observe or use for stimulation. In reality, such individuals who are of this psyche will only use pornography or violence that stimulates them and reject all other types. Oh and by the way, females are as susceptible as men in this area as its a mental condition, not a pornography one. May as well identify that nymphomania is caused by porn too and that all those bodice rippers women read tend to lead them to become nymphomaniacs by "imprinting" them. Like Ghogiel mentioned, one may as well also warn that pornography will lead to hairy palms, going blind, large feet, knuckles dragging on the ground and other physical ailments.

Its possible to beat the Arena at level 1 or 2 if you use a bit of strategy and not just try and slash your way through - and you are in vanilla Oblivion. If your using a mod that makes the game harder you will want to be about level 10 or better. I think the highest level I've ever been as Arena Champion has been a level 3 character and using the steel short sword I obtained in the tutorial quest. Here's two pages to read that will help you immensely as a low level character in the arena. http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Arena_Combatants http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Arena_(faction)

Kind of hard to determine what it is this is supposed to debate. The question doesn't define what "porn" is. Is it a select passage from a book, say the bible (Song of Songs 1:2), or is it a video of the underage girl being beaten until she allows herself to be raped by a dog? I note someone has identified that "its all good" so it seems that there is at least some confusion (at least I hope there is) about what "porn" is and isn't. Considering no one has been able to define what "porn" is and gain consensus for it, this seems like a silly and somewhat dangerous issue to attempt to discuss.

Yes, I wanted children and married a girl who wanted children as well and we did have children – 2 wonderful girls. I can’t speak for anyone else, but my two girls have been a huge source of joy, wonder and happiness for me and my wife and continue to be. I suppose it did to a point, but in my case it was more about what point in life my wife and I were at at the time (careers). As a result, we had children quite a bit later in life than most of the people in our same age group, and at the point in our life when we did have children money wasn’t a significant problem. My wife and I had made a plan about what we wanted to accomplish in life and pretty much stuck to the plan, and as a result we didn’t have children until we had achieved certain goals. I should also note that while there is a recession ongoing for a good part of the world right now, when my wife and I had children my country was in the worst recession it had seen since the 1930’s. Did we struggle somewhat financially? Yes, but like most people we knew what we wanted, set priorities and made the choices we did and worked on solving the problems so we could achieve what we wanted. I don’t know if you can miss something that doesn’t exist. While I cannot imagine my life without my children, I suppose that if I never had any I wouldn’t have missed anything either. I also think I wouldn’t be the same person I am now if I had not had children. It becomes an exercise in “what ifs” and really there is no answer to that supposition game. Life is what it is and we do the best we can with it because sometimes we don’t get to make the choice. I’m not even sure what a total failure in life would consist of so it’s pretty hard to answer that question. I can only say that no matter what my children do in life I will love them and be there for them. It’s hard for me to imagine how a child would bring “only misery”, and additionally, I think “misery” is sort of subjective. I know people who think their child has brought them more than their share of misery but, as far as I can see their child is a very nice person who I enjoy seeing and talking with; so it is hard to judge why these parents feel their child has brought them misery. On the other hand, I know a couple who have an autistic child who has what are considered severe behavioral problems and the parents don’t seem to think the child has brought them any misery at all. Until you have a child how do you know what they will bring to you?

Since WWII, Allied nations have had troops deployed to other Allied nations. As Allies, it sort of helps to train together, work together and be prepared and even, yes, to show a united and strong military force to the world. I know I enjoyed my Pacific tour, particularly Australia (Bondi Beach *sigh*) and as far as I recall no locals seemed upset with foreign troops in the area. In my country - I see British, German, American and even Australian troops deployed here at military bases. I suppose I should be concerned Australia has some secret plan for gaining permanent status in my country as well? I also don't expect my government to come and ask for a vote or local approval everytime some foreign troops are deployed here, not only a waste of my time and tax dollars, but that vote was done years ago, the cooperative agreements made and mutual benefits made apparent. To be perfectly honest here, I think your Greens Party is blowing hot air in order to gain attention and generate anti-American sentiment rather than address some concern about Australian sovereignty. I also find it rather, I'll use the word "impolite" here, to suggest that it is OK to have foreign troops deployed when it is necessary and beneficial (ie: to help defend the country), but once that is accomplished and the immediate threat has passed all those foreign troops should just GTFO - at least until they are needed again. While I appreciate that there will be a slightly larger presence in the area due to a change in need, if this Greens Party had any interrest in Australian sovereignty, they would understand it doesn't just exist because they say so and would be supporting a greater level of cooperation with ALL their Allies, not just those they want to pick and choose.