Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 02, 2014, 11:39:52 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 64 65 66 67 68 [69] 70 71 72 73 74 ... 208
1701  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Can anyone recommend... on: March 10, 2013, 10:45:16 pm
Trying to communicate better with your immigrant biology partner?

I don't think I would ask for a politics forum in that case Wink
1702  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Political Quiz List. Are you a Quiz Whiz? on: March 10, 2013, 10:44:00 pm


I find it interesting that they have me down as socially conservative -- on the three clearly social answers, I said that abortion should be legal, gay marriage should be legal, and guns should be legal, and marked the last issue 'critically important' but not the first two. Apparently that answer was enough to overpower the others.

Environment leaning D reflects an actual shift in my thinking of late towards more environmentalism, though.
1703  Forum Community / Forum Community / Can anyone recommend... on: March 10, 2013, 10:05:52 pm
A good Spanish-language forum on American politics? I've been studying Spanish for a while now, but I practice little at home and I think if I were to write in Spanish more often, it would really help me on my way to mastering the language. American politics is certainly something I would enjoy writing about, and I've seen on this forum how some people's (Antonio, Kalwejt) English has improved over time.

¿Ustedes me pueden recomendar un foro español sobre política americana? Yo estudiaba español por un tiempo, pero no practico mucho en casa y pienso que cuando yo comencé escribir en español durante mi ocio, podré aprender la idioma como rápido. Yo gozo escribir sobre política americana, y yo fue cómo esto foro mejoría la inglés de sus miembros.
1704  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: South Dakota ok's armed teachers...... on: March 10, 2013, 09:42:19 pm
Idiots!

The leftists in this thread? Indeed.

No. The South Dakota state legislature.

Why, what did they do?

In all seriousness, though, because the rate of both school shootings and violent teacher-student attacks is close to nil (I think more have suffered from the former than the latter, but it may just be that isolated incidences of the latter go unreported), it's doubtful this'll have any effect; it's just a feel-good measure so the denizens of the South Dakota legislature can be reelected.
1705  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will Governor Bush run for President? on: March 10, 2013, 08:25:59 pm
Voted 'leaning no'. You can make the argument that if he's been waiting for memories of his brother's administration to fade, 2016 is the perfect year, but I think if he'd really wanted it he'd have run before -- after all, there's no time quite like the present.

Certainly, whether he runs or not, there will be quite the surfeit of talent in the 2016 Republican primaries which was...not there...in 2012.
1706  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2014 Gubernatorial Election Polls / Re: OH-Gov, Quinnipiac: Kasich in the lead on: March 10, 2013, 08:23:29 pm
As somebody who lives in Cuyahoga County, I'd never even heard of Ed Fitzgerald until his name started being proposed for Governor. I don't follow local news much, but...still. More people have heard of Sutton than Fitzgerald.

Kasich isn't liked, though. He's not hated, but he certainly isn't liked. I'm quite surprised this poll shows him doing so well.
1707  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Gallup: Obama's job approval tumbles on: March 10, 2013, 07:58:34 pm
2014 midterms could be brutal for Dems.



Maybe in the senate due to staggered terms, but democrats lost pretty much everything already in 2010.

The Democrats won the popular vote in the House in 2012, and they have more seats won by narrow margins than Republicans do. I don't know about 'brutal', but Republicans definitely have room to grow in the House -- more than Democrats do. In the Senate, of course it depends on your definition of 'brutal', but it looks pretty likely Democrats will lose a couple of seats.

Really, except with historical data (like how Presidents do in midterms historically and recent election results) it's far too early to try to analyze what the country's 'mood' will be like in 2014. It could be brutal for Democrats. Or if they get very lucky they could advance in the House. Who knows.

Democrats won the popular vote in 2012 because of safe Democratic seats having much higher turnout than usual.  Even if Democrats lose the popular vote in the House in 2014, they could still gain seats.  The close seats in 2012 seemed to be pretty evenly divided.

To grow much further, Republicans would have to start winning seats with PVI's that they couldnt even win in 2010, which was the closest thing to a perfect strom Republicans will ever find.   

Republicans can grow without much difficulty by getting back what they lost in 2012. Just off the top of my head, Kirkpatrick, Barber, Murphy, Matheson, and McIntyre are all in quite Republican seats and barely won in 2012. Freshman Democrats in California won't be as buoyed by minority turnout and Republicans have already begun recruitment (apparently, the NRCC wants Carl deMaio, who narrowly lost the 2012 San Diego mayoral election, to run against Scott Peters, who's district he won in the mayoral election by double-digits while Peters' race was uncalled for days; they've also got two strong candidates, ex-Rep. Doug Ose and prominent autism awareness activist/statewide loser Elizabeth Emken up against Ami Bera). The simple fact is that there are more barely-D seats than barely-R seats, so Rs have lower-hanging fruit. Do Ds have the potential for bigger gains than Rs do? Yes, that's always the case for the minority party. But in a neutral year, without a wave for either party, Republicans "should" make small gains.



Barber and Kirkpatrick's seats are not "quite" Republican.  Locally, they are actually quite Democratic and they were both only barely won by Romney and even Bush.  Matheson survived the best possible Republican challenger in a year with a favorite son at the top of the district and survived 2010 in an even more Republican district. 

In California, the minority dropoff is nowhere near as severe as in other states.  Notice that even in 2010, Democrats lost no seats. 

Romney lost nationwide by four points. Barber and Kirkpatrick's districts both voted Romney; these are districts with Republican PVIs in the mid-single digits. I guarantee if I showed you a district which tilted about the same the other way (one Obama won in 2012 by ~8 points) you would tell me it is unwinnable for the GOP. As for Matheson, Love got lots of national attention but she wasn't funded as well as you would think; a Republican victory in that seat was taken for granted, which won't be the case in 2014.

In 2010, the seats were gerrymandered for incumbent protection purposes, and there were only a few competitive districts (if I recall correctly, just two; McNerney and Costa); Costa was an entrenched incumbent facing a Some Dude and McNerney faced a fellow who had carpetbagged in from Utah. In 2014, there'll be more competition and a lot more attention directed to California by the NRCC (especially vis a vis recruitment; basically no recruitment effort was put into CA in advance of 2010) because there're more competitive seats and more opportunities. The Republicans will also have to play defense in CA, let's not forget; Miller, Denham, and Valadao -- in, I think, that order -- are quite vulnerable.
1708  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Ryan says House GOP budget will include Obamacare repeal on: March 10, 2013, 07:51:19 pm
Pfff. Of course it will. It's not going to work, but at least we'd be able to replace it with something that's legitimately free, universal, and healthcare if it did.

I wonder when the national GOP will finally accept that they lost the election...?

They won't. Every individual Republican won their elections from their districts fair and square, and got a mandate to fight Obama. People forget that 'the national GOP' consists of elected officials whose districts backed them to do exactly what they're doing now in 2012. That's how democracy works, brother.

There is no "mandate" to fight Obama from House Republicans.  The only reason why they control the chamber is because they got to gerrymander most states in their favor in 2012.  Plain and simple. 

But there is for every individual Republican House member. The gerrymandering doesn't matter; within the new lines, every Republican House member was elected by the voters, "fair and square". The folks who vote Republican expect them to block Obama's agenda, so why shouldn't they?

Pfff. Of course it will. It's not going to work, but at least we'd be able to replace it with something that's legitimately free, universal, and healthcare if it did.

I wonder when the national GOP will finally accept that they lost the election...?

They won't. Every individual Republican won their elections from their districts fair and square, and got a mandate to fight Obama. People forget that 'the national GOP' consists of elected officials whose districts backed them to do exactly what they're doing now in 2012. That's how democracy works, brother.

There is no "mandate" to fight Obama from House Republicans.  The only reason why they control the chamber is because they got to gerrymander most states in their favor in 2012.  Plain and simple. 

Republicans think they won 2000 "fair and square", too. Kind of pointless to reason with them.

Well, they did. You can argue the rules are flawed, since Gore did get more popular votes, but under the rules in place at the time, still there today, Bush did win fair and square.
1709  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Ryan says House GOP budget will include Obamacare repeal on: March 10, 2013, 07:01:49 pm
Pfff. Of course it will. It's not going to work, but at least we'd be able to replace it with something that's legitimately free, universal, and healthcare if it did.

I wonder when the national GOP will finally accept that they lost the election...?

They won't. Every individual Republican won their elections from their districts fair and square, and got a mandate to fight Obama. People forget that 'the national GOP' consists of elected officials whose districts backed them to do exactly what they're doing now in 2012. That's how democracy works, brother.
1710  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Gallup: Obama's job approval tumbles on: March 10, 2013, 06:59:56 pm
2014 midterms could be brutal for Dems.



Maybe in the senate due to staggered terms, but democrats lost pretty much everything already in 2010.

The Democrats won the popular vote in the House in 2012, and they have more seats won by narrow margins than Republicans do. I don't know about 'brutal', but Republicans definitely have room to grow in the House -- more than Democrats do. In the Senate, of course it depends on your definition of 'brutal', but it looks pretty likely Democrats will lose a couple of seats.

Really, except with historical data (like how Presidents do in midterms historically and recent election results) it's far too early to try to analyze what the country's 'mood' will be like in 2014. It could be brutal for Democrats. Or if they get very lucky they could advance in the House. Who knows.

Democrats won the popular vote in 2012 because of safe Democratic seats having much higher turnout than usual.  Even if Democrats lose the popular vote in the House in 2014, they could still gain seats.  The close seats in 2012 seemed to be pretty evenly divided.

To grow much further, Republicans would have to start winning seats with PVI's that they couldnt even win in 2010, which was the closest thing to a perfect strom Republicans will ever find.   

Republicans can grow without much difficulty by getting back what they lost in 2012. Just off the top of my head, Kirkpatrick, Barber, Murphy, Matheson, and McIntyre are all in quite Republican seats and barely won in 2012. Freshman Democrats in California won't be as buoyed by minority turnout and Republicans have already begun recruitment (apparently, the NRCC wants Carl deMaio, who narrowly lost the 2012 San Diego mayoral election, to run against Scott Peters, who's district he won in the mayoral election by double-digits while Peters' race was uncalled for days; they've also got two strong candidates, ex-Rep. Doug Ose and prominent autism awareness activist/statewide loser Elizabeth Emken up against Ami Bera). The simple fact is that there are more barely-D seats than barely-R seats, so Rs have lower-hanging fruit. Do Ds have the potential for bigger gains than Rs do? Yes, that's always the case for the minority party. But in a neutral year, without a wave for either party, Republicans "should" make small gains.

That said, whites always turn out stronger for midterms so the GOP has a structural advantage.

This is one of those stupid things that people latched onto after 1994 and 2010 just because they needed an excuse for losing so badly.  Why wasnt this the case in 2006, 1998, 1990, 1986, 1982, or even 1978?
[/quote]

Well, I think there's data showing it's true. But I think it's merely the case that recently Republicans have been luckier in midterms in than regular elections, and, as you say, excuses are sought.

It's far too early to tell either way, but conservative enthusiasm doesn't have anywhere to go but down.

I tend to disagree -- attempts at gun control legislation especially will motivate them more. You don't think Romney was very good at turning them out?

  I don't see any room for the GOP to grow.  They are somehow managing to alienate independents and the base with every action.

But ultimately, if Obama's unpopular people will still blame him and vote Republican. And in 2012 Republicans didn't even attempt to get the votes of large segments of the country (Hispanics) and they've made it clear they won't be making that mistake again. And keep in mind that people tend to have a brighter opinion of their own individual Congressperson than Congress or whichever party they belong to as a whole, which is part of the GOP's inherent House advantage.


The only thing Republicans could do help them with Hispanics is to pass comprehensive immigration reform, which is highly unlikely. 

And the whole "people like their Congressman, but not Congress" argument helped Democrats so much in 2010 didnt it?  Hugely popular incumbents like Jim Oberstar, Gene Taylor, and Bob Etheridge all won in landslides of course.  And wouldnt this argument also help Democrats if it were true?

I think this would be the other way around for Oberstar; if I recall correctly he underperformed and Dayton won his district. But, yes, it certainly helped Gene Taylor throughout the '90s and '00s win amazing landslides as his district voted consistently Republican upballot. And even in 2010, it saved folks like Collin Peterson and Jim Matheson and John Barrow. These rules aren't hard-and-fast; sometimes incumbents are unpopular or Congress' actions trickle down and then they lose. It's an effect which is very irregular in its distribution.

Why would this help Democrats? Republicans have more incumbents in the House, so in the context of the battle for the House having more incumbents seems to help the Republicans.
1711  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: have you ever punched someone in the face on: March 10, 2013, 06:44:51 pm
Yes, in a martial arts setting and in a 'school fight' setting. But without having been punched already or without being instructed to? Never. I have been punched before and not returned the favor out of a general sense of deserving it if that counts, too.
1712  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: hide behind the poll: masturbation. on: March 10, 2013, 06:41:46 pm
What could possibly turn you on in a public restroom?

One time my gay friend saw a guy diddling himself in the public restroom and was so turned on that he found his own stall to diddle himself in. I hope that answers your question.

That does work, but it still leaves the question of what turned the first guy on (because whatever it was, indirectly at least, is responsible for turning the second guy on). Even if it was the same reason, it can't go on forever; some guy at the beginning was turned on by something other than another guy. The question is what?
1713  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Toaster Pastry Gun Freedom Act proposed in Maryland on: March 10, 2013, 06:35:33 pm
Yeah, and playing violently should not be allowed. Maybe if we taught children from a young age that guns were bad, people wouldn't go around massacring each other in this country.

In a study of adults who committed violent crimes (including the Virginia Tech killer), it was noted that their childhoods were marked by a lack of play (including violent play). "Play can act as a powerful deterrent, even an antidote to prevent violence. Play is a powerful catalyst for positive socialization", according to psychiatrist Stuart Brown. The Lucy Daniels Center for Early Childhood encourages parents not to suppress aggressive play. "Children turn to play so that they can learn what they need to learn about aggression. We should become concerned about children's relationship to aggression only if they appear to be overly pre-occupied with aggression in their thoughts or actions outside the sphere of play." 60 to 80 percent of boys and 30 percent of girls played with aggressive toys (including toy guns) at home.

TL;DR: studiest have never shown any kind of link between playing with toy weapons in childhood and violence in adulthood, and there may actually be a link between a lack of play and violence.

Spuriously-reasoned study is spuriously reasoned.

All the evidence and all the experts are on one side of the issue. Do you have anything to bring up for the other side?

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

Also provide a link.

...Even if playing as a child reduces the risk of being a sociopath, why would you want to encourage violence in your kids by allowing violent play?

Because allowing violent play leads to less violence, is why. That's the point.

http://www.nifplay.org/whitman.html
http://www.lucydanielscenter.org/page/are-toy-guns-ever-ok
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/features/toy-guns-do-they-lead-real-life-violence

Sorry, but I don't buy those studies.

Which, as I think I've noted in another thread, makes you just like the folks who unskewed polls to produce a Romney victory in 2012. You're effectively denying the data that is present to make up your own data to support the point you believe. 'Facts are biased' is your belief, to put it succinctly.

I'm not making up data, I'm just skeptical.

You can be skeptical of one poll/study, but when they all show the same things you're not doing science a favor by remaining skeptical. Certainly, the effect of play on future development could be studied more, but I think certain things -- and what we're discussing is one of them -- have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (This also goes for your beliefs on public opinion about gun control -- SH provided gun control a bump, but the trend, since the 1990s, has been a very fast decrease in support for gun control, part of the general trend towards civil liberties, of which increased support for gay marriage over the same time-frame is also part).
1714  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: hide behind the poll: masturbation. on: March 10, 2013, 06:30:08 pm
What could possibly turn you on in a public restroom?
1715  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: what is the highest mathematics course you completed on: March 10, 2013, 06:27:15 pm
I'm also currently a sophomore, but being an awful nerd I'm currently getting a C in Pre-Calculus. I did Geometry in the 8th grade; there was a bus that would ferry me, some Indian-Americans, and two Hispanic girls (one of whom I've mentioned before, hem hem...) back and forth between the middle school and the high school.
1716  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Strongest Subject in School on: March 10, 2013, 06:24:31 pm
Best: History in the sense of retaining the most, grades-wise Biology has always been consistently strong
Worst: Music without a doubt. I cannot sing, I attempted to learn to play the flute once, got two Fs in a row and dropped out after the first semester. Back in middle school where General Music was required I found it difficult to pull out a B-, and nowadays I'm musically illiterate.

Our school has a debate team, of which I am technically a member; I pay the dues and go to a tournament a year or so but I don't usually show up. It's socially liberal to a man; there are libertarians and liberals, but basically no conservatives. (I want to say none at all, but like I said I don't attend frequently so perhaps I've missed a person or 2). The latter tend to be more casual about their beliefs, while the former are more passionate and are better debaters, but there's more of the latter.

Reading the topic summary, it seems I'm unique being good at the life sciences on this forum, which is rather interesting.
1717  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Toaster Pastry Gun Freedom Act proposed in Maryland on: March 10, 2013, 05:59:10 pm
Yeah, and playing violently should not be allowed. Maybe if we taught children from a young age that guns were bad, people wouldn't go around massacring each other in this country.

In a study of adults who committed violent crimes (including the Virginia Tech killer), it was noted that their childhoods were marked by a lack of play (including violent play). "Play can act as a powerful deterrent, even an antidote to prevent violence. Play is a powerful catalyst for positive socialization", according to psychiatrist Stuart Brown. The Lucy Daniels Center for Early Childhood encourages parents not to suppress aggressive play. "Children turn to play so that they can learn what they need to learn about aggression. We should become concerned about children's relationship to aggression only if they appear to be overly pre-occupied with aggression in their thoughts or actions outside the sphere of play." 60 to 80 percent of boys and 30 percent of girls played with aggressive toys (including toy guns) at home.

TL;DR: studiest have never shown any kind of link between playing with toy weapons in childhood and violence in adulthood, and there may actually be a link between a lack of play and violence.

Spuriously-reasoned study is spuriously reasoned.

All the evidence and all the experts are on one side of the issue. Do you have anything to bring up for the other side?

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

Also provide a link.

...Even if playing as a child reduces the risk of being a sociopath, why would you want to encourage violence in your kids by allowing violent play?

Because allowing violent play leads to less violence, is why. That's the point.

http://www.nifplay.org/whitman.html
http://www.lucydanielscenter.org/page/are-toy-guns-ever-ok
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/features/toy-guns-do-they-lead-real-life-violence

Sorry, but I don't buy those studies.

Which, as I think I've noted in another thread, makes you just like the folks who unskewed polls to produce a Romney victory in 2012. You're effectively denying the data that is present to make up your own data to support the point you believe. 'Facts are biased' is your belief, to put it succinctly.
1718  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Gallup: Obama's job approval tumbles on: March 10, 2013, 05:56:50 pm
It's far too early to tell either way, but conservative enthusiasm doesn't have anywhere to go but down.

I tend to disagree -- attempts at gun control legislation especially will motivate them more. You don't think Romney was very good at turning them out?

  I don't see any room for the GOP to grow.  They are somehow managing to alienate independents and the base with every action.

But ultimately, if Obama's unpopular people will still blame him and vote Republican. And in 2012 Republicans didn't even attempt to get the votes of large segments of the country (Hispanics) and they've made it clear they won't be making that mistake again. And keep in mind that people tend to have a brighter opinion of their own individual Congressperson than Congress or whichever party they belong to as a whole, which is part of the GOP's inherent House advantage.

That said, whites always turn out stronger for midterms so the GOP has a structural advantage.

True. Really, the way both Houses are set up right now helps the GOP; it's the EC that has the decisive Democratic advantage. And I'm pretty sure everyone turns out weaker in midterms; whites just don't turnout as weaker as blacks and Latinos. I do think the midterm/Presidential electorate gap has been exaggerated recently because of the stark differences between 2008/2010 -- but 2006 was a midterm not long ago and Democrats did just fine, and the same except reversed goes for 2004.
1719  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: First Gen X President? First Millennial President? on: March 10, 2013, 05:46:08 pm

1882 links FDR to Churchill instead of to a bunch of gangsters, fascist and Nazi war criminals, and Stalinist functionaries or satraps -- and puts FDR in a generation more known for principle than for pragmatism. Maybe if Obama rates as one of the greatest Presidents ever he gets his birth-year reclassified as a "Boomer" year. Howe and Strauss recognize the early wave of Generation X as one of the most troubled waves of kids ever -- drug use, alcoholism, criminal arrests, and low achievements in education -- and for rejecting Boomer mass culture.   

That's rather absurd. Just because Stalin and Hitler were born during those years doesn't mean you can just write off artists and poets and activists and philanthropists and inventors also born during the same time.
1720  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Toaster Pastry Gun Freedom Act proposed in Maryland on: March 10, 2013, 05:41:41 pm
Yeah, and playing violently should not be allowed. Maybe if we taught children from a young age that guns were bad, people wouldn't go around massacring each other in this country.

In a study of adults who committed violent crimes (including the Virginia Tech killer), it was noted that their childhoods were marked by a lack of play (including violent play). "Play can act as a powerful deterrent, even an antidote to prevent violence. Play is a powerful catalyst for positive socialization", according to psychiatrist Stuart Brown. The Lucy Daniels Center for Early Childhood encourages parents not to suppress aggressive play. "Children turn to play so that they can learn what they need to learn about aggression. We should become concerned about children's relationship to aggression only if they appear to be overly pre-occupied with aggression in their thoughts or actions outside the sphere of play." 60 to 80 percent of boys and 30 percent of girls played with aggressive toys (including toy guns) at home.

TL;DR: studiest have never shown any kind of link between playing with toy weapons in childhood and violence in adulthood, and there may actually be a link between a lack of play and violence.

Spuriously-reasoned study is spuriously reasoned.

Surely you wouldn't dispute that people who interact more socially are better at interacting socially (and are therefore less likely to go on these sorts of massacres?)? It seems to me like a study declaring water at room temperature and sea level pressure to be a liquid -- common knowledge which goes without saying.

My father and grandfather brought me to a shooting range at the first time at the age of 9, and I remember it as a marvelous experience bonding with my family and figuring out how the world around me worked. (I wasn't actually allowed to handle a gun until several years later, I don't recall exactly when, but watching other people was still an experience I enjoyed immensely).

The fact that 9 year-olds are allowed at a shooting range, let alone allowed to discharge a firearm is disgusting and embodies everything that is wrong with America's culture of violence and pseudo-machismo.

I personally didn't shoot at the age of 9 except with Nerf guns. But there were really cute pictures on the wall of children much younger than me shooting quite accurately (they're still there).

Just because they are cute doesn't mean the should use a gun. Who cares that they are accurate. A 9 year-old isn't mature enough to wholly comprehend that a gun isn't a toy. A gun is a weapon and a dangerous tool and should be nowhere near a child.

Am I not allowed to use adjectives so that you can picture it better in your head? Otherwise, prose becomes scribbling. In any case, I don't see what's wrong with teaching children safe ways to handle guns and correct ways to use them so that they can do it better when they are older.

Quote
'America's macho culture'? My parents are immigrants, bro, who came to America seeking opportunity (and found it).

Oh please...now you're going to argue that immigrants don't absorb elements of native culture in order to assimilate? My dad is an immigrant too, and he's changed profoundly (for the worse, I may add) since he moved to this country.

Oh, of course they do, but I'm confident this is a left-over trait from the old country. Where my father went to public school, gun training was a mandatory part of the 8th grade curriculum (which is not something I'm encouraging, as I think in the interests of religious freedom for Quakers and the like this isn't something that should be taught at a public school), and gun ownership was a very entrenched part of the culture.

Yeah, and playing violently should not be allowed. Maybe if we taught children from a young age that guns were bad, people wouldn't go around massacring each other in this country.

In a study of adults who committed violent crimes (including the Virginia Tech killer), it was noted that their childhoods were marked by a lack of play (including violent play). "Play can act as a powerful deterrent, even an antidote to prevent violence. Play is a powerful catalyst for positive socialization", according to psychiatrist Stuart Brown. The Lucy Daniels Center for Early Childhood encourages parents not to suppress aggressive play. "Children turn to play so that they can learn what they need to learn about aggression. We should become concerned about children's relationship to aggression only if they appear to be overly pre-occupied with aggression in their thoughts or actions outside the sphere of play." 60 to 80 percent of boys and 30 percent of girls played with aggressive toys (including toy guns) at home.

TL;DR: studiest have never shown any kind of link between playing with toy weapons in childhood and violence in adulthood, and there may actually be a link between a lack of play and violence.

Spuriously-reasoned study is spuriously reasoned.

All the evidence and all the experts are on one side of the issue. Do you have anything to bring up for the other side?

Of course he doesn't, this is Obamanation. He'll just echo whatever Lief says, feign outrage over something, and continue on his merry way. Facts are biased.
1721  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Maryland votes to abolish Death Penalty on: March 10, 2013, 05:32:35 pm
'Democrat' and 'Republican' are extremely vague terms, which are frequently cultural indicators more than ideological ones. There's no such thing as a 'DINO' or 'RINO'; the only thing that makes you a Democrat or a Republican is your own word that you are one.
1722  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Toaster Pastry Gun Freedom Act proposed in Maryland on: March 10, 2013, 05:29:02 pm
Yeah, and playing violently should not be allowed. Maybe if we taught children from a young age that guns were bad, people wouldn't go around massacring each other in this country.

In a study of adults who committed violent crimes (including the Virginia Tech killer), it was noted that their childhoods were marked by a lack of play (including violent play). "Play can act as a powerful deterrent, even an antidote to prevent violence. Play is a powerful catalyst for positive socialization", according to psychiatrist Stuart Brown. The Lucy Daniels Center for Early Childhood encourages parents not to suppress aggressive play. "Children turn to play so that they can learn what they need to learn about aggression. We should become concerned about children's relationship to aggression only if they appear to be overly pre-occupied with aggression in their thoughts or actions outside the sphere of play." 60 to 80 percent of boys and 30 percent of girls played with aggressive toys (including toy guns) at home.

TL;DR: studiest have never shown any kind of link between playing with toy weapons in childhood and violence in adulthood, and there may actually be a link between a lack of play and violence.

Spuriously-reasoned study is spuriously reasoned.

Surely you wouldn't dispute that people who interact more socially are better at interacting socially (and are therefore less likely to go on these sorts of massacres?)? It seems to me like a study declaring water at room temperature and sea level pressure to be a liquid -- common knowledge which goes without saying.

My father and grandfather brought me to a shooting range at the first time at the age of 9, and I remember it as a marvelous experience bonding with my family and figuring out how the world around me worked. (I wasn't actually allowed to handle a gun until several years later, I don't recall exactly when, but watching other people was still an experience I enjoyed immensely).

The fact that 9 year-olds are allowed at a shooting range, let alone allowed to discharge a firearm is disgusting and embodies everything that is wrong with America's culture of violence and pseudo-machismo.

I personally didn't shoot at the age of 9 except with Nerf guns. But there were really cute pictures on the wall of children much younger than me shooting quite accurately (they're still there). One little girl signed her picture, with all the 'r's backwards and all caps, declaring 'AGE 6' under the name, which escapes me at the moment as I haven't been there since Winter Break or so.

'America's macho culture'? My parents are immigrants, bro, who came to America seeking opportunity (and found it).
1723  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Gallup: Obama's job approval tumbles on: March 10, 2013, 05:24:53 pm
2014 midterms could be brutal for Dems.



Maybe in the senate due to staggered terms, but democrats lost pretty much everything already in 2010.

The Democrats won the popular vote in the House in 2012, and they have more seats won by narrow margins than Republicans do. I don't know about 'brutal', but Republicans definitely have room to grow in the House -- more than Democrats do. In the Senate, of course it depends on your definition of 'brutal', but it looks pretty likely Democrats will lose a couple of seats.

Really, except with historical data (like how Presidents do in midterms historically and recent election results) it's far too early to try to analyze what the country's 'mood' will be like in 2014. It could be brutal for Democrats. Or if they get very lucky they could advance in the House. Who knows.
1724  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: South Dakota ok's armed teachers...... on: March 10, 2013, 05:20:58 pm
Idiots!

The leftists in this thread? Indeed.
1725  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Toaster Pastry Gun Freedom Act proposed in Maryland on: March 10, 2013, 05:19:35 pm
Yeah, and playing violently should not be allowed. Maybe if we taught children from a young age that guns were bad, people wouldn't go around massacring each other in this country.

This. Anyone who disagrees with this is (or will be) a terrible parent.

More important than the vague "bad" has to be actual gun safety -- what you do if you see a gun lying around (run away, then inform authorities), always assume a gun is loaded, if you have a gun in your hand for whatever reason never point it anyone, don't be an idiot, etc. etc. I would also argue that teaching people the correct way to use a gun is also important, but that comes down to the parents' decisions (and, after 18, the person's own decisions).

"Guns are bad" and then not speaking another word leads only to ignorance. And I think without permanent physical harm (and, at this kid's age, they're really not capable of that) even "violent" (note the quotation marks) play can be beneficial -- teaches you to try to avoid hurt, teaches you what you are and are not capable of, and has you doing physical activity in a world where childhood obesity is a terrible issue.

My father and grandfather brought me to a shooting range at the first time at the age of 9, and I remember it as a marvelous experience bonding with my family and figuring out how the world around me worked. (I wasn't actually allowed to handle a gun until several years later, I don't recall exactly when, but watching other people was still an experience I enjoyed immensely).
Pages: 1 ... 64 65 66 67 68 [69] 70 71 72 73 74 ... 208


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines