You know, that's not too bad an idea. I just really liked the idea of drawing my entire deck with Riddlesmith then shuffling graveyard with Elixer of immortality, but looking at that elf Primer that may be just as much fun, if not more so. Thanks guys!!
So I was working on a deck that revolved around cloudstone curio and 0 cost artifact creatures(some of you already see the problem), and spent several hours assembling said deck. Only when I went to add the Cloudstone Curios I noticed that they do not trigger on artifacts. This caused a problem as now my infinite combos with Riddlesmiths and gapeshots and Jace's Erasures and Genesis Chambers will absolutely no longer work. Well i've decided not to give up, and was curious as to whether I could get a similar effect that is modern legal? I couldn't find anything in my collection and for some reason when I search "return target creature/permanent you control to it's owner's hand" all I get is Stalking Yeti in gatherr and magiccards.info. I really want this to work and would appreciate suggestions, thanks in advance.
That was the quickest (And most hilarious) example of the drug habits that the animal kingdom has apparently been hiding from you. And with your statement about them only seeking harmony... Have you watched anything about animal behavior other than a disney movie? Animals do not seek to live in harmony with their environment, they seek to SURVIVE. Anything beyond that... They don't care. Animals are just as likely to seek pleasure as humans: Sex, drugs, anything that feels/tastes good they will do what it takes to receive. And as for the hedonistic pleasure, ducks are rapists, cat's sadists, and dolphins have done things that would make Ed Gein blush. Nature is not as innocent as you would like it to be.
I recently brought some heat on to myself in the youtube comments section by saying something along the lines of "Your poor grammar and spelling leads me to conclude that you're not educated enough to say anything that matters on this subject."
Not the most mature thing to say, especially since my intention was to make him too embarrassed to continue the conversation, as using reason was not getting any positive results. But his retort left me... Well speechless.
He explained to me that he was indeed getting a college education, and the reason he spoke as if he had learned all of his conversation skills from BET was because he was from Philadelphia, and as such decided to "keep it real" by not learning to spell.
So this leads me to my question: Where does this pride in being an inept moron come from? Like those "You know you're a redneck" jokes: Why do people laugh and cheer at living in poverty and with poor hygiene instead of stoppping and reevaluating their lives, try to better themselves? Why does anybody celebrate being ignorant? Is it just a comfort thing? They're too lazy to do something about their lot in life so they make it sound like a good thing?
Is Pride in Ignorance a good thing? Or should we go back to throwing fruit at people who can't spell "that" without a D?
In light of The Origin of the Species seeing it's 150 year anniversary, I thought I'd bring up a new poll.
Even after 150 years, evolution is still subject to much criticism, and I got curious as to how people on this forum view it. I do not see any debate as to whether it is true or not, seems most people on this board assume that everybody accepts it as fact, and I am interested in knowing how accurate that actually is.
How many people view it as a fact, a good theory but not convincing, or just a horrible and unfounded idea? This is mostly for the poll, but feel free to post your reasons for why you feel the way you do.
A woman told me that her dryer broke, so she was going to get a new one, along with a washer, to get the tax credit. I asked why she couldn't simply erect a clothesline on which to hang her clothes to dry, in the back yard of her house. She replied that her townhouse's community would not allow a clothesline because of the "aesthetics" it would have on their neighborhood.
This is... Not a good example. The fact is she's living in a town house. Which means odds are she is leasing the home, not an owner of the property. So in other words, it's not really her home, so she doesn't have the last say on what is done to the house or the yard. Period. If the community that the house ACTUALLY BELONGS TO doesn't want her to hang up a clothesline, it's not peer pressure; It's their RIGHT.
Is being "normal" being wasteful? The more stuff you can throw away, the more energy you can use, the more you can pollute, the cooler you become?
Wut? Which episode of Happy Days did the Fonz give his trademark "Heeeeeeeey" line while an oil rig exploded in the background (Because if that did I happen, I REALLY WANT TO SEE IT)
Is the avoidance of negative peer judgments, at any cost to our environment, common sense? What does common sense mean?
Sweet, except nowadays there is peer pressure from all of those "Go Green" campaigns to worry about the environment. From the tax breaks the government started giving corporations for cleaning up their waste to stores selling reusable shopping bags, the pressure is not to destroy the environment, but to preserve it.
Just read the links, please.
Especially the doubt and Thomas the Apostle. They show how doubt is considered good in religion. You need to question your faith to strengthen it.
I did, what did those have to do with St. Augustine being a pagan until he converted?
Umm... Thomas the Apostle is an Apostle, I don't know how you can get anymore "original" than that.
But, anyway, why disprove/argue stuff people don't believe in anymore anyway? Seems like a waste of time to me.
Fine, moving on.
Yeah! It should just stay still in an easily attackable position! How dare it try and become more reasonable! I've often thought to myself "Why can't Christianity be more like a megaman villain?"
Well duh, isn't that how everything in life works? I know I never would have passed that history test had I not watched for the power crystal on it's back.
Joking aside, my frustration is the title of christian itself, in the fact that it's hardly one at all. You say one thing they believe, and then it's pointed out that there's a denomination or two that don't believe the same. hundreds, if not thousands, of denominations, several of which claim to be the only true christians :o, another reason I can't take them seriously. As I said before, the western idea of christianity seems to be "whatever is convenient"
You should stop trying to strawman it, and learn its REAL and CURRENT position. Doing otherwise is just intellectual laziness. Christianity is not some pre programed robot that has an easily hit weak spot or something.
What real and current position? Of which denomination? Should I just focus on Westboro Baptist Church and what they believe? Or should I take the Church of Latter Day Saints into consideration? Christians have ANYTHING but a single, current position.
So, how does that child than become an atheists? If its not a philosophy?
Well, up until the point that the question is brought to the child at an age it can comprehend it, they would still be considered apatheistic. But once they've been given time to consider it they may make a decision to a) reject it outright(atheist), b) Not be convinced, but remain open-minded to it(agnostic), Accept it(theist), or let their eyes glass over and when the people stop talking just walk away deciding they want nothing to truck with making a decision or not (Back to apatheism)
Well, those are beliefs developed and passed down from generation to generation. I'm just curious about a single generation raised with no suggestions of the supernatural. Would they still find boogeymen in the dark corners? As they grow would they have a longing to connect to something "higher" than themselves but not know what this may be? It would explain a lot of things about superstition and how it's developed.
Humans label stuff. Its not the 'base state' of humanity, we just established that, so it has to be something else.
Ok, then how is it a philosophy? When the only thing that all atheists are sure to agree upon is that they do not believe in a god, how is it a philosophy?
Is a philosophical stance the same thing as a philosophy? Or is it just a stance on a particular philosphy?
K, well I guess the nest step will be to no longer push the atheistic agenda then. I mean, why help some group you're not a part of, right?
Ah snap! You got me there. But How am I pushing any agenda? I'm just trying to have a discussion here, I've never said "everybody MUST be atheist!" But you seem to have a better grasp on what I'm saying so I'm set for suprises.
"No Thank You."
That should have been obvious... Whoops.
I'm writing a story about a clash between Beast Shamans and Human Wizards and a boy prophesied to end the world.
No symbolism, I like pure fantasy.
Eh, I'm a Palahniuk fan. I enjoy a good fantasy story here and there (mostly Neil Gaiman), but I prefer dark, biting realistic stories with a dash of nihilism here and there.
No, but you should read it, and maybe understand WHY people like it.
*BARF* Oh I tried... After a few chapters of a harrowingly creepy stalker relationship and then no plot other than "Oh you're so perfect! You don't have a single flaw and I love you more than anything else even though your 109 years old and still in highschool" for a few more chapters I couldn't stomache any more. I can only assume that people who've never had a fulfilling relationship... I dunno, it's just sad escapism. And badly written at that. I could go on about how Edward and Bella's relationship is a horrible example for any girl to aspire to, but that should be saved for another thread...
If you don't understand it, how do you know its falling apart? Maybe its supposed to sound like that.
Eh, you don't have to be a mechanic to notice when one wheel is square or that one of the doors swings open randomly and know that those are problems.
Well, you DO know how to strawman it seems, since clearly people that believe go think. I would say 'giving up' trying is just intellectual laziness... or maybe just: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Or I'm just really bad at picking my words... Gosh, ummm... I need more than three hours of sleep before thinking this hard. Crap, now I'm lost. Are you referring to me 'giving up' on trying to understand how they believe? because if so i don't feel that's fair of you to say. Obviously I haven't examined every last aspect of every belief, but who's to say I have not examined enough to come to a satisfactory conclusion? (I think is what I'm trying to say. I hate my sleeping habits)
I guess the preacher in your book, or anyone else, never really believes, hu? How can he if you don't understand the mindset. A book about theists, who are all really atheists....
Haha, ironic no? Well, maybe knowing me enough would make it not so ironic that they would have no faith, but it's actually kind of funny hw I develop the character. Not sure how much you care though. Probably not ever going to get published anyways, but at the point where the main character finds faith, I try to simulate it best I can.
Dude, that's alot. I'm not going to be able to get it tonight, but I'm bookmarking it for later. But, you wouldn't lead me astray right? I will benefit from reading all of that no? If so I will...
I think you mean "not shared by anyone alive today." (well, maybe by those 30 people in that cult, much less than the population of China anyway)
Well depending on what particular belief we're referring to, there might be two or three 30 people cults, so don't underestimate man
And this is my cynical two cents to what YOU'RE pushing.
Ok, if you can show me the point where I pulled a gun out and put it up against somebody's head, I'll agree I was pushing it and tone down.
They made St. Augustine a saint, and he lived his life as a Pagan until he was 32.
Did he have doubts after converting, or was his doubting period considered his early life resisting his mother's request to convert? If the latter, does that really count? just asking...
Many religious people feel that doubt is GOOD since coming out of it strengthens your faith. Most know you need to question something to understand it, and they want people to understand their faith.
"Doubt as a path towards (deeper) religious faith lies at the heart of the story of Saint Thomas the Apostle." [1]
Well obviously somebody hasn't been keeping up... of course I was mostly speaking of the original doctrines, not adaptations that have come around since, but then I guess that argument would only apply towards extremist organizations that have not allowed any deviation from the original message, and how many of those are there?
Is there a religion out there that is more difficult to argue against than christianity? With so many different denominations the damn thing is like a coiling snake, just as you think you've got a grasp on it all it has to do is flex and reveal another side full of completely different beliefs... It's frustrating, and not a unified belief structure at all anymore, with the exception that they all worship jesus (There are even atheist christians. WTF?)
I'm asking you what you think. What do YOU think?
My personal option is that people are born with Apatheism, something neither I nor you have anymore.
Well, it's very difficult to argue that a baby is not born apatheistic, as the question of whether or not they believe in god is neither meaningful nor relevant to them... So I'm going to go with that option?
What I would love is if they did a test where they raised a group of children with no access to any religions, and see whether or not they develop their own fantasies, or then see how they react years later when exposed to religious idealogies... But alas the control required would leave people crying that it was inhumane or something...
If its not a philosophy, then what IS IT?
Why does it HAVE to be something? Honestly? Why can't it just be that I am not a believer? Blinking spirit said that it has to have oother attributes to differentiate it from agnosticism, but why? For convenience? Is it that necessary to label and assign attributes to other's beliefs? It's not a philosophy for me, it's just a response.
In fact, if it'll make it easier, I'll renounce atheism. I am no longer an atheist. I am just an individual who lacks a belief in a higher power and/or an afterlife.
Seems like everyone around here is doing that. A book written by someone about why their side is right and the other side is wrong? And that same person does not understand the other side at all?
NTY, I'm good.
Well it's more of a work of fiction, a dark comedy about a televangelist, loosely based on Ray comfort. The atheism elements are rather subtle again.
What's NTY satnd for?...
Well, I think you should learn a little more about HOW people believe in God. By your own admission its something you don't understand very well. Before you go around making fun of something and "pointing out its flaws" you should learn how not to strawman it first. Your really not attacking anyone's real beliefs in this thread, you've just been saying "I read in the Bible that you should stone your children, and since Christians all believe in the Bible, they must believe they should stone their children." Except that Christians DON'T believe that.
You should learn about what your attacking first and then attack it.
So in order to call Twilight incoherrent twaddle I must first write a bestselling fantasy novel myself? I fail to see how just because I don't completely understand a car engine I'm in the wrong not desiring to ride in one that is falling apart. Sure, I don't know how to believe, but's it's only because I don't know how to stop thinking. The instant I find a hint of doubt in anything in my mind, I chip away at it until I can't anymore, and if there's not much left of the idea, I discard it. And magic starts off with huge gaping holes to begin with.
And I have been attacking people's real beliefs. Just because it's not shared by everyone under the same label doesn't make it any less real. And I never say that it's reflected by ALL religious individuals when I give an example. Even my doubt as blasphemy example, I was referring to an older teaching that I'm well aware is not held by all christians. I know how much they LOVE their loopholes and "interpretations" that allow them to claim their faith without giving up their lifestyles here. And that's my cynical two cents on that...
Just making **** up about Christianity to make it seem as EVIL as he can, and the same time DOING THE SAME THING he is getting mad at them about. I mean, he will tell you that atheism is the "natural state" of humanity or something, and that he is not trying to "indoctrinate" anyone into atheism. But the reason he thinks he is not trying to indoctrinate anyone into atheism is NOT because he is not tying to: "to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view," since he IS, but because he TRULY BELIEVES you CAN'T "indoctrinate" someone into atheism because its "not a philosophy" or not a "point of view." He really thinks he is doing the "right" thing by spouting incorrect propaganda. And that scares me.
I FULLY acknowledge that religion needs LOTS and LOTS of work. I have fought tooth and nail against Highroller and extremestan and other theists on this site, but I also believe that many atheists are making the SAME mistakes.
I'm not making things up? I'm pretty sure that it's a belief that doubt is blasphemy, and that blasphemy is the greatest sin possible. I am flipping through the king james bible in my lap as frantically as I can, but I cannot find the exact passage(s), so... Round on that one for now? I'm everything but 100% positive it's in there though, but I haven't been to church in almost a decade so I'm a bit rusty...
I never said natural state, but are you saying it might be possible that some people are born with a belief in a higher power? I find that hard to swallow...
I will have to agree with you that I don't view my actions as indoctrination. All I did was list why I think religion is wrong, and gave examples. I'll concede that may be propaganda, but Indoctrination? I guess until we both agree on whether or not Atheism is a philosophy we'll disagree on that one.
Edit: And if you think what I'm doing here is propaganda, I dare not show you my book I'm working on... It's more subtle but I dunno.
But I think we can both tell Madd Lexxthinks he just wants to "awaken people to the Truth" not push "propaganda" or something. He thinks atheism is just the natural state of mind. Since he thinks atheism is "not a philosophy" its 'ok' to try and push it on people, since that's what's deep in their hearts, underneath all that theistic brainwashing. It's what those people need and want, in their hearts anyway, to be "awakened to the Truth that is atheism."
Nothing wrong about that, right?
WHY ARE YA'LL STILL TALKING ABOUT ME?
I know, it's my thread... And I don't think it's ok to push anything on anybody. I'm not trying to. People have every right to choose, I'm just the smart ass who likes pointing out what I see as their errors. And I would like to point out again that there is no need to teach a child there is no god any more than there is a need to teach them that a unicorn doesn't hold the sky up with it's horn. So where is the indoctrination?
What of culture? Literature? The myth is important as it bridges the gap between perception and reality, as well as helps us understand how to think in abstract terms.
So it has entertainment value? If that's where we're going with this, I would argue that Lord of the rings inspires quite a bit more abstract thinking, and is a better read. And again, it's when you take these myths seriously that they can become harmful. Though I will admit I can appreciate religious art and music, this is one of my favorite songs for instance.
We make religion (more likely, "Find God") out of every kind of media, because religion is just applied literature-- and literature need not be print, either. Have you ever met anyone who says music is their God? Beethoven saw the divine simply: it was in the glorious symphony.
Then does that not destroy any meaning to the word God? If people can claim that god is love, or god is Iced tea, then what meaning does it truly have? (I would like to add I find it horribly ironic when people choose something as fleeting as love as their god) I mean, in those terms I could accept a god like the one Carl Sagan outlines at the end of my previous post, but what's the point? You can't pray to gravity and expect it to give you some leverage.
Quite the opposite. It's the broadest lens possible, as it's not about jumping off the bridge, it's about everything you'll ever do (including the possibility of jumping off the bridge, sure). Even if peer pressure confines itself to influencing the color of t-shirts you wear, it's still a from of surrogate cogitation.
Did you read the article? The newsweek one? Or anything else I've said for that matter? Peer pressure is not confined to influencing the color of your t-shirt or whether or not you jump off a bridge, but for some people their love life may depend on it. Without being made fun of for smelling bad, some guys would grow up not taking showers on a regular basis, which makes them less desirable to be around, and less of an option as a mate.
EDIT: I'm not saying all peer pressure is good, but most forms have their benefits for those seeking to have healthy relationships with those around them. It's not a horrible monster like the PTA seems to be convinced it is.
Kekekekekekekekeke (Which I think is a hiss noise?), you've foiled my plans! The whole point of this thread was to secretly advocate the abuse of muslims, but you've figured me out!
All for what? To force meaningless conformities upon others? Should I be strapped to a chair, have my mouth taped shut, and beaten with a baseball bat just because I like walking around in a Barney costume? How does my constume affect you?
I wouldn't say that ALL conformations are meaningless. If you are walking around wearing a Barney costume, that would affect me by weirding me out and leaving me uninterested in associating with you. After you run off all of your friends that are capable of spelling "scissor" then you'll see how it affects you more than anybody else.
At worst, these eccentricities are minor problems. We don't need hate crimes from "peer pressured" cliques to fix them. "Peer pressure" is the greater problem in the bulk of these issues. Being popular doesn't make you above the law. Even for-fun "hazing" has left teens dead.
At worst, these eccentricities lead you to live like an old co-worker of mine who introduced himself as a vampire jedi, and chased girls in the parking lot to tell them goodbye or hello, and no matter how many people complained about him management wouldn't fire him because they thought he was mentally handicapped. Which he wasn't, just another victim of home-schooling.
EDIT: Peer pressure to the point of dissociation is fine but any "active" course of action directed at an individual is not okay.
I will agree with you on that whole-heartedly. But we both know that is not what is going on in schools. Would I have rather my classmates just ignore me than send me home with black eyes? Yes, but I'm still better around other people for it.
Peer pressure is bad because it's a convenient substitute for individual logical reasoning. Any situation in which I do something becasue other do so, when at the same time I'm able to analyze the circumstances and act based on my own thought process (even if I still end up acting like everybody else) is bad.
Still looking at peer pressure through that narrow "jump off the bridge" lens.
Maybe not, but the point I was trying to make was that by learning to accomodate to your peers in school will prepare you to accomodate to what is expected of you in the work place.
B: A correlation is not a causation. One researcher doesn't mean a commonly held belief was wrong. Its going to take a little more than one guy going, "Look people who keep their individuality are screwed by it!"
Ummmm... More studies?
EDIT: Shoot, didn't address your last point. Which is wrong. Nowhere in the article does it state that individuality makes you a failure. Facing peer pressure does not mean becoming a sheep. Stop reading between the lines, you miss the important bits that way.
and thus you are a better person because a researcher found a commonly held belief to be wrong. You may buy your confetti now.
And by being "bothersome" and "crazy" to your peers you're a better person in comparison? I'm not saying I'm a better person, I'm saying that I have excellent people skills, and the research done by someone gives an explanation for it, and I reflect that explanation.
D: My parents never married. Dad walked out on us. Mother became psychologically and physically abusive. State intervened, went to group home things go worse. Wow this is some freaky form of oneupmanship.
Haha, yeah, freaky indeed. Is it more like Onedown? One of those that no matter how long we keep it up neither of us is a winner...
The article seems flawed, it seems to think that if I don't mindlessly obey my "peers" I am being anti-social. Its perfectly possible to sit with a group of friends, have fun, enjoy their company and still say "no" when they want you to do something you don't want to do. That is not being anti-social.
If by flawed you mean written for a comedy website, congratulations, you get a cookie. And again, peer pressure is not just about "doing" something you do not want to do, but often "not doing" something that others object to, for whatever reason. It's perfectly acceptable to say no when your friends tell you not to wear plaid anymore, but insitance on goosestepping everywhere you go... If you want anybody to come near you that needs to be stopped at some point...
Your pet researcher seems to think that everyone that doesn't conform is sitting alone in their room cutting themselves and never learning those pesky social norms. In fact Ima go cut myself...another slice of cheesecake.
If by pet researcher you mean alcoholic, then another cookie to you. Wait, you are just talking about the Cracked.com article correct? Or did you actually click the link to the article he was citing that was located in the second paragraph of that segment of the collumn? Because although it lacks pictures of babies boozing, it's much more informative on the topic. Eh, I'll just make it easy, prolly should have done this from the beginning, far be it for me to try to entertain you guys...
Well how exactly has your experience with peer pressure been good?
I think I explained that quite well in my op.
EDIT: I think what you're not grasping is that "peer pressure" goes beyond enforcing the norms of society but getting into nit-picky details others should have little or no business in getting into. For example, praying toward Mecca will not make you popular. But does that mean it's societally unacceptable? The same goes for Magic, cosplay, homosexuality, even good grades. Society does not care about half the things "peer pressure" care about and even disagrees with some things that "peer pressure" often readily endorses. For example, alcohol and partying.
And I think you're not grasping how much further than that it goes. Praying towards Mecca may not make you more popular, but attempting to make those around you conform to allow you to do so at your whim (i.e., setting your (I don't want to call it a prayer-rug, but I don't presently recall the proper name) on the ground in the middle of a busy road and begin praying) will make you... Well more than just unpopular. And if it takes some getting smacked around to learn that then so be it. And same for your cosplay and homosexuality examples. It's not acceptable to walk around the office dressed like Goku, and nobody has any good reason to run down the hall screaming about how much they love the same sex. Peer pressure curbs behaviors such as these, and if it doesn't the individual is excluded.
"Peer pressure" is the succumbing to what your peers find socially acceptable but not society as a whole. Society is not composed entirely of teenage jocks and cheerleaders.
"Peer Pressure" is not just about jocks and cheerleaders. Just because we're out of school does not mean that POOF all the peers are gone. Peers are the individuals you must interact with on a daily basis. Outside of highschool peer pressure can include things like your coworkers telling you to take a shower because they can't stand within 5 feet of you without gagging, or not to spit in the middle of the hallway. You face peer pressure on a public transit when you blare music from your laptop and it begins to irritate those around you, and somebody throws their soda can at you.
My point, and the articles point, is that if exposed to enough peer pressure at a young age, a child will not have to be on the opposing end of such pressure in adulthood.
Quote from Irmis »
Three people standing out you going, "Do as we say or we will call you insulting names" is not really a norm of society.
So your boss telling you that if you do not follow company procedures he will fire you is not a norm in society?
It sounds more like a "since we can't get rid of it, lets find some benefit to it so we can call it good." I need to meh again.
Because we're totally able to twist something negative into a benefit just like that. No, a researcher noticed that a commonly held belief was wrong, pointed it out, and I'm passing it along because I agree.
Popular kids are fun, I was popular. I made friends with some seniors and they took me around the school introducing me to everyone as "Freshman." So by the end of the week everyone in the school knew me as "Freshman." And were kinda bothered by my inability to conform and my need to say what I think. In fact everyone thought was crazy.
They were bothered? Thought you were crazy? Admittedly part of my popularity in my highschool years came from my being different (I had an afro for crying out loud, and was the only republican in my group of friends) But by that time I was no longer hindered by such activities as singing weird al song lyrics at the top of my lungs while walking down the hall, or talking to people around me about pokemon when they didn't care. Such behavior had been beaten out of me by then.
I got all the benefits of Madd Lexx without any of the effort.
Gee, thanks for reminding me how much my childhood sucked in comparison Haha, well you may have just been raised with a better relationship with your parents that led to easier interaction with your peers. (regardless of whether or not you want to call them that, thats what they were and are) My parents had divorced when I was 2, and my mom went through a series of abusive relationships after that, so needless to say I didn't have the best examples of social interactions at home.
It depends on the peer pressure.
it is the saying if everyone jumped off the bridge would you?
the rejection of peer pressure to smoke, drink and do drugs is not a bad thing.
you don't want to be totally social disconnected but at the same time commonsense has to kick in.
well of course we should teach them to say no to things that are obviously bad, but the current method is "all peer pressure is bad," which I feel is incorrect. Without some degree of peer pressure it's difficult for children to learn the norms for interacting in society.
So I read an article recently, that listed things parents have been doing that they think help their kids, but actually screws them over in the long run.
I know it's a comedy site, but it brought up some good points. The one section that struck me the most was the one about Peer-Pressure. We are all told in school and by our parents to ignore peer pressure and just be ourselves, but what the article argues is that this message promotes anti-social behavior, and difficulty coping with society.
I thought about my own childhood in reference to this, and realized that they're not far off at all.
As a kid, I was very different and awkward, at times intentionally differing myself from those around me. The result was I was singled out, routinely got the crap beat out of me, and just generally did not fit in. Instead of trucking on, I paid attention to what the other kids targeted me for, and focused on keeping these traits to myself in an effort to blend in. By Junior high, I had learned how to avoid the attention of the "bullies," which allowed me to further study not only what would make me "unpopular", but what makes the "cool kids" "cool". By highschool I was one of the most well-known and befriended students in our school. Not saying I was universally liked, but I had way more friends than I did enemies. Hell, there was a short period in my school where the cowboys (I live in Weatherford, Texas, the Cutting horse capital of the world apparently) and the Goths were at war with each other. For some reason, despite being a routine shopper at Hot Topic, I was a sort of Go-between for the groups, as I had several friends on each side.
By being subjected to peer pressure I learned to eliminate the behavior that made me "strange" and excluded from everybody else, and am now popular at work (At a job I got because of my people skills) and a leading man in a theater group, which wouldn't be possible if I had "said no" and continued being "weird"
So my point here is, should we continue to tell kids not to give in to peer pressure, and be themselves no matter what, or teach them to accept peer pressure, at least to the extent that they fit in?
There's... So many things... You just don't know apparently.
http://www.cracked.com/article_17032_7-species-that-get-high-more-than-we-do.html
That was the quickest (And most hilarious) example of the drug habits that the animal kingdom has apparently been hiding from you. And with your statement about them only seeking harmony... Have you watched anything about animal behavior other than a disney movie? Animals do not seek to live in harmony with their environment, they seek to SURVIVE. Anything beyond that... They don't care. Animals are just as likely to seek pleasure as humans: Sex, drugs, anything that feels/tastes good they will do what it takes to receive. And as for the hedonistic pleasure, ducks are rapists, cat's sadists, and dolphins have done things that would make Ed Gein blush. Nature is not as innocent as you would like it to be.
Not the most mature thing to say, especially since my intention was to make him too embarrassed to continue the conversation, as using reason was not getting any positive results. But his retort left me... Well speechless.
He explained to me that he was indeed getting a college education, and the reason he spoke as if he had learned all of his conversation skills from BET was because he was from Philadelphia, and as such decided to "keep it real" by not learning to spell.
So this leads me to my question: Where does this pride in being an inept moron come from? Like those "You know you're a redneck" jokes: Why do people laugh and cheer at living in poverty and with poor hygiene instead of stoppping and reevaluating their lives, try to better themselves? Why does anybody celebrate being ignorant? Is it just a comfort thing? They're too lazy to do something about their lot in life so they make it sound like a good thing?
Is Pride in Ignorance a good thing? Or should we go back to throwing fruit at people who can't spell "that" without a D?
Ouch, still not too fond of you equating communism with atheism.
Even after 150 years, evolution is still subject to much criticism, and I got curious as to how people on this forum view it. I do not see any debate as to whether it is true or not, seems most people on this board assume that everybody accepts it as fact, and I am interested in knowing how accurate that actually is.
How many people view it as a fact, a good theory but not convincing, or just a horrible and unfounded idea? This is mostly for the poll, but feel free to post your reasons for why you feel the way you do.
This is... Not a good example. The fact is she's living in a town house. Which means odds are she is leasing the home, not an owner of the property. So in other words, it's not really her home, so she doesn't have the last say on what is done to the house or the yard. Period. If the community that the house ACTUALLY BELONGS TO doesn't want her to hang up a clothesline, it's not peer pressure; It's their RIGHT.
Wut? Which episode of Happy Days did the Fonz give his trademark "Heeeeeeeey" line while an oil rig exploded in the background (Because if that did I happen, I REALLY WANT TO SEE IT)
Sweet, except nowadays there is peer pressure from all of those "Go Green" campaigns to worry about the environment. From the tax breaks the government started giving corporations for cleaning up their waste to stores selling reusable shopping bags, the pressure is not to destroy the environment, but to preserve it.
I did, what did those have to do with St. Augustine being a pagan until he converted?
Fine, moving on.
Well duh, isn't that how everything in life works? I know I never would have passed that history test had I not watched for the power crystal on it's back.
Joking aside, my frustration is the title of christian itself, in the fact that it's hardly one at all. You say one thing they believe, and then it's pointed out that there's a denomination or two that don't believe the same. hundreds, if not thousands, of denominations, several of which claim to be the only true christians :o, another reason I can't take them seriously. As I said before, the western idea of christianity seems to be "whatever is convenient"
What real and current position? Of which denomination? Should I just focus on Westboro Baptist Church and what they believe? Or should I take the Church of Latter Day Saints into consideration? Christians have ANYTHING but a single, current position.
Well, up until the point that the question is brought to the child at an age it can comprehend it, they would still be considered apatheistic. But once they've been given time to consider it they may make a decision to a) reject it outright(atheist), b) Not be convinced, but remain open-minded to it(agnostic), Accept it(theist), or let their eyes glass over and when the people stop talking just walk away deciding they want nothing to truck with making a decision or not (Back to apatheism)
Well, those are beliefs developed and passed down from generation to generation. I'm just curious about a single generation raised with no suggestions of the supernatural. Would they still find boogeymen in the dark corners? As they grow would they have a longing to connect to something "higher" than themselves but not know what this may be? It would explain a lot of things about superstition and how it's developed.
Ok, then how is it a philosophy? When the only thing that all atheists are sure to agree upon is that they do not believe in a god, how is it a philosophy?
Is a philosophical stance the same thing as a philosophy? Or is it just a stance on a particular philosphy?
Ah snap! You got me there. But How am I pushing any agenda? I'm just trying to have a discussion here, I've never said "everybody MUST be atheist!" But you seem to have a better grasp on what I'm saying so I'm set for suprises.
Eh, I'm a Palahniuk fan. I enjoy a good fantasy story here and there (mostly Neil Gaiman), but I prefer dark, biting realistic stories with a dash of nihilism here and there.
*BARF* Oh I tried... After a few chapters of a harrowingly creepy stalker relationship and then no plot other than "Oh you're so perfect! You don't have a single flaw and I love you more than anything else even though your 109 years old and still in highschool" for a few more chapters I couldn't stomache any more. I can only assume that people who've never had a fulfilling relationship... I dunno, it's just sad escapism. And badly written at that. I could go on about how Edward and Bella's relationship is a horrible example for any girl to aspire to, but that should be saved for another thread...
Eh, you don't have to be a mechanic to notice when one wheel is square or that one of the doors swings open randomly and know that those are problems.
Or I'm just really bad at picking my words... Gosh, ummm... I need more than three hours of sleep before thinking this hard. Crap, now I'm lost. Are you referring to me 'giving up' on trying to understand how they believe? because if so i don't feel that's fair of you to say. Obviously I haven't examined every last aspect of every belief, but who's to say I have not examined enough to come to a satisfactory conclusion? (I think is what I'm trying to say. I hate my sleeping habits)
Haha, ironic no? Well, maybe knowing me enough would make it not so ironic that they would have no faith, but it's actually kind of funny hw I develop the character. Not sure how much you care though. Probably not ever going to get published anyways, but at the point where the main character finds faith, I try to simulate it best I can.
Well depending on what particular belief we're referring to, there might be two or three 30 people cults, so don't underestimate man
Ok, if you can show me the point where I pulled a gun out and put it up against somebody's head, I'll agree I was pushing it and tone down.
Did he have doubts after converting, or was his doubting period considered his early life resisting his mother's request to convert? If the latter, does that really count? just asking...
Well obviously somebody hasn't been keeping up... of course I was mostly speaking of the original doctrines, not adaptations that have come around since, but then I guess that argument would only apply towards extremist organizations that have not allowed any deviation from the original message, and how many of those are there?
Is there a religion out there that is more difficult to argue against than christianity? With so many different denominations the damn thing is like a coiling snake, just as you think you've got a grasp on it all it has to do is flex and reveal another side full of completely different beliefs... It's frustrating, and not a unified belief structure at all anymore, with the exception that they all worship jesus (There are even atheist christians. WTF?)
Well, it's very difficult to argue that a baby is not born apatheistic, as the question of whether or not they believe in god is neither meaningful nor relevant to them... So I'm going to go with that option?
What I would love is if they did a test where they raised a group of children with no access to any religions, and see whether or not they develop their own fantasies, or then see how they react years later when exposed to religious idealogies... But alas the control required would leave people crying that it was inhumane or something...
Why does it HAVE to be something? Honestly? Why can't it just be that I am not a believer? Blinking spirit said that it has to have oother attributes to differentiate it from agnosticism, but why? For convenience? Is it that necessary to label and assign attributes to other's beliefs? It's not a philosophy for me, it's just a response.
In fact, if it'll make it easier, I'll renounce atheism. I am no longer an atheist. I am just an individual who lacks a belief in a higher power and/or an afterlife.
Well it's more of a work of fiction, a dark comedy about a televangelist, loosely based on Ray comfort. The atheism elements are rather subtle again.
What's NTY satnd for?...
So in order to call Twilight incoherrent twaddle I must first write a bestselling fantasy novel myself? I fail to see how just because I don't completely understand a car engine I'm in the wrong not desiring to ride in one that is falling apart. Sure, I don't know how to believe, but's it's only because I don't know how to stop thinking. The instant I find a hint of doubt in anything in my mind, I chip away at it until I can't anymore, and if there's not much left of the idea, I discard it. And magic starts off with huge gaping holes to begin with.
And I have been attacking people's real beliefs. Just because it's not shared by everyone under the same label doesn't make it any less real. And I never say that it's reflected by ALL religious individuals when I give an example. Even my doubt as blasphemy example, I was referring to an older teaching that I'm well aware is not held by all christians. I know how much they LOVE their loopholes and "interpretations" that allow them to claim their faith without giving up their lifestyles here. And that's my cynical two cents on that...
I'm not making things up? I'm pretty sure that it's a belief that doubt is blasphemy, and that blasphemy is the greatest sin possible. I am flipping through the king james bible in my lap as frantically as I can, but I cannot find the exact passage(s), so... Round on that one for now? I'm everything but 100% positive it's in there though, but I haven't been to church in almost a decade so I'm a bit rusty...
I never said natural state, but are you saying it might be possible that some people are born with a belief in a higher power? I find that hard to swallow...
I will have to agree with you that I don't view my actions as indoctrination. All I did was list why I think religion is wrong, and gave examples. I'll concede that may be propaganda, but Indoctrination? I guess until we both agree on whether or not Atheism is a philosophy we'll disagree on that one.
Edit: And if you think what I'm doing here is propaganda, I dare not show you my book I'm working on... It's more subtle but I dunno.
WHY ARE YA'LL STILL TALKING ABOUT ME?
I know, it's my thread... And I don't think it's ok to push anything on anybody. I'm not trying to. People have every right to choose, I'm just the smart ass who likes pointing out what I see as their errors. And I would like to point out again that there is no need to teach a child there is no god any more than there is a need to teach them that a unicorn doesn't hold the sky up with it's horn. So where is the indoctrination?
So it has entertainment value? If that's where we're going with this, I would argue that Lord of the rings inspires quite a bit more abstract thinking, and is a better read. And again, it's when you take these myths seriously that they can become harmful. Though I will admit I can appreciate religious art and music, this is one of my favorite songs for instance.
Then does that not destroy any meaning to the word God? If people can claim that god is love, or god is Iced tea, then what meaning does it truly have? (I would like to add I find it horribly ironic when people choose something as fleeting as love as their god) I mean, in those terms I could accept a god like the one Carl Sagan outlines at the end of my previous post, but what's the point? You can't pray to gravity and expect it to give you some leverage.
Did you read the article? The newsweek one? Or anything else I've said for that matter? Peer pressure is not confined to influencing the color of your t-shirt or whether or not you jump off a bridge, but for some people their love life may depend on it. Without being made fun of for smelling bad, some guys would grow up not taking showers on a regular basis, which makes them less desirable to be around, and less of an option as a mate.
EDIT: I'm not saying all peer pressure is good, but most forms have their benefits for those seeking to have healthy relationships with those around them. It's not a horrible monster like the PTA seems to be convinced it is.
Kekekekekekekekeke (Which I think is a hiss noise?), you've foiled my plans! The whole point of this thread was to secretly advocate the abuse of muslims, but you've figured me out!
I wouldn't say that ALL conformations are meaningless. If you are walking around wearing a Barney costume, that would affect me by weirding me out and leaving me uninterested in associating with you. After you run off all of your friends that are capable of spelling "scissor" then you'll see how it affects you more than anybody else.
At worst, these eccentricities lead you to live like an old co-worker of mine who introduced himself as a vampire jedi, and chased girls in the parking lot to tell them goodbye or hello, and no matter how many people complained about him management wouldn't fire him because they thought he was mentally handicapped. Which he wasn't, just another victim of home-schooling.
I will agree with you on that whole-heartedly. But we both know that is not what is going on in schools. Would I have rather my classmates just ignore me than send me home with black eyes? Yes, but I'm still better around other people for it.
Still looking at peer pressure through that narrow "jump off the bridge" lens.
Maybe not, but the point I was trying to make was that by learning to accomodate to your peers in school will prepare you to accomodate to what is expected of you in the work place.
Ummmm... More studies?
EDIT: Shoot, didn't address your last point. Which is wrong. Nowhere in the article does it state that individuality makes you a failure. Facing peer pressure does not mean becoming a sheep. Stop reading between the lines, you miss the important bits that way.
,
http://www.losbastardos.com/photos/resized/20091107/20091107%20349.jpg
Totally the face of a conformist
And by being "bothersome" and "crazy" to your peers you're a better person in comparison? I'm not saying I'm a better person, I'm saying that I have excellent people skills, and the research done by someone gives an explanation for it, and I reflect that explanation.
Haha, yeah, freaky indeed. Is it more like Onedown? One of those that no matter how long we keep it up neither of us is a winner...
If by flawed you mean written for a comedy website, congratulations, you get a cookie. And again, peer pressure is not just about "doing" something you do not want to do, but often "not doing" something that others object to, for whatever reason. It's perfectly acceptable to say no when your friends tell you not to wear plaid anymore, but insitance on goosestepping everywhere you go... If you want anybody to come near you that needs to be stopped at some point...
If by pet researcher you mean alcoholic, then another cookie to you. Wait, you are just talking about the Cracked.com article correct? Or did you actually click the link to the article he was citing that was located in the second paragraph of that segment of the collumn? Because although it lacks pictures of babies boozing, it's much more informative on the topic. Eh, I'll just make it easy, prolly should have done this from the beginning, far be it for me to try to entertain you guys...
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/nurtureshock/archive/2009/09/23/teens-who-feel-more-peer-pressure-turn-out-better-not-worse.aspx
I think I explained that quite well in my op.
And I think you're not grasping how much further than that it goes. Praying towards Mecca may not make you more popular, but attempting to make those around you conform to allow you to do so at your whim (i.e., setting your (I don't want to call it a prayer-rug, but I don't presently recall the proper name) on the ground in the middle of a busy road and begin praying) will make you... Well more than just unpopular. And if it takes some getting smacked around to learn that then so be it. And same for your cosplay and homosexuality examples. It's not acceptable to walk around the office dressed like Goku, and nobody has any good reason to run down the hall screaming about how much they love the same sex. Peer pressure curbs behaviors such as these, and if it doesn't the individual is excluded.
"Peer Pressure" is not just about jocks and cheerleaders. Just because we're out of school does not mean that POOF all the peers are gone. Peers are the individuals you must interact with on a daily basis. Outside of highschool peer pressure can include things like your coworkers telling you to take a shower because they can't stand within 5 feet of you without gagging, or not to spit in the middle of the hallway. You face peer pressure on a public transit when you blare music from your laptop and it begins to irritate those around you, and somebody throws their soda can at you.
My point, and the articles point, is that if exposed to enough peer pressure at a young age, a child will not have to be on the opposing end of such pressure in adulthood.
So your boss telling you that if you do not follow company procedures he will fire you is not a norm in society?
Because we're totally able to twist something negative into a benefit just like that. No, a researcher noticed that a commonly held belief was wrong, pointed it out, and I'm passing it along because I agree.
They were bothered? Thought you were crazy? Admittedly part of my popularity in my highschool years came from my being different (I had an afro for crying out loud, and was the only republican in my group of friends) But by that time I was no longer hindered by such activities as singing weird al song lyrics at the top of my lungs while walking down the hall, or talking to people around me about pokemon when they didn't care. Such behavior had been beaten out of me by then.
Gee, thanks for reminding me how much my childhood sucked in comparison
well of course we should teach them to say no to things that are obviously bad, but the current method is "all peer pressure is bad," which I feel is incorrect. Without some degree of peer pressure it's difficult for children to learn the norms for interacting in society.
http://www.cracked.com/article/195_7-things-good-parents-do-that-screw-kids-up-life/
I know it's a comedy site, but it brought up some good points. The one section that struck me the most was the one about Peer-Pressure. We are all told in school and by our parents to ignore peer pressure and just be ourselves, but what the article argues is that this message promotes anti-social behavior, and difficulty coping with society.
I thought about my own childhood in reference to this, and realized that they're not far off at all.
As a kid, I was very different and awkward, at times intentionally differing myself from those around me. The result was I was singled out, routinely got the crap beat out of me, and just generally did not fit in. Instead of trucking on, I paid attention to what the other kids targeted me for, and focused on keeping these traits to myself in an effort to blend in. By Junior high, I had learned how to avoid the attention of the "bullies," which allowed me to further study not only what would make me "unpopular", but what makes the "cool kids" "cool". By highschool I was one of the most well-known and befriended students in our school. Not saying I was universally liked, but I had way more friends than I did enemies. Hell, there was a short period in my school where the cowboys (I live in Weatherford, Texas, the Cutting horse capital of the world apparently) and the Goths were at war with each other. For some reason, despite being a routine shopper at Hot Topic, I was a sort of Go-between for the groups, as I had several friends on each side.
By being subjected to peer pressure I learned to eliminate the behavior that made me "strange" and excluded from everybody else, and am now popular at work (At a job I got because of my people skills) and a leading man in a theater group, which wouldn't be possible if I had "said no" and continued being "weird"
So my point here is, should we continue to tell kids not to give in to peer pressure, and be themselves no matter what, or teach them to accept peer pressure, at least to the extent that they fit in?