SeVeR

Fair enough. As i said before, most people would say OCD is a disease, i just wanted to point out that some people think the disorder is limited to the mind, in order to make my point about computer game addiction. Unfortunately we then got into this rather petty debate. I was defending myself because Ducky was trying to make me look like an idiot. I'd much rather debate the original topic. Back to computer game addiction, i would not call it uncontrollable. If something more enjoyable came into the life of the "addict" then i'm sure they would drastically reduce or give up their computer time to do that.

Medical Dictionary: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/disease disease /dis·ease/ (di-zez´) any deviation from or interruption of the normal structure or function of any body part, organ, or system that is manifested by a characteristic set of symptoms and signs and whose etiology, pathology, and prognosis may be known or unknown. Now please, it's getting tiresome.

Looks like the poll got screwed up with adding another option. I don't believe 5 people here (or the whole of subspace) are Wiccans. Knightflame: That's not very Christian of you. I forgive you though, it's in your nature. Now go repent. Syrus: They don't necessarily prey on people when those people often come looking for the church. It's clear that twice in your life you were feeling pretty low. Both times you ended up in the welcoming arms of the Church. That kind of comfort, safety, friendship and community is not such a bad thing during your time of need, but don't feel you have to believe what they believe just because they've been nice to you. If they're the kind people they say they are then you'll be welcome no matter what you decide to believe. Would you be a Christian now if not for those low points in your life? Did you not believe in God before, if not then why? Do you think the kindness shown to you in your time of need was an incentive to believe their views on God? Falco: In response to your last point about an afterlife, i've been told many times by Christians to believe in God and heaven so that there is no chance of going to !@#$%^&* if i'm wrong. One would have to be very cowardly to convert based on that "threat", but what gets me is the audacity of Christians to use such under-hand tactics in order to play on peoples fears (it was one of the first things Knighflame said to me on this forum). I applaud you for becoming agnostic, it takes alot of inner strength to give up the delusion of a guaranateed place in heaven.

Absolutely, that is one way in which the word disease can be used, but the example "fascination with executions is a disease" is obviously not correct in the medical sense of the word. I have a fascination with certain depraved images, does that make me diseased? Of course not, at least not in the medical sense. That's why i said before that there are many definitions, some being broader than others. If a mode of thought is a disease then we're all diseased. Rather than debating the definition of disease and the revelence of those various definitions to medicine, how about someone tells me why computer game addiction is a mental health disease. -EDIT- And just for the record we are talking about computer game addiction as a mental health disease here. So you have to be sure you're using the medical term. Otherwise you might as well call anyone who has ever watched porn a mentally diseased person.

Exactly, there needs to be a physical ailment of some sort. If something is purely psychological then it cannot be a disease, but is rather a state of mind.

There wasn't agnostic on the list so i picked the best alternative "none". Syrus it seems that desperation and a need for attention were the factors in you becoming a Christian. Firstly, you suffered a catastrophic event and a friend saw the oppurtunity to convert you. The second time round, you were in need and your mother+counsellor were there to offer their services at a price. It seems like you never thought about why you became a Christian. Do you really believe in a God, and why? You need to ask yourself some deep philosophical questions, and most importantly you need to answer them yourself without the Church who seem to have a knack of converting you.

Actually there are many definitions of what a disease is, some being broader than others. Generally you don't accept psychological disorders as diseases and as a number of prominent scientists still believe OCD to be a psychological disorder, it isn't proven to be a disease. Although i never really expected you to understand that, i did expect you to refrain from demonstrating it. Tell me what makes you think computer game addiction IS a disease then. This should be funny.

pancakes? popcorn? thse twinky things americans eat?

That's a nice way of telling atheists and agnstics to !@#$%^&* off. Even Iran doesn't tell non-Muslims to leave...

Well yea, you missed the whole point of why computer game addiction isn't a disease. If OCD is a psychological condition then it's not a disease. It is generally believed to be a disease as recently patients have been responding to medicinal cures which suggest a biological affliction. If you haven't got anything constructive to say Ducky, please GTFO.

OCD is a good example. It is not classified as a disease (the D stands for disorder). Some scientists believe it is a psychological disorder, meaning those who have OCD are personally responsible for their obsessional thoughts. Some believe OCD is caused by abnormalities in the brain, meaning the disorder is genetic and therefore a physical disease. Clearly computer game addiction is a psychological disorder and not a disease. The addicted are in control of their actions, there is nothing physically wrong with their brain, and there is nothing physically damaging to the addicted beyond a lack of activity. It's not a disease, but this doesn't make the disorder any less important. Mental addictions often include physical addictions (tobacco). Computer game addiction is no different to football addiction or masturbation addiction . If you do too much of one thing then it's bound to be detrimental in some way. The reason it's not a disease is because it's their choice to do those things. So effectively you're saying that thinking a certain way makes someone a diseased individual. I know of past fascist regimes that thought this way. I'm surprised to see it here of all places... on a games forum. -EDIT- Based on this analysis i think many of you are self-hating individuals who want to blame video games for any lack of success in the real world. To that i say tough !@#$%^&*, it was your choice and nothing made you do it.

Well yes, it is a problem and it is an addiction, but it's not a mental health disease. Nothing about playing video games is physically damaging, as the addicted will still eat and sleep. Nothing about video games generates a physical dependency. So its not a disease. It is however something that should be recognised and dealt with through psychotherapy and counselling.

Nothing about the colour of our skin determines the level of destruction we wreak upon the world. Our limits are determined only by how advanced and efficient we have become at it. In other words, Africans and Asians are historically no different than Europeans or Americans in their will to destroy, but they don't have the means to equal our destructive power. I'm a little surprised you pulled out an accusation of racism this time. Actually i'm trying to answer the question of "would Israel exist today without America?", and given the influence America had over the world in 1947, and the outspoken support for a Jewish state in the Middle East from President Truman, i'm willing to guess the answer is "No". This is why America is blamed for Israel's creation.

Some people seem to think the opposite, and that the aristocracy would consolidate their position. I agree with you that the existing aristocracy would be whittled down by the dilution of power to those who are intelligent enough to succeed. But then wouldn't the new aristocracy just be a mixture of the rich and poor, except it would be based on intelligence and success rather than inherited wealth? I like that image. A removal of aristocracy isn't exactly communism. I'm one of those geeks who always liked Star Trek, and tbh that is an ideal society, yet it could be described as communist. I'm not proposing a removal of wealth, or capitalism. I would just rather see an economy centred around intelligence.

You all really need to understand the difference between psychiatry and psychology. Heroin addiction would be a psychiatric illness as the mind genuinely feels that it needs to take more of the drug to remain alive (despite the actual non-fatal repurcussions of withdrawal). Computer game addiction is a psychological disorder and not an illness as the person is able to stop playing games at any time. They play the games because they enjoy the games, so if anything its an example of hedonism. What makes people think it's an illness is the negative effects of playing too many computer games; but then if you do too much of anything you'll end up neglecting other areas of your life, which is why i offered football as an example of an activity that could be detrimental to academic acheivement if played too often.

Greased: At the moment do you not believe the middle class are being discriminated against and overly taxed? Or maybe you think that political parties don't try to appeal to certain sections of the population? Lets get the black vote, or the womens vote, or that random minority vote. My concept gives everyone the chance to be recognised as important, given the effort of the individual. Basically if you're not viewed as important, then its your own fault. If you think that is any more cause for a revolution than the current system, then we disagree. My problem is with a society that doesn't recognise the importance of those who support, advance and preserve that society the most. How can you say some people are not more important than others? Surely that is racist in it's own way. You're comparing me to drunkan yobs, unemployed bums, people who drop out of school at 14 and live of benefits... that is insulting. Some people are more important than others, and not recognising it is as good a reason to start a revolution (if not more of a reason) than if we were to recognise it. Farmers are of course useful for providing food. You don't seem to understand the jobs that are necessary to society are NOT the lesser jobs. What you've said here shows you don't understand the concept. Absolute crap. Any person white/black/asian would be treated identically according to their qualifications, occupation and acheivements. There is no justification for racism, you're clutching at straws. If more mexican immigrants are less educated, with crappy jobs because they can barely speak english then they deserve less of a vote. But under no cicr!@#$%^&*stances would the colour of the persons skin determine their vote rating. You're trying to tarnish this concept with racism and its completely unnecessary. Great! This encourages rich people to educate their friends and family! What could possibly be wrong with this? Oh, thats right, you have something against rich people... i guess that makes the point valid in your eyes. Additionally, there isn't "one group of people" who get all the power in this elitist concept. Everyone gets a vote rating that could range from 0-100 with no particular section of society with way more points than the rest. The rating would be confidential. Governments would make policies to help those with the most voting power and this would encourage people to get an education and/or become teachers/doctors/soldiers. Society would benefit. It already is handed down family lines in a much worse way than you illustrate. My system would allow anyone with an education to reach the highest vote ratings, and you're calling this worse? I come from a poor working class family, yet have saved what little i could, excelled in school and have gotten a degree in Physics from a top university and am now considering a doctorate in Nuclear Physics and a second degree in Philosophy. I'm making something out of myself from one of the poorest starts. It's quite possible. Again, there are no classes. Anyone can benefit society, get a job, not get convicted for a crime. A soldier would earn alot of points for peace-keeping missions, what start in life do you need for that other than a bit of detemination? Please stop denying genetics through this half-witted, high 'n' mighty ideal of equality. Is a baby born with muscular sclerosis the same as a healthy baby? You're the one denying equality here. I propose we recognise the innate disadvantages and compensate accordingly. A democracy of elected representatives.

Confess: Not believing in God doesn't make you religious. If that were the case then everyone would be religious since you either believe or don't believe in God. Your comment is utter baloney. Atheism may categorically say God doesn't exist, and in that way it can be described as a religion; but you can't infer that all those who don't believe in God are religious. I'm agnostic and consider faith my enemy. Probability is the only thing i believe in, and in that way i'm the most irreligious person i can be. What you said about moral standards is complete crap. I'm sorry to put it so bluntly but it is. I suppose you believe morals started with the ten commandments? It's quite clear from studies of ancient civilisations that people learnt to co-exist in tribes/societies and thus learnt not to kill, steal or commit adultery. Do you think we'd not learnt that before God came along and gave Moses some stone tablets, and everyone's reaction was "Ahhh so don't kill? What an interesting concept"? I've never been "touched" by God or Jesus and find my moral centre from one basic instinct: to survive. To survive we do not generate threats to our survival by angering and bringing pain to our fellow man. From the survival instinct we can derive all of our morals, even empathy. What more probable cause for our morals than something innate to all forms of life. Do you think animals don't have basic morals because they haven't been given some stone tablets yet? Cows should be head-butting eachother to death in the fields... Religion may give morals to those too stupid to find them by themselves. Some people seem to function better with a set of rules which have no logical cause other than God. However this is known to back-fire not only because of the lack of understanding for why thse morals exist, but because they are incomplete and open to a range of interpretations. In other words, it's no surprise to me that alot of priests have been convicted of sexual assault or pedophilia. I criticise Christianity because i have experienced it first hand and understand it's temptation to the weak-willed and desperate. I understand how it generates dependency, like a drug for the mind. Islam is alien to me, but appears to be little different from Christianity a few centures ago when scientists were condemned as heretics and old women were burned as witches. Christianity isn't better than Islam. Western civilisation is simply more developed now. For proof look no further than Africa, where the natives after being introduced to Chrsitianity are beating orphans for being "sorceror children".

Yea, so after WW2 the US was the only power left on Earth, and the very survival of Europe depended on billion dollar loans.... so when US President Truman comes out saying the Jews need a homeland, what the !@#$%^&* do you think Europe is going to do? It's really no coincidence that the vote took place right after WW2. The US is blamed for the Korean War based on their fight to stop the expansion of communism. THe US is blamed for the Gulf War because they owned the oil fields in Kuwait, they called for the war, and they sent in the most troops. I don't understand your beef with past Euro foreign policy. Americans are direct descendents of those bloody Europeans! When they left Europe and became Americans they busied themselves with killing the Native Americans. The US is always the first up to the podium to call for war. And what the !@#$%^&* are you talking about with the World Wars. If America had been next to Germany you'd have had the same problems. You can't blame the whole of Europe for Germany's aggression. How the heck has Europe developed a self-righteous at!@#$%^&*ude in comparison to America? We're not the ones calling for democracy in the Middle East.

Greased Lightning, i was thinking of something a little more complicated than academic achievement. It would obviously have to be a very complicated system in order to be fair. Jobs of particular use to society such as doctors, nurses and teachers would enjoy a good number of voting points, as would members of the armed forces. A university degree would qualify for points, as would the type of subject the degree is in. Those with a criminal conviction would lose points. Positions of seniority in the work-place would qualify for points, as would experience. Those with any innate disadvantage, such as the disabled, would be compensated accordingly. There are many reasons behind this system. 1. The political parties would appeal to the educated and in doing so would present well thought out plans and ideas rather than propagandist mumbo-jumbo for idiots. The real policy making goes unheard by the public, this would change. 2. The system would encourage achievement. What better way to encourage people to improve themselves. 3. Leaders would not be elected by people who have accepted religious-patriotic garbage. If a reverend ran for the 2008 election and started waving a flag around and being all patriotic he would win. He wouldn't need any policy whatsoever. In my view this is wrong. 4. Based on point 3, GWB wouldn't be elected. I find the term "all men are created equal" offensive. We are not created equal, and in order to make an elitist system work we need to know what people are capable of before judging their achievement. Otherwise the system would be unfair. I think a democracy is better served by giving more voting power to those who support, advance and preserve that democratic society the most. The rich wouldn't be given more power unless the rich happen to be the educated, and if thats the case then mere wealth is no reason to hold anything against them. As i said before, education isn't everything, but it would be worth something, and i think that's deserved. On the example of unemployed drug-addicts, they don't lose their voting privileges until they are convicted, and i'm willing to bet there are more without a conviction to their name than those with. The example was not meant to be so specific though, and was directed more at "those sorts of people". If you think those sorts of people have a more well-informed decision or are more deserving of their vote than doctors, professors and soldiers then thats your belief, not mine. None of that is necessary.

Confess said it right. In a democracy we are going to have candidates elected who are predominantly from the main religion: Christianity. What gets me is political parties who actively encourage Christians to vote for them in ways that are meaningless to anyone without faith. In a way, they appeal to the stupid because the stupid are easily controlled. I believe this to be a flaw in our democratic system. Voting should be on a points based system where certain qualifications, jobs and services to the country earn voting points. How can the vote of an unemployed drug-addict be equivalent to that of a University Professor in Political Science. If things remain the way they are we'll always get political parties appealing to those Homer Simpsons out there who would cast their vote in a particular direction if promised a donut.

It really doesn't matter in the slightest who is in charge of the country. All that matters is where our troops are. Spain pulled out Iraq and weren't bombed again. Britain didn't pull out and are under continual threat (the potential car-bombers). It's clear that we can't win a war against an enemy that doesn't fight conventionally. We must stop giving them reasons to join these terrorist groups. Basically we need to stop bombing their bloody countries.

what NBV said... and what Saty said.

i'm pretty sure that was Bush senior.

yup, hookers are the answer.

Greased: You don't seem to understand how America screwed Britain over. At the end of the War the total debts of Britain, the Commonwealth, and the Empire amounted to $30 billion. With the Lend Lease agreement over, John Maynard Keynes brokered a U.S. loan for $3.75 billion; but the U.S. loan required that Sterling be made a fully convertible currency, and the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944/5 established a regime of fixed exchange rates whereby the "value" of the world's major currencies including Sterling were defined in terms of the "new" world currency: the US Dollar, which was itself convertible into gold at $35/ounce. Little by little, countries holding Sterling reserves opted to "cash them in" as Sterling was gradually abandoned as a world trading and reserve currency. This in turn was to cause numerous Sterling crises and devaluations, with their debilitating effect on the British economy and its industries. It would take thirty years and more for Sterling to settle finally into its role as "just another world currency", with the final abolition of exchange controls and liberalization of the financial system in the early 1980s. This is how America permanently deposed Britain as the number one economic power. I don't want to dishonor the brave American soldiers who died in WW2, i do want to dishonor the American economists who made sure the direct currency conversion was part of the deal (source: http://www.libertyandlaw.org/ITBintro.html ) NBV: I support an isolationist US foreign policy where non-threats are not attacked. The US invented a threat for Iraq (WMDs) for the purpose of avoiding this traditional isolationist stance. Nazi Germany was of course a threat to America from the very beginning.