It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


a handy list of things you aren't allowed to discuss.

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 18 2020 @ 11:17 AM
a reply to: ADUB77

How ARE you being punished for things you didn't do?

What field are you in that prefers miniority hiring?

What does Africa have to do with the US again? Do you also use the United Kingdom and Europe as examples?

You're surprised that you get flak when you suggest that White people are more evolved than other races?

edit on 18-6-2020 by Gryphon66 because: NOted

posted on Jun, 18 2020 @ 11:43 AM
Those are flagrant things to say to get people going

See how it’s working?

posted on Jun, 18 2020 @ 12:12 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

My point is that different body types are made for different physical activities.

When we talk about men beating women in sports and say men would beat most women in any sport we're not considering which sports we are talking about.

If it's american football or basketball then this is true because those sports are made for tall and large powerful bodies.
Strong pictorials are needed in hocky.

But there are many many different kinds of physical activity. Sports we have never imagined or sports we don't care about that would be better suited to the women's body.
We as a society just don't play those games.

A women will always be better at doing flips.
If we had a sports game that relied on flips women would dominate.

Most of the sports in united states are geared toward men. Created with men's bodies in mind. So of course they will do better.

posted on Jun, 18 2020 @ 12:26 PM

originally posted by: network dude
1. violence in video games. I'll stop there so as not to anger the masses, just trust me on this one, don't EVER bring it up, EVER.


When I was in college there was a famous study about violence in TV/Movies affecting kids.

Research by psychologists L. Rowell Huesmann, Leonard Eron and others starting in the 1980s found that children who watched many hours of violence on television when they were in elementary school tended to show higher levels of aggressive behavior when they became teenagers. By observing these participants into adulthood, Huesmann and Eron found that the ones who'd watched a lot of TV violence when they were 8 years old were more likely to be arrested and prosecuted for criminal acts as adults.

This has been the driver in much of the narrative about this, even still today, but in class it was used more as an example of a false causation. Further studies found that naturally violent kids tend to like to watch a lot of violence on TV too, so guess who were doing the most watching in their study that basically confounded their data, go figure...

So in this case it was a great example that correlation does not imply causation.

posted on Jun, 19 2020 @ 11:45 AM

originally posted by: LeoStarchild
I recently left my church ( I was in worship band ) because they have bought into the BLM hook line and sinker. They tried to get us to own-up to our 'Privileged' life (which is racist in its own imo) and any outside opinion was shamed to oblivion.

I have received lots of messages from the congregation that I am not alone. What is interesting to me is that we are about to open a new (much bigger building) location in my hometown. What's also also interesting that a lot of low income housing sprang up in my hometown. What's also also also interesting people seem to forget Mr. Floyd was a criminal.

Praying boldly for change.

The difference between George Floyd and David Dorn, two slain black men, could not be starker. The wrong one is being made into a martyr.

posted on Jun, 19 2020 @ 01:27 PM
What did the one lesbian say to the other lesbian?

I want to be Frank with you.

posted on Jun, 19 2020 @ 09:46 PM
Never discuss taking a trip _ _ _ style
And under No Circumstances are we to discuss anything that _ _ _ _ _
Disclosed or Discussed with us, Even though it seems
Like He Was Right On!

posted on Jun, 20 2020 @ 09:16 PM
a reply to: network dude

Kinda like the Revolutionary War when they debated Independence. The Patriot had a good scene on this....

edit on 20-6-2020 by PaladinRoden because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 21 2020 @ 10:39 AM

1. violence in video games. I'll stop there so as not to anger the masses, just trust me on this one

There's no such thing as violence in video games. It's a logical impossibility. How is pixels moving around a screen 'violence'? It isn't, and it can't be.

No matter how 'realistic' someone might deem some group of pixels creating some formations, perhaps by the usage of texturemapped polygons, it's still not violence, and can never be.

Violence is when a physical body is damaged, injured or hurt without the consent of the owner of said body, while the owner of the body resides within it with silver cord attached.

How exactly can this happen in video games?

That's right, it can't. Video games basically consist of three parts; 1) PIxels (even if they're constructed by computer utilizing software and hardware designed to draw 3D projections on 2D screen using various methods, popular ones being texturemapped polygons and sometimes even voxels, or pre-rendered pixel groups, or even hand-pixelled clumps of pixels - but it is always just PIXELS) 2) Aural waves (also produced in various methods, but they can be either ignored, muted (silenced), volume-controlled, or adjusted to the players' liking in various ways) and 3) Game program (that makes everything move and happen, and basically consists of an enormous bunch of "if"s. How can a bunch of 'if's be VIOLENT? THEY CAN'T!)

Now, when you consider my definition of the word 'violence', and look from above what video games basically are, _HOW_ exactly can video games be violent?


Also, they do not cause violence, no matter how 'violent' they may seem to someone that doesn't understand they're looking at pixels. There have been people that have played all kinds of video games for decades, that have never hurt anyone physically, and do not possess the inclination to do so whatsoever.

People often confuse cause and effect anyway - just because violent psychos play video games doesn't mean the video games caused them to be violent psychos. They were that way long before they played any video games, and the games didn't change them at all.

The ONLY way video games and violence can overlap, is when an otherwise violent individual gets her 'fix' from a video game, so they don't HAVE to go out there to punch people. It's a lot like p*rn in that regard; when warped individuals can get their perversions satisfied from that, they don't have to desperately go out into the world and possibly seek victims and cause harm.

So if ANYTHING, video games and other 'online activities' and 'virtual worlds' (whatever you want to call it) actually LESSEN violence and harmful behaviour, and make people less likely to commit crimes. When you have driven over virtual people for 8 hours straight in a video game, you're too exhausted to go and do the same to actual people in real world. Also, the edge is dullified, the novelty has worn off, and thus the threshold of doing it in actual reality has risen to be much taller than it otherwise would be.

'Video games cause violence' is just another EASY EXPLANATION so you don't have to actually research, think, figure out, include all kinds of variables, study, learn or have new thoughts. You can just point a finger and go about your business.

Everything has been accused of causing violence without a shred or evidence or proof, and cause and effect has been completely warped just to support this mad behaviour of false accusation. "Rock 'n Roll", "Radio", "Television", "Cartoons", "Board games", "Card games", etc. etc.

Video games are just the latest victim in that pile of harmless entertainment that most certainly hasn't caused violence.

If someone shoots someone just because they lose to the in a card game, did the card game itself cause that violence somehow? No! It was the mad anger of the individual, being a bad loser, temper, perhaps aided by confidence from drugs or alcohol, etc. etc.

There are always SO many variables, and the game is usually the most innocent and least likely one.

If she hadn't done that after a card game, she would have done it after a heated argument, or after being rejected by someone, or after it starts to rain at the wrong time, etc. The game is innocent, let's stop this easy fingerpointing and false accusation and find the REAL culprit that ACTUALLY causes violence, please.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in