"A twin study of self-reported psychopathic personality traits"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886902001848

Perhaps the above is more to the point. Similar twin study showing identical twins having similarly significant genetic component to psychopathy as the prior studies show for sexual orientation.

Should we be similarly upset at people assigning morality to psychopathic behaviours?

"Genetic and Environmental Influences on Religious Interests, Attitudes, and Values: A Study of Twins Reared Apart and Together"
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40062599?seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents

Religiosity shows the same thing, strong correlations for identical twins, raised apart from one another, and much weaker correlations for non-identical twins also raised apart.

If Tom Cruise claims his belief in Scientology is a birth right and how dare we judge him, is he really backed by the science?

Where I am coming from, is insisting that for all the factors involved in human decision and behaviours, I still want to conduct ourselves as though free will exists.

More importantly, the freedom to discriminate against people based upon their behaviours must be defended as strongly as the right to discriminate based upon purely in born, unchangeable attributes like race, gender and ethnicity must be opposed.

>> ^rottenseed:

Nobody is arguing that there is heavy risk involved with the sport. It's why they're paid so much. It's also why you don't see as many football pick-up leagues as you do softball ones — nobody's willing to risk injury if they're not making tons of dough. The argument is sportsmanship. I hate Peyton Manning...especially now that he's on the Broncos, but dammit if I wasn't bummed when he was seriously injured last year. That's what defines me as a human being: the capacity to have compassion when a fellow human being is injured. That's also what makes KC fans a bunch of animals (although I don't count it because mob mentality is a fucked up beast in and of itself). Your argument is void because you're assuming that because a sport includes risk — or even the tendency toward violence — we should cheer on the physical pain and suffering of another human being.>> ^JiggaJonson:
@Sagemind Did you check out the link I posted above?
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85066387/1905-11-27/ed-1/seq-
1/
It's a bit ironic that the headline about 19 people dying playing football is right next to a story about 18 people dying when two FUCKING TRAINS COLLIDED.
Like it or not, football was born as a sport where people get seriously injured (or died). Congrats on what you support.



His Argument is not "Void" because of what happened at that game. Que era demonstrata, they cheered for the injury of a fellow human being, this isn't something unique to football either but it is something that humans do. Yes humans have the capacity for for compassion...except for all the fucking times when they don't show any sort of compassion. Putting this solely on KC fans is BS, it happens constantly, even in High School ball.

Nobody is arguing that there is heavy risk involved with the sport. It's why they're paid so much. It's also why you don't see as many football pick-up leagues as you do softball ones — nobody's willing to risk injury if they're not making tons of dough. The argument is sportsmanship. I hate Peyton Manning...especially now that he's on the Broncos, but dammit if I wasn't bummed when he was seriously injured last year. That's what defines me as a human being: the capacity to have compassion when a fellow human being is injured. That's also what makes KC fans a bunch of animals (although I don't count it because mob mentality is a fucked up beast in and of itself). Your argument is void because you're assuming that because a sport includes risk — or even the tendency toward violence — we should cheer on the physical pain and suffering of another human being.>> ^JiggaJonson:

@Sagemind Did you check out the link I posted above?
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85066387/1905-11-27/ed-1/seq-
1/
It's a bit ironic that the headline about 19 people dying playing football is right next to a story about 18 people dying when two FUCKING TRAINS COLLIDED.
Like it or not, football was born as a sport where people get seriously injured (or died). Congrats on what you support.

@Sagemind Did you check out the link I posted above?
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85066387/1905-11-27/ed-1/seq-1/

It's a bit ironic that the headline about 19 people dying playing football is right next to a story about 18 people dying when two FUCKING TRAINS COLLIDED.

Like it or not, football was born as a sport where people get seriously injured (or died). Congrats on what you support.

That's where you're wrong, Eric Winston. I only watch football for the injuries (aka, I don't watch it, I watch webclips), just like I only watch hockey matches for the fights; just like I only watch car races for the crashes. It's, arguably, human nature to be in awe of a horrific spectacle, and it's the same with being swept up in what the crowd is feeling.

But, let's call a spade a spade here. Football was born as a sport where people were injured or died as a result of playing the game. It was only after Roosevelt intervened that the sport changed into what one of my students lost his short term memory to.

Ever crouch down and ram your head at something with the full force of your body?
Why are injuries like this surprising?
Why does he act like he's not participating/supporting a sport that systematically abuses players for a profit?
Why the outrage over cheering an injury but the support of the system that throws people into situations that make injuries like this likely?

Woah! No votes for this awesome action seq!? Up vote!

"But there is no way to perform a double blind test, what the fuck do you tell the shooter? It's impossible. How can you adequately mimic the behaviour of a psychopath? Any person you send in to do that job will do it unflinchingly and with as much speed and clinical precision as their skill would allow."

Simple answer for this one... Take one of the students, even one of them with gun experience and tell them to enter the room and shoot as many people as possible... a realistic goal for a killer. Don't tell them another person in the room has a gun. Once they are hit once or the gunman gets hit, trial over. Do this a few times with a few groups, then compare it to a like study where no one in the room except the gunman has a gun. Look at the numbers and you've got a good study. Science gods appeased. Demonstration valid... and still scary.

"* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense."
To be fair, that number is likely an overestimate:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t1h35xg532770p26/


The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 86, No. 1 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 150-187 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1144004?seq=2 :
"...research has consistently indicated that victims who resist with a gun or other weapon are less likely than other victims to lose their property in robberies and burglaries. Consistently research has also indicated that victims who resist by using guns or other weapons are less likely to be injured compared to victims who do not resist or who resist without weapons."
"With regard to studies of rape, although samples typically include to few cases of self-defense with a gun for separate analysis, McDermott, Quinsey and Upfold, Lizotte, and Kleck and Sayles (citations in linked article) all found that victims who resisted with some kind of weapon were less likely to have the rape attempt completed against them."

I found that in ten minutes... Apparently ABC had fewer than 10 minutes to look?

Here's a book I found but can't yet vouch for, still:
http://books.google.com/books?id=B1TqrNK3OkAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=gun+personal+protection+evidence&lr=&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0

kronos, yer playing the fucvking gremlin non-seq- here, fuck you dumbass......ban that little cocksucker, too....