@ChaosEngine

i do not see anyone here defending anything.

now maybe we can view stephen's commentary "dismissive and belittling" as @entr0py pointed out,but i think the deeper issue was prefaced quite succinctly by stephen in his characterization of american,and western societies,as being "infantilized".

where words have become the final bastion of totality in communication and are judged strictly on a word by word basis.so much so that some on the left have been pushing harder and harder to have certain words removed from our lexicon,because they represent negative thoughts/feelings/actions or they may represent a trauma,or horrific violent memory for some people.

but this is the wrong approach.
excising words will not erase those feelings/thoughts/emotions.this will just force people to come up or use different terminology to express those feelings/thoughts.actions that once had words to at least to attempt to express those horrors and/or offenses.

which will just equate to a whole new slew of verbiage being found offensive and in dire need of being castrated from our collective vocabulary.

yet the left (extreme left i grant) appears hell bent on not only attempting to control speech but to also judge those who DO use speech that they find offensive.

this is censorship with prejudice and to claim otherwise is the lie.

just look at your first comment.
you "used" to like stephen fry's opinion,until he became callous and dismissive with what?

words.

but do you REALLY think his attitude and compassion towards those who have suffered emotional trauma is truly dismissive?

well..i do not think so.i have spoken to you enough times to have a modicum of understandings in regards to you,as a person,that you have far more depth of character.

yet it is the WORDS that have hung you up.

look man,words are inert.they are things that are only given life,meaning and context when we add our own subjectivity to them.

words are inadequate.they will ALWAYS be inadequate.
which is why we admire and praise those of us who have a command of words that can reach into our own understandings and extract meaning in a way that blossoms like a spring flower and can create worlds in which we can play,and even share with other people.

i am intimately aware of this deficiency.i do not have an economy of words,and only on rare occasions can i relay,convey and express with ANY form of reductionism.

i struggle to express not only my opinion,but the intent,humanity and compassion of my opinion.

if the extreme left gets their way,the tools we have to express ourselves becomes lesser.

and in the process,WE become lesser.because the tools for dissent,debate,discussion and even..ironically..to expose the more venal and bigoted of our society,will have been reduced to words that offend nobody.

there is danger here,and no good will come from it.no matter if the intent sounds just and the goal compassionate.

freedom of speech is the right to speak freely.
to espouse our opinions,philosophy and yes,our bigotry and prejudice,with legal immunity,but NOT social impunity.

so while we have a right to free speech.
we do not have a right to not be offended,and maybe we need to be offended sometimes.to shake us from our own self-induced apathy and our adoration of digital hallucinations.

so when the westboro baptist church says the most hateful,vitriolic and disgusting admonishments,all in the name of god.
we can be offended by them,and then ridicule them relentlessly.

would stripping words from the english language prevent this group from espousing their own brand of hate?

of course not.they would just find new words.

so what do we do then?
make words illegal?
criminally libel?

so don't judge mr fry too harshly.
he is just pointing to the dangers of controlling speech and the new trend of the perpetually offended.

the extreme right attempts to control morality,and there is serious danger in that practice.
the extreme left attempts to control how we communicate,and hence how we interact,and there is great danger in that as well.

Yeah, I get his objection to people who wish to suppress plays and other works of art because they are reminiscent of a personal trauma. But that was a dismissive and belittling way to put it.

Ok, I think this got out of hand. My apologies. I wasn't talking about the abuse.

You said "Hers is that faith alone. Take it away and she would either A-shut down, or B-more likely kill herself."

My reply was specifically about "that faith". I didn't mean that she would get through the abuse with the help of friends and family, I meant she would get through leaving the church. And yes, this has happened. Thousands of people left the catholic church in Ireland after the child abuse scandals, many of them lifelong devout catholics.

I would never suggest that anyone simply "get over" that kind of abuse, but I can see how you might have misinterpreted my post, so I apologise for that.

That said, people do get help for abuse without churches. There are plenty of secular options available (counselling, support groups, etc).

As for the rest, I still maintain that my direct experience of abuse or lack thereof has no bearing on the argument. I could tell you all kinds of things, but you wouldn't even know if they were true, to say nothing of a betrayal of trust on my part.

Or would you expect rape trauma counsellors they have to be raped to help victims?

As for the black man example, again, you know nothing about what discrimination I may or may not have faced (hint: the Irish didn't have too flash a time of it for a long time). I would never be so condescending as to say that I know ANYONES life, but that doesn't mean I can't empathise with them. Even if I've never been shot by a cop, I'm damn sure it's something I wouldn't like.

The love of a God didn't save me from trauma, sexual and gender identity issues, clinical depression, and the ever looming bipolar disorder. Living is hard, even if it's also simultaneously fun and easy for me to succeed; because the concept of my personal identity isn't flush with the expectations that society and my family have. Being myself almost always gets me in trouble and is misunderstood with sometimes violent repercussions. This forms further cognitive dissonance which is a psychological isolation that has physical isolation as a matter of course. Depression runs in my family, despite all of their love and adoration of Jesus. Southern Baptists, bless their hearts.

I'm sorry to hear about all of that poolcleaner. I think maybe you have the idea that Christians, according to the bible, are supposed to live pain free lives. That isn't what the bible says, though. Jesus promised that Christians would suffer, not only persecutions but grievous trials, physically and spiritually. A Christian is supposed to die to himself, take up his cross, and follow Jesus.

That means a Christian can become depressed, or have gender issues, or any number of other infirmities or temptations. Christians can and do screw up all the time. People have a picture of churches filled with people who think they are perfect, but it is the opposite. Churches are usually filled with people who have screwed up everything royally, and God rebuilt their lives from the ground up. Churches are filled with people who know and proclaim that it is only by Gods grace and mercy that there is anything good happening in their lives; they are filled with broken people who are held together in the loving arms of almighty God. They fall apart sometimes and God puts them back together again.

There's almost nothing logical about anything you say. The only logic is that you make things make sense according to the Bible. If it's scientifically logical but goes against the teachings Christ or God, it's wrong. If the Bible can support the science, it's good!

The most destructive thing in a mans life is a lack of integrity. When you cheat, you aren't getting away with it because no one found out; you are going to reap a bitter harvest from the bad seed you have sown. A loss will occur, whether it is financially, or even mentally and emotionally, and it will far outweigh the temporary gains. It is the same with lying, hating, lusting, etc. Sin in our lives is destructive physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. The bible describes it in exacting detail and it matches reality because the true reality of mankind, what he is really like, and why, can only be found in scripture. The bible is right about everything it says about mankind. Although the bible does match our observations of the natural world, I think it is more remarkable how it matches the reality of the inner universe.

I don't know if think you think this is science or not, as far as the video goes. As far as I can tell it is speculation based on a few studies the author researched. Has anyone tested his theory?

You, on the other hand, make every excuse to prove your stupid philosophy is true and that science is wrong for not agreeing upon the truth of your hippy God love cult. Prove me to be objectively incorrect in my perspective and I will give up on my convictions. Because what is a conviction if it's a false one based upon circular logic and feel good analogies? Oh, them feels. Them Jesus feels. Jesus hippy love.

I'm not a Christian because I thought it was a good idea, or because it made me feel good. When I gave my life to Jesus, I didn't feel any differently at all, except perhaps with a realization of some things I had to change in my life. I became a Christian because God revealed Himself to me, and He showed me Jesus is the messiah. No one ever witnessed to me or explained the gospel in my entire life; it was entirely because of personal revelation that I became a Christian.

I'm not here to prove anything; I post when I feel motivated by God, and the intent of my heart is care and concern for your souls. I started coming here when I was a new christian, and I got into arguments with people over petty issues. To me, now, the real issue is where you're spending eternity and I am praying for that. Perhaps I will never be known on this forum as anything other than an unthinking zealot, but God knows I am sincere at least about that.

You do realize the people who have the whole world as their oyster are in an entirely different form of isolation, right? You're oversimplifying the concept of isolation in an effort to push your Jesus drug.

I understand this because I have lived that life; being both the life of the parties at fortune 500 companies and a solitary hermit, addicted and lonely in a world that no one else fully understands. Not because of a lack of Jesus drug, my friend. I tried the Jesus drug and it is the cause of much of my cognitive dissonance.

The love of a God didn't save me from trauma, sexual and gender identity issues, clinical depression, and the ever looming bipolar disorder. Living is hard, even if it's also simultaneously fun and easy for me to succeed; because the concept of my personal identity isn't flush with the expectations that society and my family have. Being myself almost always gets me in trouble and is misunderstood with sometimes violent repercussions. This forms further cognitive dissonance which is a psychological isolation that has physical isolation as a matter of course. Depression runs in my family, despite all of their love and adoration of Jesus. Southern Baptists, bless their hearts.

There are so many other factors you're ignoring just so that you can present the lamest of analogies of seeds on dry soil and sin cages.

Sin cages. Ignorant science versus the logical sin cage. Nuff said.

There's almost nothing logical about anything you say. The only logic is that you make things make sense according to the Bible. If it's scientifically logical but goes against the teachings Christ or God, it's wrong. If the Bible can support the science, it's good!

But that's not how science works. Scientists do not make stupid excuses in order to support prior written works which lack evidence. If something doesn't make sense, a scientist no longer uses it as a basis to explain the world around them.

You, on the other hand, make every excuse to prove your stupid philosophy is true and that science is wrong for not agreeing upon the truth of your hippy God love cult. Prove me to be objectively incorrect in my perspective and I will give up on my convictions. Because what is a conviction if it's a false one based upon circular logic and feel good analogies? Oh, them feels. Them Jesus feels. Jesus hippy love.

You join the air force and you then feel the need to speak out because they (gasp!) expect you to kill people. Your trauma comes from how distant your expectations are with the reality of the job you signed up to do. What the hell did you think you'd be doing, working on your tan? ... learning how to tango? What a bunch of bullshit.

Agreed on most points. This one is pretty variable though.

For the next decade or two, prosthetics will continue to be sub-optimal replacements for human limbs and only used in cases of extreme trauma. I think these will continue to be the preserve of the rich (they pretty much already are in terms of 1st vs 3rd world).

Eventually, we will get to a point where prosthetics are actually better than the equivalent human limb. That's several decades away IMO (accurate control is doable, but getting to the point of have a prosthetic that relay sensory information is a Really Hard Problem).

At that point, I think we'll very quickly see adoption of prosthetics become mainstream, but it will still be geared towards the relatively wealthy (see present day adoption of smartphones).

But once you get to that point, even the most basic model prosthetic will outperform a human limb. I believe it's almost certain that these kinds of limbs will be "smart", i.e. instead of accepting simple commands from the brain of "contract tricep", "grip fingers", etc, you'll see an arm that draw a perfect circle. And they'll be stronger than a human arm almost by default (not picking up cars strong, support structures aren't there for that, but certainly stronger than an olympic athlete)

So either way, I still don't think we'll see a "prosthetic underclass".

I remember when DICE bought out Trauma studios, who created the Battlefield 1942: Desert Combat mod. Possibly the best (read most fun) version of Battlefield ever, and the gameplay to which Modern Warfare and all the subsequent Battlefields owe their existence.

It's been all downhill from then...

Yeah, lol, but I figured it's easier to sell with Coochie as the title.

Thanks for the NSFW, but like the Sarcasm button I don't require it's use and leave it to others to flag at their discretion.

I have no desire to pad the walls of anyone's cell, even if it's to prevent social concussions. I say enjoy the head trauma. This world is gonna be a bumpy riiide!!

I don't blame @Stormsinger for being skeptical, but there's no trickery about a pointed spear pushing with great force into your neck. I've seen scientific examinations of a monk doing the same kinds of things and there was no fakery nor anything else to explain it away.

The human mind and body together are truly capable of seemingly impossible feats. Everyone can control a lot more of the body with the mind than most people think.

My one example (which is obviously incomparable to withstanding physical trauma) is my ability to cure my hiccups using nothing but brain power. Like most, I used to have extended fits of hiccups from time to time, and no trick ever worked (spoonful of sugar, drinking from other side of cup, holding breath, getting scared, etc.). I finally started mentally controlling my diaphragm to immediately stop my hiccups and now they're just a thing of the past for me.

This woman's rape (while undoubtedly horrific) does not in anyway trivialise someone else's bad experience. Just because you were stabbed doesn't make the time I was beaten up any better.

Besides, you could argue the other direction too and be just as wrong. Why raise money for this one woman. There are probably millions of women worldwide who have suffered much worse.

It's a stupid, stupid argument.

And just in case the hard of thinking brigade show up, the victims choice of career has absolutely no bearing on the trauma she's suffered.

It's very hard to differentiate ribs breaking and massive blunt trauma on that area. Something i found out after a wrestling match with one feisty woman where she landed on my ribs flying knees first taking me down... She was a stripper at a time and athletics to match. The doctor said that the pain is the same and only x-rays solved that nothing broke but i had a massive bruising under the ribs. Takes about same time to heal as bone injury too.

Your video, GTA(V/5) - Repeated Head Trauma Suicide, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

If it was on a closed road then it's great. I love the video and I'd love to have a go. But on an open road what they were doing was so stupid it doesn't bear thinking about.

If someone was driving up that road and he hit them at the speeds he was going he'd damage their car undoubtedly. Does he have insurance for that? I'm going to stick my neck out and say he doesn't. Is he happily going to hand over a few hundred bucks to get the repairs done properly? Is he going to supply a hire car while the work is being done? Is he going to cover the increase in their insurance? No he's fucking not.

Add to this the trauma the driver would go through if the guy on the board was badly hurt. Even if an incident isn't your fault it can still have a serious effect on someone.

How dare he put other people at these risks. Even if they can't close the road there are loads of ways they could deal with this situation. Having a spotter at the bottom of the hill with a radio would be a good start...

I hate shit like this. I completely understand the thrill of the speed. I'm lucky enough to get to drive some very fast cars on track days and the feeling of speed is one hell of a rush. But it's on a track, I know what I've signed up for and everyone else out there has signed up for the same thing. But on a public road? Not interested. The risk of hurting others just isn't OK.

As for buses not counting, if he'd smashed into the front of the bus and hurt himself he'd have buggered up a bus full of people's days. The driver couldn't just drive away, he'd have to wait for the police and again try to sort out how it's going to be paid for. All the people on the bus would have to wait around and all because this tit thought his five minutes of fun is way more important than everyone else's lives.