hah! actually i'm flagging d3. the beta was fun though, thank you
>> ^gwiz665:

And in 9 days, Diablo 3 will donkey punch you into playing that as well. I hope you've enjoyed your social life so far, because it will end soon.
>> ^berticus:
I caved and bought GW2 and managed to play a few hours in the beta weekend.
Holy. Fucking. Shit.
I recommend everyone go immerse yourself in as much footage/reviews/commentary/gameplay/whatever of this game that you possibly can. (e.g., http://www.reddit.com/r/guildwars2)
I am so psyched now. Arenanet just seems to be doing EVERYTHING right. The world is alive, in a very real sense. You can play the game how you want to. The combat is active and skillful, not click+repeat. The events are dynamic. The list of things that make this game incredible just goes on and on and on.
JESUS CHRIST MY LIFE IS OVER
@enoch it's certainly not just pvp focused -- but the pvp is going to be insane. I was worried about it when I first heard about gw2... It seemed like they were getting rid of the incredible pvp from gw1. But no, in fact, they've just made it even better. People are raving about how great WvWvW is, and structured PvP looks to be more 'classical'.
OH GOD
OH GODDDDDDDD IM FUCKED

And in 9 days, Diablo 3 will donkey punch you into playing that as well. I hope you've enjoyed your social life so far, because it will end soon.
>> ^berticus:

I caved and bought GW2 and managed to play a few hours in the beta weekend.
Holy. Fucking. Shit.
I recommend everyone go immerse yourself in as much footage/reviews/commentary/gameplay/whatever of this game that you possibly can. (e.g., http://www.reddit.com/r/guildwars2)
I am so psyched now. Arenanet just seems to be doing EVERYTHING right. The world is alive, in a very real sense. You can play the game how you want to. The combat is active and skillful, not click+repeat. The events are dynamic. The list of things that make this game incredible just goes on and on and on.
JESUS CHRIST MY LIFE IS OVER
@enoch it's certainly not just pvp focused -- but the pvp is going to be insane. I was worried about it when I first heard about gw2... It seemed like they were getting rid of the incredible pvp from gw1. But no, in fact, they've just made it even better. People are raving about how great WvWvW is, and structured PvP looks to be more 'classical'.
OH GOD
OH GODDDDDDDD IM FUCKED

I caved and bought GW2 and managed to play a few hours in the beta weekend.

Holy. Fucking. Shit.

I recommend everyone go immerse yourself in as much footage/reviews/commentary/gameplay/whatever of this game that you possibly can. (e.g., http://www.reddit.com/r/guildwars2)

I am so psyched now. Arenanet just seems to be doing EVERYTHING right. The world is alive, in a very real sense. You can play the game how you want to. The combat is active and skillful, not click+repeat. The events are dynamic. The list of things that make this game incredible just goes on and on and on.

JESUS CHRIST MY LIFE IS OVER

@enoch it's certainly not just pvp focused -- but the pvp is going to be insane. I was worried about it when I first heard about gw2... It seemed like they were getting rid of the incredible pvp from gw1. But no, in fact, they've just made it even better. People are raving about how great WvWvW is, and structured PvP looks to be more 'classical'.

OH GOD

OH GODDDDDDDD IM FUCKED

DO you have to go through a psych sit down with a doctor or can I just go and make an appointment to have breasts slapped on ?

** Rather PUT on, then slapped and played with.

Besides for the cheesy Burning Man footage this is a really great doc on psychs. A lot of docs keep true with mystical experience but the way Ann describes it is in reality the way it is and a reason they are useful experiences not to be taken lightly. The whole part where she says one must face he/her inner shadows/monster and learn to accept them by working through them. A good psychedelic experience can be like a birth, a death - the happiest or the most distraught.

The first few times I took a psychedelic it was a little nerve-wracking because I wasn't sure what I might see in myself. I think many people are afraid of taking psychedelics because of that unknown factor. For me the tranquility in what I would call ego-death is what made me embrace some form of spirituality. Before taking psychedelics - "spirituality" was a four letter word that made me cringe.

The amount of ignorance and deception out there about psychs is staggering.

Sorry, like I told Jimms I have OCD and now that I have the free time I am going through un-replied comments... Its 5 AM and I can't sleep! I have issues...

The only part that I am confused about here is that Paul's position on abortion is like the elderly family members you mention shoving their point of view down your throat but not passing and not enforcing laws on everyone elses' behalf. He would advocate for State's to make "moral" laws but would not provide a federal law to blanket everybody.

In other words, if the federal government banned abortion like they did gay marriage, Paul would seek to rescind that law. And conservatives would be in an uproar because some States would make abortion legal. (California's laws on Pot sound an awful lot similar to the argument I make here... He would lift the ban.) He would be termed very liberal for that opinion. So it stands that I am confused...

>> ^peggedbea:

I feel like I may have already addressed this a few comments up.
It's the pro-life rhetorical devices he's using. I get an innocent slip of the tongue. I make them constantly. But it's all adding up to a picture of a misogynistic, rascist old dinosaur. And maybe he's even misogynistic and rascist in the way my elderly family members are. I love them anyway and over look their archaic viewpoint an awful lot, but I don't want them making, passing and enforcing laws on everyone elses behalf.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I respect your opinion on this matter peggedbea, so I will ask. In my above comments I note that he probably messed up the wording--what do you think? We all use prefaces, or nervous words when speaking, especially about difficult subjects. And sometimes we come off wrong. Change his words around a bit and they sound fine--dopey, but not malicious.
Your boss probably said, "Well, if she is honestly sick" or a church goer "If he honestly tries to work hard and can't afford the bills then I don't mind helping."
(And if there is more in that 40 minute video that contradicts me, well, I do have a life and am not going to watch it, so point it out plz. That goes for anyone too.)
>> ^peggedbea:
it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

Surrealism style was big in Japan I think. When Japan was at the height of its Imperial power, their ruling elites began collecting western art. And Western Art during the 1930s was Surrealism art, and Salvador Dali and all his wackiness.

So this odd formula of Being Fancy = western art = surrealism was established. I guess surrealism really made a huge impact on Japanese psyche that it never really went away. Perhaps the war-torn Japan of 1950s and 60s found solace in the dreamlike feel and disturbing images used in surrealist works. Now that I think about it, that sure describes what Japanese movies are like nowadays.

It also helped that Surrealism kept strong all the way up until the 1960s. So every time the Japanese checked on Western art, there was still Surrealist works to be found, so the odd formula stayed as well.

At least that's my theory.

Reminds me of Shaun from Psych.

I remember the prof in my Psych 101 class at college asking the class to raise hands if they would be severely, moderately, mildly affected, or unaffected by spending an entire 24-hour day without seeing, talking to, or otherwise interacting with any other human being. I'm an introvert, I grew up on a farm about a mile away from the nearest neighbors, and am an only child -- so I actually experienced that scenario not entirely infrequently. It never really bothered me at all, so I raised my hand for "unaffected" -- but I was almost the only person to do so.

Anyway, I would be interested in seeing how someone that is highly introverted does on these same tests -- particularly the one where they mentioned that the guy's low score may have been due to his extroverted nature. I feel like I could handle the lack of human interaction just fine, but the utter lack of sensory input in general might be a completely different story.

In order to be a Mormon you have to accept things that simply are not true. You must be a willing victim of brainwashing and have knowingly accepted infection by the Mormon strain of the Religion Psyche Virus.

I'd recommend just trundling along to a public library and flicking through an introductory psych textbook for a section on attitudes and/or persuasion. After an intro book a psych book dedicated to social psych would probably be a good option too, as it would probably have a more in depth look at attitudes.

The material might be less related to your original post about your own introspections though. It would probably be more about what makes attitudes stable/labile etc. It's interesting stuff though!

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
What text(s) would you recommend?
In reply to this comment by berticus:
Actually, there is an enormous literature on persuasion, argument, attitude change, etc. Social psychologists love that stuff. You should look into the psychology of persuasion, it's fascinating -- but prepare to be depressed.

As to your 'mental states', I doubt it's black and white. I'd say it's a continuum as per jonny's comments, and shifts along this continuum are due to attending — or not attending — to certain cues at certain times that change the way you argue.

I feel like I may have already addressed this a few comments up.
It's the pro-life rhetorical devices he's using. I get an innocent slip of the tongue. I make them constantly. But it's all adding up to a picture of a misogynistic, rascist old dinosaur. And maybe he's even misogynistic and rascist in the way my elderly family members are. I love them anyway and over look their archaic viewpoint an awful lot, but I don't want them making, passing and enforcing laws on everyone elses behalf.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I respect your opinion on this matter peggedbea, so I will ask. In my above comments I note that he probably messed up the wording--what do you think? We all use prefaces, or nervous words when speaking, especially about difficult subjects. And sometimes we come off wrong. Change his words around a bit and they sound fine--dopey, but not malicious.
Your boss probably said, "Well, if she is honestly sick" or a church goer "If he honestly tries to work hard and can't afford the bills then I don't mind helping."
(And if there is more in that 40 minute video that contradicts me, well, I do have a life and am not going to watch it, so point it out plz. That goes for anyone too.)
>> ^peggedbea:
it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

I respect your opinion on this matter peggedbea, so I will ask. In my above comments I note that he probably messed up the wording--what do you think? We all use prefaces, or nervous words when speaking, especially about difficult subjects. And sometimes we come off wrong. Change his words around a bit and they sound fine--dopey, but not malicious.

Your boss probably said, "Well, if she is honestly sick" or a church goer "If he honestly tries to work hard and can't afford the bills then I don't mind helping."

(And if there is more in that 40 minute video that contradicts me, well, I do have a life and am not going to watch it, so point it out plz. That goes for anyone too.)

>> ^peggedbea:

it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

I disagree. He's discussing what HE SEES as a way around a system that outlaws abortion period. A system that he is on record, in favor of, btw.

In the cases of "honest rape" he is not opposed to emergency contraception. The phrase "honest rape" is anti-woman, victim blamey, proto-fascist rhetoric. I have 0 problem with his stance on emergency contraception. I also have no problem with a system that disallows late term abortion, except in cases when the mothers life is in danger. Late term abortion is ghastly. I'm against it. But "late term abortion" is also another pro-life rhetorical device. To make the entire arena of reproductive choice emotionally repulsive. The instances of late term abortions are extremely rare, but there's tons of hype about it out of the mouths of pro-lifers.

So, his rhetoric is abhorrent. Add this to his revisionist speeches in front of confederate flags, insanely rascist newsletters with his name on it, and I find it hard to believe that it's all an accident. I'm no longer buying that he's just a doting, old, confused by stander instead of a misogynistic, racist old dinosaur from the 1950's.

Oh, and as an OB/GYN, he should be WELL aware of the various psychological and emotional states of victims of sexual assaults. He should be well aware that we all don't just immediately rush over to the emergency room screaming "rape". And that just because we didn't do that, it doesn't mean we weren't "honestly" violated.
>> ^aurens:

To be frank, I think you (and others) are missing the point.
Ron Paul, as I see it, is addressing an obvious problem with a system that would allow medical treatment (early-stage abortion, or the prevention of pregnancy) only for rape victims, namely that you'd have to have a way of turning away (EDIT: and identifying) women who sought abortions for reasons other than rape. He's not suggesting a rubric for doing so (I don't think the interview format would have allowed him to), nor is he making any assumptions about the nature of rape victims or rapists. (Remember: he's a trained obstetrician-gynecologist. I'd bet he knows more about sexual assault than most of us do.) The phrase "honest rape" (yes, a terribly chosen phrase) is part of an attempt to address the problem described above, one which he didn't adequately explain.>> ^peggedbea:
it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

To be frank, I think you (and others) are missing the point.

Ron Paul, as I see it, is addressing an obvious problem with a system that would allow medical treatment (early-stage abortion, or the prevention of pregnancy) only for rape victims, namely that you'd have to have a way of turning away (EDIT: and identifying) women who sought abortions for reasons other than rape. He's not suggesting a rubric for doing so (I don't think the interview format would have allowed him to), nor is he making any assumptions about the nature of rape victims or rapists. (Remember: he's a trained obstetrician-gynecologist. I'd bet he knows more about sexual assault than most of us do.) The phrase "honest rape" (yes, a terribly chosen phrase) is part of an attempt to address the problem described above, one which he didn't adequately explain.>> ^peggedbea:

it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss