people increase violence and chess increases thinking
well put....
Does chess increase violence?
Sort:
bastiaan wrote:
shakje wrote: Marshal_Dillon wrote:
shakje,
You're absolutely right. I have no way of independently verifying that the Earth revolves around the Sun because I obviously can't take up a vantage point in space far enough away to actually observe it, but then, neither can you so how do you know the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth? How do we know for sure that the Earth is round? These are all things that are drilled into us from a very young age, but how do we know they are true? We have faith in the "authorities" that they are true, but have no means of proving it to ourselves. If you can take such a huge leap of faith to believe in science, which you can't prove, then how is belief in a God so far fetched? Science and religion both expect the masses to blindly accept what they are told is true. The real problem with global warming, though, is that if it is ever proven to be false then what else might the public begin to believe is false? If global warming falls then maybe their other cash cow, evolution, falls too, so global warming MUST be propped up by whatever means necessary so people won't lose faith in science.
So you're saying that you don't believe that the earth orbits the sun? Or that the earth is round? If you believe either then your statement about not believing anything without being able to prove it is false. Even if it's because it has been drilled into you. Your argument is utterly ridiculous and I refuse to be drawn into discussing something that requires us to completely ignore the observations of others, if you do that we might as well stop talking as there's no way to prove the definition of the letters on your screen. There's no way to prove that your computer isn't stealing your soul ever time you turn it on, there's no way to prove that your body exists, so why even bother discussing anything anyway?
Let me ask you this. Why is it that we even need to know 99.9% of what we spend on scientific research every year? All we really need to know is how to track the seasons so we can get our planting and harvesting done on time and how to make and use a few simple tools to make the growing or hunting of food easier. There is a need for some medicine, but nowhere near what is being practiced today. Why is anything beyond basic survival necessary? The native tribesman of North America believed in taking no more than you need from the land and they used every last bit of what they took and wasted nothing. They did not allow their population to grow out of control to the point where everyone could not be supported by the land. It is SCIENCE that is to blame for global warming, if it exists, because it is SCIENCE that enabled the innovations that are exploited by the capitalists to make money. If we hadn't had science there would be a lot fewer of us on the planet and we wouldn't be having this discussion about pollution or food and energy shortages. So if you want to blame anyone for global warming, if it exists, then at least put the blame where it belongs on science because the capitalists only use the tools that are made available to them by the scientific community. Instead of praising science, you should be condemning it.
every one hates to lose but i would perfer to have an intens game and lose than win with a good fight
shakje wrote: Marshal_Dillon wrote:
shakje,
You're absolutely right. I have no way of independently verifying that the Earth revolves around the Sun because I obviously can't take up a vantage point in space far enough away to actually observe it, but then, neither can you so how do you know the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth? How do we know for sure that the Earth is round? These are all things that are drilled into us from a very young age, but how do we know they are true? We have faith in the "authorities" that they are true, but have no means of proving it to ourselves. If you can take such a huge leap of faith to believe in science, which you can't prove, then how is belief in a God so far fetched? Science and religion both expect the masses to blindly accept what they are told is true. The real problem with global warming, though, is that if it is ever proven to be false then what else might the public begin to believe is false? If global warming falls then maybe their other cash cow, evolution, falls too, so global warming MUST be propped up by whatever means necessary so people won't lose faith in science.
So you're saying that you don't believe that the earth orbits the sun? Or that the earth is round? If you believe either then your statement about not believing anything without being able to prove it is false. Even if it's because it has been drilled into you. Your argument is utterly ridiculous and I refuse to be drawn into discussing something that requires us to completely ignore the observations of others, if you do that we might as well stop talking as there's no way to prove the definition of the letters on your screen. There's no way to prove that your computer isn't stealing your soul ever time you turn it on, there's no way to prove that your body exists, so why even bother discussing anything anyway?
we car prove it cos they dont wont us to prove it......................
The only violence chess has caused me is attacked my ego hahahaha
I dont believe it actually causes people to be violent per say,If they are going to be really violent then they will be so in anything that requires a winner and a loser, which could be just about anything when u think about it hahahaha. You do tend to need an agressive mind set i find to play chess especially where tactics are concerned. This doesnt mean a personal is agressive/violent in other area's of their lives, just means they are competitive. Thats my thoughts on this anyway....
If your reffering to me. Well the comment about agressive mind sets, think about how many good players of any sport or game play to win and win hard, to me that says they want to destroy u, sounds pritty agressive to me. But like i said being competetive and being violent are not the same kinds of agressions. Take martial arts for egsample, the best fighters are very violent in the ring or competitions but outside that situation they can be the most nicest person u can meet do u understand now?
MD - you speak of blaming science as if it is something only practiced by scientists.
Primemates that use and create tools could be said to be inventing and could be said to be "scientists" of sorts. Is it only a matter of time then until these clever monkey scientists destroy the world?
Blaming invention for the state of the world is in my opinion not the right answer.
It is the belief that humans are somehow not part of nature and even worse are BETTER than nature that has led us to where we are.
It is the belief that nature is too big for us to affect that has caused us to harm the world, perhaps beyond repair.
It is a world full of messed up priorities- that has us destroying the land that feeds us to create toys that entertain us.
It is selfishness and greed and enjoying what this brings us that has us creating justifications for our behaviour.
must go...
Jun 24, 2008
0
#250
Sorry, I was talking about "we car prove it cos they dont wont us to prove it......................". New version of Opera doesn't seem to like the comments box, so had to switch to IE to post it, and by the time it went through you had posted :)
lol fair enough....
violent behaviour can be defined as: the exertion of force so as to injure or abuse. The word is used broadly to describe the destructive action of natural phenomena like storms and earthquakes. More frequently the word describes forceful and intentional injury to people, damage to property and verbal and emotional abuse towards others.
violent behaviour is, under non pathological conditions, the result of a person's determination to dominate their environment be it people, things, or even themselves e.g. suicide
a person's motivation to perform a particular means of behaviour is brought about by an inate desire to achieve better conditions for themselves
if that behavious is perceived to be violent, i.e. destructive, then that person has not previously learned more productive and non destructive ways to achieve a better result - this is based on the concept that destructive actions bring about risks that usually produce worse rather than better outcomes both for the perpetrator as well as their environment including others
so ... can involvement in CHESS bring about violent behaviour YES - but so can any other experience that involves a persons self esteem particularly ones that have outcomes that so intimately involve "I could have done better if only ... "
http://www.chess-poster.com/english/notes_and_facts/chess_quotes.htm
“Could we look into the head of a Chess player, we should see there a whole world of feelings,images, ideas, emotion and passion”(Alfred Binet)
“Your body has to be in top condition. Your Chess deteriorates as your body does. You can't separate body from mind”(Bobby Fischer)
If kicking a board up in the air after a bad game constitutes violence, then I would say yes.
Anyone see Freidman on CSPAN Book TV last weekend? He's the author of "The World Is Flat," and was talking about his new book, "Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need A Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America."
It was interesting. His book talks about 5 or 6 mega trends between now and 2050. He seemed intellectually honest about global warming, at least from my point of view ;). He's not saying it is or isn't warming, or people are or aren't causing it. He's just saying that:
The population of the world is projected to triple between 2000 and 2050 (or similar.)
Environmental conservation is absolutely essential to our well being in the future, given the population explosion and increasing ability to consume throughout the world.
On climate he actually didn't have much to say. I think he included the word "Hot" in the title to sell more books. He said he thinks that in the future the climate will be more erratic rather than trending steadily hotter. Didn't give any data or sources. Just told a story about his flowers blooming in February some years ago. He said during these erratic periods people will increasingly ask themselves, "Are we causing this, or is something else causing this?"
He explained that energy will be a huge challenge and gave some numbers. He explained that 25% of the world's population still doesn't have electricity. If in 2050 you give each additional person that will be on the planet just one 60 watt light bulb for their lifetime, on 40% of the time, the increased energy use will be huge (gave numbers.) Now consider that people will increasingly have the ability to consume on par with America. It will be an impossible situation. We have to dramatically change how we look at and use energy. He said it's great that we're going to more energy efficient cars, but one city in China and one city in India (I forget the names. He said they were names we probably haven't heard of.) are eating that energy savings for breakfast. It's great that we are going to more energy efficient light bulbs, but the same city in China and city in India are snacking on that savings after lunch.
The next revolution has got to be an energy revolution. We won't have any choice. The US can chose to lead in environmental conservation and the production of clean energy, or not. Someone will. It isn't decided who yet. It will probably involve a merging of high tech with energy production and storage ideas.
Sounds good. As a chem E working in high tech, I need job security. Always looking for a silver lining :). The engineers in my group at work told me there's a plant going up about 20 miles away to produce silicon ingots for high tech solar panels. They will employ 100 people to start up the plant. If successful they expect to employ 400 people ongoing. Cool!
Hey, I'm new to this arena so have virtually no knowledge of how things are done - but/and/however I believe that "posts" that are purely OT will be more relevant if a new topic is started
as for the issue regarding Global cooling/warming I feel the outcome of the "end game" will be determined by the planets inhabitants to learn more facts, not innuendo, whilst being aware that the geometric growth of polutants of all kinds will, if not checked, eventually give results that will be distastrous to many life forms including humanity - HOMO MATE
obviously it is the responsability of us humans both colectively and individually to do what we can globablly and locally
as for Earth/Gaia this/She will continue for billions of years more with or without us
as I said in my previous post I am a newbie to "social" CHESS, having spent my years just playing with mysely, chess that is - hmmm...
I am now learning from the experience of playing against people and am finding that to say the least my ego is being challenged - not a bad thing as I keep reminding myself that at my level, currently 1200, my chess activity is both an exciting game as well as a mental sport and when, not if, I loose some great hand is not going to reach out and throttle me
Jul 3, 2008
0
#257
AquaMan said, "The engineers in my group at work told me there's a plant going up about 20 miles away to produce silicon ingots for high tech solar panels." I have pointed out that solar energy technology will continue to improve and become important rather than marginal. The use of technology which is blamed for climate change is necessary to both handle human needs and to improve on currently blamed technologies. AnthonyCG mentions polar bears and bees. These bears have been at a high population level. The reasons the bees are dying is being studied. A number of causes have been proposed. Soon there will be 7 billion people needing technology. There will also be politicians and scientists. Many are honest, but a look at them in the past should put the rest of us on notice to have open, critical minds. When fluoride was being introduced into water systems they were admitting that it was poison and would accumulate in the body, but it was worth living a few weeks less to prevent tooth decay. They could not have known the specific reduction in longevity they stated. Decades later, people on the same part of the political spectrum that had favored fluoridation would have been calling analagous programs pollution. Others told us of the peaceful uses of atomic energy, such as using the bomb to create harbors. When it comes to discussing scientific matters - think first, believe or not later.
let me just settle this. chess only increases violence to the idiots who are bad sports. every one else should be fine with a loss and not be violent atleast. you win some you lose some
Chess is game that requires skill! Chess is a game that is not for bad sports!
Radical left winger speaks out AGAINST global warming.
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04282007.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05262007.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/hotair.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06092007.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05122007.html " target="_blank">http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05122007.html