Does chess increase violence?

Greenlaser I don't think anyone is argueing with you on climate change before humans came along.

I find that if you ignore the climate change angle.  And instead ask - Is the effect of humans on the environment a positive or negative one when viewed on a large scale? 

It can be argued that our society has caused or at the very least been a contributing factor in the extinction of many animals.  That is not to say that animals did not become extinct in the past.  It is all a matter of scale.

Errosion existed before humans came along.  But human activities have increased its effect in certain areas.

I don't think Greenlaser is saying that climate change isn't happening.  All he is saying is there is more at work here than human activity.  And I agree.  However to say that humans are not affecting climate change is in my opinion illogical. 

The first question I think one must ask themselves is - CAN humans influence short or long term climate?

I think the answer to this question has to be yes.  And if it is agreed we CAN then it has to be asked how much we can control this influence and what kind of influence we are having. 

I feel that if you look at the bigger picture though the effect we are having on the climate and the environment are just symptoms.  I fear the real problem is terminal.

 911 - absolutely, kennedy - maybe, pearl harbour - probably not.

oh wow..shame on them. we have freedom of expression, but that's not my point. i don't like what i know about your gov. or my gov. we're meant to walk through life turning a blind eye to towards the actions of our gov. and accept what they tell us as truth. you can believe what you want, that's your right and i'll leave it at that.

Perhaps a light hearted moment to bring the thread back to topic.

My computer beats me playing chess, but I can still beat it at kick boxing.

Its a bit underhanded but running a bunch of programs that eat up your processor power also helps I find. 

Back on topic I find chess gives me a certain mental clarity and focus that helps me find my centre and forget the rest of the world for awhile... sadly this mental clarity often leads to me making some horrible blunder and losing it.  But while it lasted it feels great.

You are the person who brought up global warming in the first place, I merely felt that you were promoting inaccurate views. If you want to continue the debate by messaging so as to not clog up the thread I'll be quite happy to take it off the forums.

I don't for a moment believe that there isn't corruption in science, but the corruption that you are detailing requires that scientists just plain lie about findings, and that millions of scientists lie for fourty odd years without a single shred of evidence that they have lied. Think about that for a moment, millions of people lying and getting away with it.

"Police who are evaluated based on writing tickets tend to have their mission distorted by their supervisors. Teachers who are judged on passing percentages are pressured to lower standards."

Yes, and there is clear evidence of this, and it is reported in the newspapers whenever it happens, but we aren't talking about producing more papers, or making slight changes, we're talking about a long-term global conspiracy which hasn't seen the light of day in newspapers. It just doesn't exist.

If you had bothered to read the links I posted you would find the explanations of natural climate change and artificial climate change right there. As I said, I don't want to repost the explanations here as they are extremely wordy.

By default you DID say that most academics are frauds. There is an overwhelming opinion within the scientific community, as the studies I have posted previously have shown. In order for global warming to be a lie based upon corruption, all the scientists involved in propogating it would have to be corrupt. Therefore you are calling the majority of scientists frauds.

The media is largely on the other side for a reason which should be quite obvious by now, I had a go at the media purely because they have given the impression that there is a large opposition to climate change in the scientific community.

I can't speak for American schools, I know that they are in a bit of a state at the moment having seen the protest videos by academics on the maths and geography curriculums. If they are failing to teach scientific method would this be a problem if they weren't teaching climate change? Of course it would, linking the two is irrelevant. On a side note however, you have provided no scientific method yourself. I have presented a wealth of arguments and evidence, but your opinions are groundless so far. As in the last post, I ask you to show me scientific studies or papers. Any evidence to back up your claims.

Some teachers do simply regurgitate, in the UK we have quite good science curriculums which encompass lots of practical work and reporting to back up the theory.

Yes the sun is a major factor in changing temperatures but if you HAD read the links I gave you you would have found comprehensive explanations as to why natural climate change is not a factor in this argument.

Once again, please read the material I have given you, as it answers a lot of the questions you have raised in this post.

Yes.

Santa is one

I don't recall Karpov fighting over the board, or Tal.  Sure, some people use real-life tactics to distract their opponent's attention - I have read plenty of stories about antics created for the sake of distraction.  But as far as fighting and these things go, it is not chess that inspires it.  The person makes choices in their own life.  This would apply to anything.  You cannot blame the things in your life for the way you respond to things.  You still have a choice, no matter what.  That is a hard truth to accept, but the moment you let something external have dominion over you, you have given up responsibility in your own life.  And if that motivates you to act out irrationally because of the lack of control of your own person, you really are IRRESPONSIBLE, IRRATIONAL, etc.  Chess taught me to grow up a bit, to be stronger and have more resolve, and to think deeper.  I use it for a positive tool.  We cannot continue to blame things for our problems.  We have to grow up.

Thread make Hulk ANGRY

.

I do not think chess increases violence unless people get mad when they lose...

So my answer to this topic is NO chess does not increase violence.

ADK

On Topic: Like greenlaser said, gods need their sacrifices.  Chess gods included.  So, yeah, there's some violence involved, but no more than any other divine ritual

Off Topic: greenlaser, as someone else mentioned, few will argue that climate change has not been occuring since there was a climate to change.  So, yeah, exactly as you wrote, the issue is about the connection between human activity and climate change.  Are you saying that while yes, humans having been seriously screwing the earth for over a century now, and it's going to be our turn soon, the focus should be more on prevention and less on the earth's actual temperature changes?  If so, then I agree but I think you've misunderstood what people usually mean by global warming.

I've shown your arguments to be weak if existant at all, time and time again. You refuse to look at the evidence, all the while complaining that scientists have no integrity. Simply presenting that I am "wrong" when I have provided you several sources, and you have provided not one scrap, not a single jot of solid evidence to prove me wrong, is simply childish and arrogant. Have you even read my "sources" yet? The media, in attempts to be impartial misportray the arguments against climate change as having a major standing in the scientific community which is just not true. 18,000 years of ice melting has be explained many, many times. There is solid scientific theory behind it. Yes, there are variations in temperature over time, but natural causes do not account for the recent fluctuations, and this has been shown time and time again. Since you have resorted to simply stating that I'm wrong, this will be the last post I write on the subject unless you present something constructive or mature. The overarching irony of this whole mess is that you compared science to religion earlier, noting that it had true believers and false prophets. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, and the fact that your arguments simply do not stand up, you're still a true believer that climate change is a conspiracy because you're too stagnated in your own views to even approach the topic objectively and actually consider the evidence then come up with a constructive argument, or response. I've made my point several times, and refuse to waste my time repeating myself to the deaf. As with all true believers when confronted your last resort is simply to say "I'm right, it doesn't matter what everything else points to, I know I'm right so everyone else must be wrong." Do yourself a favour, step out of the swamp.

Chicken littles are annoying enough...but violent chicken littles ?!

Global warming means it will get hotter or colder, drier or wetter, stormier or calmer. One of the people at a recent conference on global warming made just such an asinine statement. Talk about covering your bases – if we have weather, it's because of global warming.

Off off

When one discovers that nature is not a neat chess board, with a set frame, a set set of pieces and rules --- as, e.g., when science is forced to realize that our inventions are not without prices, and that destructive effects cannot be comforted as so-called 'side effects' --- then some will resort to violence, but clearly not all --- as, e.g., when science finds itself different from a God that creates as he lusts and sees that all created is simply well.

When one discovers that chess is not nature that may also create fury.

:)

But thanks to shakje for his thoughts.

Please clarify.