Shotgun

I've used outdoor stairs rather than a gate on a handful of flights in the last few years (including one a couple of weeks ago). I wasn't aware that it was a big deal to do this, and I never asked about the reasons; I just assumed that they didn't have a gate ready for whatever reason. Oh, and I always have food and water in my carry-on bag, which I probably would have been quite happy about if I had been stuck on this particular flight (though I probably would have been pretty irritated about being stuck for that long).

By this logic, I would be more inclined to believe that there were multiple creators rather than a single creator, given the complexity of our world. In general, the more complex a creation (a straw hut vs. the Empire State Building), the more people involved in the creation.

And now that I looked back to see why this thread was resurrected... That is great that your friend is doing so well! I'm glad to hear it, and I wish the best for him.

So you assume. To use an example from Albert Ellis, in When AA Doesn't Work For You: Rational Steps to Quitting Alcohol: To prove that you truly "can't" stop drinking after having one drink, hire a bodyguard to go with you to the bar. His job is to chop off one of your toes after each drink that you have. If you are biologically programmed to keep drinking once you have alcohol in your system, then you will continue drinking until all of your toes are gone. Yes, this is an extreme example, but I'm pretty sure that most alcoholics would be able to stop at one drink in this situation. Which seems to prove that while it may be extremely difficult for them to stop at one drink, it is not impossible. However, it seems to help many people to believe that they are powerless over alcohol, and then to follow the rest of the 12 steps, but this doesn't work for everyone. Others are helped by forms of therapy such as Albert Ellis's, which are almost the opposite of AA's approach - teaching the use of rational thought to overcome addictive behaviors. (And I should point out that even Dr. Ellis does not suggest that an alcoholic should aim for moderate drinking; while he claims that it is not impossible, he also believes that abstinence is a better solution.)

by the strict definitions those people are NOT alcoholics . . . What I meant was that there are people who have been professionally diagnosed as alcoholics, by particular systems of diagnosis, who do eventually learn to drink in moderation (though AFAIK these people are pretty rare). But a professional diagnosis for alcoholism or any other psychological disorder is somewhat subjective, so there is no black and white definition of a "real" alcoholic. And programs such as AA leave it up to the individual to decide if he or she is an alcoholic/addict. Believing that you are "unable" to control your behavior is a dangerous situation, and rarely true. I think it is more accurate to say that it is "extremely difficult" for these people to control their behavior, in which case abstinence may be the best solution.

Wow, I wonder how many people stated this as a reason. Personally, I can't think of any reason for having sex other than pleasure.

I don't know if age has much to do with it. Some may lose their belief at an early age but still end up with clinical depression because of it. Though I think it's debatable whether lack/loss of belief is what truly causes the depression. I'm surprised to hear this person saying that psychiatrists and psychologists have told him that "a belief in a 'higher-power' is essential to recovery," when referring to clinical depression. I doubt that is the norm in their profession, so I question whether his statement is true (or if he misinterpreted whatever they actually said to him). Perhaps for some. Sometimes drug addicts are able to cure themselves by getting involved in religion. In some cases this may be simply trading one addiction for another, but that's not necessarily a bad thing if it means living a happier life. And I don't think that everyone who loses their faith necessarily falls into depression or any other sort of psychological disorder, so I don't think that all believers are "addicted."

Probably no more comforting than believing in a reality that someone else made up for you.

Yes.

Many people see the old woman in that picture before they can see the young woman. So I guess for those people, you could use the opposite analogy: They saw life as an old hag until they realized it was actually a pretty young woman (discovered religion). And there is no going back now that they have seen the illusion for what it really is.

I've "mutilated" myself with piercings and a tattoo, so I'd be a hypocrite to pass judgment on others who want to do as they please with their own bodies. Neither do I, but it's none of my business if someone else wants to make changes to parts of their body.

That was the best post in this thread (IMHO).

Just curious... Have you also read the Qur'an?

Men who don't refer to women as "girls."

Oh, well then that makes it alright to do to someone else! From your other post, it sounded as if you had once signed up as a student and then went headdown out the door to get away from the jumpmaster. Which might turn out to be funny, but it might turn out to be pretty uncool.

So they haven't proven much of anything yet. I'd be curious to know if they took into account how much alcohol and other drugs these people used as well, and whether they were predisposed to mental illness in any way. (Emphasis mine) That's a pretty bold statement to make without any proof to back it up. Probably a good thing to rule out before coming to serious conclusions. I don't think most people believe that marijuana is a benign drug. It's not. Alcohol and tobacco are not benign drugs either, but they're both legal. People should know the dangers of using marijuana, and they should be allowed to make their own choices about whether to use it. But it doesn't sound like these particular researchers are doing much to show the actual dangers of marijuana use, or even to help the public in any way (unless they think that crazy scare tactics somehow help the public). It sounds like they're just helping the government to put more marijuana users in jail.

The "legal" weed in California is still not so legal: (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/us/26brfs-RAIDSONMARIJ_BRF.html)

If the driver of the pursuing car was not a police officer, and did not back off after being told to by 911, then they are responsible for reckless driving and unnecessarily endangering other drivers and pedestrians. (Yeah it sucks that they were the victims of a hit and run, but that doesn't give them the right to endanger others by recklessly chasing the other vehicle.) But that situation doesn't seem to have much similarity to this helicopter collision.

I don't find this to be surprising. We live in a very pro-alcohol culture (despite all the alcohol-related laws that we have).

I was thinking the same thing when I read that. Perhaps he spoke without thinking???

How many you got now? At least 6.6 billion. (And that's only counting me and all the voices in my head.)

It's an evil plan to make those animals go extinct. Do you think the dinosaurs would now be extinct if they hadn't started making chicken nuggets in little dinosaur shapes (thereby propagating the idea that dinosaurs are yummy because they taste like chicken)? It was evil, hungry children that killed off the dinosaurs, in recent times... but the scientists don't want us to know this because it doesn't go along with the "fossil records" they've created in a conspiracy to disprove the bible. I found out about all of this through Wikipedia, so I know that it's the truth!

It doesn't sound like this woman was attempting to discipline her children; it sounds like she was taking out her own frustration by hitting them and cursing at them. It's no surprise that children don't behave well when their parents don't behave well either.

Is it different to assault children on an airplane than it is to assault them somewhere else?

Hmm... I tend to think of lust as an intense craving for something, but not actually having what it is that you crave. And gluttony would be over-indulgence in whatever it is that you're craving. So that's why I think that gluttony is the more enjoyable of the two. (I guess in regards to the "deadly sins" gluttony refers to indulgence in food or drink, but I was thinking of it as excessive indulgence in anything.)