The Las Vegas mass murderer achieved better results by using very high quality optics on his enhanced assault rifles, or so I read; he could aim the gun at victims who were a fair distance away. Better optics and a jump stock enabled him to fire a lot of shots in a short period of time, which contributed to the high victim count.

Highly trained sharp shooters are able to hit targets with few wasted bullets (think Lee Harvey Oswald) but most people are no where nearly that well trained or equipped. The acid test is: On very short notice (a minute or two at most) can you load, track, target and hit a moving subject under quite possibly adverse conditions (bad light, intervening obstacles, non-targets in the immediate area, adrenaline rush, fear, excitement, shots being fired at you...)?

If you can, then you may be able to achieve successful intervention. If not, you'll probably just add to the carnage inadvertently.

I would also like to see this put to rest, and that is entirely within our control. But here's the situation: I refuse to be anyone other than myself, and I refuse to sacrifice any part of myself, in order to repair our relationship. I will continue to act as I see fit.

I strive towards neither affection nor animosity, but rather stoic indifference. Hence, I try to think of it as like water under the bridge. — Sapientia

You will have to work things out with Tiff as you see fit.. You should be yourself, and not sacrifice any part of yourself. So too should Tiff be true to who she is. On the other hand, Striving "towards neither affection nor animosity, but rather stoic indifference" might not be the most felicitous approach to working relationships.

I know that it's a right. I'm suggesting that it shouldn't be a right if it causes more harm than good. — Michael

Chief Justice Berger (1969-1986) called the interpretation of the Second Amendment to mean everyone had a right to a gun "stupid".

I understand your logic but the bad guy will always find a way to get a gun, legally or illegally. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

With 100 million guns in circulation (not all of them suitable for mass murder, of course, lots of them are only good for selective murders, one here, one there), any bad guy who wants a gun will certainly be able to get one, no matter who talks and walks with whom, or what laws are passed.

That horse (the whole herd of horses) has long since left the barn.

Making lists of people who are too bad to carry a gun will not, therefore, work very well. The supply is just too extensive.

Who is to blame? Well, gun manufacturers are partly to blame, certainly, as are gun customers who stock up on types of guns which have no place in a civilized society. Gun advocates of years past, who approved of pumping millions of guns into the market share some of the blame. Legislators who have refused, refuse now, and will refuse to act in the future are partly to blame. Presidents who say, the day after a mass murder with a gun, that "guns are not the problem" are partly to blame (and Trump isn't the first one to say that),

The cost benefit analysis is a good approach. If early reports are accurate, two good-guy shooters participated in bringing down the bad guy killer. The first one lived across the street from the church, heard shots, got his gun, and went to the door and started firing. This action apparently sent the killer to his car and he drove off, pursued by the second good guy, who may or may not have shot the bad guy.

This supports the argument that most good-citizens should be armed, (what the hell, at all times), so that bad guys can be taken out right away, before much damage is done.

Oh, I suppose that might work out well -- at least some of the time.

But if we all need to be armed to gun down the occasional bad guy before mass murder ensues, then we might as well throw in the towel. If that is where we are at, then as a civilized society we are finished, totally screwed, all over but the shouting--and the gun fire.

As it happens, there are alternatives. Nothing as quick and easy as putting a gun in every pocket and purse. See here, in Wayfarer's Mass Murder Meme discussion for a lengthier suggestion of what we might want to think about.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
-E. Rosevelt

I don't agree with Eleanor. Oscar Wilde said, “It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances. The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible....”

I can't help but think that this has become a meme; and that for a certain type of mentality, the behaviour has become normalised. So at any given time, there are probably many thousands of men - it's always men - who will be thinking 'I could do that'. Presumably, their lives are full of sufficient inner torment and self-hatred to provide the impetus for such terrible crimes. — Wayfarer

I don't know what the natural history of a "Mass Murder Meme" (MMM) is. Gun manufacturers have some role in it's creation and perpetuation. If a product carries inherent meaning, then the meaning of high-powered rifles is different than cheap handguns. High capacity magazines are tributaries, as are devices such as the "bump stock" which enables machine-gun performance. There is a lot of cultural activity involving guns. The NRA, individual gun popularizers, political figures all have a role.

This morning (11/6/17) I heard Trump make the mandatory announcement that "guns are not the problem" -- this in response to yesterday's mass shooting in a Texas church -- 26 killed, more wounded.

Guns are the problem, even if it is very, very late in the game to gain control over the estimated 100 million guns.

Memes and the people for whom they become directives are also a problem. The meme will find the man who has reached the end of reason, is alienated. The meme will find a few of the damaged men for whom family and community have ceased to exist.

Is it "anomie"?

Anomie is a "condition in which society provides little moral guidance to individuals". It is the breakdown of social bonds between an individual and the community, e.g., under unruly scenarios resulting in fragmentation of social identity and rejection of self-regulatory values. It was popularized by French sociologist Émile Durkheim in his influential book Suicide (1897). Durkheim never uses the term normlessness; rather, he describes anomie as "derangement", and "an insatiable will".

For Durkheim, anomie arises more generally from a mismatch between personal or group standards and wider social standards, or from the lack of a social ethic, which produces moral deregulation and an absence of legitimate aspirations. — wikipedia

If Devin Patrick Kelley, mass murderer du jour, was experiencing anomie, it began years ago. He served time in a military prison for domestic abuse, and was then discharged from the service. It began earlier still.

Guns are certainly the problem in a society which sees social bonds between individual and community breaking down. There are several candidate contributors to "fragmentation of social identity" and loss of "self-regulatory values".

Anomie starts with bad parenting, and bad parenting is generational. You can readily see the difference between parents and their children who are present and engaged and parents who are not really competent, and disengaged.

Anomie continues with school, where emphasis on "mass" education leads to -- not cracks, but crevasses -- into which children fall and are therein neglected.

It often continues into adult work life, but even if work is not further alienating, damaged people don't succeed.

Mass murders are a signal (in the same way an exploding bomb is a signal) that there are regions of severe dysfunction in a society. And yes, loading up the market with guns which have no hunting or sport value is located in this region.

There is no hope for gun control, at this point. It's sort of like us being worried about North Korea's measly handful of atomic bombs -- what with there being... maybe 50,000 atomic weapons among the atomic weapons wielders. There are 100 million guns of one kind or another. That's enough to meet the needs and desires of every actual and potential lunatic that might go off the deep end in the years to come.

Maybe it would be helpful to consider why it is there are so many berserkers running around.

O I thought you were a staff. Sorry. But thanks! — fdrake

One of them (Tiff or Sapientia) is a staff and the other one is a rod. If they are not careful as they walk through the valley, they might both get the shaft, which will definitely not be comforting.

I'm familiar with some books on marketing. It's not that there are no experts on marketing, obviously there are. It's just not a field I have been interested in (outside of "social marketing") and at this point in my life, there just isn't time to take up that topic.

If neoliberalism is merely synonymous with the monetization of all human activity, the automation and outsourcing of human labour, and the coercion of human culture for profit, then I don't see why that is necessarily a problem provided society and the welfare state provides strengthened consumer rights, adequate health services, appropriate welfare provision and democratic representation for affected individuals. — sime

"Merely synonymous"? Nothing is mere.

The "monetization of all human activity, automation and outsourcing of human labor, and coercion of human culture for profit" is an end-stage, terminal achievement, after which there is nothing.

Neoliberalism is a good thing only for the elites. For the vast majority, life, culture, community, family, the individual become impoverished.

Read one of the marketing greats. — Agustino

There are such things as "marketing greats"? I'll pass.

So it's not a mystery at all that we noticed this decrease in the values of sexual mores (despite the increase in relationship instability) that is correlated with consumerism — Agustino

You are misreading the reality, the theory, or both.

Consumerism (as presented theoretically in advertising) is not intended to contribute to sexual license. Anything but. Consumption is intended to take the place of sexual gratification. Sex (according to Freud, and he used the more complex term "libido") is the primary tool we have got for reliable gratification--that and food. A consumer economy tries to divert gratification from sex to buying products (which advertising sets up as a quick satisfying experience).

What confuses many people is that vaguely to specifically sexual imagery or innuendo is employed in advertising to transfer sexual attractiveness from our normal object (people) to tends of thousands of products. The sexy part is only bait. Once you buy it, the sexual attractiveness usually disappears, and you're left with just the thing.

Of course, libido isn't the only drive that advertisers work with. People also desire to appear successful, sexually attractive, strong, healthy, and smart. Those desires can be used in advertising too. Our perceptual apparatus is exploited. For instance, lighting in the common areas of shopping malls is slightly dim (usually) so that the large glass display windows -- the shop itself accessible through a missing wall -- are more enticing--more attractive, noticeable--than the common areas. Muzak and music is employed. Odors are used to enhance our willingness to buy.

Whatever theoretical model of advertising, selling, and closed sales is employed, "sexual promiscuity" isn't the object. Neither are political correctness or identity politics.

Business is about selling stuff, or services, to people. Period.

Right. Those are Agustino's (et al) obsessions.

I tend to agree that the term is mostly pejorative, and it's history of usage is sort of convoluted. Wikipedia says...

Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism[1] refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. Such ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.

English-speakers have used the term "neoliberalism" since the start of the 20th century with different meanings, but it became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and 1980s, used by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences, as well as by critics. Modern advocates of free-market policies avoid the term "neoliberal"... neoliberalism "mutated" into geopolitically distinct hybrids as it travelled around the world. As such, neoliberalism shares many attributes with other contested concepts, including democracy. — Wikipedia

The prefix "neo" seems to get attached to older terms that a probably liberal user doesn't like, such as neoliberal, neoconservative, or neofacist. JOHN MCWHORTER in the May, 2017 Atlantic monthly wrote an article " When People Were Proud to Call Themselves ‘Neoliberal’" He mentions a handful of people who are "neoliberal" but nothing like a substantial list.

He notes that the "neo" in neoliberal means "fake" not "new" as it is normally used, these days.

will be the death knell in the coffin... — creativesoul

Oops, mixing your cliches... Death knells are sounded, nails are pounded into the coffin.

However, the job market has evolved over time to increase the required skills a person needs to be able to get a "living wage". So, there's that issue of inflating the importance of college. — Posty McPostface

From some perspectives, there are way too many people getting college education. It's good for people to get education, but it isn't necessarily correlated with getting a suitable job for an individual. Mechanics, building trade workers, machinists, and so on are in demand and college doesn't prepare people to do this work. The wages are often quite good, and for many people material work (rather than symbolic work) is preferable. But there is that drum beat of "go to college, got to go to college..."

So, how does one lower tuition is the next logical question if there is at all any answer? — Posty McPostface

Tuition will be lowered by reversing the policy and process that raised tuition, starting in the early 1980s. At that time legislatures started reducing the state's share of state college and university budgets. Support fell from about 75% down to it's current level of 25%. Colleges made up the difference by raising tuition and seeking more contract work in research departments (like engineering, medicine, agriculture...). Students made up the difference by going deeper into debt, or working more during their college years to pay for tuition.

Low tuition, and affordable accessibility for state residents was based on policy, and so is high tuition and limited access for state residents.

In the politics of the last 37 years since the election of Ronald Reagan, "privatization of public resources" has been the leitmotiv. Neocons don't care whether the average citizen goes into debt to go to a public school. Debt is a profitable business, so fuck 'em. Rich people have always been able to afford the much higher costs of private college, so, no problem. Those who have get more, and those who have little get screwed out of their pittance. It's scriptural.

I just tossed out the comment on the Taliban without giving it much thought, but apparently I was that seriously misinformed. I did a quick scan of some Google results on Afghan drug production and trade, and apparently you are correct -- assuming the information I read has the Good Housekeeping Seal Of Approval.

I'm genuinely puzzled by your factually wrong claim. — fishfry

I rarely make mistakes of any kind, seeing as how I am nearly omniscient, but I can't be right all the time. It's just not possible. Damn!

Thank you for bringing my error to my attention. No good deed goes unpunished, and you'll get yours later.

One of the reasons Summer Hill gets mentioned is Neill wrote a book which was popular. There have been some good education programs that didn't benefit from a successful book.

I worked at a Job Corps back in the late 60s, after finishing college. The corpsmen were poor boys, 18-21, from New York City, Puerto Rico, and up-state New York. Almost all of them were functionally illiterate, innumerate, and possessed no work skills. They were very disadvantaged. Half of their day was spent in work -- learning how to "do basic stuff" like using a hammer, saws, measuring, and so on. The other half of the day was spent in school, where we started from wherever they were at.

We had a fairly large group of elderly volunteers who worked with the corpsmen on a one-to-one basis, for an hour or two a day in the education program, if they wanted or needed it. (We had about 50 students in the morning and another 50 in the afternoon.) All of the instruction was "programmed" that is, used workbooks. Within the 12 to 18 months that a corpsmen could be there, we raised most of their reading levels from zero to between 6th and 8th grade--a few higher, taught them rudimentary writing skills, basic arithmetic (a few went beyond basic arithmetic). The corpsmen were also provided with health care, clothing, on-site housing (this job corps was in the middle of nowhere), and 21 very good meals a week.

The program was very structured, and firm discipline maintained in work, school, and dormitory. The really good thing about the staff was that they were uniformly committed to helping these guys progress from "boys to men", and while I can't say we were uniformly successful, a lot of the corpsmen got the first decent treatment they had had in their lives, and they flourished.

President Nixon closed most of the Job Corps in 1969 when he took office.

The program taught me that with good methods, positive inter-personal assistance, and good support at least 75% of these not-very-promising guys could be given a much improved chance to succeed. Of course it was expensive -- around $8,000 per corpsmen. That would be $52,344 in today's dollars. That's more expensive than a year in prison, but also more effective.

People who smoke marijuana often become much more content with where they are in life and many do not feel the need to take part in the inflated consumerism, to the degree that non marijuana smokers might. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I understand you have some quite specific interests in cannabis, but I wonder whether the contentedness you have attributed to using cannabis is a chicken/egg problem. Do people prefer cannabis because they are already laid back, contented, un-acquisitive ... or were they very anxious people, up-tight, and acquisitive before they used cannabis and then found salvation in weed? I've known regular cannabis users who clearly need something stronger than weed if they are going to calm down.

The other thing is that many people have achieved these laudable states of peacefulness without using any drugs at all--not even alcohol. (Beats me how they do it.)

And now in 2017 the crop is the new world's record. That's what the war in Afghanistan about. We're in the dope business. — fishfry

Or maybe the Taliban is in the dope business. But... whoever produces it, the US is one of several big markets for opiates.

Exactly.

Nicotine, caffeine, cocaine, opioids, cannabis... all attach to specific sites. That these sites exist doesn't mean we evolved to use the drugs. Europeans, for instance, found nicotine quite amusing back in the 16th century, when tobacco was abruptly introduced. The receptors came first, then certain plant alkaloids became popular because they stimulated those receptors.

Male canaries (reportedly) sing more when they are fed cannabis seeds. Did they evolve to eat cannabis? No. Robins that eat fermented fruit get drunk. Did they evolve to get drunk? No,

The idea that left an right share essentially the same ideology is well established. Clearly there are some differences, but nothing radically different.

"...what's good for the market is good for the people, consumerism, and globalization" seem like the core issues. "...political correctness, identity politics, and sexual promiscuity are epiphenomenal and peripheral--which does not mean they are without significance. Political correctness and identity politics are just new tools to shut down the speech of people somebody doesn't like. Either they are fascists, racists, communists, neocolonialists, capitalists, gay, straight, black, rich, poor, white and male (the worst), or something else. The logical conclusion of identity politics is the group of 1, and maybe even less.

Sexual promiscuity is a personal choice exercised across the political spectrum. I don't think it is part of any particular ideology. Most people actually aren't all that promiscuous.

Consumerism presents a special problem. Were a few hundred million people to commence living in an economically and environmentally sustainable way, the world economy would probably dive into a recession. Consumerism drives the growth of the world economy. I don't know what the solution to this problem is.

That requires power and influence, which pretty much means money today. I don't see how that is avoidable, it's simply how the structure of this capitalistic world works. — Agustino

Yes, of course. Again, this is a truism. I readily agree that resources and energy have to be applied to whatever social projects are undertaken, whether that be privately or publicly managed.

an individual can only change this by gaining power and influence themselves, and that mostly is also through money — Agustino

Sure, or one join with other people and in combination gain and exercise power, collectively.

Money just represents resources. Nobody argues against money or resources. It's the "how" of money or resources that is important.

But many of those got closed due to lack of money - see, it's always lack of money that causes problems... — Agustino

If the NHS were a patient, it would be in the ICU. But the UK problems are mostly a result of neocon policies, not actual national poverty. As far as I know, the UK is not collectively destitute. But conservative policies have dried up public resources for the NHS. Publicly financed housing in the UK is another example of bad policy under conservative ideology. Privatizing public housing isn't a good idea, but it will enable some entrepreneurs to profit handsomely, and degrade housing for many people.

In the United States there is a wide cultural dividing line between (roughly) the northern tier of states and the southern tier of states.

The northern tier (Washington to New England) was strongly influenced by the Puritan ethos of the people collectively providing for their needs. These areas tend to be more liberal, more comfortable with active centralized government, and such. They tend to have strong voluntary NGO organizations (non-profits).

The souther tier (Virginia to southern California) tends to be much more conservative, they tend to favor private enterprise, they tend to be suspicious of centralized government operations (this goes back to the colonial period0, and they tend to have much weaker voluntary NGO organizations.

The northern tier of states tend to resemble western Europe in terms of health, education, levels of violence, and so on. (There are some significant exceptions -- Detroit, for instance.) The southern tier of states have much worse health outcomes (it's "the fried fish" belt) lower levels of educational attainment, and much more violence than the rest of the world. Pinker talks about this difference in "The Better Angels of our Nature".

Public--as in government--is a mixed bag. Some Veterans Administration hospitals have been absolutely abysmal, while others have achieved excellence. The Center for Disease Control is excellent and is located in the south. So is NASA. The northern tier of states, roughly the NE quarter of the country and the West Coast, tend to be net tax contributors to the Federal Government. The anti-government south tends to be net tax dependents. .

I have lived and worked in the northern tier of the US for 71 years. Maybe if I had lived in the southern tier I would think differently.

Of course it takes resources to accomplish anything. This is a truism. The question is, what are the various ways resources can best be marshaled to accomplish social goals? Most of the US economy has been privately, entrepreneurially run. But, the Federal Government has executed many extremely large projects by marshaling public resources. Government activity accounts for something like 25% to 33% of the GDP. Obviously, everything that is done by private entrepreneurs and the governments are not done well. That isn't a judgement on either one -- that's just life.

Note to XanderTheGrey: We're not hijacking your thread on Video Game Delusions, we're just applying the general idea of delusions to real life.

"What's wrong with that now?" you ask. I'm not familiar with care-of-the-agéd in Europe. In the US, most people find that the highest quality of care is found in non-profit operations. For-profit operations tend to exclude not just the poorest, but the not-well-off, and are constantly chiseling off bits of services until conditions in the facility become kind of grim. This has been true for decades. 30 years ago, Scientific America analyzed the difference between non-profit and for-profit hospitals, and found that costs, meeting community needs, and care outcomes were better in non-profit facilities--not universally, but there was a very strong relationship.

I doubt you've studied business as much as me — Agustino

I'm sure you are correct.

In a given free market state or province, highly successful entrepreneurs number in the thousands--maybe a hundred thousand in a very big state (New York, Texas, California). People who are highly disadvantaged number in the millions--not a couple of million--scores of millions. Most of the people are neither highly disadvantaged nor highly successful.

Look, I was not a red diaper baby. I obtained my moral system from Christianity, (which you also claim).

God - family - money - brute force. That's the order of importance of things in this world. — Agustino

You got that out of the Bible? Look, if you want to claim Jesus as your first guide, then forget about money and brute force. Family... maybe. What is the judgement of our earthly performance based on?

'for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.'

'Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these, you did it to me.' — Matthew 25:31-46

Nothing else, Agustino: for the good of your soul, remember that a highly successful entrepreneur can get into heaven more easily than a camel can climb gracefully into a BMW Mini.

what a joke. That must make you feel "above" this world no? — Agustino

No, it doesn't make me feel about the world. I'm just not interested in being a highly successful entrepreneur. Lots of people are not.

In a capitalist society, you need money regardless of what you want to do in the world. — Agustino

Of course. But there is a big difference between having "enough" and having as much as you can get.

Almost everything good in this world is founded on money. — Agustino

Tell that to Jesus the next time you run into him.

One of the worst things, I believe, is people who mock those people who have worked with their whole body, mind and soul to get something productive going, a business, and they get mocked for being rich and having made a lot of money. — Agustino

I don't know that I mocked him, so much as saying I don't find him to be a paragon of values worth emulating. But I would think, just in psychological terms, that a highly successful entrepreneur, like yourself, would have thicker skin than to worry about being mocked.

Our culture thrives on addictive personalities. It continually pushes us to consume. — Cavacava

I don't know whether our culture thrives on addictive personalities, but consumption is not merely pushed, it's ram-jacked. The poverty of everyday life is relieved largely through shopping. It isn't that people can't resist plastic geegaws. It is that they are desperate to find something interesting in life, and shopping is offered as the most effective cure.

Were American consumers to moderate their consumption -- reduce by 15% to 20% their discretionary spending, our economy would slide into a prolonged recession. Recessions cause real pain. Basic needs for most of the population have been met. Growth can not come from meeting basic needs: growth in sales and profits has to come out of discretionary spending. The G20 countries are capitalist: Investors demand continuous growth in profits.

What is true for us is true for the G20 nations: all of the advanced economies are dependent on robust discretionary spending for growth. Meeting basic needs keeps many of the industries going: housing, transportation, food, heating, electricity, communications, and the basic industries like metals, refining, mining, agriculture, etc. which support them. There is not a lot of growth potential in meeting stable basic needs. Growth comes in generating and selling new wants--all the stuff that goes into discretionary spending. Like buying new bigger cars

Everyone now has a cell phone, a computer, a television, a car, a house or apartment, a refrigerator, and so on and so forth. We do not need to change cell phones every year (or less), and the same for all the other gadgets and durable goods, like cars and houses. We don't need to buy new outfits to wear every few months. We are driven (not addicted) to buy all this stuff by a massive array of manufacturing, distribution, retail, and advertising systems. Ever shopped at IKEA? A lot of their stuff is K-Mart grade products -- cheap plastic. There is only one aisle in the store, and it winds around from the top to the bottom, so that you have to walk past every kind of attractively displayed merchandise they have for sale.

Google didn't get rich looking up words or obscure web sites for us. It got rich by selling and placing advertising for products which, by and large, we do not need. But Google is good at putting the ads for stuff we don't need in front of the right eyeballs.

It's not addiction, it's desperation.

A) Bored with their own lives or want to escape from their mundane lives — Posty McPostface

Most people probably become seriously bored at times, but don't resort to drugs Why do you think that is?

B) On a more general level, people are hedonists

A hedonist is a person who believes that the pursuit of pleasure is the most important thing in life, I don't think we are, in general, hedonists. Some people are, but being a hedonist doesn't mean they are all going to smoke, snort, swallow, or inject every drug they can get their hands on.

C) It's in some sense a 'cool' thing to do,

Everyone doesn't think it is cool. Many people think it is stupid, unhealthy, or immoral.

D) A form of self-medication that eventually leads to drug dependency and addiction?

Maybe, self medication. Alcohol is actually a very poor drug for most problems. I don't know what problem methamphetamine helps with. Some drugs do seem to deaden pain (physical and psychic) so self medication with benzodiazepines, opiates, or pot makes sense.

E) Is it just a matter of low self-esteem?

Maybe, but people with medium to high self-esteem get addicted too.

F) We're experiencing a new era of a type of 'Brave New World', where everyone wants to (read 'feels a neurotic need to') function on a higher level and be on 'Soma'.

Soma wasn't intended to help people "function on a higher level"; it was a freely available tranquilizer designed to quell feelings of discontent.

We live in a drug culture, that's, I think, intuitively obvious. — Posty McPostface

I don't live in a drug culture, and most of the people I know don't live in one either. (Drugs here meaning recreational drugs, and some pharmaceutical products which are psychoactive and potentially addicting or likely to develop dependence).

Sugar by itself is highly rewarding to the brain. — Posty McPostface

Sugar (glucose) is what the brain runs on. It's not just rewarding, it's essential.

Even caffeine or alcohol classify as drugs to some extent, although not as addictive as the more sinister of the bunch. — Posty McPostface

Caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, cocaine, opiates, benzodiazepines, amphetamines, etc. are all addictive substances. How easily one becomes addicted, and how much difficulty one will have overcoming addiction depends on the individual. Most people (like... 80%) do not readily become addicted to most drugs, and if addicted, are generally able to withdraw from the drug use on their own. Some people (maybe 20%) however, are much more prone to become addicted (because of their biology) with less exposure than the 80%, and will have a lot of difficulty withdrawing from drug use.

So it isn't just the drugs -- it's also the users the produce the difficulties of addiction.

I understand that harm in this life will not be carried over into the alleged next life. I understand that in the next life, this life will seem illusory. My only problem is that I don't believe there is any next life, and that the realities of this world will never seem illusory to the living. I don't believe in near death experiences, either. (I don't deny that NDEed people THINK they have had an experience involving the next world, I just think they are wrong. If there is no next life, they can't have experienced it, and even if there was a next life, it is more likely that what they experience is the result of the brain being shocked by collapsing support.) What we can expect is that when we die we won't experience anything ever again. Final Act. The End. No More. Zero.

So I misspoke. What I will say now is that the idea that there is an afterworld is no saner than the idea that there is no afterworld. We don't know either way, and most likely the living never will know.

I know it sounds a bit crazy — Sam26

Yes, it does sound a bit crazy. Quite a bit, actually. Let's suspend this discussion for a while. Allow us to shoot a bullet through your abdomen, into one side and out the other. As an alternative, we could crush both of your legs. After this procedure--if you survive--we'll return to the topic of how illusory you think pain is in this 'reality'.

Adorable story, Agustino, but sorry, I can't endorse his glorious entrepreneurship, especially with building for-profit care homes. At least in the US, the most contemptible operations are those in the for-profit aged and disabled care business. If he makes money on health clubs, I don't care. If he makes money on hotels, I don't care. I don't approve of mobile ice cream vans, either -- over-priced neighborhood nuisances.

Besides which, 1 big success story doesn't invalidate the observation the those with criminal records generally are unable to reinvent themselves. And more besides which, you are probably flummoxed by the fact that becoming rich is not a universally recognized worthy ideal.

There is one element in the story that seems entirely consistent: a man who is ready to throw his commanding officer over board is probably ready to do anything.

I was raised in an era of movies, video, games, and the internet. I had a decent dose of all of them growing up. I noticed that I suffer from this delusion that if I destroy my life, and sabotage everything, I will be able to start over in a healthy robust state. — XanderTheGrey

Immersive media -- you mentioned movies, video, games, and the internet; we can add TV and even books, comics, radio -- give people a mythos (a traditional or recurrent narrative theme or plot structure; a set of beliefs or assumptions about something). A mythos isn't the same as real-life experience, of course, but it lays down ideas which we use, just the same.

In real life, the past is never discontinuous from the present and the future. After the bullet in the video game goes through your figurative brain, you can reset. In real life, there is nothing left of your literal brain, and that's the end of your story for all eternity.

Though the past is still never discontinuous from the present and the future, life is unpredictable enough that it IS possible for people to escape bad consequences, and sort of reset and start over. People can transcend their pasts. They can get their lives organized at some point and have much better outcomes than anybody would have thought likely. There is nothing guaranteed, however.

In real life, you are not the only actor. You may wish to start over and transcend your past, push the reset button. Other people, however, might not let you do that. Suppose you dropped out of college in your senior year and didn't get a degree, and suppose you decide to just say that you did. You might be able to get away with that "start over". But other people are interesting in making sure that their employees have the actual training they claim they have. They also have a reset button, and may check out your transcript and degree status and discover that--oh oh, he lied on his application. Bad news. You're fired.

You can start over in life to the extent that other people don't prevent you from doing so. People who commit felonies and spend a few years in prison, for example, have a really terribly hard time starting over in life without the disability of their felony conviction preventing them from working and living a normal life.. People won't let them do that. Only if they find a slot where people accept their situation and hire them anyway, can they resume normal life -- and that isn't very common.

I have a dream that one day this forum will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "This may all be pointless". — Sapientia

Ever hear Harry Nilsson's musical story of Oblio and his dog Arrow who lived in The Land of Point? It's about Oblio a pointless child who, unlike everyone and everything else in The Land of point-- didn't have a point. He was finally exiled to the Pointless Forest -- except that when he got there, he discovered that everything in the Pointless Forest had a point.

And so on to the pointed end of the story, which may or may not have had a point.

You could take a stab at converting me. — Sapientia

If he stabbed you in the right way, he could turn you into an angel, and you might have a chance at becoming a saint (but probably not).

If the devil is still in business after all these eternities, how did he lose?

Avoid thinking about the devil too much.

"Rudolf Bultmann taught that Christians need to reject belief in a literal devil as part of first century culture." Daniel DeFoe said "that to believe the existence of a God is a debt to nature, and to believe the existence of the Devil is a like debt to reason".

It's All Saints day. Think about the saints. Some of them are quite nutty and others quite insightful.

Men and women are different in some regards — Agustino

I've noticed that.

given the gender imbalance of the forum... total absence of female staff... universal gender pay gap — unenlightened

There is no reason why any particular forum open to all will have or should have a 50/50 male/female participation rate. This is a voluntary organization. There are no material benefits to be derived from participation, and no one is being deprived of material benefits by not participating.

I consider the level of decorum maintained by participants and moderators, to be eminently satisfactory. On only a few occasions have I observed unsatisfactory decorum from only a few participants. Adults should be, and generally are able to tolerate the occasional lapse of decorum without requiring restorative medication.

I said in some regards, philosophy, just like war, is conflictual by nature. — Agustino

Yes. I find conflict (vigorous, even heated, debate and discussion) between individuals holding different views to be far more interesting than a feast of concurrence by mild mannered Caspar Milquetoasts. Adults should be, and generally are able to tolerate conflict in debate and discussion. I can live with unenlightened thinking we should have gender parity.

Not everyone believes that war is madness. — Agustino

Clearly, there is a difference between WWII and our war on Iraq. I don't think the war on Iraq was madness: it was stupidity and arrogance justified through subterfuge for goals which were at best half-baked.

Stop worrying. Be happy people, god damn it.