-Trinity-

? 
What are you talking about? Who am I schooling? Hell, no I'm not  a teacher.  I'm not pretending  my English ( which is the third language I speak) is perfect. And when I'm doing many things at the same time while replying  I make mistakes. But luckly you did understood what I was saying ;-)
 
So back to topic:
 
 
You actually said you don't care about Europeans loosing their jobs. And you can feel like that, I don't get offended by it, I just think you underestimate how problems in one economy are going to affect another economy. We have seen different examples in history, protectionism is a short term solution, and eventually it's an all losers game. 
 
What China has been doing is dumping, and yes that's something that is considered illegal in the trade world , and needs to end. But this tarrifs ( if the EU isn't excluded ) are gonna cause more damage, people will loose their jobs as a result.
 
 

More importantly, it seems fine to those rooting for this short term solution.
 
Untill they feel the consequences.

That is simply not true. Like pants on fire, flaming doritos not true.

*you're

NK has not, nor will they ever make a concession. Saying they want to meet, is not a concession. It is pretty obvious why they want to meet a POTUS. Do you remember the Clinton era, where they told us they were totally going to stop doing the naughty things they have always done? It was framed as a concession to the American public, when instead it did virtually nothing.
It is funny, that people tend to think the whole Reagan 'trickle-down' economics thing only works one way - positively. There is really no economist, certainly conservative or libertarian that thinks tariffs and trade wars are a good thing. Most of the American public stopped learning classic economics in school ages ago. Some steel workers think that this is a good thing, and the rest feel it's a load of nonsense. Short term gains, and small ones at that, will be met with severe long-term losses. From a libertarian perspective, to me, this is a pretty terrible idea. But perhaps people need to start really suffering to understand actions have consequences. Protectionism fails and will always fail. Compared to other countries, the amount of steel China sends us is tiny. You will not win anything with the Chinese by protectionism. They will continue laughing at us. But I do not expect much from a POTUS that is not interested in the whims of anyone but himself.

Your dear Americans are gonna loose their jobs.
 
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-europe-slam-trumps-tariffs-as-us-metalworkers-cheer-2018-03-09
 
Wrong, the USA does import steel from Europe. No time to look the link up now, but they do. They aren't warning with counter tarrifs for no reason.
 
And you should care, you know why? The world economy is all connected, whether you like it or not.
 
When the financial crisis started in America in 2008, Europe was affected by it too. Thousands and thousands of people lost their jobs, and had to sell their houses who weren't worth anything.
 
 
 
 

More importantly, it seems fine to those rooting for this short term solution.
 
Untill they feel the consequences.

He signed the order yesterday. 
 
It doesn't matter whether he said it from day 1or not. It was a horrible plan then, it still is a horrible plan now.

That last tweet, so much narcissism in a few words. I wonder if he knows, and cares about how the rest of the world sees him..... I mean REALLY sees him..

That's not the issue, I am in favor of negotiating. Mr. Who can't hold his little fingers off typing meaningless tweets instructs his SoS stop negotiations, but now he is going to negotiate (as he should) and his lovers think it is a big win.

It's in November and has been for a very long time, so you'll have to wait a bit. Don't you celebrate it every year?

It shouldn't be about blame, but that doesn't mean understanding risk factors isn't important.
 
As much as we want to believe as humans that we are entirely independent creatures and have absolute free will, our actions and decisions are heavily influenced by our history, our childhood, our education, and all sorts of other factors.
 
Yes ultimately the person is responsible for their actions, but it can also be enlightening to look at what risk factors in that person's life helped contribute to that ultimate decision.
 
I don't blame video games. I was an avid gamer in my youth and still play games with my wife (less violent games now, but still with violence. Zelda, Mario etc... I used to play Battlefield, Call of Duty etc...). I'm not a violent murderer, nor is anyone else I know that played games. That doesn't mean the games didn't put us at higher risk, it speaks more to the other risk factors that we didn't have (or protective factors that we did have). It's a "multi-hit" issue, like most. There will never be a single thing to blame. It will be a combination of many negative factors, and the lack of other positive ones. 
 
It's completely reasonable to want to understand those risk factors and the protective factors. As a society we could try to promote those factors that are protective, while minimizing (where appropriate) those factors that are risks. Those decisions have to consider each factors scale though. Video games is pretty low on the totem pole in terms of risk factors. They still are, but focusing on them would likely yield very little benefit.
Sorry I'm sitting in a car dealership waiting for my car to be serviced so I won't be able to watch a video.
 
Does she actually provide a source or a citation? Most people in interviews don't. They just say things, rarely include data and when they do they don't say where it comes from. Usually. As I said I can't listen to it right now.
 
I've tried searching for literature that distinguishes single family households due to divorce from other factors (like women who chose from the beginning to raise a child as a single parent). I've found no such data. You suggested there was a difference. I'm looking for the source for that claim.

I think the name is correct, after all there is the "Trump wins". Everything has a downside.

Donald Trump: 'I am the most fabulous whiner'

 
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-whiner-whining-president-2015-8

I think, and believe that when kids are exposured to a certain level of violence, it will influence them, they can get num.
 
Obviously it's more complicated then this. But if excessive use of tablets or other mobile devices have the same effect on childrens brains as cocaine, would it be unrealistic to think that violent video games can effect their brains too?
 
I was reading today ( before I even read this thread)  about a 14 year old boy, who killed his parents couple months ago. They described what he was doing the days before, and the day of the murder itself, he was playing videogames, and on one of the gaming websites he announced a couple times that he was planning to kill his parents.
 
It made me wonder; in what world was he living in? And what about the people he told that he was going to kill them.
 
Anyhow, not saying that the videogames did it, but if someone already has a mental problem issue, are violent games the right leisure for that person?
 
 
 
 

Desperate times call for desperate measures.
 
I don't think it will ever go back to how it was again. Simply because the world has changed, and will continue to do so.

it is all funny until the zombies attack.........

most of those 'gangbangers' are young teens/men who are the same developmentally as the kids who shoot up schools in suburban neighborhoods but 'gangbangers' typically suffer vastly more trauma growing up. it is proven that children who grow up in gang riddled areas suffer ptsd the same as soldiers who've seen active duty. it's also proven that early childhood development is essential in future outcomes - no matter what type of area you live in. mental illness definitely plays a part in chicago's violence but that's most certainly never discussed. 'gangbangers' can be reformed and go on to be be pillars of the community, just like any other criminals. if all the guns disappeared from chicago, there would still be gang violence but not as many people would die. not as many innocent bystanders would die. the cycle of trauma would lessen, and with additional intervention on the early childhood/mental health fronts, progress could be made. 

My two cents: I think it's the same thing with cannabis. There already has to be something off in a person's mind, and vigorously gaming/smoking weed triggers that person mind.
 
Some people can smoke cannabis their entire life and never get affected by it, and some people do. Same thing with alcohol.

My two cents: I think it's the same thing with cannabis. There already has to be something off in a person's mind, and vigorously gaming/smoking weed triggers that person mind.
 
Some people can smoke cannabis their entire life and never get affected by it, and some people do. Same thing with alcohol.

How effective are those rating systems really? 
 
For video games you can buy everything online now. A 15 year old knows how to input their date of birth to make them 18+ or whatever the rating system requires.
 
It has been studied a lot.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/140/Supplement_2/S142
 
Here is a review from 2017 in Pediatrics.
 
"It is also important to understand that no single risk factor causes a child or adolescent to behave aggressively or violently. Instead, it is the accumulation of risk factors and the relative lack of protective factors that lead to aggressive and violent acts.8–10 We do not contend that media violence is the only or, in most cases, even the primary causal risk factor for aggressive or violent behavior in youth. However, the research consistently supports the hypothesis that it is one of the risk factors and that it is not the smallest of them. Importantly, it is one of the few risk factors that can be modified with little cost to parents or to society in general."
 
I agree with you on the implications of looking at other places outside of the USA. Video games are fairly ubiquitous, especially in "first world" countries. I'm not aware of any studies that suggest that the US consumes more "violent" video games than say South Korea, Canada, UK etc... Yet our rates of violence are higher. That further supports that it is typically not the causal risk factor, but that doesn't mean it isn't one of many risk factors.

As a former avid gamer I have to say yes I think it is part of the problem. A small part, but it definitely contributes. TV, Movies and Games all desensitize everyone to violence and make it seem "normal".
 
I think he should also apply this reasoning to sexism and misogyny. When young men see on television that older successful men can make disparaging comments towards women and get away with it by calling it "locker room talk", and ultimately become President...it really reinforces that speaking that way is okay, and ultimately perhaps acting that way is okay as well.

This story sounds soooooo familiar....
 
There is nothing you can do, she is an adult and can make her owns choices.
 
Muslims don't consider a woman who has children from a different man, unclean. Thats more of a traditional issue, has nothing to do with the religion. If you know that much about Islam, you should have known that fact.
 
Again, there isn't really anything you can do.