Alpha Black

Xscout wrote: this over-feminine culture...

I need a good laugh. Elaborate this point please.

ShortyBP wrote: Skillet42565 wrote: Didn't tippmanns used to have a lifetime warranty? Not that I remember. IIRC, they've never had a lifetime warranty... it's always been one year... but they usually provided support well beyond that.

You're correct. (meaning shorty)

Edited by tallen702 - 19 January 2008 at 12:32am

Skillet42565 wrote: Didn't tippmanns used to have a lifetime warranty?

got my 98 a few years back now, i think its only a year

Didn't tippmanns used to have a lifetime warranty?

Free pizza? Damn right I'm going to that college!

Susan Storm wrote: I don't see how pizza-based college recruiting is different than your average first date. Is it?

I suppose it depends on the person.

I personally wouldn't want to go out with someone who just recognizes me as the guy who bought her something nice on the first date.

Much like I wouldn't want someone to decide on a college based on the pizza, and not the academics.

Man Bites Dog wrote: That they used products and enticement to get their point across. They were trying to ingrain in you that "Hey, this was the school that got me pizza."

But why is that bad?

Almost all human interactions involve some kind of presenting yourself in the most favorable light, or hiding flaws, or using irrelevancies to ingratiate yourself.

We dress nicely to distract from our crappy personalities, we wear makeup to cover up flaws.  We speak nicely to people's faces but meanly behind their back (or on the internets).

Short of telling outright lies (of which I disapprove) I don't see how pizza-based college recruiting is different than your average first date.

Is it?

Susan Storm wrote: ctiani wrote: It was a statement about the people who DO play games like GTA because they DO think killing is neat. All good reasons to play video games.  But I just don't see any particularly relationship between play-killing in video games and a view that actual killing is neat.

Col. Dave Grossmann devotes most of a chapter in On Combat to this exact phenomenon- and actually does demonstrate that there is a significant correlation between violence in society and violent media and video games. I believe he has another book out precisely covering the subject, but I'm not certain. You may want to find a copy of On Combat and read the applicable chapter, though. You'll likely find it enlightening. It certainly swayed me form the 'video games are pretty harmless' category.

carl_the_sniper wrote: Snake6 wrote: I have to agree with whale on this one.I think joining the armed forces is a great and honorable thing to do as a citizen of the US, but recruiting propaganda should not be ground into children's heads at the age of 12-13. At this point in a persons life they are very impressionable to marketing propaganda. Recruiting should be directed to people age 17-18 when you are old enough to know the alternatives, and the impact on the rest of your life this decision will have. At that age that you can make a conscious decision about what you are doing. I'm sorry, but a 12-13 year old kid doesn't really understand the difference between a  game and real war, they do not understand the consequences of their actions, and should not be spoon fed propaganda of this nature. It takes alot of the choice away from them, and makes them think that war is just a big game.The last thing I want in a fighting hole next to me is a kid, fresh out of boot who joined because he was brainwashed into it, and then he realized after he had been in 5 months that this was not the right place for him. The way I think of it is that most kids by 17-18 allready know what they are going to do for a living. If the army does not advertise to them earlier on, they will choose a different career path. This can be used to inform them that there is a career in the army waiting for them if they dicide to do so someday. I think that the last thing you really want is the kid right next to you in the foxhole that joined because they couldn't think of anything else to do after high school and are realizing that they have made the wrong decision. Marketing to an earlier age will give them a chance to see the oppurtunities that they can find in the army so that they can make an imformed decision later on in life.

I disagree. You don't see colleges or jobs marketing to the 12-13 year old demographic do you? I am sure that the commercials that are on TV constantly on TV are more than enough to let people know that the army is there. The fact of the matter is that this a tool to make kids think that war is somehow related to a game, which it is not. This at best a shady recruiting mechanism and I disagree with this move wholeheartedly.

I have to agree with whale on this one.

I think joining the armed forces is a great and honorable thing to do as a citizen of the US, but recruiting propaganda should not be ground into children's heads at the age of 12-13. At this point in a persons life they are very impressionable to marketing propaganda. Recruiting should be directed to people age 17-18 when you are old enough to know the alternatives, and the impact on the rest of your life this decision will have. At that age that you can make a conscious decision about what you are doing.

I'm sorry, but a 12-13 year old kid doesn't really understand the difference between a  game and real war, they do not understand the consequences of their actions, and should not be spoon fed propaganda of this nature. It takes alot of the choice away from them, and makes them think that war is just a big game.

The last thing I want in a fighting hole next to me is a kid, fresh out of boot who joined because he was brainwashed into it, and then he realized after he had been in 5 months that this was not the right place for him.


Edited by Snake6 - 18 January 2008 at 4:02pm