Ragnarok

Pulmonary hypertension means that she is possibly going to be taking alpha or beta blockers. If the blood pressure is the result of atherosclerosis then the doctor may describe her to take a statin like Lipitor (atorvastatin) or Crestor (rosuvostatin),

Sorry, I added a bit more to the initial post.

Herd behavior describes how individuals in a group can act together without planned direction. The term pertains to the behavior of animals in herds, flocks, schools, demonstrations, riots and general strikes,[1] sporting events, religious gatherings, episodes of mob violence and everyday decision-making, judgment and opinion-forming. - Wikipedia Looking badass implies that you think that each individual who posted tried to post with the intention of seeming like a big badass. In other words, elevating themselves based on metrics of violence and apathy as a means to extend an intimidating image for others to observe. I don't think that this is the case since the internet badass tends to be singular, one person who tries to show off to many people in order to make himself seem intimidating. However, in this case the status quo of the tone is what intimidating things you would do to the person that killed a loved one. In this sense, there is no point in showing off how vicious you can be to another person because everyone else is doing the same. What would be more profound is if someone tried to be logical or rational in this hypothetical situation and criticizing others for playing into it.

People were likely being guided by the tone in the opening post.

I believe that solitary confinement in prison would make one realize the value of life. However, I doubt that you could ever make them repent for the actual crime they committed. Imprisonment enforces compliance by placing a harsh disincentive on committing crimes that harm a collective society: murder, theft, rape, ect. However, this process does little to make the prisoners reevaluate their values, morals, ethics, or virtues when it comes to life. I don't think that punishment alone is an insufficient stimulus to make one actually realize what they did was fundamentally wrong and then to emotionally feel bad that they had punished someone else (the first step). It's not repentance if they regret being in prison, that's simply negative reinforcement behavior training that is also used on animals and repeated based on instinct.

Paracetamol is the INN, in our country it's referred to as acetaminophen. Paracetamol itself cannot contain caffeine because they are both distinct chemical molecules. The chemical structure of paracetamol and caffeine are depicted respectively in the cartoons below: @@Krosp I had been making the point of painkillers containing caffeine in the sense that companies create formulations. I tried to look up Netherland's over the counter medications (medications you could obtain without a doctor's approval) however I couldn't find any, but a good example would be the brand Excedrin and their product Tension Headaches which contains: 500 mg of acetaminophen formulated with 65 mg of caffeine. This medication contains two distinct drug molecules in one capsule. Both of which should have for the most part their chemical structure preserved in order to maintain their effect on the human body.

In my defense. I was born this way.

I'm pretty sure that our current generation has the weakest grip over reality given the escalating dependence on psychiatric prescription medication.

If the Debate Pit is to serve as a type of containment for users/topics, then I think it has some short comings. First and foremost, I can't access the Debate Pit due to my low post count. From my perspective, the Debate Pit seems more like an added perk to contributing users rather than a safeguard or containment unit. Personally speaking, I'm primarily a lurker and join on sites when I see something that upsets me or motivates me to respond back. I would like to think that newer users should be the ones where containment is geared towards rather than veteran users who are accustomed to the site and therefore less prone to starting fights where they should not occurr. Second, if the Debate Pit were to function as an actual containment sub-forum it would be largely ineffective. This is mostly because when a debate begins in a given thread, it is often not involving the majority of the people who have contributed to the thread but rather involving two individuals going back and forth over a point of contention. Moving the entire thread to the Debate Pit because of two individuals would compromise the fact that the rest of the thread primarily is not a debate and was not supposed to be in the first place. The more effective action would be to contain the two or more users who agree to disagree, therefore allowing the regular thread to proceed as normal. In consideration of this, I feel like people who are mature enough to disagree with one another yet have the patience to listen to each other would consider visitor messages or private messages. Making a separate thread in the Debate Pit seems excessive. Unruly arguments are prone to moderators using infraction, probation, and lock-down measures to keep the thread under control rather than jettisoning it off to Deep Space. I understand how the Debate Pit can function as a psychological deterrent. If you give someone an arena where they can voice their argumentative side, then that user feels less repressed and less likely to unleash that side in other places. However, a big part of using the Debate Pit in this capacity primarily relies on the user themselves to have the maturity to recognize that their own content will be a conflict. After realizing this, they also must consider how their post will affect everyone else and should make a decision of the whole rather than themselves. If a user is mature enough to suppress their own urges to this extent, then they should have sufficient will power to reconstruct their post into an effective pro-discussion post rather than an illogical fallacy or derail to the opening thread. I think that when we consider the Debate Pit to be a containment field, we have admitted that the sub-forum is in a sense flawed. It is not something effective in its own right to spawn ideas and mesh out thoughts, but rather a detractor from the rest of the forums. Resorting a sub-forum as a means to an end intereferes with its utility to be seen as useful in itself. Someone raised the point that debate itself can be an effective process of meshing or solidying ones own thought process. However, I don't believe that if the popular sentiment is that the Debate Pit is a sort of containment unit that people will still retain such an interest. Rather, they would want to post in the thread to a relevant audience that has made relevant posts on the topic. No one wants to be contained, ostracized, or isolated. They just want to be heard. I don't identify with sub-fourms like the Debate Pit because I personally don't understand debating itself as a motivator. I personally find it more interesting to understand other people, how they work, and why they do the strange things that they do or get into the jams they find themselves in. The two aren't mutually exclusive when it comes to conversation, however as an underlying motivator I haven't reached a point where I post anything with the belief that I'm right and in the know. If I believed that then I probably wouldn't be curious about getting feedback from anonymous individuals all over about what they think. If this isn't representative of what the Debate Pit is then I apologize. I understand that I'm arguing against a personal conception rather than an actual piece of work because I don't have access to it. However my intention was not to attack a straw man. Rather question the underlying purpose of what areas like the Debate Pit really serve and whether this function is unique enough to merit it being kept to itself.

I have to be vary cautious about what I post otherwise I might accidentally give away the dead bodies of the people I've killed and other important information that I may regret later on if people actually decide to take an interest in what I have to say.

What made Ender's Game a great novel is lost on the movie. There is one event in the book where Ender breaches his isolation from the other students by gradually forming a relationship with Alai someone who is part of an Ender-hate faction. Ender intentionally takes steps to make sure they can talk and develops an actual close relationship with Alai resulting in him being able to break the ice with the rest of his classmates and form relationships with them. Take a note that there explicitly is no Ender-hate faction. Rather a psychological phenomenon where Ender accidentally breaks the arm of another cadet named Bernard after he continually pesters Ender. Bernard gets pitied and uses that pity as leverage to extend his own influence which is permeated with anti-Ender sentiment. Coupling this with Gaff (his commander) isolating him on the shuttle to school by highlighting him as being special leads to his intellect being an ostracizing element. Despite this, Ender's intellect enables him to make social relationships despite the barriers Gaff constantly erects. Gaff does this in order to forge Ender to rely only on himself on finding solutions because he is being groomed to be the definitive commander. The movie does tie this into the tone of the film by emphasizing Anderson's role in questioning Graff's hard stance on Ender and how it factors into his sense of humanity. However, it still neglects providing any development to answering who or what is Ender Wiggin. The beginning of the book is largely framed by psychological conflict and side questioning. One which proceeds throughout the book is that Ender can never figure out Gaff and it is a source of intense questioning within the book whether Gaff can be considered a friend. In the movie, Gaff is Harrison Ford who makes it blatantly clear that he believes Ender is a genius and is supporting him 100% of the way leaving the audience to question Ender's objectivity and at best leaves him to be pitied. Unfortunately Ender's Game was written for the reader to immerse themselves in Ender's ego and his point of view. The rare times that we see Graff and Anderson talking are rare conversations that seem to be like treats given to us, however we remain primarily identified with Ender in our thought process. The movie closes off Ender to us, his thoughts and amibtions behind his actions remain amibigous and the watcher is left with the open question of exactly who is Ender and what makes him tick making us align our view process more with Graff/Anderson than with Ender whose thoughts were an open book to us. Ender's game isn't about the results, it's about the methods and the means. Ender is capable of discerning the motives of other characters, how their opinions will develop, and what he should do in order to achieve his own objectives. This is Ender's genius. Although it can be said in some form of the book and movie that Ender does get tired of the game, the underlying motive and method varies from book to film. A key point of this disinterest occurs when Bonzo Madrid assaults Ender in the showers forcing him to take defensive action to fend him off. In the book, Ender begins to despise the system that creates the malicious attitude that Bonzo sported. He doesn't fault Bonzo himself but rather the education at battle school that 'created' someone to become 'Bonzo' or put someone like Bonzo in a position of high responsibility when it should have been obvious that such a commander would not be effective in actual combat. In the movie, Bonzo's brain is on display and a mechanical arm robot is doing surgery on him. Ender gets upset. The audience is left to assume that this is a discourse of the cost of war. Harrison Ford is called a monster, but yet again we don't know what Ender thinks. We are just left to our own musings of how bad he is treated and that our pity is analogous to his own emotional pattern (it's not). The lack of having a personal insight into Ender makes the movie lifeless and mechanical. When Ender expresses emotions it is a 'duh' moment precisely because Hollywood took short cuts in making this big screen. In utilizing Petra, she is abstracted from being a fierce self-advocate to being a tom-boy love interest. Why. She is the only female cadet really mentioned in any detail in the book therefore making her the only heterosexual love interest Ender could develop if she was even into that type of thing. I was highly upset with the movie because I felt that it wasn't an advocate for the source content which was the book. The movie was a fraud of the original, presenting the scenes however without the underlying intent and inner meaning the actions are supposed to hold. And when you simply look at the end and don't bother to look at the means, methods, reasons, and motivations the characters go through in order to work out their complicated life at Battle School then you've lost the end of Ender's Game. It is Ender's ability to emphathize others that is central to his ability to command and also an integral part of what makes him a 'genius.' The joy of Ender's Game is being able to see the mind at work rather than simply stare at Harrison Ford gasp in awe at the manifestations of an unprecedented genius.