Oh god the irony.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
now it is evident that you are factually wrong: "no one cares". ok. nice maturity levels. the good old roc18 capitulation.
i should start quote-bombing you more often. you shut the fuck up real neatly. unlike normally when you like the sound of your own, ill-informed voice a little too much.
Search
Search results: 1,635 found, showing up to 50
"If I had my way all the hippys, liberals, communists and ferries would be thrown into a volcano followed by a rather large sack containing the world supply of ruger firearms."Extra Medium wrote:
Explain how I am extreme. Because I love my country? Because I believe in the second amendment? Because I don't believe in having a giant, intrusive government?specops10-4 wrote:
This is like watching two midgets fight, its hilarious but I feel kinda sad now.
Both of you (Shahter and Extra Medium) are arguing against yourselves at this point. Neither of you realize that your extreme beliefs are what lead to programs like PRISM and other forms of government corruption just from opposite sides of the spectrum.
Or is it because it's popular to disagree with me?
Its not hard to find.
Edit:
Also
Extra wrote:
We take our crazy cunts here in America and make them famous so they eventually cave under pressure and kill themselves.
This is like watching two midgets fight, its hilarious but I feel kinda sad now.
Both of you (Shahter and Extra Medium) are arguing against yourselves at this point. Neither of you realize that your extreme beliefs are what lead to programs like PRISM and other forms of government corruption just from opposite sides of the spectrum.
Both of you (Shahter and Extra Medium) are arguing against yourselves at this point. Neither of you realize that your extreme beliefs are what lead to programs like PRISM and other forms of government corruption just from opposite sides of the spectrum.
I hate this thread.
This is a funny thread.
Who gives a fuck.
Most summer camps have some vague political connection at least and they go more extreme from there. Parents will send their children to places that tend to agree with their political philosphies and theres no getting around that.Jay wrote:
A) I'm not, nor have I ever been, a tea partier.
B) If people send their kids away to summer camp it is to those cliched camps on a lake in the woods where the boys sneak across the lake to steal their first kiss from a willing lass. It's either that or day camp.
C) I have never heard of any politically affiliated summer camp. Ever. Religious? Yes. Political? No. Politics and children are a big no no here.
So yes, I found the whole thing weird, and I said as much whenever this story first came out. Again, I don't agree with indoctrination of any sort and it really surprises me that you all seem to find it to be hunkydory. Instead of saying 'hey, wait, he might have a point', you keep going on and on and on about how America is awful. Whatever.
It really isn't big fucking deal either way since it is the parents that introduce the political ideas and the camps that only reinforce them.
Not really, the US is a big country and people are not willing to send their kids hundreds if not thousands of miles to go to some summer camp in Florida. Of course there might be a few from up north but I would almost guarentee that they are all from the south/bible belt.coke wrote:
I know that.specops10-4 wrote:
Old people move to Florida, its a well known fact in the US. Its nice and warm, constantly summer like conditions so they can live relaxed lives without having to worry about snow and yard work.coke wrote:
Ah I see...
What in the fuck does the location have to do with it.
My point was that these summer camps will be made up of people from across the US, so the fact that it is "full of rednecks/in the bible belt" is largely irrelevant.
Old people move to Florida, its a well known fact in the US. Its nice and warm, constantly summer like conditions so they can live relaxed lives without having to worry about snow and yard work.coke wrote:
Ah I see...Jay wrote:
Sigh...coke wrote:
Only people from Florida are allowed to go?
What in the fuck does the location have to do with it.
I couldn't handle my boner. It was just too big and throbbing.eleven bravo wrote:
she was wearing a short skirt, she was just asking to get gangraped
Shouldn't even be an issue bro, its not like the kids were forced to go to the camps.Jay wrote:
I'm not saying the kids were guilty at all. That wasn't the intent of my post. I'm just saying that if anything remotely positive comes out of this event it should be these Norwegian indoctrination camps being placed in the international spotlight and them saying 'hey, maybe these aren't such a great idea after all'. I don't blame the kids, I blame the politicians setting the bullshit up in the first place.Uzique wrote:
the youngest person killed in this massacre was, what? 14-15? "brainwashing"? hardly. these are proactive people with a high sense of civic pride and citizenship. they wanted to take part in voluntary summer camps to perhaps boost their own interest in politics/public service and to have fun with other driven, positive young people. "brainwashing"? i don't really see where brainwashing comes into it. the only other person that views the summer camp as a brainwashing exercise is... breivik himself. keeping some good company there, mr. super-intellectual jay.
compared to the hundreds of schools, camps and weekend activities hosted in america in the name of political partisanship or religious instruction... i'd say you have a fairly gargantuan issue to deal with in your home country, before you start implying that 77 innocent teenagers were somehow 'guilty' or 'in the wrong' just for being at a summer camp. you idiot.
mmm sounds sensual
Yeah its definitely a matter of preference, if you want to be jacked go for HIIT. If you want to be slender and fit go for straight cardio. Of course genetics and shit play a role but thats how its gonna turn out in general.Jaekus wrote:
Yeah for sure, plus there are other benefits like more "explosiveness" and power, etc.
A good example to think of in the whole cardio vs. HIIT thing is to look a the difference in body between a marathon runner and a sprinter.
However if you just want to lose weight overall and get in better shape either method is equally as effective.
Funny how they talk about Zimmerman's grass stains but do not elaborate on his broken nose.Jaekus wrote:
At the risk of a derail, I'd like to offer a counter to that:HITNRUNXX wrote:
He was cleared and declared to have acted in self defense. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton got involved, and threw him to the media, where he was crucified. Now he is being charged.http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc-tv/46849124#46849124the sanford police department is trying to make sure they did everything right and i think that's why you saw them pass it on to the state's attorney general. who passed it on to another state's attorney. now that's why we have this grand jury hearing. sanford has a history of racism.
Mob justice is a part of human psychology, it happens everywhere, it will continue to happen, and its not always a bad thing.
People are too fussy about their workout programs and shit. Unless you are looking to become some kind of super human athlete it really does not matter. Yeah HIIT might be better than cardio in some respects but all I was saying is that putting in the time is what really makes the difference.Jaekus wrote:
The article is about steady-state cardio vs. HIIT, which is pertinent to the discussion at hand. You just waded in and made some dismissive comment without getting context and then expect some respect?
Maybe I have a good metabolism or something, but for me it only takes a little bit of motivation and I'm burning more calories than I am taking in.
Convicted of insanity? Sounds like a witch hunt if I ever heard of one.
He is fucked up in the head though, psychopathic/sociopathic.
He is fucked up in the head though, psychopathic/sociopathic.
'Excess Cardio' is a vague term, so I don't really know how it can be an official study. Or at least a reputable one.
Pushing your limits is good, going beyond your limits is bad. Thats basically what it says, and should be common knowledge.
Pushing your limits is good, going beyond your limits is bad. Thats basically what it says, and should be common knowledge.
I'm sorry, I am just posting what I know. I push my limits and its done well for me, so I don't understand how cardio can ever be bad unless you do it all day every day. I did not insult you and I don't understand where this hostility is coming from.Jaekus wrote:
If you don't know the specifics don't post moronic crap when people are asking for specifics, unless you like coming across as a dumbarse.specops10-4 wrote:
No i don't know the specifics, but I am in good shape. I don't pay attention to calories and I have no regular exercise program. What I do is stay active daily, and thats all it fucking takes.Jaekus wrote:
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Move along.
Between skateboarding, skiing, swimming and the occasional run I can stay in shape. Unless you are a dweeb who sits infront of the computer 10 hours a day its simple.
Don't be so fucking judgemental.
No i don't know the specifics, but I am in good shape. I don't pay attention to calories and I have no regular exercise program. What I do is stay active daily, and thats all it fucking takes.Jaekus wrote:
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Move along.
Between skateboarding, skiing, swimming and the occasional run I can stay in shape. Unless you are a dweeb who sits infront of the computer 10 hours a day its simple.
Don't be so fucking judgemental.
Excess cardio is better than a lack of cardio, don't listen to this unless you want to be some kind of body builder.Jaekus wrote:
Yeah, especially so when you read stuff like this (from the link above)nukchebi0 wrote:
It was such uplifting news the first time I read that HIIT is more effective than lower intensity steady state cardio.Let's look at the reasons why steady-state cardio can be ineffective toward our fat loss goals:
- Excess cardio can stop muscle growth or lead to a loss of muscle
- Excess cardio can speed up the muscle loss that happens w/ dieting (leading to a slower metabolism)
- Excess cardio puts extra stress on the adrenal glands, which can lead to fatigue, anxiety, depression, insomnia, frequent illness, decreased memory/concentration, & the inability to lose weight
- Excess cardio can decrease fat-burning hormones and enzymes (harder for the body to burn fat)
- Excess cardio increases the hormone cortisol? Cortisol is a major culprit of belly fat
- Performing excess cardio w/ improper walking/running/movement patterns can create injury
Sometimes I wish we did remain an isolationist country.Dilbert_X wrote:
That and the dumb Japs attacked them.
But for that they would have sat on the sidelines eating popcorn, watching Europe destroy itself.
I agree with Carlin on pretty much everything until the whole civil war thing... Anyways, theres a reason we don't trust government, and its based on our history. We just continue to elect shitty officials who claim to be against government who really are against government only when it suits them.
Stickin it to the man.Uzique wrote:
what does that have to do with anything? this is a pathetic level of comment. "would you say that to my face?!?" jesus christ you are telling me to debate in a mature way and then following it up with some playground-level "i bet you wouldn't make that argument face-to-face!" talk. you just have no credibility. stop trying to moderate me, i think you're a fucking joke.Ilocano wrote:
Yes, because, surely, if face to face with Jay, you'd continue to reply back the same way.
You missed my point, don't you spend time reading my posts? Jeezus my patience is running thin.
Doesn't really have much to do with the album cover, thats just an added bonus.Uzique wrote:
you're really diagnosing me as manic depressive because of an album cover? you do realise every single album cover done by the guy is one big fucking joke, right? basically a huge trollface. if you keep making dumb comments i'm going to keep on calling you a mong, really, it's as simple as that.specops10-4 wrote:
I have nothing against manic depressive people.Uzique wrote:
yes an album cover taken from an artist known for clowning around and being facetious is an excellent indicator of manic depression.
also great job in calling me condescending and siding with the view that i am somehow 'impolite', and then accusing me of being mentally ill.
please stick around, you are clearly a highly intelligent person.
As long as you keep calling me a mong I'm gonna keep making stupid comments. Got ya there biatch!
I have nothing against manic depressive people.Uzique wrote:
yes an album cover taken from an artist known for clowning around and being facetious is an excellent indicator of manic depression.
also great job in calling me condescending and siding with the view that i am somehow 'impolite', and then accusing me of being mentally ill.
please stick around, you are clearly a highly intelligent person.
Do you happen to be manic depressive? Cause thats what your avatar makes me think of.
Your avatar suits you very well.
You can't quantify the total picture using hard evidence, at least with our current technology but thats a whole different debate, but you can get a very good idea of how, and even why someone committed a crime.Uzique wrote:
the law doesn't agree with you that the psychological analysis is secondary, sorry. and neither do i. some crimes need to be committed out of premeditation or 'malice aforethought', which is the phrase used in the case of murder. you can't quantify malice using facts and evidence collected in zip-lock bags. you have to qualify it.specops10-4 wrote:
You can determine motives and causes based on the murderers actions, and yes to some extent his words and interperitation of his thoughts. You really only need empirical evidence to determine things like these, did the murderer track down their subject and kill them in cold blood hiding the body afterwards or did he get into a fist fight and knock him into a curb without premeditation. These are the primary facts in these instances while psychological analysis and other less obvious evidence are secondary.Uzique wrote:
many points of law are open to judicial interpretation and the rational discourses of court procedure. not all laws can be interpreted with the literal method, e.g. speeding laws being a matter of empirical fact. there is very often a grey area in the law that must be arbitrated by the legal professional. if the law was always black and white being innocent and guilty, why would we even have judges and a legal structure? surely a machine could do all of the processing.
just think of the purpose of the jury in serious offences, for example homicide. this is a prime example of why the grey area in law is so vitally important, and why public and civic opinion is important. if a person kills another person, according to your black/white method where the law has "confines", they are guilty of murder. but that doesn't take into account any of the defendant's causes, motives or mitigating factors. you need a judge and a jury to sit on this and reason it.
If someone committed a terrible premeditated murder with hard evidence of intent (buying weapons, stalking, internet records etc.) but when examined by a psychologist they appeared to be perfectly normal and displayed empathy, I would like to believe they would be sentenced to 1st degree murder.
While someone who accidentally killed someone yet showed no remorse would hopefully get charged with the crime they committed, maybe a little harsher, but still equal to the actual crime they committed.
You can determine motives and causes based on the murderers actions, and yes to some extent his words and interperitation of his thoughts. You really only need empirical evidence to determine things like these, did the murderer track down their subject and kill them in cold blood hiding the body afterwards or did he get into a fist fight and knock him into a curb without premeditation. These are the primary facts while psychological analysis and other less obvious evidence are secondary.Uzique wrote:
many points of law are open to judicial interpretation and the rational discourses of court procedure. not all laws can be interpreted with the literal method, e.g. speeding laws being a matter of empirical fact. there is very often a grey area in the law that must be arbitrated by the legal professional. if the law was always black and white being innocent and guilty, why would we even have judges and a legal structure? surely a machine could do all of the processing.
just think of the purpose of the jury in serious offences, for example homicide. this is a prime example of why the grey area in law is so vitally important, and why public and civic opinion is important. if a person kills another person, according to your black/white method where the law has "confines", they are guilty of murder. but that doesn't take into account any of the defendant's causes, motives or mitigating factors. you need a judge and a jury to sit on this and reason it.
If provided all the necessary evidence, I believe a machine would make a better judge than any human. The grey area lies within who is telling the truth and who is not when the laws are written well, in this case the grey area is in the legislation.Uzique wrote:
many points of law are open to judicial interpretation and the rational discourses of court procedure. not all laws can be interpreted with the literal method, e.g. speeding laws being a matter of empirical fact. there is very often a grey area in the law that must be arbitrated by the legal professional. if the law was always black and white being innocent and guilty, why would we even have judges and a legal structure? surely a machine could do all of the processing.
But there are no definite confines to the law. Its not like stealing something or breaking the speed limit, offenses with clear boundaries, there is no way to concretely justify either side so it is entirely open to interpretation.Uzique wrote:
of course it is brought up in court. how do you think a court works? a court arbitrates over disputes in an objective, reasonable way, trying to assert the civic view and uphold the public good. that's the court's whole point and purpose as a social institution and instrument. of course if two people take a dispute to the court, they will have to justify the feeling of insult and wrong against an objective measure. otherwise how else would any law ever be implemented and enforced? if we all just floated around in a complete web of relativity? there would be no rule of law.
I don't think this should even be able to be brought up in court. You're making it sound like you have to justify your insults, if you call someone stupid and someone is offended enough to bring you to court you have to prove that they were stupid?Uzique wrote:
you would have to prove it in a court of law though, where said-insult would have to be justified in some sense and evidenced. a judge would consider it as reasonably and objectively as he possibly could. it's not just a simple case of "i was insulted, therefore he is guilty". it has to stand up to some common standard of legal reasonability.
I know this is a ridiculous example but how the law is written and how you are explaining it, it seems entirely possible.
What a vague law, you have to upset enough people and then its considered illegal, good piece of legislation you have there.Uzique wrote:
i don't think 'yank' is a racist slur. you have a baseball team called the 'yankees' right? just like calling me a "dumb brit" would not be racist. how does that term signify racism? i'm not quite sure that you understand what racism is, conceptually. and feel free trying to prosecute me for using the word "mong", but again, you have drastically misunderstood the law here... words are not outlawed. we are allowed free speech. if i offend hundreds/thousands/sufficient number of people and create a disturbance in the public peace with my comments, then perhaps you can start to bring a case (which may not be proven successful). me offending one person in a forum thread viewed by about 7 people is not creating a breach of the public peace in the uk, ergo: it is not in contravention of the public order act. is this really so complicated that it has taken about 4 pages of constant hypothetical rehashing?
So if a public official says something... publicly... that would be considered illegal, but you calling someone a nigger on the street or on a little internet forum is not? This just doesn't make sense.
Exactly.Uzique wrote:
here's me just thinking it's a way of putting down your thoughts clearly and effectively. shrug.
Debate isn't about 'putting down your thoughts' its about debating, theres a difference.
If you give them respect as individuals why do you seem to hate them as a whole? Yeah I don't really respect someone just for joining the military, but once they have gone through the rigors of training and combat, proving themselves as competent individuals then they deserve respect. Thats how the military itself works, the goobers that fuck up stay as low ranking individuals or are discharged and command less respect than those who have actually proven themselves. I think we mostly agree in this topic except you seem to have more resentment towards the military as an organization than I do.
Keep going. You're really helping yourself.
Did you say to him that soldiers don't deserve any respect, fuck the leeches to society that think they are entitled to everything, etc?Uzique wrote:
a lot more emotionally goes into being a soldier, sure, but i don't respect them for being one in the first place. they are not serving any high purpose. they're doing the job because it's a paycheque and they didn't have many other options (except maybe being a sewercleaner).specops10-4 wrote:
Its not polite to do it face-face but eh whatever I'll just talk shit behind his back, way more respectful.Uzique wrote:
i've made my opinion clear to my cousin, whenever he has asked for it. i'm not going to go and berate his life choice because it's not a polite thing to do to anyone, face-to-face. but when it has come up in conversation, we have both made it mutually clear to one another that if he applied himself better in school, he now wouldn't be looking at armed service. why do you think i should have some hushed reverence for military men? i literally have zero respect for military men. why do you have such great respect for them? sewer cleaners do a tough job too. do you salute them whenever they walk by?
I have more respect for sewer cleaners than the kids who just squeeked by college and became accountants at some bland office in a cubicle. But a sewer cleaner doesn't risk his life, he won't witness his friends die, or have to kill people just because he was ordered to. A lot more goes into being a soldier than a sewer worker while both have a role in society.
and did you not read my posts? i've already said i've made my views clear to him. nothing disrespectful going on, here.
Soldiers are far from perfect individuals, and so is everybody else, but some have gone through things you can't even imagine and are mentally and physically scarred. At least give them the respect you would give yourself.
Look at how he says it. Such a sense of entitlement, thats what pissed me off.
This forum has a mental disorder.
Its not polite to do it face-face but eh whatever I'll just talk shit behind his back, way more respectful.Uzique wrote:
i've made my opinion clear to my cousin, whenever he has asked for it. i'm not going to go and berate his life choice because it's not a polite thing to do to anyone, face-to-face. but when it has come up in conversation, we have both made it mutually clear to one another that if he applied himself better in school, he now wouldn't be looking at armed service. why do you think i should have some hushed reverence for military men? i literally have zero respect for military men. why do you have such great respect for them? sewer cleaners do a tough job too. do you salute them whenever they walk by?
I have more respect for sewer cleaners than the kids who just squeeked by college and became accountants at some bland office in a cubicle. But a sewer cleaner doesn't risk his life, he won't witness his friends die, or have to kill people just because he was ordered to. A lot more goes into being a soldier than a sewer worker while both have a role in society.
Say that to your cousin.
You're just a troll, I can't take you seriously.
Support the fact that the military is a way to bring people who screwed up in highschool by giving them a job and a chance at growing up. Its better than just handing money out to people because they don't have the qualifications to get any other job. They are people with no future that put themselves into deadly situations, sounds like a fucking blast. They deserve to be hated.Uzique wrote:
nations had militaries for defense and (imperial) offense. i would like to think we don't really have much of a homeland-defense threat anymore. therefore we keep a military for neo-imperial conquests abroad. i don't support this. therefore i do not support the troops. if hussein was going to invade the UK or some other european country tomorrow, maybe i'd give a shit. but i don't. so sorry mr. knuckle-dragger with 0 qualifications and no future, i won't give you a salute for signing up for an easy career.
The military provides no tangible benefit to society? Why has every nation since the beginning of civilization had at least some military if they provide no benefit?Uzique wrote:
all those other examples provide a tangible benefit to the society from which they derive. half of them aren't paid for with taxpayer's money. so really i think your argument is extremely weak.
Also it doesn't matter if they are paid for with taxpayer money, they are putting themselves into shitty situations just for a little bit of money, just like a drug addict right?
Wow, just wow. Do you feel the same about police officers, firefighters, janitors, sewer cleaners, McDonald's employees, etc.? I don't even know how to respond to this, I hope you are trolling.Uzique wrote:
why? there's no real reason or need to be in that country. they put themselves in that shit position. do you give a drug addict respect as well because he is dealing with a tough life? no. because he chose to take drugs. therefore why should you respect a soldier, who walked into a recruitment station and signed a contract to go to a shithole for taxpayer's money? fuck respect for grunts.specops10-4 wrote:
Joining the military is a pretty selfless/desperate act. I mean they get paid terribly to go to some country where everyone hates them while hoping they come back home alive. Deserves more respect than most other jobs in my opinion.
Joining the military is a pretty selfless/desperate act. I mean they get paid terribly to go to some country where everyone hates them while hoping they come back home alive. Deserves more respect than most other jobs in my opinion.
Still condescending...Uzique wrote:
no i just expect people that post in a forum called debate and serious talk to be able to manage two of the following basic things:specops10-4 wrote:
You're quite the condescending douche aren't you?Uzique wrote:
it's called 'being able to write and communicate effectively'. it's a skill most people learn in school.
1) to be able to write and communicate. no need for page-long flamefests then trying to clarify what some guy meant by his bad typing.
2) to be able to read and understand 'long words' without attacking them for simply being long words.
otherwise please kindly step out of the discussion. you add nothing.
I understand the separation of of powers but when you throw in the whole "montesqueieu's tripartite divisions of powers" you are obviously trying to come off as intellectually superior.Uzique wrote:
big words? wow you are a class-a mong. have a good day, mouth breather.specops10-4 wrote:
Throwin out the big words there buddy? Makes you feel smart or something? Cause I couldn't give a single fuck about what you just said.Uzique wrote:
actually our legislative passed the laws that the judiciary implement. nothing to do with our government.
do you understand montesquieu's tripartite division of powers? because at the moment you are being stupid, not playing it.
I am arguing about this on more of a philosophical basis anyways, although thats not where the thread started, it doesn't matter what happens in your country, so theres no point trying to explain your whole system.
You're quite the condescending douche aren't you?Uzique wrote:
it's called 'being able to write and communicate effectively'. it's a skill most people learn in school.War Man wrote:
My thoughts don't always go by what I'm saying.