It's like someone who is good because they are constantly afraid of being sent to hell over someone who is good because they're genuinely a good person, and need no "incentive".
In each case, take away the fear and you revert back to barbarism. I'd rather have a society that is internalized with politeness and good values, not one where people constantly live in fear.
What are you talking about? I'm trying to gather data. Your post makes no sense.
Alright, since you asked nicely, here's the thread so far.
The Obama administration doesn't compromise. They give ultimatums, and when they don't pass he circumvents the law by using executive orders.
How much Fox News do you watch a day? I just really like to gather data on that fact when I see such a polarized person.
What a pile of rubbish. Even pretty liberal folks, such as Noam Chomsky, have called out the Obama administration's penchant for doing that. Not only doing it, but also for setting a pretty horrible precedent by misusing the executive powers.
I mean to say that one need not be a Fox News fan to question His Master's Voice. For instance, I am pretty liberal on most accounts, although I consider myself fairly staunch when it comes to some fundamental principles as they are outlined in the magna carta and elsewhere - that we are all free men with inalienable rights, and that we are all innocent until proven guilty and so on.
So your assertion and assumption that those that oppose Obama watch Fox News is silly. In fact, while I do not even own a television, most of what I do enjoy watching are fairly liberal - Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow, and so on. But back to my original point -- I was merely saying that the OP isn't wrong, and that even most staunch liberals would question the Obama administration's tactics if they are halfway educated.
Take the National Defense Authorization Act, for one, codifies practices carried out by both Bush II and the Obama administrations -- in fact, they're done with bipartisan support. It provides the option for military detention for US citizens -- sure, it's not mandatory, but it's a very ominous first step. You should read what the Executive Orders actually say on this, as well, which provides sweeping powers to arrest citizens on account of national security.
The worst travesty to date is the Supreme Court decision in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project. It was brought to court by the Obama administration and argued by Elena Kagan says that even talking to terrorist groups for "strategies of nonviolence" can be considered advice, which should be considered material support. And they won. So, if you tried to talk a terrorist out of their terrorist acts and move to a path of peace, you would be providing material support. Heck, if you proselytized to a terrorist, you'd be treated the same way. These are executive decisions -- without review, without recourse, which is what makes them worse.
Take another example, that of Omar Khadr, the first Guantanamo case to come to a military commission -- not court, mind you -- under Obama. The charge was that he tried resisting an attack on his village. The kid was 15. He was labeled a terrorist and kept in Bagram in Afghanistan for 8 years and then Guantanamo after that, where he's either given the choice to plead guilty and be released in eight years or plead not guilty and be detained forever. This violates pretty much every international convention on the treatment of both soldiers and juveniles. Ironically, Khadr is a Canadian citizen, but surprisingly, Canada hasn't asked to extradite him, but I digress.
I could go on, but the fact remains that the OP is quite accurate in his assessment of the Obama administration. Anyone who does any amount of research into domestic political and IR policies can quite easily see how the administration has done a scary job of using executive orders to circumvent any opposition. It sets a very bad precedent, and it's amazing how few people are aware of it.
Obama isn't the best choice -- he was the best choice *given* the alternatives. And having strong opinions about his performance doesn't make any of us polarized, Fox News watching crazies.
How much Fox News do you watch a day? I just really like to gather data on that fact when I see such a polarized person.
What a pile of rubbish. Even pretty liberal folks, such as Noam Chomsky, have called out the Obama administration's penchant for doing that. Not only doing it, but also for setting a pretty horrible precedent by misusing the executive powers.
As An American, I refuse to take credit or blame for stuff the British Empire did.
We have plenty of fucked up behavior in our own history, thankyouverymuch.
I wasn't talking about Americans specifically -- I was talking about the fact that wasn't the first time that something like that had happened.
But since you brought it up, as a fellow American, I disagree. After all, the Americas *were* populated by the peoples of those fine isles.
Just because someone drew an arbitrary line around a land and declared independence doesn't mean there weren't common social and cultural elements. From the sun shall never set in Britannia to the American Manifest Destiny, the story continues.
Well, yea. That's evident by the fact they offered him money, instead of signing the contract, getting him drunk, then peeing on the contract up as they steal all his land.
To be fair, they *did* do that ca. 1600 to the entire Indian subcontinent, at the behest of a corporation, no less ("The British East India Company"). Took ~300 years before they could be overthrown, only to end up with a much more dangerous problem (India and Pakistan, both with nuclear capabilities).
No, you really don't, as your comment below shows.
...but perhaps fewer narcissistic platitudes and more documents on the front pages? Snowden isn't Jesus, the more he toots "It's not about me", the more it becomes about him
Really? What have you done lately? Perhaps you should stop trolling and consider doing something more productive.
If you are calling a man who's sacrificed his future for the future of others a narcissist for airing his opinions, then you are nothing more than a jealous little man with nothing of value to add. Please go away.
At the end of the day, you eat more than you burn = you gain weight; you burn more than you eat, you lose weight.
Do we all burn calories equally? Not really -- our levels of activity, our genetic makeup, our body composition, and many other variables play a role in determining this.
When I'm active, I can eat ~3500-4000 calories a day and I still stay in great shape. When I've fallen off the wagon, I will gain weight at ~2500 calories because I just turn into a lazy mash that couch surfs.
Does blindly counting calories make sense? Of course not -- you have to figure out what *your* threshold is. How many calories do YOU need before you start losing/gaining weight and adjust it from that point on.
But to discount counting calories in its entirety is just rubbish. Because ultimately, if you are not eating more than you burn, where is your body getting the excessive calories from?
That was von Braun, for one. For another, Oppenheimer was aghast at the destruction caused by the atomic bomb (he quoted the Bhagvad Gita, "I am become Death -- the destroyer of worlds." after the Trinity Test) and actively campaigned for non-proliferation.
If anything, his sympathies towards the other sides caused him to be a martyr to McCarthyism. Hell, even von Braun commented that, "In England, Oppenheimer would have been knighted."
Oppenheimer is the poster child for how scientists have little control over the political consequences and use of their discoveries, and how the political institutions would happily discard them once they're wrung dry.
Fitness pros and doctors keep making the same suggestion because there aren't any viable alternatives for most people.
That is patently untrue.
If anything, there are definite alternatives to biking -- you could walk or jog outdoors, or be active in many, many other ways. Hell, you could join a pickup soccer league. You could go mountain biking.
Your argument re: grocery stores is also silly because it's a cultural choice to buy groceries en masse -- once you start making frequent trips (i.e. more workouts), not only are you inclined to buy less (which is great in other ways, as it reduces junk intake and wastage), you also buy fresher produce. For generations, people have walked home with their groceries and it is only recently that we've resorted to this model of stocking your pantry once a month.
I live in New England, and the only times I really take my car are when the roads are horrible from snow or when it's raining (or snowing heavily). Otherwise, I just put my jacket on and walk or ride my bicycle. Just grab a backpack and fill it up.
I am not talking about *looking* fit, I am talking about *being* fit. The distinction is extremely important. Being active -- be it jogging, biking, or playing a sport -- makes you physically fit. We've built a culture of laziness and lethargy that you don't see anywhere else, where anything that's "dangerous" or inconvenient is relegated to unwanted status.
Yes, it'd be nice if we could just ride bikes everywhere. It'd also be nice if we had world peace and I had a unicorn that farted rainbows.
What a silly notion. You don't need to ride bikes *everywhere* (and nowhere did I even suggest that). However, there is no reason to be physically inactive, and attitudes such as yours is really unfortunate. We've reached a point where convenience trumps basic movement to such an extent that even the slightest suggestion of activity is considered an affront.
Sure, biking is dangerous -- so is driving a car. So is walking. Hell, life is terminal. What's your point?
If someone is âoeout-of-shape,â and the bar for that standard is so low that itâ(TM)s nearly meaningless, then the proposed solution is usually to join a gym, wrestle with some sort of ridiculous piston-based weight-training machinery, then do some âoecardioâ on a treadmill until bored senseless. This is obviously going to fail in short order as itâ(TM)s about as interesting as watching daytime TV â" wait, that must be more interesting as people will actually do it year after year.
Most gyms survive on human optimism. Stats show about 70 per cent of people with gym memberships never actually use them and much of the remainder quit going to the gym only two months after buying a membership. Yet fitness professionals and doctors keep making the same suggestion.
The idea behind actually riding a bicycle is that it eventually becomes a part of your lifestyle. Going to the local grocery store? Grabbing a cup of coffee? Going to the book store? Just hop on your bike and it becomes a quick ride. It's not boring, and it's a decent workout.
The vast majority of people do not get in shape (and even if they do, do not stay there for long) by going to the gym. I know -- I am pretty dedicated about working out, and if I did not have sports that I enjoyed (rock climbing, rowing, tennis, mountain biking), I would be so out of shape. I only go to the gym because it helps me improve my performance, but outside of that, most of us find gyms and riding a stationary bike or running on a treadmill pretty darn boring.
There absolutely is no comparison whatsoever between riding a bike to support an active lifestyle versus riding one on the street regularly.
Or just eat a healthy balanced diet at or below your TDEE, and work out regularly. Moderation in everything and all that.
I find that just being active goes a long way towards having good heart health. Now, obviously, people with perfect eating habits and workout schedules still get heart attacks, but on average, there are enough studies showing that good and active health habits (eating right, not smoking, working out) correspond to good heart health.
Moderation does not mean that you stop eating everything you enjoy. It means that you eat them occasionally. Ensuring that you hit your protein/fat/cab macros on a weekly basis, getting enough fruits and vegetables, cutting down fried foods, sodas, and saving that burger, fries, and beer for an occasional treat.
Even in my own life, I can clearly look at those friends and colleagues who are active versus those who are fat slobs who drink ungodly amounts of beer, smoke, and watch football and suffer from heart problems at an early age. That is not including issues like sleep apnea, pulmonary problems, and just generally being unfit and unhealthy.
I rather like this short and awesome clip by Will Gadd called Move on the importance of movement. Ultimately, we all tend to fall off the wagon once in a while. But there's something to be said about just getting your feet back on the ground and just busting your ass either at the gym, playing a sport, or just being outside.
While I enjoy my time sleeping in or vegging out on the couch, I've never regretted those times when I've spent my weekends climbing, running or being outside, coming home exhausted. While I have enjoyed vacations where I've come back fatter after having spent two weeks on a beach eating and getting drunk, I am more proud of the ones where I spent two weeks out in the middle of nowhere, hiking and climbing and come home with a badass beard and smelling like sweat and earth.
There are some evenings when I am tempted to just go out with my friends, drink beer, watch TV, and crash on the couch. It takes an effort to get my ass off to a run, and come back and eat a salad and a protein shake. But over time, that pays off.
Every time I have fallen off the wagon, I can slowly see my own cardiovascular health deteriorating, in as short a time frame as just six months -- elevated cholesterol levels, shortness of breath when climbing up a flight of stairs, and a general lethargy that builds up. But when I'm actually out being active, the opposite happens -- good practices become habits. I am more active. Less lazy. The couch is a welcome occasional respite. The occasional burger and fries are a welcome treat, but not something I can do every day. The occasional beer after working out feel refreshing. And it's always awesome to see women check me out. And my physicals are something I look forward to, not something I'm afraid of.
So, yeah. Ultimately, the secret to good health (in my very humble opinion and personal experience) is good, moderate eating habits and an active lifestyle.
Have you used Airbnb? People are well aware of what they are signing up for -- as a broke and traveling student in my grad school days, I've often crashed in questionable hostels and strangers' couches. This is no different.
People make a rational, informed choice based on their needs and resources available. It's none of the state's business to interfere.
It is a transaction between two people, plain and simple.
What a silly argument. One is a drug, where addiction overrides your rational thinking ability. The other is a utilitarian necessity (i.e. shelter) and made with perfectly rational motives.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps not explicitly, but you certainly implied it.
Through fear, not genuine goodwill.
It's like someone who is good because they are constantly afraid of being sent to hell over someone who is good because they're genuinely a good person, and need no "incentive".
In each case, take away the fear and you revert back to barbarism. I'd rather have a society that is internalized with politeness and good values, not one where people constantly live in fear.
Steins;Gate bro.
Alright, since you asked nicely, here's the thread so far.
I mean to say that one need not be a Fox News fan to question His Master's Voice. For instance, I am pretty liberal on most accounts, although I consider myself fairly staunch when it comes to some fundamental principles as they are outlined in the magna carta and elsewhere - that we are all free men with inalienable rights, and that we are all innocent until proven guilty and so on.
So your assertion and assumption that those that oppose Obama watch Fox News is silly. In fact, while I do not even own a television, most of what I do enjoy watching are fairly liberal - Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow, and so on. But back to my original point -- I was merely saying that the OP isn't wrong, and that even most staunch liberals would question the Obama administration's tactics if they are halfway educated.
Take the National Defense Authorization Act, for one, codifies practices carried out by both Bush II and the Obama administrations -- in fact, they're done with bipartisan support. It provides the option for military detention for US citizens -- sure, it's not mandatory, but it's a very ominous first step. You should read what the Executive Orders actually say on this, as well, which provides sweeping powers to arrest citizens on account of national security.
The worst travesty to date is the Supreme Court decision in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project. It was brought to court by the Obama administration and argued by Elena Kagan says that even talking to terrorist groups for "strategies of nonviolence" can be considered advice, which should be considered material support. And they won. So, if you tried to talk a terrorist out of their terrorist acts and move to a path of peace, you would be providing material support. Heck, if you proselytized to a terrorist, you'd be treated the same way. These are executive decisions -- without review, without recourse, which is what makes them worse.
Take another example, that of Omar Khadr, the first Guantanamo case to come to a military commission -- not court, mind you -- under Obama. The charge was that he tried resisting an attack on his village. The kid was 15. He was labeled a terrorist and kept in Bagram in Afghanistan for 8 years and then Guantanamo after that, where he's either given the choice to plead guilty and be released in eight years or plead not guilty and be detained forever. This violates pretty much every international convention on the treatment of both soldiers and juveniles. Ironically, Khadr is a Canadian citizen, but surprisingly, Canada hasn't asked to extradite him, but I digress.
I could go on, but the fact remains that the OP is quite accurate in his assessment of the Obama administration. Anyone who does any amount of research into domestic political and IR policies can quite easily see how the administration has done a scary job of using executive orders to circumvent any opposition. It sets a very bad precedent, and it's amazing how few people are aware of it.
Obama isn't the best choice -- he was the best choice *given* the alternatives. And having strong opinions about his performance doesn't make any of us polarized, Fox News watching crazies.
What a pile of rubbish. Even pretty liberal folks, such as Noam Chomsky, have called out the Obama administration's penchant for doing that. Not only doing it, but also for setting a pretty horrible precedent by misusing the executive powers.
You said that, not me. My point was to highlight the common influences behind colonialism and American imperialism.
I wasn't talking about Americans specifically -- I was talking about the fact that wasn't the first time that something like that had happened.
But since you brought it up, as a fellow American, I disagree. After all, the Americas *were* populated by the peoples of those fine isles.
Just because someone drew an arbitrary line around a land and declared independence doesn't mean there weren't common social and cultural elements. From the sun shall never set in Britannia to the American Manifest Destiny, the story continues.
To be fair, they *did* do that ca. 1600 to the entire Indian subcontinent, at the behest of a corporation, no less ("The British East India Company"). Took ~300 years before they could be overthrown, only to end up with a much more dangerous problem (India and Pakistan, both with nuclear capabilities).
No, you really don't, as your comment below shows.
Really? What have you done lately? Perhaps you should stop trolling and consider doing something more productive.
If you are calling a man who's sacrificed his future for the future of others a narcissist for airing his opinions, then you are nothing more than a jealous little man with nothing of value to add. Please go away.
What's the name of the film? I'm now curious.
Not when you're losing weight. Or did you think that people lost weight by eating more than they burn?
What utter nonsense.
At the end of the day, you eat more than you burn = you gain weight; you burn more than you eat, you lose weight.
Do we all burn calories equally? Not really -- our levels of activity, our genetic makeup, our body composition, and many other variables play a role in determining this.
When I'm active, I can eat ~3500-4000 calories a day and I still stay in great shape. When I've fallen off the wagon, I will gain weight at ~2500 calories because I just turn into a lazy mash that couch surfs.
Does blindly counting calories make sense? Of course not -- you have to figure out what *your* threshold is. How many calories do YOU need before you start losing/gaining weight and adjust it from that point on.
But to discount counting calories in its entirety is just rubbish. Because ultimately, if you are not eating more than you burn, where is your body getting the excessive calories from?
You're an idiot.
That was von Braun, for one. For another, Oppenheimer was aghast at the destruction caused by the atomic bomb (he quoted the Bhagvad Gita, "I am become Death -- the destroyer of worlds." after the Trinity Test) and actively campaigned for non-proliferation.
If anything, his sympathies towards the other sides caused him to be a martyr to McCarthyism. Hell, even von Braun commented that, "In England, Oppenheimer would have been knighted."
Oppenheimer is the poster child for how scientists have little control over the political consequences and use of their discoveries, and how the political institutions would happily discard them once they're wrung dry.
Nah, more like studios, who are the actual content creators.
MSOs are as much at the mercy of content providers as consumers.
His (or her) anonymity does not take away from the validity of the statement.
That is patently untrue.
If anything, there are definite alternatives to biking -- you could walk or jog outdoors, or be active in many, many other ways. Hell, you could join a pickup soccer league. You could go mountain biking.
Your argument re: grocery stores is also silly because it's a cultural choice to buy groceries en masse -- once you start making frequent trips (i.e. more workouts), not only are you inclined to buy less (which is great in other ways, as it reduces junk intake and wastage), you also buy fresher produce. For generations, people have walked home with their groceries and it is only recently that we've resorted to this model of stocking your pantry once a month.
I live in New England, and the only times I really take my car are when the roads are horrible from snow or when it's raining (or snowing heavily). Otherwise, I just put my jacket on and walk or ride my bicycle. Just grab a backpack and fill it up.
I am not talking about *looking* fit, I am talking about *being* fit. The distinction is extremely important. Being active -- be it jogging, biking, or playing a sport -- makes you physically fit. We've built a culture of laziness and lethargy that you don't see anywhere else, where anything that's "dangerous" or inconvenient is relegated to unwanted status.
What a silly notion. You don't need to ride bikes *everywhere* (and nowhere did I even suggest that). However, there is no reason to be physically inactive, and attitudes such as yours is really unfortunate. We've reached a point where convenience trumps basic movement to such an extent that even the slightest suggestion of activity is considered an affront.
Sure, biking is dangerous -- so is driving a car. So is walking. Hell, life is terminal. What's your point?
I had moderated the OP as insightful, but I had to respond to your comment.
Are you kidding me? Working out on a treadmill or on an exercise bike is one of the most boring things, ever.
Will Gadd had a recent piece on this that's rather insightful: Gaddâ(TM)s Truth: What Is Real-World Fitness?. I quote below:
The idea behind actually riding a bicycle is that it eventually becomes a part of your lifestyle. Going to the local grocery store? Grabbing a cup of coffee? Going to the book store? Just hop on your bike and it becomes a quick ride. It's not boring, and it's a decent workout.
The vast majority of people do not get in shape (and even if they do, do not stay there for long) by going to the gym. I know -- I am pretty dedicated about working out, and if I did not have sports that I enjoyed (rock climbing, rowing, tennis, mountain biking), I would be so out of shape. I only go to the gym because it helps me improve my performance, but outside of that, most of us find gyms and riding a stationary bike or running on a treadmill pretty darn boring.
There absolutely is no comparison whatsoever between riding a bike to support an active lifestyle versus riding one on the street regularly.
He's not fat, he just looks big boned to an outside observer.
As someone with mod points, I almost modded you -1 Troll for kicks, but my god-like powers of self-control kicked in.
I was hoping he would answer my question on part-time doctorates and "virtual research".
But I guess entrenched elites would rather not answer anything that would give away the vicious cycle of academic research that exists today.
Or just eat a healthy balanced diet at or below your TDEE, and work out regularly. Moderation in everything and all that.
I find that just being active goes a long way towards having good heart health. Now, obviously, people with perfect eating habits and workout schedules still get heart attacks, but on average, there are enough studies showing that good and active health habits (eating right, not smoking, working out) correspond to good heart health.
Moderation does not mean that you stop eating everything you enjoy. It means that you eat them occasionally. Ensuring that you hit your protein/fat/cab macros on a weekly basis, getting enough fruits and vegetables, cutting down fried foods, sodas, and saving that burger, fries, and beer for an occasional treat.
Even in my own life, I can clearly look at those friends and colleagues who are active versus those who are fat slobs who drink ungodly amounts of beer, smoke, and watch football and suffer from heart problems at an early age. That is not including issues like sleep apnea, pulmonary problems, and just generally being unfit and unhealthy.
I rather like this short and awesome clip by Will Gadd called Move on the importance of movement. Ultimately, we all tend to fall off the wagon once in a while. But there's something to be said about just getting your feet back on the ground and just busting your ass either at the gym, playing a sport, or just being outside.
While I enjoy my time sleeping in or vegging out on the couch, I've never regretted those times when I've spent my weekends climbing, running or being outside, coming home exhausted. While I have enjoyed vacations where I've come back fatter after having spent two weeks on a beach eating and getting drunk, I am more proud of the ones where I spent two weeks out in the middle of nowhere, hiking and climbing and come home with a badass beard and smelling like sweat and earth.
There are some evenings when I am tempted to just go out with my friends, drink beer, watch TV, and crash on the couch. It takes an effort to get my ass off to a run, and come back and eat a salad and a protein shake. But over time, that pays off.
Every time I have fallen off the wagon, I can slowly see my own cardiovascular health deteriorating, in as short a time frame as just six months -- elevated cholesterol levels, shortness of breath when climbing up a flight of stairs, and a general lethargy that builds up. But when I'm actually out being active, the opposite happens -- good practices become habits. I am more active. Less lazy. The couch is a welcome occasional respite. The occasional burger and fries are a welcome treat, but not something I can do every day. The occasional beer after working out feel refreshing. And it's always awesome to see women check me out. And my physicals are something I look forward to, not something I'm afraid of.
So, yeah. Ultimately, the secret to good health (in my very humble opinion and personal experience) is good, moderate eating habits and an active lifestyle.
..says poster "Pope".
Well played.
Having read your (recent) comments, all I can say is that you are awesome and spot on. Well said.
Have you used Airbnb? People are well aware of what they are signing up for -- as a broke and traveling student in my grad school days, I've often crashed in questionable hostels and strangers' couches. This is no different.
People make a rational, informed choice based on their needs and resources available. It's none of the state's business to interfere.
It is a transaction between two people, plain and simple.
What a silly argument. One is a drug, where addiction overrides your rational thinking ability. The other is a utilitarian necessity (i.e. shelter) and made with perfectly rational motives.