Range_This11

Well, I might as well catch up on the movies I've seen lately. Oblivion 5/10. It was about average. Lincoln 6/10. As a historian, you're supposed to leave it at the door. Sometimes you just can't. Man on the Moon 7.5/10. There were really times I would forget it was Jim Carrey, and I do so very much love Andy Kaufman. Wild at Heart 7/10. Typical David Lynch bizarro, which I love. Metropolitan 9.5/10. If you are an intellectual or just very well-read, you will LOVE this movie. A tongue-in-cheek movie about NYC bourgeois college kids and their 90 minute discussion of party etiquette and social norms. Very fast paced and witty.

Awwwww, the fabled internet tough guy routine I'm just an old codger, now get off my lawn.

And now 17 for bumping an old useless thread.

That SHG by Alfredsson was crazy. So glad the Senators won, watching Cindy Crysby lose is very satisfying.

Shouldn't have gone hoggin' bro

I'll be the first to admit I've lived a pretty high-tempo lifestyle as far as partying goes over the last five years. I've seen my share of drunk hook-ups, but my rule was never take anyone home you didn't know before that night. I know a lot of people who are a lot more promiscuous than I ever was. There are two kinds of people: people that can handle their booze, and people that can't. The second kind are the ones who are in danger of doing really dumb shit when they're drunk, like making really poor sexual choices.

Now I wouldn't go that far 8-)

Rule of thumb: when she's really drunk, unless she begs you, don't have sex with her. This solves so many problems. First of all, you're being respectful to a woman who is probably much drunker than you are (women get more intoxicated than men, typically). Second, when you both wake up in the morning and she realizes you didn't take advantage of her state of mind, she is going to have much more respect for you as a person. Chances are that if you treat her with respect, you're likely to get further with her the next time. As far as the legality of the situation, I think it's a dirty and awful trick for any person to say "I was drunk and unable to make decisions for myself, therefore you raped me." Obviously there are cases where someone was clearly passed out drunk that was rape--that's different. But from a guy's perspective, there is a lot you can do to keep yourself from being put in that position. Namely, what I listed above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvania_University ??

Ah but the University of Minnesota was founded 74 years earlier :razz:

It's funny because I'm moving to that state. WHY GOD WHY What would ever compel you to move to this godforsaken place? Going to UM U OF M or just "The U." Just a heads up for you. I have tons of friends that live in MPLS and I go there on the weekends to party. It's a lot of fun but there are some parts of Murderapolis you will not want to go to :wink: Edit: The cultural scene is excellent too if you don't mind a lot of hipsters. Lots of theatres. Also, bring a bike. It's the most bike-friendly city in the U.S.

It's funny because I'm moving to that state. WHY GOD WHY What would ever compel you to move to this godforsaken place?

Well, we got 6" of snow today AGAIN. Predictions for this weekend are 70F. I can't wait to move out of this state.

Following that logic, once the suspect in this case is caught in this case he/she will no longer be a terrorist?

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/claire-mccaskill-terrorism-boston-marathon-sandy-hook-90213.html I find this to be a very interesting argument. If we can put Senator McCaskill's clear anti-gun agenda aside, I still think it is a valid argument. We associate bomb with terrorist, and terrorist with middle eastern. It's easier to point fingers toward a country on the other side of the globe and say, "that country is full of terrorists." We do not immediately make that association when a white male massacres a group of theatre-goers or school children.

I'm being a cynic so this debate doesn't derail the topic and so I can go drink beers with my friends in Minneapolis tonight. Also, because if I were to subscribe to a school of philosophy, which I don't, I would be and Existentialist and they are, or have been labeled as, cynics :)

I said earlier that we shouldn't go down this road. You and I have read Rousseau, Locke, Kant, and a lot of other philosophers. People have been debating this for hundreds of years without a definite answer. I doubt we can come to any sort of revelation in a TIF discussion. The bottom line is that some people will be (or feel) oppressed no matter what type of government is in place. Oppression is inevitable. I stand by my non-violent principles. I'm not about to provide a 2-3 page analytical response to your essay prompts, Omar. I did that for four years during my undergraduate. :P Rights, government, society, morals--they're all just made up things anyways. It is people that give them worth and meaning. When the majority of people want something, eventually it will happen, and any social construct standing in their way will fall.

I don't see the application of lethal force, if necessary in self-defense, as taking a life. Rather, the attacker forfeit his life in initiating a confrontation, and the defender is acting to preserve his. Sure, firearms put the weak, the elderly, the small, and the invalid on better footing against a physically-superior assailant. How can we base a suggestion to restrict or prohibit the carry of firearms on this? No it's not an argument for gun control, it was just a statement. And I agree with it. As I said earlier, I don't believe it is within anyone's rights to take another human being's life. I think we just disagree. I would not be so fast and loose with the term "aggression" as it applies to the government. The government is a representation of the will of the people, after all. Certainly not the will of all people, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. You know as well as I do that 100% agreement is impossible. On every single issue, whether it is trivial (what color to paint the lines on the freeway) or constitutional (guns, discrimination, etc.), there are going to be naysayers. Let's not go down that road. The government is a representation of the will of the people. I didn't say "the government is a representation of all people." The "will of the people" implies that those who are motivated or compelled to vote in a certain way will have the power.

I would not be so fast and loose with the term "aggression" as it applies to the government. The government is a representation of the will of the people, after all.

Actually, I was raised in a rural Wisconsin farm town where everyone has guns. I've been around guns my entire life. I also live in a city now that has a very high crime rate and I deliver food to all sorts of people. The point I always make here is that it is not my right to take another human being's life, no matter how they have wronged me. It is also, I believe, no one's right to take another human life. I believe taking a human life is a lot easier and impersonal with a gun, and allows for those who may not be physically stronger than others to be equalized in the life-taking business.

Yeah, see it all works out great and logical in theory. The dude could have easily turned around and shot even if I had a bead and the drop on him. No one will ever change my view on guns that they are nothing more than an extension of the ego. I'm a non-violent person.

I had a gun pulled on me, cocked, and pointed in my face once. The guy robbed me of nothing really, but even if I had a gun it would have done absolutely no good. As soon as I reached for anything besides my wallet, he would have shot me. It becomes a who can pull out their gun faster situation. I have a feeling a lot of the people on this thread that are so fervent about guns have never been in a situation like this. It's all a lot of role-playing inside their heads and posturing.

I take it that you haven't quite figured out yet that intolerance is a one way street, you're only intolerant if you disagree with the "progressive" vision for the future. I say let them keep up the name calling. Every time they call you a name without basis, they're dulling their ammunition as well as letting their ugly hatred and real intolerance show through. I think we shall see in 30-50 years who is bigoted. The same argument was made by the racists during the Civil Rights era.

Lmao, I saw so many friends pissed off by the finale on Facebook last night. This show is a serious turd sandwich. I stopped watching it after the 1st season.

Historically the government's interest would specifically be in procreation, as adopting someone else's child isn't growing your population. Not such a relevant issue these days, I just thought i'd make the observation. Yes and that was precisely my point. When the population of the US and the world was relatively low and many children died during birth or shortly after, it was good to have more children. Now there is no reason to continue expanding our population and the government has no interest in it.