Bloodstain

Hey, if you wanna spend time looking up old stuff knock yourself out. I hate you. My friend of 15+ years does the chew with his mouth open, really loud, and I don't know why or how but he SUCKS his food. I've given up trying to get him to stop

You're researching an outdated method. Check out the IPIP NEO. On topic: My number one pet peeve is when people making those disgusting wet chewing noises. CHEW WITH YOUR GOD DAMN MOUTH CLOSED, THERE IS NO REASON TO BE MAKING THOSE STUPID NOISES

Not necessarily social, it's just that extroverts require more stimulation than introverts. Eg. Extroverts prefer music louder than introverts, and perform better with louder background noise when doing a task. And it's not that introverts don't like social situations, they just don't always seek them out and prefer smaller gatherings over large ones. They're stimulated a lot by their own thoughts However, the "type" stuff (Jungian & Byers-Briggs), like INTJ and all that is pretty much considered useless by personality psychologists now. Now it's the big 5: Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism

I gave a homeless dude 2 bux once, then he said "actually lunch is 8 dollars", then I looked at him and noticed that he looked like he was addicted to an unsavory drug, and walked away. I don't know where he's buying lunch, but I can't think of anywhere near where he was that it would cost that much. People walk by the bus stop at my university frequently asking for change (I use people instead of homeless because I don't know that they're homeless really), I don't give them change because it's always the same ones. Also there are a bunch of missions and shelters in the area, it really depresses me when I'm getting on the bus and I see someone picking through the trash for something to eat though

Not that I'm defending it, but what the above poster said. If they were allowed to do this, then nobody would pay the fee until their house went up in flames

No one DESERVES to lose their house because they didn't pay a $75 fee. Like I said before, why couldn't the county/town/whatever just build the fee into property taxes? It's the governments job to keep people safe and provide public services, not let people's houses burn down. A house is a huge amount of money, losing it is devastating, especially when the fire department COULD have saved it but didn't because $75 is such a huge amount of money. I can see why some people would see that the family should have seen it coming, but they didn't DESERVE this.

Well if there wasn't a insurance system, there'd be no freeloaders right? I don't get why the county or their small town or whatever wouldn't just build the fee into their property tax or something. Seems like something organized crime would do though. "You didn't pay your protection money, now watch your store burn", except instead of burning the building down they just watched an already burning building go down. Also, IIRC, this is [cabbage] like they did in ancient Rome, if you didn't pay they knocked your building down when it caught on fire so it wouldn't spread. Pretty heartbreaking tbh

Yer, really wish people would stop coming and necroing month+ old threads

Sounds too good to be true. Not really sure how believable that is... There are some people that beg/pan handle/are "homeless" as their job. They own a house and car, but they just pretend to be homeless, there's one in our city that does that. Our paper ran a story on him a couple years back. They definitely aren't the majority, but they're out there

Psychopaths/sociopaths/serial killers are incredibly rare anyway Most of my close friends are sociopaths. My friends are pyromaniacs, anti-social, kleptomaniacs, AND sociopaths all in one. :cool:

Or maybe he should prove himself before running his mouth.

What's your diet like? I always find that more interesting than what people lift, it varies much more from person to person than lifting. Dunno if this thread will get off the ground much though, seems there aren't really any regulars (and the ones that are use the what did you do today thread) and this sub forum seems to mostly be people asking where to start. Oh well, if this thread gets going then good

Short answer: Eat below maintenance level calories + Cardio (personally HIIT sounds best to me). 180 x 14 = 2520 calories to maintain current weight, so try 2200, if you aren't getting results you want after 3 weeks try something like 2000 for example. Although, you're weight is right where it should be (a good general rule is 1 lb of weight for every cm), I'd say put on muscle. If you want to do that eat more (BUT healthy, 1.5x bodyweight in protein, try to restrict fat to 20%). Post I made on zybez about working out at home here's a site that makes keeping track of carbs/calories/fat/protein VERY VERY easy, and you should use it regardless. http://www.livestrong.com/ Sign up, log in, go under tools -> myplate, and then add everything you eat that day and it'll give you your calorie intake for each thing you add, as well as carbs/protein/fat. Also just a general health comment, get more sleep.

They're the exception, and since people still don't know the exact inner workings of sociopaths, who knows why they don't have morals. Also, I'm probably getting this mixed up with a legal defense, but IIRC sociopaths recognize that other people have morals. Psychopaths/sociopaths/serial killers are incredibly rare anyway Yer, my dog's found some dead animals and eaten them, makes me worry about what kind of parasites and stuff the animals are carrying though

Doesn't really matter, but if you're trying to gain, it's a good idea to eat before bed. Otherwise you're going 8 hours without any sustenance.

Interestingly, those are the animals we consider most social.

It's kinda moved past morals and into emotions. Morals are a human invention kinda, so of course animals don't have it. And we're a special kind of animal

How do we know that animals aren't self aware? Mirror test is the best we got.

And how is that? We see morality as something that is of two states, "right" or "wrong". As others have posted, some things are generally considered to be immoral, but with many things there are many differing opinions about the morality of something. An animal cannot comprehend right or wrong the way we see them. An animal does something for reward or by instinct (which humans do to a degree as well). Ah, so the argument is that animals do not have morals because even though they do what is instinctively good for them, they don't necessarily know that what they are doing is right, they just do it. Right? Exactly. It's just the concept and understanding of what they're doing that they're missing, not the actions themselves. So then how could we go about finding out if they have this "understanding"? Well, to me it would seem that to understand something is morally good or bad (which I think is silly, morals are invented by humans), you'd have to be aware of yourself and the world around you. Not many animals are self aware, and none except humans are capable of reason, right? Fulfilling drives, like hunger, thirst, reproduction, exercise, etc. Physically feeling good and happy aren't the same anyway

Uh, so how do they know it was because they had empathy? Seems like jumping to conclusions to me

From what I remember from the history channel program, Moses lived in the area, so he had intimate knowledge of when the water would be low enough for them to cross.

History (or discovery maybe) had a program on a couple months ago about Moses, and they included this in it. The part about the red sea parting actually being caused by winds, which Moses would have known about since he lived in the area and stuff. And also the fire that he used, and how Moses was a [bleep] who made his guys slaughter an entire village and stuff. It was pretty good.

But morals aren't the same thing, nothing is inherently right or wrong. We decide what is right or wrong, and that takes a higher brain function than other animals have imo. Taking care of the sick in your pack isn't inherently right or wrong, neither is culling the herd.

Well my guess would be it could possibly be that they are pack animals, so the more healthy members they have, the more they theoretically prosper so to speak. If they're related, then ensuring the sick live would mean their families genes get passed on. Some sort of evolutionary reason. There doesn't seem to be concrete evidence one way or the other, but I'm inclined to believe that an organism that can't reason, isn't self aware, and has a low brain function and small brain doesn't have emotion, or morals (which are unique to humans as I see it). That's probably part of the reason a wolf/dog/whatever trapped in a trap will chew it's leg off to get out, they experience pain different because of a lack of emotion. That's how I see it.

The way I look at it, slayer is for the most part jack of all trade but master of none. When you train slayer, you're training slayer and combat and summoning (charms). Even though it isn't the best all the time for combat/summoning, you're killing three birds with one stone