Myweponsg00d

I get furious at halo because my team is so damn awful always. I will gain a level and then lose two because of awful awful luck with teams

I still need some clarification about your gym routine. To me it looks like you are saying that you do a full body routine 4 times per week. If this is the case you are lifting far too often. For muscle growth you should look to hit each body part no more than 2 times per week. Some people actually grow the best when hitting each group only once per week or once every 5 days. Also you should add a few key exercises. Bench press, squat, and deadlift should be a part of your program for sure. These exercises are slightly more dangerous and so you should be sure to use proper form and not go crazy. I recommend using dumbbells for the bench to help avoid shoulder impingement. Also, are your lifts progressing? A key part to muscle growth is continuing to lif heavier and heavier. As far as nutrition is concerned, be sure that you are getting 1-1.5g of protein per pound of lean body mass. Fat is also important. Fat will help regulate your hormones and lead to muscle gain. The common figure is around .4g of fat per pound of body weight. Eating fat had nothing to do with gaining fat FYI. The rest of your calories should come from carbs. As someone already mentioned, you should be eating a surplus of 500 calories if you'd like to gain a pound per week. If you have any further questions let me know. The first step I would take if I were you is to start counting your calories and reexamine your lifting program

Thats because the type of food you eat doesn't make you gain weight, the quantity of food does. You probably feel like you have a "fast metabolism" because you can eat junk and not get fat, but you are probably just eating a relatively low ammount of it.

I care about my weight, but only because it is a personal hobby of mine. It doesn't really have anything to do with self image, I just like the process of altering my training/nutrition to see gains in muscle and losses of fat. Lets me know that I am in charge of my body.

Yes, this is what I'm saying. Saying that you can't have a strong family if you are in a gay marriage is probably the most offensive thing that you can get away with in today's society. Sure, making a black only water fountain was "worse" in terms of how we view it, but at the time it shared a similar place in social norms: the verge between culturally appropriate and unacceptable. A huge thing that defines the American right-wing viewpoint is the idea that the federal government should not gain too much power, influence, or control over individuals. I don't think that most of the Republican objections are about the bill not being economically advantageous or any such thing. The opposition is to the idea of the bill. It is "un-American". Republicans in America fight to keep our country Capitalist in every way possible. The healthcare reform is too socialist for them.

I think he is doing the modern equivilant. Of course, if anyone took a fire hose and sprayed gay people it would be totally outrageous. But such behavior was not seen as blatantly socially unacceptable in the days you mention. Today, of course, it is not blatantly socially unacceptable to call gay families inherently weak families, because we are still unfortunately fighting for gay rights. But I think that 50-60 years down the road from now (just like when we look back at black rights) the current oppression towards gays will seem just as inconsiderate and bigoted as racism towards blacks now seems. It is all a matter of framing. He is pushing his descrimination to the highest tolerable level in today's society. He might not be making straight-only water fountains, but he's doing the modern-day equivilant. And again, it wasn't an argument or an analogy. It was me vocalizing how ridiculous I feel this man is. I didn't lay down a dissertation that presented a series of logical arguments that relied on gay-bashing being identical to slavery. There was no argument. I just think the man is a fool and wanted to vocalize this in an overt way.

Understood. But your embellishment was completely out of line. Lately our public discourse has become increasingly hostile, with the right calling the left socialists, communists, and anti-American and the left calling the right racist and anti-Civil Rights Act while both adhere to Godwin's Law. By exaggerating your feelings to equate the opposition of gay rights to the opposition of civil rights for blacks you're only contributing to that hostile discourse. We both know that this is a ridiculous comparison and contributes nothing to the point you were trying to make, that Santorum is a bigot for being anti-gay rights, as evidenced by the last like 7 posts being completely unrelated. He said that strong families aren't gay families. You seriously think this isn't outrageous? It angers me greatly...

Additionally, I haven't made one comment about whether or not gay marriage should be legal. My objection was your analogy. In fact, I acknowledged there's an argument for gay rights in the post you quoted. However, if you want to play these straw man games: gays have the same rights as anyone else. Gay males have just as much a right to marry a female as straight males do and straight males and gay males alike can not marry other males. I feel indecent just typing that out, but it's the same fallacy you're making. Jesus christ, it's not like I said "Denying gay marriage is exactly like slavery, and slavery was abolished, so therefore gay marriage should not be denied as I have undeniabley proven" I was just saying that I see all cases of descrimination based on race, sex, or sexual preference as being unacceptable. Far be it from me to embellish on my language to exaggerate my feelings.

Probably because theres no modern day equivilent for all of the stuff that happened 60 years ago, because people are now concerned with being politically correct. I mean, they don't hang signs outside marriage liscense offices that say "No gays allowed". But basically, they may aswell. Think about it. Would it make sense to stop Mexicans from getting married? So why can we just stop gays from getting married? It is just another group of people.

Love when people compare gay marriage to slavery. Gives me a good laugh every time. I'm comparing the opression of blacks to the opression of gays. Slavery too much? Fine, then how bout I compare it to telling the black people to ride in the back of the bus? Is that civil opression close enough for you? Love when people say "Love when..." sarcastically because they can't address the actual issue.

What do you mean "steady rhythm"? You mean you are trying to clap in even intervals? You don't need to do that. Just do the push ups and clap. The point of the exercise isn't to keep a beat to a song. It's to work your muscles.

That is Buddhism not Nihilism. A Nihilist is closer to an athiest then a Buddhist. Buddhists are atheists... Yes but it really comes down to how they live their life, a Buddhist would be dispassionate like a Jedi or something while an Atheist might still desire a permanent universe, system of government, etc. I guess the main difference between the two is a Buddhist understands there is nothing and an atheist may say there isnt eternal life but may say something still is eternal. A Nihilist may have a similar belief but how they live is closer to an atheist then a Buddhist An atheist is a person who does not believe in a god or gods. Other than that, an atheist can think/believe/talk about anything. An atheist can be a communist, democrat, republican, anarchist, whatever. The only thing that atheism is is a disbelief of god. Talking about "atheists' desires" for a permanent universe or government system is totally silly.

I just can't believe some of the crap that comes out of Santorum's mouth. If you can publicly be a bigot towards gay people, why not just get it over with and say that you're in support of reinstating slavery? The land of the free...the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Oh wait, except if your idea of happiness involves starting a family with another man. What a jackass.

Actually, Buddhism is accepting of other religions and atheism. I understand that this is one specific religion, but it just goes to show that a religion doesn't have to be something where you become crazy obsessive about what other people believe and waste your life trying to make people feel like they deserve eternal punishment just because they don't think that a bearded man rose from the dead 2000 years ago.

Nobody has mentioned eating? When I feel unhappy I fry myself up 3-4 eggs, some homefries with bacon, and some heavily buttered toast. Wash it down with a cup of coffee. My favorite meal <3

No, they were discussing a heretic belief that was springing up among other things. The books in the New Testament, as I said, were put together pretty much 200 years before it. There was no evidence that this was discussed at Nicaea then, and even less evidence that Constantine had anything to do with the bible (other than commission 50 copies of it). The list of books, while widely accepted, was never really "ratified" until the Council of Trent, in 1546. Not true the unaccepted books were considered heresy even back then. Also here is a little other fun fact (that I am not sure if I mentioned originally) NONE of the gospels were written by the apostles they were all written a generation later by their followers. There are other gospels who are arguably as old as mathew, mark, luke and john that were banned (whether banned at Nicaea) or just that the early Christendom collectively felt they werent legitimate and made them heresy to read. I admit my source for this isn't amazing, its one of those history channel documentaries. They made several claims: 1.) the council of Nicaea didnt outright ban them but every book that made it into the bible were books that Constantine himself approved of 2.) the Gnostic gospels were later considered heresy because they had different views of jesus then Constantine's state religion agreed to. 3.) the aposels couldn't write (or didn't) and they spoke of their lessons and experiences with Jesus to their followers which later got written down 40 years after the events occurred. 4.) there is also a gospel they suspect to be earlier then the 4 in the bible which only listed what Jesus said and made no reference to the stories and miracles that you see in the bible. If the source is correct then if you were to say that the banned gospels are inaccurate because their followers smugged information to suit their beliefs and took an apostles name to confirm it then why should I suspect that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John arent all the same? If the source isnt correct then disregard this post [depending on which information from the source is wrong] The History channel also runs shows about how people think that aliens who came from other planets have been a major part of human history and are responsible for significant human progress. They also ran a special called "the real face of Jesus" The History channel is far from academic.

This is the same logic that causes plenty of good people to waste thousands of dollars on lottery tickets and slot machines.

Try this solution:

Nope...us 9'ers have small feet compared to the average man...

9 (men's). Feelsbadman... But don't worry, the saying about shoe size doesn't apply to me.

I wouldn't call these absolute truths. It would be possible for somebody to be created in a laboratory, and what's your definition of "dieing"? (It's dying btw)

We also do a lot of in-thread moderating but in most cases, if the posts aren't removed and a moderator just comes in asking people to stop, people will continue the discussion anyway because the posts are still there, taunting them to reply. This is particularly true if it's a flame war and people are insulting each other or jumping down their throats. But by removing the posts, people don't feel inclined to respond to each other anymore since the posts are no longer there. I still feel like this solution is like cutting off your finger if you get a splinter. What is the big deal if people keep responding to each other? If anyone is put off by the discussion they can just leave the thread. I think if people are choosing to participate in a flame war it is the moderators job to resolve the dispute, not simply hide it. The problem is that it takes time and patience to resolve a dispute. It takes seconds to click "move to the black hole forums" or whatever it is that you do with the posts.

As a teacher, I have to say that I am suprised that there isn't more support for cutting spending on books and materials. I could teach kids with nothing more than a small blackboard and a piece of chalk. Theres wayyyyy too much money being spent on flashy technology and books, which won't improve the quality of information that I am conveying to the students. The single most important factor in the classroom is having a good teacher. Take away our books, internet, and computer projectors. We'll make it through. Most of us spend our own money for the good materials anyway, because the districts buy useless junk. The next thing that should be cut after that is field trips. Then music/arts. Then athletics. Sure, athletics isn't that important to kids recieving a good education, but the athletics programs basically pay for themselves..I mean it wasn't uncommon for us to bring in nearly 2000 dollars just from selling raffle tickets at a football game. If you're going to cut anything in athletics, it could be the pay for the coaches. Teachers who can also coach make like 50% more, and it definitely is not 50% more work.

The shadow would "be there" but it is not a thing. A shadow is not an actual object, it is our interpretation of a difference between light and dark. Your situation of "ripping a hole off of something" is really similar to this shadow stuff because neither are actual objects. Physical questions deal with things that actually exist in the physical world. A shadow does not exist in the sense that a rock, bird, or electron exists. I agree, the concepts can exist, otherwise we would have no reason to invent the concepts. But our concept of the number one, our definition of a triangle, etc, are not goverened by the physical world, and do not rely on any laws of nature. The number one and the triangle play by our rules because we know absolutely everything there is to know about them, because we created them. A gust of wind is not an abstract concept. It is air molecules moving through the air. Things can exist without humans. Basically I would say that anything made out of matter is a physical thing. Anything that isn't made out of matter does not exist. A hole is not made out of matter, a lie is not made out of matter, the number one is not made out of matter. These things are classifications invented entirely by us. We know what is one and what is not one, because we invented one. It doesn't break rules of math. Maybe an extra apple appeared in your bag as soon as you removed the other one. Yes of course, that bird house would be there. But I hope you are seeing now that asking some type of physical question about this "hole" doesn't make sense. If we asked: Can the hole on that bird house fall off and go onto the ground? The question doesn't make sense because the hole isn't even there to begin with. It can't go anywhere because it isn't anywhere. Lets compare two questions: "Can this rock travel the entire way to the Sun after I throw it?" versus "Can a completely dead cat be completely alive?" The first question is not an inherent physical impossibility. Sure, we need to label the meaning of a rock, the meaning of traveling, and all of the other words. But, there is nothing inherent about the words I used that "contaminates" the question with an abstract classification to limit the system. The only criteria for this question is that some physical object undergoes physical motion and reaches another physical object. No matter what we called these objects we would be asking the same question, could it hit the Sun? The second question is purely impossible. If we call something dead, we know it isn't alive. I can't imagine there being an object that we would ever be able to call dead and alive at the same time. To answer this question, I didn't even need to think about any scientific knowledge that we have, I just needed to think about the words (using abstract knowledge). To answer the first question, the definitions of the words did not lead to any specific answer, meaning that the question would be answerable only by using physical knowledge about the universe. My abstract knowledge was meaningless in answering the first question. You've got it right. Anything is possible, if we are talking about physical events. 200 years ago, people would have been willing to bet their lives that time runs the same every single place in the universe. Now we have knowledge that convinces us that time is only relative to your frame of reference, and can pass differently in different places. This is now a "law" of physics, but 200 years ago, the reverse would have been a "law". Hell, theres a possibility that we could make some discovery in the future that over-turns Einsteins work with relativity. You never ever know. A fundamentally important fact of scientific progress is that you can never EVER know anything about the physical world for absolute certainty. No matter how ridiculous I think God is, I would never ever claim to know for 100% certainty that he does not exist. I think you have misinterpreted the atheist stance, and the way any scientist would look at any hypothesis. I'm not saying "I think you're wrong, unless you can prove that you're right" What science says is "Give me a reason to believe you" Until we have a reason to believe that a god created the universe, there is no reason that we should perfer the god theory over the sphaggeti theory, the virtual reality theory, the monkey theory, the XYZ theory...etc. We could make up a million different theories at this time that have the same ammount of evidence as a god would. (note: by saying "no reason" I mean no scientific reason. "I want to believe" is a reason, yes, but it is not a scientific one) I'm not saying you're wrong about God. I'm saying we have no reason to think anything about before the Big Bang. I gotta go, might get to the rest of this later.

A shadow is not an object. And if you call a shadow an area of darkness created by blocked light, it is three dimensional. It would be reminiscent of a triangle, but again, it would not be a true triangle. Your whole point was to make an argument that a triangle exists, not a triangle-like pattern. Again, you don't have a method for knowing this with absolute knowledge. All knowledge we form about the physical world is based off an assumption that things will behave consistently. Just because every bag of apples in history behaved that way doesn't mean that your bag of apples definitely will without a shadow of a doubt. How do you know when there is a hole in an object? Does this thing have a hole in it? Most people would call it so. But this relies on an interpretation of the physical space. Really, the bird house is an object with one continuous surface. Nothing is really "broken" or "missing" in the object. We just see this object as something that "should" be a box, but instead it is a box with a "hole" Yes, nothing in science, to the strictest meaning of the word, is absolute. Theres just no method for attaining absolute certainty. Scientific laws are pretty damn reliable, but to call them absolute is a mislabeling of our methods for discovering absolute knowledge of the physical world. Again, but it was what I would argue to be corrupted by abstract classification. I've already conceded that there can be no dead living things, no dry wet objects, and no round triangles. Thats because of the way you are classifying the objects into abstract categories of knowledge. Physical possibility must be examined without such abstract classification. Reexamine the question "Can a pile of bones start moving?" This is different from "Can a dead thing be alive?" because when you use the word "dead" you are claiming to have knowledge of what the object can possibly do. And the question would require the object to be "dead" and "alive" at the same time. The question about the pile of bones may seem similar, but it is not assuming any type of permanent knowledge about the system of objects. I have said before that if your meaning of impossible is "something that will likely never happen in my lifetime or even anyone elses lifetime" then there are many impossible occurances. By "possible" I mean anything with a non zero probability. Not something that is far away from zero, but any number that is NOT zero. I would call that technically "possible" but "improbable" Abstract knowledge and physical knowledge sure do go hand in hand, but that doesn't mean you can't break apart knowledge into these two categories. Ice is actually less dense than water due to the hydrogen bonds. If ice was more dense, it would sink in water. I dont understand your meaning. How can there be a question about whether or not a rock is touching a log?