Rebdragon
-
Posts
6353 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Rebdragon
-
-
I don't. What makes you think we're hardwired to not stick with one person? And why is it that after thousands and thousands of years of successful lifelong unions divorce has only started to be a problem within the last 50 years?
Are you... are you kidding? The Romans were horrendous at staying monogamous! They had worse divorce rates than we do! And with the marriages that actually did last married men and women were both encouraged by society to cheat as much as they frikin' wanted! They also notably controlled pretty much all of the known world for a millenium. And divorced a lot for most of it.
Really, "the good ol' days" weren't so perfect.
-
I get what he's saying. Parkour has become kind of viral on the web, so a lot of nerds who don't play actual sports like to pretend to be athletic by jumping over short fences and walls. Makes sense.
Parkour is amazingly useful. True parkour is not glorified though- most people glorify freerunning, or tricking. True parkour takes a simplistic elegance to look good and work properly, that is get you from A to B ad fast as possible using as little energy as possible. The best just flow.
-
I've been interested in Tricking for some years now, but because I was doing Ahtletics (highjumping and hurdles) 3-5 times a week, I couldn't find time/energy to practice is enough. I did learn some moves like backflip, btwist, wallflip, double leg etc though.
How'd you learn the double leg? I've been trying it thinking of it as a kick or a twist, and I really mess up the angle unless I have a block in front of me. How do you think about the move to make it work right?
Also, love btwists. Just hyperd mine and I'm goin for a double, which is a [bleep].
-
READ this article.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/crackeds-reluctant-advice-how-to-get-girls-to-like-you/
Its funny and reminded me if this thread.
Women are not some object or equation to solve. They're people like you and me. I don't get why that concept is difficult.
-
how do you seperate those who can and those who can't help themselves? you can't really, thus you leave those who can't in a terrible position. show me government that manages that feat, and that policy has my vote.
communism and autocracy go hand in hand: plan economy, free elections only within one political party. the ideology of equality is called anarchism. I'm not advocating equality, i'm advocating sustinance of the basic human rights for all, because they have those rights as humans regardless.
you called the policy of social democracy communist. you called every country that has that policy communist. at least now you know better, and you may want to reconsider your opinion, because you obviously believe social reform to be way more extreme and radical than it is.
you seem not to be reading what i'm posting: never hand him 10 dollars. hand him a food stamp or shelter stamp. money is often used to fuel an addiction, you can't do that with a food stamp. a stamp comes with conditions, cash doesn't.
The people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property and happiness. They have a right to not have those things taken from them. They do not have a right to have those things handed to them. It is up to the individual to attain these things for himself, if he so desires. Anything beyond that is charity and good will, not a right. So no, people don't have a right to be given fish. Not healthcare, not property, not happiness. It is up to the individual to attain these things with his own will and freedom.
Is welfare a bad thing? Not necessarily, sometimes people do need a little help in terrible times. But do they have a right to that help? I would say no, that help is a privilege.
-
Or, or, no one could be given fish. All fisherman would be expected to fish for themselves. Through a strong individual desire to obtain the most fish, most luxurious fish, and best fishing practices, the process of fishing will improve for the community and general standard of living will increase at an astounding rate, far beyond any system that just hands people other peoples fish and kills any incentive to fish more or better.
Hong Kong has awesome fishing. Look how awesome they're fish are. Frikin sweet.
-
Guys, I think I've become a flirt. Any girl I meet that's close to cute, I will flirt with. That wouldn't be a problem if I was interested but I'm not always. I'm sort of scared it'll create problems, like today I was at my friend's school and apparently it looked like we had something going on, like really badly, but I didn't want that. And I'd flirted with the cute girl from that October party when I first got high (I can refer to that event like that because everyone ITT is following the chronicles of my life) before that, and after that I flirted with a girl I met at the bus stop. Only October girl interested me.
OMG. You like girls. Welcome to being a heterosexual guy. Now go flirt more.
-
That is indeed the whole idea of a legal reform: changing the system. The current system is the most expensive one in the world, and far from the best in terms of treatment given per dollar. Changing the system gives it a whole set of different properties, so you can for instance increase coverage without raising price. That means someone makes less money (i.e. insurance companies, pharmaseutical companies, possibly doctors). That is why these groups have opposed the reform so vehemently: not due to what is ethically right, but because of their own self-interests. This is the entire point and nature of having a reform in the first place. I cannot think of anyone being against health reform, as the previous system, and the new current system are obviously both broken. The new system is simply a tad less broken than the previous one, but it still comes out terribly in comparsion with other countries.
So this is reform just for the sake of reform? Just playing around with trillions of dollars trying something new?
This new system doesn't work. The reason the current one doesn't is because there is no connection between cost and the consumer. Because employers pay for insurance there's no need to self-ration care, and no self-rationing means overusage of healthcare, and overusage means increased costs. This bill not only expands the problem, but makes it worse by having the government pay for it rather than the consumer. Taxes will increase so people will want there money's worth and will use this new government system even more. Costs can only go up because of this.
again, look at the example of Maryland: you can quite easily defy this apparent contradiction, and achieve the same high quality coverage for more people while paying less. It just means sticking up to the corporations that effectively run the US at this point in history. Similarly, considering only the facts: look at the gun lobby and the harm it causes, religious lobbies and their interest in education, millitary lobby, lobby, lobby lobby. Where did the common voter reassign their power to the corporations, rather than their own votes? Corporatism requires strict lobby regulation, and obviously this is not the case, so reform is neccessary. For a lobbyist, the right to free speech does not amount to a right to the bribery of politicians. I doubt such an argument would pass through the Supreme court though. That's the mess the american legal system is in.Do y'all have some links about this? Tried Googlin' and didn't find anything. I've only seen this new system compared to Massachussettes, and that one doesn't work.
I wonder how long america can retain its position as the flaws of its political system are made clear by polerization between the two parties. The EU is also in trouble, it is just a question before the east takes over unless vast reform takes place. In a conservatist enviornment, that's nigh on impossible.Doesn't Europe do what the US Government's trying to do...? Europe is sinking economically because it's moved so far left and socialist, while countries like China and India which remain relatively free-market economically are flourishing.
On that point, in this current global economic system, doctors go to the US for jobs in true innovation; the people who look for new ways to combat cancer and heart disease come to the United States. More doctors immigrate to the US for work than any other nation. If the US goes socialist like the rest of the Western world, where do those doctors go? Where does the drive for innovation go?
-
So any form of progressive taxation is socialism?
Actually, let me rephrase that. So any form of taxation is socialism?
Dude, no one is saying that. This is socialism, but that doesn't mean that you can just go down the gradient of taxation and call everything socialism. There's a line that's being crossed, as blurry as that line is.
-
Dunno about you, but I would rather spend my money for my benefit than spending on other people's benefit.
Say that when you start paying taxes.
I don't take anyone's opinion on this issue as meaning anything more than a pile of [cabbage] if they don't pay taxes. You don't pay taxes, you aren't part of the system. And if you aren't part of the system you don't understand the concept of cost. Things may be prettier tomorrow, but that's just because the costs aren't tangible to you.
Apart from a meager couple grand I've made, I don't pay taxes since I don't have a full-time job. And I sure as hell don't make enough to get shafted by this bill.
-
I can't believe these morons did this....It's proven most people don't want it. Now our economy is going to suck even more and there won't be any doctors. :thumbdown:
I can't say words to express the stupidity of that post, so here's a nice picture instead.
... really? He makes a valid counterpoint and all you can do is act like a child? Studies do show what he says to be true. Democrats know this to be true, it's why they were and still are so wary of following Democrat leadership- they're losing votes. And all you do is facedesk.
This.. this is why no one likes to debate politics here.
-
I don't know to be honest.
One who's grown up and can -talk-. If it's one thing that annoys me, is that a crapload of women... Wheater it's a relationship or just chatting... They are all so quiet! I hate to always having coming up with something to talk about.
I don't really have any favorite thing...
I don't know what rock you're under where all the women you date aren't talkative/chatty. I don't think that rock exists. I think you're just too nervousy chatty and don't let people cut in. I don't think you appreciate a little silence.
-
1. People that do something that is innapropriate and you tell them to stop, and they think it's funny so they do it again and again and again until you ignore them and they get bored or you punch them in the face.
2. Drivers who pass me on my right on the interstate. Whereas (in America) you're always suppose to pass on the left, well some mother effers want to go 25 over the speed limit so they pull around and pass me on the right. That pisses me off right, so I floor it and pass them again, then pull over in front of them and hit the breaks. I've nearly killed people, but they get my point.
Sure, this may not be about stupid people but rather more about people that annoy me.
So you're not only a crappy driver who doesn't understand the concept of the left lane (a major problem among Americans), but you also turn into a psycho driver when you get passed. I know every driver thinks they're great and everyone else has kinks to work out, but nothing about what you said makes you sound in any way like a good or sane driver. If you're not passing, get the [bleep] in the right lane. If someone wants to pull fifteen over, get out of their way. If you really think there's a problem with their speed, let the cops deal with it.
You're job is simply to not slow the flow of traffic. Work on that.
-
I'm really just better than other people because it's who I am.
I don't hold it against anyone, though. Not their fault or mine.
Do you realize that all you ever do is make stupid sophmoric jokes that no one laughs at? Seriously, whenever people are having a serious discussion you always seem to chime in with a terrible joke about how cool you think you are.
It's been going on for a while. Please, stop. Or actually make your posts funny I guess.
-
Man-made global warming is a myth.
Tell Al gore with his nobel peace prize to stop riding around in a private jet trashing our atmosphere.
Plenty of seats in coach for his large "green" [wagon].
Al Gore isn't a proper counterpoint for climate change. Sure he obviously doesn't believe in it, but he's a stupid politician so that doesn't really mean much. The truth lies in the truthseekers, the scientists, not the fools who represent it.
-
Ultimately anything we say here will hit a dead end because you and I believe different things about what the data says about climate change. From what I've seen all I know is that climate science is shaky at best, with highly speculative and often contradictory results. You believe, I think, that the world will end within the next century, maybe two if we don't change our ways, based on the data climate scientists have found. So based on that we won't really get anywhere arguing your first point, nor your unfunny joke.
Holding people accountable for their beliefs with money is a smart but economically silly idea. If you could actually get people who believe in climate science to pay another 1% of their income, more power to you. Not that I can say anythong since it's just an idea, but I'd be very amazed if even a fraction of a fraction of people actually were willing to pay more.
I know my position and speech is acrid. I'm not going to pretend that it's not. I don't believe in the silly philosophy that we can throw money at every specious media forced hot button topic and expect that to fix everything. Politicians warp the idea of green energy in a way that makes them look better, that gets them votes and supposedly makes the world better. After spending every free moment i had last week crunching numbers, all I can say is that green energy policy nowadays is nothing more than a facade. If climate scientists actually did what was right, rather than what got them political funding, money would be put into making carbon-free emissions economically viable. The world won't end in the next twenty years, why can't we wait that long to possibly double or triple the amount of green energy we can buy?
So, as far as I know, your smug dogma is ridiculous. Your tone implies that your beliefs are written in holy stone, unequivocal and perfectly backed. The way your refer to people who don't agree with you as people who can "fend for themselves" pisses me off a great deal, to say the least.
-
I just spent ten hours a week over the past two weeks (20 total) doing an engineering project for one of my classes. This project is a "Green Neutrality Project" for the city my college is in. Over these past twenty hours I and four other members of my group researched, consulted, and crunched numbers on every possible option for making our town completely carbon neutral. We calculated solar energy based on irradiance per square meter and dozens of available solar panels, biomass based on tree density, spacing, and energy density, wind based on wind speed and Bernoulli, hydro based on basic power equations, and heat based on Carnot engines. We also looked into various other options too.
To show for all our hard work, were able to power less than a third of the small town with nearly all of the available green energy available, and that third costs more than double what coal based electricity costs now to power the enter town.
So, basic idea? Green energy production now is just self gratification. Money should be put into research, because without any major scientific breakthroughs green energy will never ever be economically feasible as a true replacement. It just can't happen with the technology we have nowadays.
-
I'm not saying homosexuality is a choice, in the vast majority of cases I know of it's not. I'm just saying it's possible, at least for girls.
-
I wear suits. [bleep]ing often. Think NPH as Barney Stinson - actually very similar in features and hair, along with the whole suit thing. I started my suit thing before I watched How I Met Your Mother, but now that I like that show, I just hopped on board.
You know that's weird, right?
-
Romy, I know a few people who decided to go from being straight all their life to turning gay.
Admittedly they were all girls, but the point still stands.
-
For weight lifting live for every day, not the end goal. For weight you should be able to lose that easily at your age if you exercise and lay off the soda.
-
Insanity is used in less than 1% of cases and on the cases it is used it works less than a quarter of the time.
Stop living like you think hollywood is reality.
-
Does anyone know of a site or news source that is unbiased and extensively explains the true science of climate change? I havn't had any luck, so I kind of fall into a state of not-caring since it seems like no one can be trusted for proper information.
-
I don't like not reading an entire topic before posting, but with that wall of text and my response not being related to it, I am going ahead and just posting.
The topic title says all theist and atheist TIFers, isn't everyone one or the other (or undecided) meaning you want everyone to look at this topic? Why don't you just say everyone?
Because some people like me are agnostic.
Logical burn.
If you could have a say on how your tax dollar is spent
in Off-Topic
Posted
Have you ever actually payed taxes? 70-80%? Where's the incentive to work? What is this, a fake sense of altruism?
And dropping military funding? That's the one thing I'd pay for, apart from education. It's a vital aspect of a developed nation in a world where threats occur and need to be contained. That's the real world by the way.