Valsuelm

Damn you moderators. Damn you, for closing the Gamer Gate thread! It was the best thing to happen in WoT in the last year. It kept the trolls busy.

And numerous other non profane words.

And that's a perspective I'm 100% behind, provided two requisites are met. To wit, that the subject in question has his cognitive abilities absolutely unimpaired and that he is aware of all available alternatives and can choose between them freely. Unfortunately, with overweight people, this usually isn't the case, from my experience at least. When the alternative is suicide, almost anything is better. If only because you cannot rectify and try different things after committing suicide, and you can always kill yourself later if literally everything else has failed. People consider suicide when they see no way out of the situation they are in. That doesn't always mean there is no way out, and in this particular context there very much is a way out that is attainable for just about anyone with adequate guidance and support. Exactly this. The core problem with the implementation of libertarian ideals like "people have a right, hell, a moral obligation to kill themselves if that's what they feel would improve on their situation" is that they're entirely dependent on the idea of human beings as rational actors motivated purely by enlightened self-interest, which, as cognitive science has repeatedly shown us, is laughably false. Who on earth knows better than adult person X what's good for adult person X other than adult person X? By your logic is laughable that adult person X knows what's good for themselves. How on earth, if no one knows what's good for themselves can anyone possibly know what's good for someone else? Either you're really not explaining yourself well, or the cognitive research you hold in such high regard is bunk (or at least your interpretation of it is).

And that's a perspective I'm 100% behind, provided two requisites are met. To wit, that the subject in question has his cognitive abilities absolutely unimpaired and that he is aware of all available alternatives and can choose between them freely. Unfortunately, with overweight people, this usually isn't the case, from my experience at least. When the alternative is suicide, almost anything is better. If only because you cannot rectify and try different things after committing suicide, and you can always kill yourself later if literally everything else has failed. People consider suicide when they see no way out of the situation they are in. That doesn't always mean there is no way out, and in this particular context there very much is a way out that is attainable for just about anyone with adequate guidance and support. Did I read this wrong or did you really mean to say that it's usually the case in your experience that overweight people are cognitively impaired? I'm going to skip addressing your comments on suicide other than repeat what I already said in another post: what the best thing to do is entirely situational.

His proposed solution is to let people decide what's best for themselves. He never mentions denying anybody anything, nor does what he proposes in any way akin to what you think it is akin to. What the medical community (which is almost never in unanimous agreement on anything) thinks is unhealthy is entirely inconsequential to what a person thinks is best for themselves. Telling a person that if they have suicidal thoughts, the correct course of action is to act upon them, instead of seeing a mental health professional immediately is dangerously irresponsible at best. "Actively denying painkillers from a person who is in agony" was indeed a bad analogy; it's more akin to putting a gun in arm's reach to a person who can barely move and is in unspeakable agony while informing them that they can find painkillers on the 10th floor if they don't mind having to take the stairs. Boy you like to go to extremes and respond to things people never even said. Somehow we got to a whole bunch of suicide talk in a thread about exercise. Most of which has been totally unconstructive. Now, on the issue of suicide. No, it is absolutely not 'dangerously irresponsible' not to tell someone who has suicidal thoughts to see a 'mental health professional' immediately. Like a great many other things, something like dealing with someone who has suicidal thoughts is entirely situational in regards to what the best course(s) of action is/are. Jumping the gun and calling the goon squad more often than not is going to cause far more harm than good. That said, if one's experience and imagination is so limited that one thinks that calling the goon squad is always the best course of action, I'm certainly not going to be able to convince one otherwise on an internet forum board. But I certainly hope that one's experience and imagination leads one to realize greater things in the long run. I also hope for the sake of anyone who might be suicidal that they have better options of people to turn to than someone who will flip and call the goons right away. That said, I hope we can let the suicide talk in the exercise thread come to an end. To be clear, while I mentioned Advil, I was referring to what are generally controlled substances when I was speaking of painkillers. Taking an Advil for the kind of injury I had is akin to putting a Band-Aid on a shark bite. It's efficacy is nil. However, apparently you either have not experienced excruciating pain, or you've always been quick to pop the painkiller pills. Suggesting that one would suffer any real cognitive impairment from an injury to one of their limbs that will heal in time really just demonstrates you have no experience with such things and/or grossly misinterpret what you've seen in your life. What's ridiculous is the notion that one could suffer cognitive impairment from not taking pain killers for such an injury. While out of the ~6 billion humans on earth I imagine there's a few that are wired in a way that this would happen, the overwhelming majority are not. In most cases, as time goes on, one learns to live with pain, be it physical, mental, or spiritual, if one doesn't run from it. And it usually doesn't take that much time to get used to if the origin of the pain is physical (like less than 24 hours max for most traumatic injuries). The fad these days for many is to not want to deal with pain, be it physical, mental, or spiritual. Hence the plethora of peoples out there popping pain killers and/or psychotropics. That many doctors and 'mental health professionals' in the west generally work for big pharma and are often little more than drug pushers doesn't help. There are a myriad of ailments and pains one might go through, and different people have different levels of constitution, fortitude, and thresholds of pain they can deal with. Key, generally speaking, is not to focus on it. A lot of people focus on their pain, whatever the origin of it, and let it consume them. This is especially true with non-physical pains. Are there pains that one cannot get used to? Sure there are, but they are exceptional. Possible for everyone to potentially one day experience (theoretically we can all get stomach cancer or suffer burns over most of our body), but most get to live their lives from beginning to end without experiencing such a debilitating thing. Anon.

And how do you know it's worse? Do you have any experience in being fat and being dead? Probably no. I support anyone who made a conscious decision about improving their life. Even if they believe it means ending their life. I'm definitely not fit to tell people what is best for them, that's the domain of fascist, communists and other socialist. It's a very nice sentiment, but having suicidal thoughts is generally thought of in the medical community as unhealthy in itself; hence, your proposed solution is more akin to denying painkillers from a person who's in obvious agony, then going "ah well, I guess it couldn't be helped; he made his decision for himself, and who am I to take this right from him?" when he decides to end his suffering. It's an exceedingly hypocritical idea. His proposed solution is to let people decide what's best for themselves. He never mentions denying anybody anything, nor does what he proposes in any way akin to what you think it is akin to. What the medical community (which is almost never in unanimous agreement on anything) thinks is unhealthy is entirely inconsequential to what a person thinks is best for themselves. To reiterate what he said as it bears repeating: "I'm definitely not fit to tell people what is best for them, that's the domain of fascist, communists and other socialist." No one has the right to force upon another person painkillers or any other kind of treatment if they don't want them. Such a thing is evil, even if there are imagined good intentions behind it. Relevant anecdote:

Are Bald Men More Commanding? Closely cropped or shaven heads convey power and control, research shows. Though in my case my wife doesn't like when I buzz my head and she hates it when I shave it completely bald Truth is most women do not prefer bald men. Truth is most women do not prefer fat men. Key words here being 'most' and 'prefer'.

Being diplomatic /= political correctness. Also, I recommend finding a job where you can call your fat boss fat if he's fat. Working for people who call spades spades, who don't appreciate anything but straight talk, and have a sense of humor is ideal for almost everyone, even most doublespeakers. Doublespeakers will tend to not get hired or fired though (that whole boss not appreciating anything but straight talk thing).

Move south then. Or pick up a winter activity like skiing or snowmobiling where you'll actually like the fact that it's winter. I like my four seasons. Well.. 3 of them anyways.. Mud season (Spring) I can do without.

So, the insane storm paranoia aside. Last winter was nice and snowy. This winter is ever more nice and snowy. Best winter we've had in my neck of the woods since 2004. Snow's deep, coming almost daily, and highs sustained in the teens or lower. Awesome winter sporting weather. And here's a guy singing about how much he loves it:

I fired up Nethack 3.4.3 again the other day. No other game offers as much re-playability in my experience. I've been firing up some version of Nethack or another probably on an average of every other year since around ~86-87 when I first discovered it on a Big Blue Disk (or something very similar (at this point I forget exactly)). And I'm not alone, as after all these years there's still an active usenet group for this game. After a few earlier failures I have succeeded in clearing Sokoban and the Gnomish mines. It's been a hard fought battle though, and not without some setbacks. Twice I would have starved if not for the grace of Thoth, and I lost my loyal pet kitty Alex to the club of an Ogre Lord in Minetown. He had been with me since the beginning and I still grieve. Goldie, my Golden Naga Hatchling, just dropped dead under mysterious circumstances, and my mind flayer pal Kitty the Cat (he used to be a cat) ate the brain of something that didn't agree with him. However, one must press on. Now it is only my pal Frodo the Green Dragon and I. Armed with the athame Magicbane and the legendary Amulet of Reflection to protect me from the Gorgon that the Oracle told me guards against my path, I push deeper into the Catacombs in search of the Wizard of Yendor's Tower, wherein lies the sacred Book of the Dead. Moloch be damned! I will ascend this time!

So around the time that Winds of Winter is published then. Spiffy.

Fairly easily. Such things are fairly common in society. Look around this here forum and you'll find some examples. ie: In the various gun/police violence threads: Man gets killed by police for doing something someone thinks is dumb or bad results in a 'good riddance to bad rubbish!!!' from some. There's a general lack of compassion and appreciation of the value of human life all over the place. It certainly doesn't help when those who some consider our leaders have the same kind of callous attitude: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_x04Gn3-2g It's one of the most heinous aspects of the modern world. People are so amazingly ignorant and caught up in the us vs them mentality (where 'us' is some group they self identify with and 'them' is a group they perceive to be their enemy), they totally ignore all of their own humanity and the humanity of the people they cheer for the demise of. And whether or not the persons they are cheering the demise of actually self identifiy with the group that those cheering think they are apart of doesn't really matter. ie: The innocent bystanders in any given attack are brushed off as if they didn't exist or are presumed to be guilty by association or just their local approximation. Now, I realize some are going to possibly be aghast that I compared the demise of Gaddafi or some perceived thug at the hands of what you think is legitimate law enforcement to the demise of some artist (or people around him), and some probable innocents at a Synagogue. The truth is, that a sentiment of glee over the demise of any of these people comes from the same shallow evil place that each human has. The average person who celebrated Gaddafi getting killed is no better than the average person who celebrated the people in the Synagogue getting killed, and they are both likely equally as ignorant in their callous sentiments. Each will view the demised as their enemy, so it's not only ok in their mind that the person suffered as they did, it's good. The good news is that not everyone thinks this way. The bad news is, a lot of people do. All over the place. And the mainstream media generally fosters it.

This is interesting personal insight from someone who lives in the region So do you think the Danish social model of real attempts at integration and understanding is the way to go, or do you feel if someone leaves a country to fight Jihad they then forfeit there European citizenship and if they return they could be arrrested and or refused entry? I feel that if you choose to join groups like ISIS then you need to realize you can't just come home when convenient. So I'm not sure I agree with the Danish approach which is very conciliatory and still attempts to bring people who have been possibly radicalised back into Danish culture? None of this has anything to do with the attacks that recently occurred in Denmark. The guy the authorities said did the act was born in Denmark. He never went overseas to fight for ISIS or anyone else.

Thanks Vals, I appreciate your sincere support around my posts But this Danish attack is actually relevant because it leads to how effective integration is or isn't. In other words you can integrate people as much as possible but that still doesn't guarantee you won't face an attack, so now the Europeans are grappling with how they can reduce internal attacks from extremists and what is the best approach to this? Is heavy handedness the right way? Or the way the Danes have been dealing with it. That Newsweek link is particularly pertinent because it shows us just how far the Danes have gone to ensure people don't feel marginalized These are questions we all should be asking ourselves, how do we make immigrants feel truly part of a country and culture of a country . The objective being " if they feel integrated they wouldn't join a jihad and they definitely wouldn't attack the country that gave them a home " ? The now dead person who allegedly perpetrated the attacks was born in Denmark. He was not an immigrant. It generally takes more than a generation to integrate a group of people into a culture. Many generations before full integration is not uncommon. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent the occasional lone nut (if indeed that's what this even was) from running around killing people. If some whackoloon somewhere decides he/she wants to go kill a few people and is willing to die in the process, that whackoloon is likely to succeed in his task (especially if the victims are unarmed). Fortunately, there's not many such people out there. As common of an occurrence as this all seems to be, since the mainstream media shouts from the all the rooftops every time it happens anywhere in the western world (and sometimes in the other parts of the world too), its' actually extremely rare when we factor it in a per capita basis. Also, while I didn't hear audio of the attack at the Synagogue I did listen to audio from the attack on the conference. There was no shouting of 'Allahu Akbar' at the conference. Whoever did the shooting there said nothing as they opened fire. (One of the articles you link alleges such shouting occurred). If the person who authorities said perpetrated the attacks acted alone as they say, my first question is 'What psychotropics was he on, if any?'. I'm not sure we'll get an answer to that one though.

Perhaps. I'd wager the researchers are pushing pills, surgery, or something else that can make them (and/or whomever funded the study) $$$ though. Exercise and a good diet indeed does work for the vast majority of folks out there who actually do stick to a good regimen of both.

You're slacking Bruce. I expect threads from you regarding the latest tragedies attributed in the mainstream media to alleged terrorists within 24 hours of them happening. Hurl had to do your quarterly thread regarding the plight of women in the world too. What gives? Better late than never I suppose though. I don't know what this forum would do without you.

So it's in beta phase now, with a release date set for April. Has anyone been playing this? Anyone have good feedback regarding it?

Nothing. Road police had battons to regulate traffic. Normal police on the street while they I'm sure had guns somewhere they didn't carry them. Violent street crime was practically nonexistent. Women could leave their baby carts with the baby outside a shop's door and it would be safe because even if something happened the random passers by would take care of it. It is unthinkable today but it was real. This was of course a small town, bigger cities were a little more hectic but only slightly. Some time back in my town, you could leave your house wide open without fear. The entire town was like one big family, and everyone basically helped with raising everyone elses kids. Not anymore This still exists in some small towns in the US. It's a beautiful thing. I know of one such place. I used to live there, and it's at the top of my list of potential places to retire (that's a long ways off however). I don't think I've ever seen a modern cop without a side arm either. It wasn't always that way though. I've seen pictures of my local police in action back in the early part of the 20th century and the only weapon they had, if they had one, was a nightstick. One can peruse a search engine and find the same of most pictures with police in them during this time frame also only had batons. Movies from the time sometimes depicted cops without guns as well. Then there are other movies of course depicting them with guns. I've no doubt TV/movies played a part in arming the police as time went on as well the public at large's perception that they should be armed.

Ah yes. Ambiguously doubly insult everyone who doesn't agree with you, and then call for the censorship of their views. You're awesome. I'll sign a glowing letter of recommendation for you if you'd like for your job application at the Ministry of Love. You're a shoe in and will go far there I'm sure.

example? You fell for the bait.

They didn't exactly ban it. Yet. While some will cry foul that some crazy politicians are attempting to dumb the kids down, this is a much more complex of an issue than that. As the article states, the potential banning of state funds for AP classes is tied to the state's backlash against Common Core. What the article doesn't state, and that most people who are on the front lines of the common core fight know, is that the College Board (the private company that is behind the AP exams) now has as it's President a certain David Coleman, who is often considered the chief architect of Common Core. He has stated his intention of overhauling the AP curriculum to coincide with the common core. In fact, some of that curriculum has been overhauled already (including AP U.S. History). There are a great many out there who have serious issues with the overhauls to the AP curriculum, which many are characterizing as revisionist history (in the case of US AP History) and dumbing down the curriculum (in all AP cases (and this dumbing down is also central to much of the outrage directed at common core)). Note that if a school elects to not teach an AP class (due to lack of state funding for it or any other reason) as outlined by the College Board, in no way does that necessarily mean that kids aren't going to be able to learn advanced courses. There are other alternatives to the AP curriculum and it's exams, and unless they changed the rules since I took mine (which is possible) one can take an AP exam even if one hasn't taken an AP course. As I said though, this is a complex issue. There's much more to it even than what I've already written.

Ah, the sweet ramblings of the paranoid. You have to seriously overestimate the impact isolated academic discussion has on the public consciousness to believe that mind-controlling America through the power of "cultural marxism" was ever a feasible plan. Neither paranoid nor overestimating. How about you actually watch and learn, rather than just dismiss out of hand, and then go on to chastise people in the thread for not understanding a bunch of ambiguous advances in cognitive research that you don't bother to cite. I also recommend reading up on Bernays, Goebbels, and their work (and not just their wiki entries). 'Isolated academic discussion', ha! These are things that are widely discussed. However, something need not be widely discussed to have great impact on wider public perception or dialogue. The folks behind any successful ad or political campaign can tell you that. Reading your other posts though you seem to think that PC is all about racism/sexism, it isn't. No more than fruit is all about apples/oranges. That you've so narrowed your thinking on this in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that's observable by anyone who's lived in the western world for any length of time, that you think the links I provided are just paranoia or overestimating something (they discuss the very topic of this thread in different contexts), that you can't be bothered to cite any of the cognitive research you belittle others for not understanding, that you fail to even say how that it's relevant to this conversation here at all, leads me to think you're a know-it-all who is talking out of your ass. Please prove me wrong.

Most of the people in the main stream media habitually lie. It's rare though that they are called out and the person doing the calling out isn't immediately marginalized as a nutjob, if they even gain a voice, in that media. The internet has allowed more and more people who would never otherwise have a national voice to call people out (it hasn't stopped the marginalization though). Most of the people you see sitting in the anchor chair have extremely inflated egos. They're narcissistic and some are even sociopaths. Telling grandiose lies, especially lies aggrandizing what one has done, isn't exactly out of character for such a person. Williams was talking about a subject (the Iraq war) where aggrandizing is his job. The mainstream media in the US continually pumps up the need for the military, that those in the military are heroes, goes out of it's way to justify US military actions, etc in order to sell war. Brian got a little carried away perhaps, but he was already in nonobjective propaganda lying mode. He's not worthy of any pity. He's paying a much smaller price for the lies he's told than a lot of other people out there. Brian is maybe worthy of a little thumbs up though, as he actually admitted and apologized for his mistake (one of them anyways), but I'm not sure under what conditions he did this (pressure? a conscience? something else?). Most of the time the mainstream media does not acknowledge their lies (intentional or not), so in a small way he might be a little better than most of his peers.