starting strength gym
Page 2826 of 2981 FirstFirst ... 1826232627262776281628242825282628272828283628762926 ... LastLast
Results 28,251 to 28,260 of 29806

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #28251
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    4,587

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva Kaul View Post
    Their big effect was a reduction in the proportion of cats transitioned to therapeutic diets…
    COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events
    …because vegan therapeutic diets don’t exist.
    I couldn't locate that in the giant pile of shit but that was point. Veganism is an eating disorder imposed on the felines. Quite the opposite of therapeutic.

  2. #28252
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    4,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnst_nhb View Post
    Actual science. There’s never been any data to show PE worked. They threw that into Sudafed when the put pseudoephedrine behind locked cabinets.

    Not the same chemical and has no effect.

    ---------------------------

    I am not a fan of the FDA, but see my earlier post. Benadryl, Sudafed and the like will not be banned.

    Sudafed PE is a placebo, that’s what this is about.

    The overarching point of this glorious thread has been to illustrate how important it is NOT to take any media headline as real.

    Shit libs showed their stupidity with things like the “fine people” hoax. They read a headline or heard a talking electronic head say it and bought it.

    That shouldn’t be us, regardless of our confirmation biases.
    This sounds like the absence of actual science. Unless I am missing something obvious, you are suggesting that they threw shit in there without testing it.

  3. #28253
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Schexnayder View Post

    I think you are missing the forest for the trees here Jenni. Sloppy people at the grocery store does not equate to societal collapse. And I would argue that most people have always been dumb and unambitious, maybe at 47 years old you're more fully aware of the extent.

    Technology. Food. Medicine. Materials. These are all incredibly helpful things that the average individual does not have the independent means to produce on his own. It takes lots of hardworking people to produce this stuff in the quantities society needs day in and day out.
    Yes it does.

    And those things being produced are predicated on people having a certain level of competence. A level of competence that is being sacrificed for diversity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenni View Post
    That may be some people's idea. It's not mine, nor is it what I think people need to coexist. Take the smallest infractions (a teen loitering at the corner store being a nuisance) or the largest (the murder of a child.) What does the state offer these victims? Nobody's keeping the teen in jail, he'll be back at that corner the next day. No amount of trial will comfort the child's parents and the possibility of reprieve for the murderer is real. Curtailing my freedom to do a thing will not prevent an actual bad person from doing bad things. Nor does the state deal well when things do go bad. Looking to the state for everything is not the way to solve problems. The power you give them to club the other person over the head will eventually be used to club you over the head.
    I can answer that, at least in theory the justice system removes revenge cycles.

    In isolation, if someone infringes on you, either one of those 2 scenarios, or anything in between. Violence is really your only option. And a reputation for violence is the only deterrent.

    The trouble is if everyone knows this than all acts of violence have to be revenged, now you have a family blood feud that isn't solved untill a marriage 6 generations down the line.

    Having a third party ascertain guilt and mete out punishment removes the necessity of retaliatory violence and blood feuds.

    Remove the satisfactory resolution and your back to violence though. The supreme authority from which all other authority is derived. But you know that of course. White people seem to be the last section of society to realise that, and also the last section of society that faces punishment for violence.

  4. #28254
    Join Date
    Jul 2022
    Location
    Scottsdale Arizona
    Posts
    138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Santana View Post


    The problem really arises when the government becomes so many degrees removed from the governed, which inevitably happens as total population and population density increases. Not sure if you watched 1923 but the episode titled "The Rule of 500" sums up the issue (the title of the episode refers to Harrison Ford's character's speech).
    Robert
    I reviewed that episode and agree with you that it sums up the issue. It also hints at a path to a solution or at least a means of coping - The governed Gen Pop needs to engage with the government and use the governments rules against it. (Legislative jiu jitsu) Ranting and bitching are not effective tools. Engage or be governed by the political class.

    I would quibble with the "Rule of 500" which is supposedly based on an imaginary research study by "scientists". I would agree with "The Rule of two or more". Any time two or more humans gather, dominance and subservience develops. As the group grows it become more and more complex and widespread. A civil society needs rules to help control these inclinations. Hierarchies need to develop so dimwits, midwits, pseuds, and geniuses can all find a niche.

    Another take on the problem:

    All-In Summit: Bill Gurley presents 2,851 Miles - YouTube

  5. #28255
    Join Date
    Jul 2022
    Location
    Scottsdale Arizona
    Posts
    138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenni View Post


    Personal property. Coach can have all the rules he wants in his place. You get to choose whether or not to subject yourself to them and he is not the state. Rules aren't the problem, power is.
    Distinction without a difference!

  6. #28256
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    2,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UberBabs View Post
    Jenni my dear, this I can agree with. Do you remember the Perry Mason show where the jurors wore suits and dresses and hats and gloves? In the most recent trial I attended, in federal court no less, the jurors wore t-shirts and jeans. No respect for the venue or really themselves, in my opinion. This descent into sloppy attire started in the 1980s with the aerobics craze, when people started wearing gym clothes (sweats) everywhere. Richard Simmons is the devil incarnate.
    To quote Satch, this is peak boomer.

  7. #28257
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Santana View Post
    This sounds like the absence of actual science. Unless I am missing something obvious, you are suggesting that they threw shit in there without testing it.
    I am not suggesting that at all.

    Do you think there could be another explanation for why PE was added/marketed in these products on the heels of pseudoephedrine being relegated to locked cabinets?

    I am not going into the nuances of formulations, but if you think it would be unusual for “them” to throw an ingredient into a product without testing it, I’ve got some news for you.

    Hint: in the case of PE, the “tests” for efficacy are inconsequential to its addition to these products.

    Also, wait until you find out about some of the tests they DO do.

  8. #28258
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subby View Post
    And those things being produced are predicated on people having a certain level of competence. A level of competence that is being sacrificed for diversity.
    I’m assuming here that by “diversity” you mean “diversity for diversity’s sake”. Equating diversity and incompetence would be pretty nonsensical. Just like the idea that profit-seeking organizations would actually forego skill and competence for sex and race would be. But it makes for a nice narrative I suppose.

  9. #28259
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Schexnayder View Post
    Just like the idea that profit-seeking organizations would actually forego skill and competence for sex and race would be. But it makes for a nice narrative I suppose.
    Is it actually your assertion that this is not happening?

  10. #28260
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Posts
    535

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Schexnayder View Post
    Just like the idea that profit-seeking organizations would actually forego skill and competence for sex and race would be.
    You sweet summer child.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •