View Full Version : 2012 Off topic thread(basketball,movies,etc whatever)
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
[
11]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
MMA_scientist
07-09-2012, 02:45 PM
Well I AM pretty anxiety-ridden.
I have never understood the "why worry about things you don't have control over?" argument, though. I mean, if you were about to be mercilessly tortured by the Iniquisition with no hope of escape, would you just be like, "Well, I don't have any control over this so I'm not going to worry about it"? I really don't think so.
I can understand worrying about impending death... but if you were to chance the scenario to some crystal ball moment where I knew that I would be tortured at some point, I don't think I would spend a lot of time worrying about that either. But with death, not only do I not know when it will happen, it happens to everything ever. So, it is what it is, I have made my peace with that.
Svino
07-09-2012, 03:00 PM
I think people who ARE preoccupied with it are either very narcissistic or are just a little too anxiety ridden- worrying abouy something they have no control over and also a problem that is shared by 100% of us.
I see nothing narcissistic about acknowledging the simple truth that my death will be the worst thing that will ever happen (and could possibly happen) in the history of the universe.
MMA_scientist
07-09-2012, 04:09 PM
I see nothing narcissistic about acknowledging the simple truth that my death will be the worst thing that will ever happen (and could possibly happen) in the history of the universe.
ha.
I guess the fact that it is not unique to me makes me feel like a bitch whining/worrying about it. I am going to die, poor me. FWIW, I can think of plenty of fates worse than death. For me, the worst possible outcome of my life is having one of my kids die or become a serious screw up (like a junkie in the gutter or something).
ha.
I guess the fact that it is not unique to me makes me feel like a bitch whining/worrying about it. I am going to die, poor me. FWIW, I can think of plenty of fates worse than death. For me, the worst possible outcome of my life is having one of my kids die or become a serious screw up (like a junkie in the gutter or something).
The thing is that we don't know what death means.
If you're under the assumption that it simply means that your consciousness disappears then I guess there's really not that much to worry about. But if you think that something might actually happen after death, then it makes sense to want to make sure that it's something good.
Without knowing was death really is it's kind of hard to know how to feel about it.
MMA_scientist
07-09-2012, 04:21 PM
The thing is that we don't know what death means.
If you're under the assumption that it simply means that your consciousness disappears then I guess there's really not that much to worry about. But if you think that something might actually happen after death, then it makes sense to want to make sure that it's something good.
Without knowing was death really is it's kind of hard to know how to feel about it.
I guess. But I really don't see how it can be anything bad... so even if there is more than nothingness, it almost can't be bad. So I just operate under the nothingness approach, and maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. Even Christian scholars can't really answer the "Problem of Hell" with any satisfactory explanations. There is either the Universalist approach, or the "humans are too limited to understand" approach. Both are pretty flawed.
So unless you fear that Islam might be the one true religion... you are pretty much good to go.
I guess. But I really don't see how it can be anything bad... so even if there is more than nothingness, it almost can't be bad. So I just operate under the nothingness approach, and maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. Even Christian scholars can't really answer the "Problem of Hell" with any satisfactory explanations. There is either the Universalist approach, or the "humans are too limited to understand" approach. Both are pretty flawed.
So unless you fear that Islam might be the one true religion... you are pretty much good to go.
Not necessarily. Death could be just another natural state that our consciousness passes onto.
On the earth is everything good? No. Some people are blessed with good health, loving families, and above-average intelligence. While others have to deal with such horrors as child abuse, torture, painful illnesses and abject poverty.
So I think it's entirely possible that, just like in this life, the life to come is filled a wide range of experiences, some far better than others.
MMA_scientist
07-09-2012, 04:32 PM
Not necessarily. Death could be just another natural state that our consciousness passes onto.
On the earth is everything good? No. Some people are blessed with good health, loving families, and above-average intelligence. While others have to deal with such horrors as child abuse, torture, painful illnesses and abject poverty.
So I think it's entirely possible that, just like in this life, the life to come is filled a wide range of experiences, some far better than others.
Maybe, maybe anything. Maybe I will become a zombie. I have no reason to fear random theories with no basis in anything. Even you want to fear Islam hell, at least there is some basis for it (though you might think it is ridiculous, there is at least some ancient texts and a lot of people following, so that you might at least give pause). But as for anything like fearing becoming a tortured ghost... that is some serious anxiety. But even if you came to understand it some day, would that somehow free you of the possibility?
I think there is at least some evidence to suggest that the afterlife exists and is not the same for everyone.
Tough times for Shonie Carter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shonie_Carter
MMA_scientist
07-09-2012, 04:36 PM
I think there is at least some evidence to suggest that the afterlife exists and is not the same for everyone.
Yes, I suppose if you count Ouiga board use. I can agree that there is some evidence for an afterlife (not that I agree that it is strong evidence), but many people believe it and there is the whole near death thing. But I don't what evidence would suggest it would be different from one person to the next, other than "communication with the dead". I guess you can say that there is evidence of communication with the dead...
MMA_scientist
07-09-2012, 04:37 PM
Tough times for Shonie Carter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shonie_Carter
he is doing a super fight grappling match against Eric Schaefer sometime soon. Or maybe it already happened.
But I don't what evidence would suggest it would be different from one person to the next, other than "communication with the dead". I guess you can say that there is evidence of communication with the dead...
Well even with near-death experiences, there are a minority that are not positive. And even of the ones that are positive they are not all the same. In fact, they can vary pretty wildly.
he is doing a super fight grappling match against Eric Schaefer sometime soon. Or maybe it already happened.
Maybe it's time to just call it a career.
MMA_scientist
07-09-2012, 04:52 PM
Well even with near-death experiences, there are a minority that are not positive. And even of the ones that are positive they are not all the same. In fact, they can vary pretty wildly.
I havrn't heard about the negative ones. I am going to have to look that up. It would be interesting if all the people claiming a bad trip down the white light tunnel were all ex nazi's or something.
EDIT: read a quick article about it, turns out, there is no correlation apparently.
They should remake that movie flatliners. That was a great premise.
We all know that near-death experiences occur. There are far too many reports collected at this point to deny that people are having this experience. The question then is what does it mean and is it "real" or is it merely the hallucinatory product of an overactive imagination?
I think there are two things that point to the existence of an aspect of reality to the experience that goes beyond our ability to explain:
1. The fact that many of these experiences are reported when the brain is in a state that has undergone total clinical death. That is, absolutely no electrical activity, no chemical activity, no activity at all. At least as far as our current understanding of the body goes, in this state consciousness should in no way be possible. So either a seemingly dead brain can continue to experience consciousness beyond any current physical explanation or our consciousness can survive independent of the physical body.
2. Many experiencers, while in the out of body state, can come back to reveal details about their surroundings that were later verified to be correct: what a doctor said or did, equipment that was used while they were "dead" and the manner in which it was used, what someone did or was wearing in another room in the hospital, and things that happened or existed outside of the hospital.
One such account of the latter, which ended up sending one doctor on a quest to study these experiences, involves a shoe that the experiencer saw in the out-of-body state that was sitting on a ledge on several floors up outside the hospital. The doctor went on a search to find the shoe and found it. Another doctor intended to disprove these experiences. He collected several reports of things the experiencers said they saw go on in the ER while they were being worked on by the doctors. He matched up these experiences to hospital records of the procedures that took place and verified the vast majority of the details of the reports.
Perhaps most interesting though are the reports of blind people--some of whom were even born blind--who had NDEs and brought back verifiable details of things they were able to "see" while having the experience.
With that said, the biggest problem is that a lot of the near-death experience seems to be somehow illusionary in nature. For instance, even those researchers who have come to the conclusion that there is a real, verifiable spiritual component to these experiences also acknowledge that a lot of what is experienced is based upon culture or previous beliefs. For instance, Betty Eadie's very famous experience recounted in her book "Saved by the Light" was full of Mormon imagery and she herself came from a Mormon background. Other people often experience things that seem to be pulled from their religious upbringing.
So how do you explain this? Do dream-like elements impose themselves upon an otherwise legitimate and objective experience? Is our immediate afterlife experience (because, remember, these experiences only last a matter of minutes . . . who knows what would happen if they were to keep going) intentionally designed to include elements of our cultural conditioning so that the initial transition is as calm and peaceful as possible?
Or perhaps it can be tied into the insights of the quantum physicists who claim that the universe is essentially a holographic illusion and that we can shape reality with our consciousness. Is the realm of the afterlife a more malleable and non-physical realm where our consciousness has a far greater capacity for creation with thought alone?
Who knows. At this point it's a great mystery. But what I do know is that the subject is far deeper, richer and more complex than those people who just watch a documentary or read an article and proclaim all the experiences nothing more than the product of an overactive imagination claim it to be.
Svino
07-09-2012, 06:42 PM
ha.
I guess the fact that it is not unique to me makes me feel like a bitch whining/worrying about it...
For me, the worst possible outcome of my life is having one of my kids die or become a serious screw up (like a junkie in the gutter or something)
For me, the fact that everyone else is going to die too doesn't make the reality that I am going to die any better. In fact, it's another thing that sucks. Perhaps someday I will invent a way to leach the life force out of people like a vampire or something, but until that day, everyone else's death does me no good. As for whining about it, you don't have to do it all the time, just occasionally on internet message boards.
I'd say there are worse lives than being a junkie in the gutter. At least you have no responsibilities and your drugs to keep you happy.
Oh good lord, not this bullshit again.
It's always a good topic. . .
Everyone says the same thing over again.
I agree for the most part, though I did try to include a more full-featured reply with some new information this time.
MMA_scientist
07-10-2012, 12:16 AM
I'd say there are worse lives than being a junkie in the gutter. At least you have no responsibilities and your drugs to keep you happy.
There are definitely worse fates... but i am having trouble thinking of a more disappointing outcome for a patent. Maybe if they are gay.
You would legitimately be distraught if one of your children were gay?
MMA_scientist
07-10-2012, 12:29 AM
Or perhaps it can be tied into the insights of the quantum physicists who claim that the universe is essentially a holographic illusion and that we can shape reality with our consciousness. Is the realm of the afterlife a more malleable and non-physical realm where our consciousness has a far greater capacity for creation with thought alone?
Who knows. At this point it's a great mystery. But what I do know is that the subject is far deeper, richer and more complex than those people who just watch a documentary or read an article and proclaim all the experiences nothing more than the product of an overactive imagination claim it to be.
I actually spent some time reading about this stuff today. I read that a pretty large group of people actually awoke with the real feeling that they had never actually existed at all. Weird, i might read up on some.
As for the verifiable details of nde's, i would be more inclined to believe that the doctors who report it are full of shit. But i don't rule it out. For me, there is no real explanation... it is like any other instinct i guess. In the same way a woman wants to reproduce, i just feel that i exist in more than skin and bones. I dont pretend it is intellectual, in fact i realize how ridiculous it is. But on the flip side, i am honestly fine with afterlife.
MMA_scientist
07-10-2012, 12:31 AM
You would legitimately be distraught if one of your children were gay?
It was a joke. But yeah, i would be in a lot of pain. I would accept it and be supportive, but i would feel like it was my fault and it be pretty hard for me.
I actually spent some time reading about this stuff today. I read that a pretty large group of people actually awoke with the real feeling that they had never actually existed at all. Weird, i might read up on some.
I'm not sure exactly what that means. But one thing I do know is that a lot of people come back feeling like the experience they had was more real reality, or "realer than real" as some have described it.
Many come back feeling like THAT is real world and this shit we're involved in right now is the illusion.
You may have found this already, but this is an excellent resource:
http://www.near-death.com/
As for the verifiable details of nde's, i would be more inclined to believe that the doctors who report it are full of shit. But i don't rule it out.
At this point it's not that hard to get actual experiencer accounts straight from the people who had them. My dad even had an experience where he floated above his body. It happens. In fact, it seems to happen so often that it's really no big deal.
As for lying doctors who write books, here are a couple of suggestions:
http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Afterlife-Science-Near-Death-Experiences/dp/0061452572/ref=pd_sim_b_1
and
http://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Beyond-Life-Near-Death-Experience/dp/0061777269/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341902809&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=pim+von+lommell
It was a joke. But yeah, i would be in a lot of pain. I would accept it and be supportive, but i would feel like it was my fault and it be pretty hard for me.
I don't know why you'd really care what your son does with his dick.
MMA_scientist
07-10-2012, 08:27 AM
I don't know why you'd really care what your son does with his dick.
I don't like them gays.
MMA_scientist
07-10-2012, 09:13 AM
I'm not sure exactly what that means. But one thing I do know is that a lot of people come back feeling like the experience they had was more real reality, or "realer than real" as some have described it.
Many come back feeling like THAT is real world and this shit we're involved in right now is the illusion.
You may have found this already, but this is an excellent resource:
http://www.near-death.com/
At this point it's not that hard to get actual experiencer accounts straight from the people who had them. My dad even had an experience where he floated above his body. It happens. In fact, it seems to happen so often that it's really no big deal.
As for lying doctors who write books, here are a couple of suggestions:
http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Afterlife-Science-Near-Death-Experiences/dp/0061452572/ref=pd_sim_b_1
and
http://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Beyond-Life-Near-Death-Experience/dp/0061777269/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341902809&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=pim+von+lommell
The reviews I am reading on these books are that they are anecdotal crap. Were you giving me these books as examples of lying doctors? Or refutations? I am never going to be convinced by what someone in a state of total trauma says they experienced. If they ever did an actual study that was verified and controlled, I would be intrigued. But a couple of isolated incidents (like the shoe on the ledge story), I write off as the person saw it before or it is a lie/hoax. I recall you saying they were going to do thing where they place objects high up in trauma rooms, but I still haven't seen anything about that.
Basically, I don't trust what people say at all. People tell me crazy shit constantly, and they may even believe it. People are liars.
poopoo333
07-10-2012, 09:16 AM
I might be checking out this gym around here tonight after work to train at. My schedule may allow me to train 2 or 3x a week in the fall semester due to less nights at restaurant because of school. I think tonight is bjj/mma
MMA_scientist
07-10-2012, 09:22 AM
I might be checking out this gym around here tonight after work to train at. My schedule may allow me to train 2 or 3x a week in the fall semester due to less nights at restaurant because of school. I think tonight is bjj/mma
Wear your power suit to intimidate.
poopoo333
07-10-2012, 09:37 AM
Wear your power suit to intimidate.
I am so excited to train UFC!!!!!!!!!!!! Gotta pick up an affliction shirt for tonight.
MMA_scientist
07-10-2012, 09:44 AM
I am so excited to train UFC!!!!!!!!!!!! Gotta pick up an affliction shirt for tonight.
don't forget to wear your UFC gloves bro. That will show them that you know what's up.
There was a guy that used to come it wearing actual UFC gloves. It was awesome, and he was insane. When we were a more MMA oriented gym, we got a lot more crazies. Muy Thai probably has more crazies per capita than any other art. We still get the odd UFC bro who wants to come to the advanced class because he trained in his garage, but it is rare that they actually show up more than once.
In related news, I am teaching morning classes at my gym now. I have been teaching wrestling at the gym for a couple years, but this is my first time teaching bjj. I don't really want to do it, so I am hoping it is just temporary.
poopoo333
07-10-2012, 10:01 AM
the only pair of ufc gloves I have are signed by pat barry...won them from that tko fantasy pool spx showed us.
And I am hoping it is a good gym. They have some guys that actually fight and they are affiliated with jungle mma in orlando, which is seth petruzellis gym I think. Some guy mike lee instructs there I think and tom lawlor used to be there as well
MMA_scientist
07-10-2012, 10:16 AM
the only pair of ufc gloves I have are signed by pat barry...won them from that tko fantasy pool spx showed us.
And I am hoping it is a good gym. They have some guys that actually fight and they are affiliated with jungle mma in orlando, which is seth petruzellis gym I think. Some guy mike lee instructs there I think and tom lawlor used to be there as well
Just because guys fight, doesn't mean it is a good gym (unless the fighters are good). Some of the shittiest gyms will just send guys out there...
I looked up Mike Lee, and he seems like a legit local level pro. I am sure he will have some stuff to teach you about MMA. He has been in there with Nate Marquart. But my experience with "MMA gyms" hasn't generally been positive. There are definitely two kinds... the kind where they have guys that are good specialists teaching those disciplines, and the kind where they have local fighter teaching everything. The latter is usually pretty shitty IME. It looks like Mike Lee is a legit BJJ bb, as well as being a decent MMA fighter though, so that would be a pretty good place to learn some grappling most likely. Let me know how it goes.
poopoo333
07-10-2012, 10:23 AM
Well mike lee only goes there for seminars, he is out of orlando. Im not sure who the coaches are here yet...but idk..I know its the best one around here because it isn't jjj or tkd dojos with "mma".
MMA_scientist
07-10-2012, 10:30 AM
Oh. Well, good luck. Does the guy teaching the class have any cred? Either a rank in a sport or some fights?
We have a legit bjj lineage, but we have some affiliated schools that are total shit. Affiliations are a way for legit guys to make money, because there is an affiliation fee and then you pay for them to come up for the seminars and do promotions. This may not be like that, but just be aware. Still, if there is no where else to train, at least there is a mat.
poopoo333
07-10-2012, 10:37 AM
No clue yet...guess I will see tonight if I can make it.
poopoo333
07-10-2012, 01:09 PM
This new job is awesome. Such good money for such little work.
I might be checking out this gym around here tonight after work to train at. My schedule may allow me to train 2 or 3x a week in the fall semester due to less nights at restaurant because of school. I think tonight is bjj/mma
I thought you signed up with some other gym like several months ago or something.
The reviews I am reading on these books are that they are anecdotal crap. Were you giving me these books as examples of lying doctors? Or refutations? I am never going to be convinced by what someone in a state of total trauma says they experienced. If they ever did an actual study that was verified and controlled, I would be intrigued. But a couple of isolated incidents (like the shoe on the ledge story), I write off as the person saw it before or it is a lie/hoax. I recall you saying they were going to do thing where they place objects high up in trauma rooms, but I still haven't seen anything about that.
Basically, I don't trust what people say at all. People tell me crazy shit constantly, and they may even believe it. People are liars.
This is exactly the kind of attitude I was talking about when I said to Svino that scientists only find something worthy of study if they can capture it in a bottle and subject it to tests in a laboratory. Otherwise, they just pretend that it doesn't exists.
If you'll never accept any anecdotal evidence then it's not really worth discussing because this is a phenomenon that CANNOT BE CONTROLLED. It is random. It is spontaneous. It happens when it happens. Luckily, there ARE some scientists out there who are studying it as best as they can.
Thinking about it like this: If in fact NDEs represent what many believe that they do, would you expect them to be something that can be controlled? Do you really think you can control the soul leaving the body?
I'll also point out that at this point even professional skeptics like Michael Shermer don't doubt that people are having these experiences. They don't believe they are anything spiritual or supernatural. But they do acknowledge that people are having them.
What I will say is that any individual experience can be bullshit. Any single person can lie or be delusional. But at this point we have collected thousands and thousands of reports from all around the world, and early researchers--before books were being written or the term near-death experience even existed--found that these experiences being related by people in different locations, who had no chance of knowing each other, and had not been conditioned by any sort of media on the subject, were reporting experiences that in large part correlated with each other.
I like to use the white crow argument. William James said, "If you want to prove that not all crows are black, it is not necessary to prove that none of them are. You only have to find one white crow."
The same is true with NDEs. I have no doubt that many people who have reported such an experience have been liars. But I don't believe that all of them are and you only need one that is legitimate.
Mr. IWS
07-10-2012, 01:37 PM
This new job is awesome. Such good money for such little work.
::thumbup::
This new job is awesome. Such good money for such little work.
Unless you're doing something you're really passionate about it, those are the best types of jobs to have.
Speaking of martial arts, leaving town obviously fucked my wado-ryu up. Not sure what I'm going to do. I think I might actually go check out this Shotokan dojo.
poopoo333
07-10-2012, 02:42 PM
Seriously...I am going to make about $50 or more today in 8 hours in tips for doing nothing on top of $8 an hour pay. In 6 months I will be at $10 an hour here plus the tips. Still have the restaurant job too.
It's gonna be rough though, working a lot of hours compared to my usual 15, plus 4 classes, and an internship in the fall.
poopoo333
07-10-2012, 03:19 PM
Teaching
Really? What are you majoring in? What do you want to teach?
poopoo333
07-10-2012, 06:25 PM
Really? What are you majoring in? What do you want to teach?
Elementary Education. I want to teach middle school..probably high school so I am going to have to take some tests to get up there. I am only majoring in elementary because it's what is available around here. I still don't even know if being a teacher is what I am going to do as a long term career..thinking about some other stuff too that will require a little more schooling.
So no new gym for me tonight, I ended up at work late tonight because the power went out in a crazy storm so by the time I turned all the computers back on, closed the register, etc it was too late. On a side note, with tips...averaged $15 an hour today.
MMA_scientist
07-10-2012, 06:40 PM
The same is true with NDEs. I have no doubt that many people who have reported such an experience have been liars. But I don't believe that all of them are and you only need one that is legitimate.
I don't think it has to be bottled in a lab... but I don't think it is unreasonable to seek some sort of verifiable objective information.
I don't dent that people are experiencing something, or think they experienced something. But if we are just going to accept people's experiences the study of NDE is a lot closer to religion than science. For sheer numbers, it is hard to beat people who claim to have experienced God in some way or another, probably 40% of the 7 Billion people on the planet will say they have experienced God... do I think they are all lying? No. But does that convince me that what they say is true? Not really. NDE's are similar to me, only far less persuasive, because the people have generally been under anesthesia or had major trauma. There are a lot of people who convinced they have seen aliens/big foot/loch ness/demons/dead grandma... I see people almost every week that talk to demons. I just really don't find people reliable at all. It does not mean that NDE's are not real, but I would just like to see something other than testimonials before I give a shit too much.
I think that's a reasonable position to take. I am not against skepticism. I'm against closed-minded skepticism.
Some of the lengths that hard-core skeptics will go to to deny that there is a phenomenon are mind-blowing and, in my opinion, border on lunacy.
To be clear, I'm not convinced about anything with near-death experiences beyond the fact that SOMETHING is happening. I have no idea what it means. I don't expect anyone else to, either. But I do think it's interesting and I think that people should at least be open to the idea that it's more than just fantasies people are having.
After all, if these experiences are indicative of an objective non-physical reality that we will all one day experience then that is pretty exciting.
BTW, I would love nothing more than to be able to study the shit in a more objective way--to get really get a handle on it, as it were--but I mean, there's just not really a way to do it. So it's a situation where we just have to do the best we can. I think that's better than ignoring it.
MMA_scientist
07-10-2012, 08:13 PM
Some of the lengths that hard-core skeptics will go to to deny that there is a phenomenon are mind-blowing and, in my opinion, border on lunacy.
There is definitely a double standard going on there. I haven't really paid attention to the NDE debate, but you see it all sorts of other places. The same scientists that don't accept testimonials for super natural phenomena, will accept them readily in other areas (I am in love, I have always known I was gay, I know right from wrong). There are wishy washy non scientific things all around us that we all readily accept as existing and much of it is just based on a lot of people saying they experience the "feeling." I have always thought it was interesting to see scientists accuse their religious colleagues of intentionally turning a blind eye, as though it is incorrect to just believe something... when most do the same thing in their lives only not with religion, but things like "loving" someone or assigning a moral value to something. Love and inherent rightness- I don't know if these things actually exist any more than I know if there is a white light at the end of the tunnel.
I guess ultimately it comes down to what your level of skepticism is.
The true believer will believe anything for any reason, so long as you can tell it in a convincing manner. The super-skeptic will only believe what he sees or hears for himself.
I feel like whichever a person chooses to be, they should do that and apply it equally across the board.
This is why I reacted when you said, "As for the verifiable details of nde's, i would be more inclined to believe that the doctors who report it are full of shit."
That demonstrates extreme skepticism. And if that's your position, then okay. But I think that equally you would have to believe that any time you read a history book, any time you read a science text on another subject, etc. that you equally cannot take any claims at face value and should be inclined to believe that the authors are full of shit. After all, you didn't see it, you didn't experience it, you didn't conduct the experiment yourself. So you're just taking someone else's word for it.
But not to pick on you. I agree that you're completely right that many scientists and academics (and really, anyone) have sliding scales of proof. In some ways, this makes sense since "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." But there is a point to where you just go too far and are being unfair.
I also want to make a point regarding anecdotal evidence: If one person says they saw bigfoot run through Central Park then it's easy to dismiss the claim. But if a thousand independent witnesses make the same claim then I think it deserves a lot more consideration.
I've literally seen like 3 different commercials today for products/services designed to boost testosterone. I think there's a clear shift in consciousness about this stuff. In 10 years TRT will just be the thing to do after 40.
MMA_scientist
07-10-2012, 10:03 PM
This is why I reacted when you said, "As for the verifiable details of nde's, i would be more inclined to believe that the doctors who report it are full of shit."
That demonstrates extreme skepticism. And if that's your position, then okay. But I think that equally you would have to believe that any time you read a history book, any time you read a science text on another subject, etc. that you equally cannot take any claims at face value and should be inclined to believe that the authors are full of shit. After all, you didn't see it, you didn't experience it, you didn't conduct the experiment yourself. So you're just taking someone else's word for it.
Well, if doctors everywhere were reporting things like the shoe on a ledge, I wouldn't be as skeptical. But it seems like that one story gets brought up a lot... if that is all you have, I tend to think the doctor was making it up. Or even if you have a handfull or a hundred doctors... out of the hundreds of thousands of people who are recuscitated... it seems like just a small fringe. I wouldn't call that extreme skeptism... I think it just regular old realism.
Well, if doctors everywhere were reporting things like the shoe on a ledge, I wouldn't be as skeptical. But it seems like that one story gets brought up a lot... if that is all you have, I tend to think the doctor was making it up. Or even if you have a handfull or a hundred doctors... out of the hundreds of thousands of people who are recuscitated... it seems like just a small fringe. I wouldn't call that extreme skeptism... I think it just regular old realism.
I personally bring up the shoe a lot because I think it's one of the most evidential stories and also because it was powerful enough for that particular doctor to send her on her own personal investigation of this phenomenon. In many ways it changed her life.
But there are many, many more. You can read about a lot of experiences at www.near-death.com (http://www.near-death.com), some even in the experiencers' own words (I think). Or you can read some of the many good books on the subject and I'd be happy to recommend a few. But like any subject, to really get a handle on it it's going to require some digging. You can't just watch a documentary on TLC or read a news article and really expect to know anything.
Now, in regard to the "fringe" nature of the experiences, for many years these reports were being told to doctors and nurses, but they either a) did not repeat them for fear of ridicule, or b) wrote them off as hallucinations without any real consideration or investigation.
www.near-death.com (http://www.near-death.com)
Never fails that any kooky site like this has atrocious web design.
Svino
07-11-2012, 12:13 AM
Do you really think you can control the soul leaving the body?
http://onemillionlyrics.com/images/0/44magnum--img-mbadfa4094a3a0b91a8f823ed762bed88.jpg
(Who wants to go to Heaven?)
But yes, scientists do study this stuff in labs. They know about how hallucinations can occur when the brain is stressed in different ways.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/health/psychology/03shad.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1
Svino
07-11-2012, 12:32 AM
Love and inherent rightness- I don't know if these things actually exist any more than I know if there is a white light at the end of the tunnel.
Yeah, I would say that one's own emotional experiences are essentially self-proving at least according to our own internal definitions. If I feel that I hate Juggalos then I hate Juggalos. We could fairly question whether my concept of "hate" is exactly the same as another persons, and maybe it isn't exactly, but there is obviously a shared concept here that people basically agree on (just like any other word).
As for *inherent* rightness, I would completely agree that a belief in such a thing would be just as dogmatic as any religion. I think the majority of non-theists believe in a personal moral code that sits somewhere alongside every other persons moral code. When looked at together, these moral beliefs would be largely overlapping, but not completely. Some people might be tempted to call those overlapping parts "universal", but I think they are a function of biology and the course of our species' behavioral evolution, and see no reason why they should be considered a deep property of the universe.
But yes, scientists do study this stuff in labs. They know about how hallucinations can occur when the brain is stressed in different ways.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/health/psychology/03shad.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1
Experiences with some elements of an NDE have been replicated by fucking around with the brain, but never an experience that has the elements that actually make an NDE important.
There's a big difference between merely having a sense of being separated from the body and actually bringing back verifiable, nonlocal data.
Never fails that any kooky site like this has atrocious web design.
It's simple, but also clean and easy to navigate.
Here's a better example of atrocious design:
www.truthbeknown.com
Svino
07-11-2012, 01:55 AM
Experiences with some elements of an NDE have been replicated by fucking around with the brain, but never an experience that has the elements that actually make an NDE important.
There's a big difference between merely having a sense of being separated from the body and actually bringing back verifiable, nonlocal data.
Right. And that second part is never going to happen because it isn't possible.
Svino
07-11-2012, 01:56 AM
It's simple, but also clean and easy to navigate.
Here's a better example of atrocious design:
www.truthbeknown.com (http://www.truthbeknown.com)
Time cube will always be the true champion:
http://www.timecube.com/
Right. And that second part is never going to happen because it isn't possible.
It has happened. Many times. You don't even have to look to NDEs for this.
This is something that at least some people can control to some degree in the form of remote viewing.
You'd probably be interested in Russell Targ:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Targ
Time cube will always be the true champion:
http://www.timecube.com/
I don't know why, but I was already loling before I clicked the link. But yeah, that's bad.
MMA_scientist
07-11-2012, 09:17 AM
It has happened. Many times. You don't even have to look to NDEs for this.
This is something that at least some people can control to some degree in the form of remote viewing.
Remote viewing is something I absolutely think is bs. I am open to some things that are supernatural, but generally super powers is something I almost always immediately dismiss. There is just too much incentive to make it up and/or fool yourself. There are no super powered humans, of that, I am nearly certain. This goes for psychics, telekinesis, remote viewing, etc.
MMA_scientist
07-11-2012, 09:51 AM
Yeah, I would say that one's own emotional experiences are essentially self-proving at least according to our own internal definitions. If I feel that I hate Juggalos then I hate Juggalos. We could fairly question whether my concept of "hate" is exactly the same as another persons, and maybe it isn't exactly, but there is obviously a shared concept here that people basically agree on (just like any other word).
As for *inherent* rightness, I would completely agree that a belief in such a thing would be just as dogmatic as any religion. I think the majority of non-theists believe in a personal moral code that sits somewhere alongside every other persons moral code. When looked at together, these moral beliefs would be largely overlapping, but not completely. Some people might be tempted to call those overlapping parts "universal", but I think they are a function of biology and the course of our species' behavioral evolution, and see no reason why they should be considered a deep property of the universe.
As for a feeling being self proving... I agree to the extent that is in accordance with a singular person's definition. But to me, I see no difference between an individual saying that they "felt the presence of God" and saying they know what it feels like to hate juggalos. Does this mean that an external God exists outside of the person's feeling? No... but as you say- if enough people agree that a concept exists, we just sort of accept it. You may say that the feeling is just an evolutionary remnant, or you are mistaken on what you feel... but the same can be said of almost any other feeling (you dont hate juggalos, it is just a chemical reaction in your brain, you actually have no feelings about juggalos at all). Maybe the difference is that most people do not think that love and hate are properties of the universe (some do though). Still, it is hard for me to understand why people can't accept that some people simply believe something just based on "gut", since we base a lot of our concepts on this very same thing.
As for universal right and wrong... I don't agree that most non-theists are moral relativists. Many of the things that we all pretty much deem "wrong" have nothing to do with the survival of the species, at least as far as I can tell. Other animals do things for no reason too, but I think it is just an easy cop out to say, well it is just part of our behavioral evolution to think murding babies, fertile men, handicapped is wrong. It is essentially saying, we do it because we do it... even from an evolutionary standpoint, there must need to be a reason for these feelings to exist. So somewhere along the line, these feelings developed, I don't see why it makes a difference if it was today or a million years ago. I see no reason why I, as the dominant male on the planet, should allow you people to live. I should kill (or maybe castrate you to keep you around for labor), club your baby human children, seed your women with my superior DNA, drown all but a few of my sons (you know, to ensure the survival of the species), and reign until I am usurped by my own genetically superior progeny.
As an aside, I am not saying there is a universal right and wrong. I actually don't think they are biological feelings though, more social. I don't think a truly isolated and feral person would have the same sense of right and wrong.
Svino
07-11-2012, 01:48 PM
Remote viewing is something I absolutely think is bs.
Yeah, I've read some of the literature on remote viewing -- found it extremely unconvincing. Some people have been able to take advantage of the kinda-lax standards for statistical evidence that prevail in psychology and medical journals and sneak in some papers on ESP, but I see no reason for anyone to be impressed.
Remote viewing is something I absolutely think is bs. I am open to some things that are supernatural, but generally super powers is something I almost always immediately dismiss. There is just too much incentive to make it up and/or fool yourself. There are no super powered humans, of that, I am nearly certain. This goes for psychics, telekinesis, remote viewing, etc.
I think that before you should ever think "I absolutely think it is BS" then you should at least take some time to see what the claims are what the evidence are for those claims. If, after reviewing the evidence, you don't think there's anything to it then okay.
What I will say is that I don't think Project Stargate (the military remote viewing project) would have continued for ~25 years if there were not results that encouraged its continued development.
From all the information that I've collected, the problem was never that there wasn't hard evidence that some "sixth sense" kind of shit was going on, the problem was that it was just too difficult to control and use efficiently.
Svino
07-11-2012, 02:05 PM
As for a feeling being self proving... I agree to the extent that is in accordance with a singular person's definition. But to me, I see no difference between an individual saying that they "felt the presence of God" and saying they know what it feels like to hate juggalos. Does this mean that an external God exists outside of the person's feeling? No...
Exactly. "No." A concept is one thing, an existential claim about an actual being is another.
As for universal right and wrong... I don't agree that most non-theists are moral relativists. Many of the things that we all pretty much deem "wrong" have nothing to do with the survival of the species, at least as far as I can tell.
Well, I'd avoid the term "moral relativism" because it so often gets attached to an extreme version of relativism. Also, be careful about the "survival of the species" trap: evolution does not act, in general, at the level of "the interests of the species". There are many evolved features (peacock's tail, etc.) that attest to that.
Other animals do things for no reason too, but I think it is just an easy cop out to say, well it is just part of our behavioral evolution to think murding babies, fertile men, handicapped is wrong. It is essentially saying, we do it because we do it... even from an evolutionary standpoint, there must need to be a reason for these feelings to exist. So somewhere along the line, these feelings developed, I don't see why it makes a difference if it was today or a million years ago.
It's not a cop-out, but obviously it's not a complete explanation either, and I'm not trying to claim it is. You could make a parallel situation with physiological evolution: "Why do we have 5 toes and not 4 or 6?" Well, we know we evolved that way, and it was probably adaptive, and probably involved natural selection. But I have no specific explanation to offer of why we evolved that way. Of course, tracing the evolution of behavioral traits can be even harder, because the fossil record is not very helpful. At the same time, it isn't hard to see how co-operative and pro-social behaviors can be adaptive.
I see no reason why I, as the dominant male on the planet, should allow you people to live... I actually don't think they are biological feelings though, more social. I don't think a truly isolated and feral person would have the same sense of right and wrong.
Well, I bet you do see a reason. If nothing else, you know how well that plan would work out if you tried it. And yes, certainly socialization does play a huge role, but what we see is the result of the interaction of our genes with our social environment. Humans are not moral "blank slates".
Svino
07-11-2012, 02:07 PM
Related to remote viewing and military experiments, the short documentary series, "The Crazy Rulers of the World" is excellent; I highly recommend it. Much better than the Cloony movie it inspired:
http://www.mojvideo.com/video-crazy-rulers-of-the-world-1-4/3e200eeba2997534f0fb
MMA_scientist
07-11-2012, 03:30 PM
Well, I bet you do see a reason. If nothing else, you know how well that plan would work out if you tried it. And yes, certainly socialization does play a huge role, but what we see is the result of the interaction of our genes with our social environment. Humans are not moral "blank slates".
This is the problem I mean to address. Our "genes" guiding us is just another way of saying "we are this way and we really dont' know why, but I accept it." This is what I mean, we accept things as being true all the time, even without having any actual evidence of these things. We know that we all have physical traits, but when you state with certainty that we are not moral blank slates... this can only be based on what people say, I don't know that we are not moral blank slates. In fact, people are taught to accept all sorts of things as good (suicide bomb the WTC) and bad (jerking off will make you go blind). All I do every day of my life is fight my nature. I feel like pretty much the whole modern human experience is spent resisting nature. As far as pro social behaviors being adaptive... sure I can see that. But by the same token, I don't readily accept that this is hard wired into us. Chimps are social beings as well, but they murder each other all the time. I just don't see the connection between some of the social adaptation and some of the things we "universally" agree are bad.
MMA_scientist
07-11-2012, 03:39 PM
I think that before you should ever think "I absolutely think it is BS" then you should at least take some time to see what the claims are what the evidence are for those claims. If, after reviewing the evidence, you don't think there's anything to it then okay.
What I will say is that I don't think Project Stargate (the military remote viewing project) would have continued for ~25 years if there were not results that encouraged its continued development.
From all the information that I've collected, the problem was never that there wasn't hard evidence that some "sixth sense" kind of shit was going on, the problem was that it was just too difficult to control and use efficiently.
Well for me, the whole premise just seems too fantastical to be believed. I wouldn't believe it unless someone could clearly explain how it was happening to me or I experienced it myself. It would be the same thing as if you told me humans could fly. It just isn't possible in my mind, so I am not going to believe it unless something I know about the universe changes. It is the same as time travel to me (at least in the sci fi sense)... it flat out makes no sense and I know it is not possible. I don't even have to look at it to know it can't happen.
I may be wrong of course, but to me, it is so unlikely that it is not even worth investigating. The fact that the gov't spent money on it, means nothing. There are a ton of high ranking idiots.
dont worry about death........I live my life a quarter mile at a time
Svino
07-11-2012, 05:40 PM
This is the problem I mean to address. Our "genes" guiding us is just another way of saying "we are this way and we really dont' know why, but I accept it." This is what I mean, we accept things as being true all the time, even without having any actual evidence of these things. We know that we all have physical traits, but when you state with certainty that we are not moral blank slates, this can only be based on what people say, I don't know that we are not moral blank slates.
Well, I'm not sure why you think there's no actual evidence -- a lot of psychological research has been done on this. Experiments with babies and with other mammals (esp. primates) show that these groups exhibit empathy and reciprocity (positive and negative) that are the basis for a moral system.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275574/Babies-know-difference-good-evil-months-study-reveals.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html
There is still plenty of controversy in this field, but I am fairly sure that any pure blank-slate stance is either dead or on it's last legs.
Chimps are social beings as well, but they murder each other all the time.
As likely did earlier humans. Considering all the possible reasons to benefit from killing another chimp/human, the fact that it happens does not mean there is no moral nature present, perhaps only that it failed to win out in the decision-making process in that case. Also, there is another moral human universal reflected in the chimp behavior here: the creation of in-group / out-group distinctions. Violence on the out-group may be entirely encouraged while prohibited for the in-group. Who gets included in the "in-group" is enormously socially-determined.
Well for me, the whole premise just seems too fantastical to be believed. I wouldn't believe it unless someone could clearly explain how it was happening to me or I experienced it myself. It would be the same thing as if you told me humans could fly. It just isn't possible in my mind, so I am not going to believe it unless something I know about the universe changes. It is the same as time travel to me (at least in the sci fi sense)... it flat out makes no sense and I know it is not possible. I don't even have to look at it to know it can't happen.
I've never had an experience that I would call psychic in any sort of sense, but people close to me have. My dad in particular--who's a "Christian man" in the best sense of the word and honest to a fault--has had some experiences that there is really is no rational, scientific explanation for in terms of our current understanding of how the brain works. My step-dad and two other friends also have things that have happened to them for which the only sensible explanation is that we have an ability that goes mostly untapped but that does occasionally exhibit itself.
So really, there are only two conclusions that I can come to: a) they are lying, or b) humans are capable of doing things that science doesn't understand. Because I have already eliminated the possibility of self-delusion or coincidence to my own satisfaction.
Really, I don't think that these experiences are that uncommon. If the subject comes up it seems that a fairly high percentage of people have a story to relate.
I may be wrong of course, but to me, it is so unlikely that it is not even worth investigating. The fact that the gov't spent money on it, means nothing. There are a ton of high ranking idiots.
Well after the program was de-classified a lot of the participants wrote books about their experiences in the program. Many of the stories they relate definitely involve things that we would classify as "psychic." And these stories have been corroborated by others in the program. So either it all happened, or there's a conspiracy where everyone involved got together and agreed to perpetrate a vast hoax on the public for the purpose of making money writing books. Considering the fact that not a single person involved has come forward saying these things DIDN'T happen, I have to feel like it's most logical to conclude that they did.
MMA_scientist
07-11-2012, 08:22 PM
Well, I'm not sure why you think there's no actual evidence -- a lot of psychological research has been done on this. Experiments with babies and with other mammals (esp. primates) show that these groups exhibit empathy and reciprocity (positive and negative) that are the basis for a moral system.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275574/Babies-know-difference-good-evil-months-study-reveals.html
There is still plenty of controversy in this field, but I am fairly sure that any pure blank-slate stance is either dead or on it's last legs.
I don't think that is accurate (the the stance is on its last legs). That stuy seems pretty flawed, as is pointed out at the end by another psychologist. The babies were 6 months old, and thus had 6 months of conditioning about what is good and bad. Also, the examples of "good" seemed pretty much neutral to me.
As for chimps, all animals have their own "morality", even birds protect their babies. My bone is that our modern moral code is somehow tied to an evolutionary remnant. Maybe it is, but to me, that seems like a straight up guess. Of course, as you mention, the fossil record doesn't help here, so we are stuck either saying "well, it must be this way" or just saying screw it... because there is no way to know.
Svino
07-11-2012, 11:10 PM
I don't think that is accurate (the the stance is on its last legs). That stuy seems pretty flawed, as is pointed out at the end by another psychologist. The babies were 6 months old, and thus had 6 months of conditioning about what is good and bad. Also, the examples of "good" seemed pretty much neutral to me.
As for chimps, all animals have their own "morality", even birds protect their babies. My bone is that our modern moral code is somehow tied to an evolutionary remnant. Maybe it is, but to me, that seems like a straight up guess. Of course, as you mention, the fossil record doesn't help here, so we are stuck either saying "well, it must be this way" or just saying screw it... because there is no way to know.
Well, it is hard to prove, so there will always be some people arguing against it, but when a behavioral trait:
1) Is found universally across humans including small groups studied by anthropologists that have minimal contact with others.
2) Is found to some degree in infants.
3) Is observed our non-human primates relatives.
and 4) Has highly plausible arguments for being an adaptive trait.
It is widely believed by psychologists to be a phenomenon with a significant genetic contribution. I think maintaining otherwise is fighting Occam's Razor pretty hard. I have seen very few people do this who didn't have some blatant political motivations (i.e. feminists who want to believe that minds are blank at birth and therefore male and female brains must be completely identical... Left wing sociologists who are afraid that an innate ability to arrange in a social hierarchy will justify exploitation... etc.) Steven Pinker is maybe the psychologist trying most publicly to nail this particular coffin shut, but there are others:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial/dp/0670031518
poopoo333
07-11-2012, 11:51 PM
Dana White just announced that Ross Pearson and George Sotiropoulos will be the coaches on The Ultimate Figher: UK VS Australia.
...
Svino
07-11-2012, 11:58 PM
Well, no wonder I've had such an easy time getting laundered gambling-money into my HSBC account:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/11/business/hsbc-us-regulators-fine/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Vandelay
07-12-2012, 12:16 AM
Two guys coming off losses. neither looks remotely interesting personality wise. Im gonna pass...not like i watched the brazil tuf either tho.
Anyone interested in a 1st Edition of Dracula . . . for $75,000?
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=808086109&searchurl=an%3Dbram%2Bstoker%26fe%3Don%26prl%3D10. 00%26recentlyadded%3Dall%26sortby%3D1%26sts%3Dt%26 x%3D0%26y%3D0
Mr. IWS
07-12-2012, 08:18 AM
^^^^^Cant wait to not watch that season.
MMA_scientist
07-12-2012, 09:18 AM
Yeah, that is going to revive things. Worst coaches yet by far.
poopoo333
07-12-2012, 10:00 AM
Well that's the international series...don't even think that will be on FX or anything, maybe fuel? Kind of like TUF Brazil deal. DO YOU GUYS WANT TO KNOW WHO THE ACTUAL TUF 16 COACHES ARE ON FX?
....
....
...
http://www.fiveknuckles.com/assets/images/fighters/Roy-Nelson.jpg
http://www.mmaconvert.com/wp-content/uploads/post-images/shane_carwin_busted_face_ufc_131.jpg
MMA_scientist
07-12-2012, 10:10 AM
^ worse.
Mr. IWS
07-12-2012, 10:59 AM
I like that way better.
poopoo333
07-12-2012, 11:20 AM
That is an interesting fight though, I wonder how much Carwin's age and multiple back surgeries are going to catch up to him? I guess he is getting the extra cash while he can.
Mr. IWS
07-12-2012, 01:04 PM
inb4lacticacidosis
Mr. IWS
07-12-2012, 01:17 PM
Ronda Rousey sounding off on Kim K.
I like this chick.
http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh7hps5QV8y4cqD3Ov
poopoo333
07-12-2012, 01:18 PM
I like her too.....I want to grapple with her naked as long as there are no sub attempts
Mr. IWS
07-12-2012, 01:37 PM
Literally cracked the fuck up
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh99/sheeeeeeets/ChaelMario2.gif
MMA_scientist
07-12-2012, 01:50 PM
Ronda Rousey sounding off on Kim K.
I like this chick.
http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh7hps5QV8y4cqD3Ov
She gets on my nerves with her personality most of the time, but she says some pretty funny stuff some times. I used to think she was not especially attractive, but I am coming around. She does have the body of a dude with boobs though.
Literally cracked the fuck up
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh99/sheeeeeeets/ChaelMario2.gif
BOL!
poopoo333
07-12-2012, 02:56 PM
http://fightersonlymag.com/images/content/news/roganathome/rogan6-949x557-gallery.jpg
Mr. IWS
07-12-2012, 03:21 PM
me gusta?
She gets on my nerves with her personality most of the time, but she says some pretty funny stuff some times. I used to think she was not especially attractive, but I am coming around. She does have the body of a dude with boobs though.
OK, I am not alone. I think she is cute. But her body is OVERRATED!
edman5555
07-12-2012, 06:04 PM
She posed naked for espn. She has a nice ass but she is sorta manly.
She posed naked for espn. She has a nice ass but she is sorta manly.
Yea, that is what I was basing my opinion on. Honestly, I am pretty sure if you shaved GSP's ass and tanned it up, it would look alot like hers.
And even though i agree with her on the Kim K. comments. She really does irritate me. She just comes across ass if she stopped maturing mentally at the age of about 11 or 12.
MMA_scientist
07-12-2012, 06:50 PM
And even though i agree with her on the Kim K. comments. She really does irritate me. She just comes across ass if she stopped maturing mentally at the age of about 11 or 12.
Pretty much. Shevwas pretty fat and gross up until a couple years ago, so i think she is redoing high school, except now she is thehot girl. She is ok looking, butnothing special imo... she looks like most other female athletes. Like a 7, but because she the only female fighter that is not totally busted, she operates as a 10.
MMA_scientist
07-12-2012, 06:51 PM
gays
Youre the one lusting after a dude's torso.
MMA_scientist
07-12-2012, 06:52 PM
Damn i rally cant type on this thing at all
. . . but because she the only female fighter that is not totally busted. . .
What do you mean?
He's saying they're ugly, SPX. Your rebuttal?
MMA_scientist
07-12-2012, 07:12 PM
What do you mean?
I mean they are all uggos, with acouple exceptions. Even the "hot" ones are really only attractive when compared to other female fighters.
My Rebuttal:
Jordan Nicole Gaza
http://fightgirlz.com/wp-content/themes/blogfolio/themify/img.php?src=http://fightgirlz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Jordan-Nava.jpg&w=500&h=350
Sarah Goodlaxson
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_-CcAnsoUqOQ/TP_sp5G7WyI/AAAAAAAAEWI/xRWfk_i5LGQ/s1600/65422_473141593532_504058532_5864964_8127535_n.jpg
Michelle Waterson
http://www.fiveknuckles.com/assets/images/fighters/michelle-waterson-fighter-pose.jpg
And of course. . .
http://letstalkfighting.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/miesha2.jpg
MMA_scientist
07-12-2012, 07:38 PM
With the possible exception of eaterson, not one of those girls zrevwhat i would call especially attractive. Tate is a 5 or 6 at best. She wouldnt stand out at all against other females in female friendly scene like a beach or night club. I have never heard of the other 2, but they look like normal girls too me. Only considered somewhat attractive if placed next to sara kaufman.
MMA_scientist
07-12-2012, 07:41 PM
Thatsecondgirl, i would actually say is almost totally average, maybe below average. Put her on a college campus, and she is bottom 50%
But again... taste. Its just me, aome guys like fat chicks too.
Your tastes are strange to me, Scientist. Tate is a 5 or 6?
And I actually think Goodlaxson is really cute. She needs bigger tits, but other than that, I am down.
Who do you think is hot? Post some pics.
MMA_scientist
07-12-2012, 08:01 PM
Why is my taste weird. Those girls are nothing special man. I mean, theyre not ugly, but they are well within the bell curve of regular girls. My tastes are pretty standard i think, i just think we have a different scale. No exaggeration, my 35 year old wife is better looking than all of those girls to me. So i really dont get too excitedabout them. I am attracted to a wide variety of female types though.
Its not like i am saying "would not hit, elbows pointy"... i just dont think they are worthy of any special attention. Yeah, theyre good looking enough, but do the fighters look like the ring girls? No.
MMA_scientist
07-12-2012, 08:13 PM
Objectifying women is my favorite thing btw. I love it when someone works so hard go become a judge or senator or whatever, and all anyone cares about is how hot she is. It is funny, because every man does it, regardless of station.
I'm with Scientist for the most part, but Karate Hottie is legitimately hot.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YlKNYhyeFUU/T92sTFZLnYI/AAAAAAAAEH0/M8op7jyK_o0/s1600/michelle-waterson+new+pic+2012+01.jpg
Why is my taste weird. Those girls are nothing special man. I mean, theyre not ugly, but they are well within the bell curve of regular girls. My tastes are pretty standard i think, i just think we have a different scale. No exaggeration, my 35 year old wife is better looking than all of those girls to me. So i really dont get too excitedabout them. I am attracted to a wide variety of female types though.
Its not like i am saying "would not hit, elbows pointy"... i just dont think they are worthy of any special attention. Yeah, theyre good looking enough, but do the fighters look like the ring girls? No.
Maybe I'm the one with strange tastes then. Because I don't think most of the girls I see at the beach are particularly hot. I also think that on a college campus Goodlaxson would be in the top 25%.
Svino
07-12-2012, 09:04 PM
Objectifying women is my favorite thing btw. I love it when someone works so hard go become a judge or senator or whatever, and all anyone cares about is how hot she is.
This right here is why we can't have nice things.
Speaking of women and objects, one of my friends just showed me this:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/married-to-the-eiffel-tower/
WTF!?
MMA_scientist
07-12-2012, 10:40 PM
This right here is why we can't have nice things.
What? You don't think it is hilarious? It makes me laugh because we have a judge here that is somewhat attractive, and all the lawyers talk about hitting it. Its like HIllary Clinton or Sarah Palin or whoever... it doesn't matter how old and gross they are, people still talk about it. I love it.
Speaking of women and objects, one of my friends just showed me this:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/married-to-the-eiffel-tower/
WTF!?
That's some crazy. I saw a show a few year back where these women were "marrying" wild dolphins. But being married to an inanimate object is probably even more insane. Also, I think animal rape is totally ok (not for me, but I am not mad if someone else wants to fuck a goat).
MMA_scientist
07-12-2012, 10:42 PM
Maybe I'm the one with strange tastes then. Because I don't think most of the girls I see at the beach are particularly hot. I also think that on a college campus Goodlaxson would be in the top 25%.
Well your taste is weird, I think we have established that before. But even top 25% of all college aged females... so what. That is a lot of girls, nothing worth getting worked up over. To me, if I am going to go out of my way to point out how hot a random chick is, she has to be something unusual.
To me, if I am going to go out of my way to point out how hot a random chick is, she has to be something unusual.
Well if you remember, I was retorting to your assertion that every female fighter but Rousey is "totally busted."
I think it's the opposite. The vast majority of female fighters look average or, often, better than average. The ones who actually look fucked up, like Cyborg, are the minority.
Mr. IWS
07-13-2012, 08:24 AM
I am pretty sure if you shaved GSP's ass and tanned it up, it would look alot like hers.
.
lol
MMA_scientist
07-13-2012, 09:17 AM
Well if you remember, I was retorting to your assertion that every female fighter but Rousey is "totally busted."
I think it's the opposite. The vast majority of female fighters look average or, often, better than average. The ones who actually look fucked up, like Cyborg, are the minority.
Or... maybe it is that we only pay attention to the ones that are attractive. I don't even know who 2 of the 4 girls you posed are. I only know Waterson because of her hotness, I have never seen her fight, she probably isn't very good. To be a successful female MMA fighter, you have to be attractive and good. There have only been 2 of those persons in female MMA so far (Rhonda and Gina). No one cares about the ugly girls, so they don't even make it onto the showtime card. Especially if they are fat, might as well forget it.
Or... maybe it is that we only pay attention to the ones that are attractive. I don't even know who 2 of the 4 girls you posed are. I only know Waterson because of her hotness, I have never seen her fight, she probably isn't very good. To be a successful female MMA fighter, you have to be attractive and good. There have only been 2 of those persons in female MMA so far (Rhonda and Gina). No one cares about the ugly girls, so they don't even make it onto the showtime card. Especially if they are fat, might as well forget it.
Okay, so someone who's fought on a main stage. . .
Gina's the hottest. I think Tate probably comes in second.
Rhonda's in there somewhere, though like many have pointed out, she's always seemed a little too manly and too muscular for my taste. She just has a nice face.
Coenen, while not particularly hot, is not unattractive and is pleasant enough to look at. Certainly not "totally busted."
Carina Damm is pretty cute I think.
And while I think I'm going to be mostly alone in this one, I also think Megumi Fujii is cute when she's cleaned up and not looking like a fighter (but you really have to make that disclaimer for all of them).
Most of the others I would put at "average" looks, with just a small handful being genuinely unattractive.
Speaking of the Karate Hottie, ironically enough I opened up Sherdog today and there was an article about her on the front page. . .
http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/Karate-Hottie-Waterson-Balances-Wedding-Plans-and-Parenthood-With-MMA-Career-44155
poopoo333
07-13-2012, 02:56 PM
NSAC's Keith Kizer informed me that Forrest Griffin fought Tito Ortiz at UFC 148 with a therapeutic use exemption for TRT.
.,,,,
poopoo333
07-13-2012, 02:59 PM
Former WWE star Dave Bautista slated for Oct. 6 MMA debut (http://mmajunkie.com/news/29679/former-wwe-star-dave-bautista-slated-for-oct-6-mma-debut.mma)
Mr. IWS
07-13-2012, 03:35 PM
Former WWE star Dave Bautista slated for Oct. 6 MMA debut (http://mmajunkie.com/news/29679/former-wwe-star-dave-bautista-slated-for-oct-6-mma-debut.mma)
Not sure why Rashad is moving up to HW, he really has nothing to gain fighting Batista.
inb4...........
MMA_scientist
07-13-2012, 03:38 PM
.,,,,
...
Everyone is on TRT. Everyone.
MMA_scientist
07-13-2012, 03:41 PM
Okay, so someone who's fought on a main stage. . .
Gina's the hottest. I think Tate probably comes in second.
Rhonda's in there somewhere, though like many have pointed out, she's always seemed a little too manly and too muscular for my taste. She just has a nice face.
Coenen, while not particularly hot, is not unattractive and is pleasant enough to look at. Certainly not "totally busted."
Carina Damm is pretty cute I think.
And while I think I'm going to be mostly alone in this one, I also think Megumi Fujii is cute when she's cleaned up and not looking like a fighter (but you really have to make that disclaimer for all of them).
Most of the others I would put at "average" looks, with just a small handful being genuinely unattractive.
I would agree with most of that. I guess my issue is that those girls are not really anything spectacular, and probably over stated my case by calling them ugly. I also think that most of them are more famous than their less attractive skill peers though, so there is a bias in that the female MMA fighters tend to be like pop stars. It is not really all about talent... it is a combination of talent, looks, and charisma.
I also think that most of them are more famous than their less attractive skill peers though, so there is a bias in that the female MMA fighters tend to be like pop stars. It is not really all about talent... it is a combination of talent, looks, and charisma.
While I think that that's largely true--women will always be objectified--I do think that even in women's MMA that talent can overcome. Look at Cyborg. She totally looks like a dude, but because she wrecks fools she's probably one of the top three most recognizable female fighters in the world.
I also think that we see the same thing in men's MMA, to a lesser extent. GSP is "GSP" largely because of his looks and personality and not just because of his fighting ability.
I also wanted to point out one other thing. . .
Whenever someone points out a girl as being hot or attractive, you usually come back with something like, "She's nothing compared to most girls you'd find on the beach or in a nightclub." I'd hardly think that's a fair comparison, though. The beach or nightclubs are not really good places to go to get any sort of idea about what real-life average girls look like.
Most girls look exactly that--average--with "decent" faces and bodies that are almost certainly a little bit chubby or overweight. All the girls I posted pics of are well ahead of the pack if for no other reason then they are in incredibly good physical shape.
Svino
07-13-2012, 06:04 PM
What? You don't think it is hilarious? It makes me laugh because we have a judge here that is somewhat attractive, and all the lawyers talk about hitting it. Its like HIllary Clinton or Sarah Palin or whoever... it doesn't matter how old and gross they are, people still talk about it. I love it.
Maybe darkly humorous, I guess. But really, it kind of sucks. Not that I expect people not to notice attractiveness or lack thereof, but like you said, it means way too much to too many people. MMA promotions that have women's fights should really reign in their announcers when it comes to commenting on the fighters attractiveness all the time. It's inappropriate - they're in there as fighters, not models.
Maybe darkly humorous, I guess. But really, it kind of sucks. Not that I expect people not to notice attractiveness or lack thereof, but like you said, it means way too much to too many people. MMA promotions that have women's fights should really reign in their announcers when it comes to commenting on the fighters attractiveness all the time. It's inappropriate - they're in there as fighters, not models.
An unexpectedly sober and earnest reply.
I can see the humor in it, and like you say it's pretty much impossible to not notice someone's attractiveness, but I do genuinely believe that women in any field--athletics, academics, medicine, law, computer repair, or whatever else--should be taken just as seriously as their male counterparts and should have the same opportunities to succeed. And to deny them this is a legitimate problem.
MMA_scientist
07-14-2012, 01:57 AM
Maybe darkly humorous, I guess. But really, it kind of sucks.
Oh is there another kind of humor? I agree that is wrong, but it still makes me laugh. I do think itis alittle bit funnier with female fighters... its like "oh look how mean the face she is making is, she is so tough, its adorable". Something like watchinglittle kids do karate. I fully realize how condescending it is, but it is still funny,
I think people take themselves way too seriously, so it doesnt genuinely bother me when people cant get "the respect they deserve".
I personally put almost no stock in attractiveness. It is ridiculous way to measure a person. I also feel like i am pretty immune to sex appeal, being good looking will get you nothing from me and i have never really understood guys that do special things for pretty girls. So in the same way i find it funny accomplished females are judged by their looks, i also find it pretty hilarious eatching a girl who is used to leveraging her looks try and fail. And that happens a lot in my world too. Being hot might get you out of tickrts, but it generally backfires when you try the same routine on a judge.
MMA_scientist
07-14-2012, 02:02 AM
An unexpectedly sober and earnest reply.
I can see the humor in it, and like you say it's pretty much impossible to not notice someone's attractiveness, but I do genuinely believe that women in any field--athletics, academics, medicine, law, computer repair, or whatever else--should be taken just as seriously as their male counterparts and should have the same opportunities to succeed. And to deny them this is a legitimate problem.
I agree for the most part. Athletics is slightlybdifferent imo... you are generally getting an inferior product, and so i am ok if women dont have the same opportunities there. I also feel pretyy ok denying women opportunities in law enforcement or military, or at least holding them to the same standards as the men.
MMA_scientist
07-14-2012, 02:02 AM
An unexpectedly sober and earnest reply.
I can see the humor in it, and like you say it's pretty much impossible to not notice someone's attractiveness, but I do genuinely believe that women in any field--athletics, academics, medicine, law, computer repair, or whatever else--should be taken just as seriously as their male counterparts and should have the same opportunities to succeed. And to deny them this is a legitimate problem.
I agree for the most part. Athletics is slightlybdifferent imo... you are generally getting an inferior product, and so i am ok if women dont have the same opportunities there. I also feel pretyy ok denying women opportunities in law enforcement or military, or at least holding them to the same standards as the men.
I personally put almost no stock in attractiveness. It is ridiculous way to measure a person.
Silliness.
Being attractive just makes you better than everyone else.
And I only say that half-jokingly.
Athletics is slightlybdifferent imo... you are generally getting an inferior product, and so i am ok if women dont have the same opportunities there.
You're thinking too objectively. Scientist, sometimes I think you don't have a heart. Or at least don't feel emotions like you're supposed to.
Women aren't as strong as men. And for whatever reason--I guess it probably has to do with how our bodies are built--aren't usually as fast or have the same technical skills as men.
But that's why I think that women should be judged on a different scale. The women scale. Whoever are the best female practitioners determine the standard for excellence . . . not men. And ultimately, in my view, what's important is how much of their hearts and souls they are giving to what they are doing.
Personally, I think that we place too much emphasis on results. What's important is how hard you try and how much you bleed to get where you're trying to go.
Anderson Silva may be awesome, but if he never trains, I have a hard time feeling like his accomplishment is worth very much.
MMA_scientist
07-14-2012, 02:35 AM
Is attractiveness like morality? Where pretty much everyone thinks they are (attractive)? I know that sometimesvfat people know they arent attractive ( right ludo?), but i think that is an exception because they probably assume they would be good looking but for the weight. I think it is probably more male trait if it exists... not sure though since i am objectively beautiful myself.
Is attractiveness like morality? Where pretty much everyone thinks they are (attractive)? I know that sometimesvfat people know they arent attractive ( right ludo?), but i think that is an exception because they probably assume they would be good looking but for the weight. I think it is probably more male trait if it exists... not sure though since i am objectively beautiful myself.
It's at least proven that the world values attractiveness. If you're ugly then you're going to have a harder time. It will be more difficult to get a job and also more difficult to be taken seriously by people. "Attractive" people get jobs more easily, get promoted more easily, get out of tickets more easily (as you mentioned), and also seem to project a greater sense of credibility for whatever reason.
I got at least a little bit lucky. I seem to be considered generally attractive, with good bone structure. Where I did not luck out is height, which has been shown objectively to have an impact on the things I mentioned earlier. But I can't really complain overall. It could be much worse.
MMA_scientist
07-14-2012, 02:46 AM
You're thinking too objectively. Scientist, sometimes I think you don't have a heart. Or at least don't feel emotions like you're supposed to.
I have heard that said once or twice. Usually by my wife. I am sort of dead inside.
But that's why I think that women should be judged on a different scale. The women scale. Whoever are the best female practitioners determine the standard for excellence . . . not men. And ultimately, in my view, what's important is how much of their hearts and souls they are giving to what they are doing.
Personally, I think that we place too much emphasis on results. What's important is how hard you try and how much you bleed to get where you're trying to go.
Anderson Silva may be awesome, but if he never trains, I have a hard time feeling like his accomplishment is worth very much.
I dont see it that way at all. It is fine to judge women within their own league on the women scale, but i dont like the idea that we must all have the same opportunities for everything. They arent as good, so i see no issue with denying the opp to them. It depends on how you see sport. It is the struggle, yes, but it is the struggle by the best... otherwise we could just throw any two people in the arena and watch the triumph of yhe will.
Svino
07-14-2012, 02:52 AM
Being hot might get you out of tickrts, but it generally backfires when you try the same routine on a judge.
Now watching that would be funny.
I also feel pretyy ok denying women opportunities in law enforcement...
I would seriously rather have an all-female police force than an all-male one. And strength doesn't matter if you're just gonna use the taser on everyone anyway.
Is attractiveness like morality? Where pretty much everyone thinks they are (attractive)?
I bet there's a big cluster with people giving themselves about a "7" on a 1-10 scale.
MMA_scientist
07-14-2012, 02:54 AM
I got at least a little bit lucky. I seem to be considered generally attractive, with good bone structure. Where I did not luck out is height, which has been shown objectively to have an impact on the things I mentioned earlier. But I can't really complain overall. It could be much worse.
Well that answers my question. Regardless of how much we look like jens pulver's lessbathletic twin, we still think we are handsome.
I KID.
MMA_scientist
07-14-2012, 03:00 AM
Now watching that would be funny.
I would seriously rather have an all-female police force than an all-male one. And strength doesn't matter if you're just gonna use the taser on everyone anyway.
I bet there's a big cluster with people giving themselves about a "7" on a 1-10 scale.
I cant tell you how many women think i would represent them for free. Hasnt happened yet...
I yhink you are probably right about people thinking they are just attractive enough.
Since i really dont think police are very neccessary, i tend to agree. But have ever met very many female cops? It takes a special kind of horrible person to want to be female in that environment. Any abuses you imagine are problematic with the maled, multiply that time 5 with the females.
I have heard that said once or twice. Usually by my wife. I am sort of dead inside.
To be honest, I think you might have some psychopathic tendencies.
I dont see it that way at all. It is fine to judge women within their own league on the women scale, but i dont like the idea that we must all have the same opportunities for everything. They arent as good, so i see no issue with denying the opp to them. It depends on how you see sport. It is the struggle, yes, but it is the struggle by the best... otherwise we could just throw any two people in the arena and watch the triumph of yhe will.
I can see legitimacy in either view. Yours is a "hard" view of sport. I guess mine is a little softer.
The way I see it is that we have gender divisions for the same reason that we have weight divisions: People should be judged according to their peers.
Frank Mir would brutalize Frankie Edgar, but that doesn't really mean he's a superior fighter.
Well that answers my question. Regardless of how much we look like jens pulver's lessbathletic twin, we still think we are handsome.
I KID.
Nigga, I am going exclusively off of third-party reviews.
MMA_scientist
07-14-2012, 03:20 AM
To be honest, I think you might have some psychopathic tendencies.
I am about as stable a human as you can find. I am not a psycho, ofcourse if i was, i would probably think i wsstable.
MMA_scientist
07-14-2012, 03:22 AM
My kids woke me up and now i cant sleep. Ibhave watched the same episode of seinfeld 4 times in a raoow now. Seinfeld really is a great show.
I am about as stable a human as you can find. I am not a psycho, ofcourse if i was, i would probably think i wsstable.
Well as you should know, psychopathy does not necessarily lead to instability. It just means that you don't experience the kind of emotions the average person does, empathy in particular.
Svino
07-14-2012, 11:50 AM
Well as you should know, psychopathy does not necessarily lead to instability. It just means that you don't experience the kind of emotions the average person does, empathy in particular.
I'm not sure how well-defined the term is, but it does seem to be reserved for those who are particularly manipulative and/or anti-social.
In my totally armchair diagnosis, I think Dana White is pretty close to being a psychopath.
poopoo333
07-15-2012, 01:44 AM
This Weeks #MMA (https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23MMA) Wagering Recap: Betting favorites dominate this weeks action going 23-2 overall! #UFC (https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23UFC) #StrikeForce (https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23StrikeForce) #LegacyFC (https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23LegacyFC)
....
Damn. Dogs took an ass whoopin'.
LOL
With mind finally focused on fighting, Anthony Johnson sees 205 pounds as fresh start (http://mmajunkie.com/news/29706/with-mind-finally-focused-on-fighting-anthony-johnson-sees-205-pounds-as-fresh-start.mma)
Mr. IWS
07-16-2012, 08:45 AM
^^^^^LMAO
inb4heweighs218atweighin
poopoo333
07-16-2012, 12:17 PM
Ian McCall Talks UFC Fighter Pay (http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/7/16/3162364/ufc-ian-mccall-fighter-pay-mma-news)
I guess that just goes to show you that those numbers just can't be trusted. I think in some cases they're probably pretty accurate. But in others they are clearly way off.
Nice to see Women's MMA getting some mainstream coverage. . .
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mma-cagewriter/amateur-fighter-scores-her-second-five-second-knockout-145640209--mma.html
I think I'm going to start studying Esperanto again.
Who's with me?
Svino
07-16-2012, 06:35 PM
Nice to see Women's MMA getting some mainstream coverage. . .
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mma-cagewriter/amateur-fighter-scores-her-second-five-second-knockout-145640209--mma.html
Children's MMA getting some coverage too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mQb4EoBdYFM#!
I think I'm going to start studying Esperanto again.
Who's with me?
Why Esperanto?
Why Esperanto?
Because the philosophy of the language resonates with me, it's fairly easy as to learn as far as languages ago, and there's a very active community of speakers around the world.
MMA_scientist
07-17-2012, 09:33 AM
Anthony Johnson fighting Aug. 24 Titan FC. Also on the card, the MMA debut of Braulio. Braulio is going to be a very good MMA fighter IMO.
http://themmacorner.com/2012/07/16/chris-holland-expected-to-welcome-braulio-estima-to-mma/
edman5555
07-17-2012, 01:51 PM
I cant tell you how many women think i would represent them for free. Hasnt happened yet...
I yhink you are probably right about people thinking they are just attractive enough.
Since i really dont think police are very neccessary, i tend to agree. But have ever met very many female cops? It takes a special kind of horrible person to want to be female in that environment. Any abuses you imagine are problematic with the maled, multiply that time 5 with the females.
When you say multiply that 5 times with women what do you mean? The way women would abuse civilians or the way cops would abuse the women?
MMA_scientist
07-17-2012, 02:15 PM
When you say multiply that 5 times with women what do you mean? The way women would abuse civilians or the way cops would abuse the women?
Female cops are a lot worse about breaking the rules IME. It may be that they are trying to be extra tough to make it in a man's field, but female cops are a lot worse IME.
Mr. IWS
07-17-2012, 02:20 PM
Female cops are a lot worse about breaking the rules IME. It may be that they are trying to be extra tough to make it in a man's field, but female cops are a lot worse IME.
I actually have 2 expreriences with Female cops.
1- My Aunt was a cop, I can see her being a real mutherfucker on the force, she was a mean one sometimes. Used to smack up her Husbands (yes plural) and shit. Some classic family stories are about her goin Ham on her husbands
2- I got pulled over when I was like 19, had no insurance/license etc. My son was in the car, and this fuckin Male Cop was pulling me outta the car acting like a fuckin asshole. Had me spread out on the hood. Said he was callin child protective services to come get my kid, blah, blah, blah. He went back to the car, and his Female partner said, dont worry, he aint gonna do shit, he is just trying to scare you. She was being cool as shit. All that punk ass cop did was give me some tickets and scraped the stickers (which were also fake) off my car.
edman5555
07-17-2012, 02:25 PM
Yeah i think there is a larger percentage of assholes in law enforcement than in other professions. Probably because you can be an asshole and get away with it. I think most people know that when they look at a law enforcement as a profession.
edman5555
07-17-2012, 02:26 PM
They also deal with a lot of shit and probably end up taking it out on other people. Most people behave like that in life. I would think it is the same for police.
MMA_scientist
07-17-2012, 02:27 PM
I am generalizing. The cops I have known have actually been real nice guys for the most part. I have only dealt with a handful of female cops, and all of them were pretty obnoxious. There was one female cop that used to do all sorts of rule breaking and I had to deal with her a lot on suppression issues where I was arguing she violated the 4the amendment. But generally, I think there has to be something wrong with you if youwant to be a cop, and that is doubly so if you want to be the only woman working with 500 meatheads.
MMA_scientist
07-17-2012, 02:29 PM
Yeah i think there is a larger percentage of assholes in law enforcement than in other professions. Probably because you can be an asshole and get away with it. I think most people know that when they look at a law enforcement as a profession.
If i was a cop, I would not be able to handle the power. Anytime someone looked at me funny, I would be pullin8g out my badge and gun. I would have that shit out all the time... i would be the wprst cop ever. I don't care if people commit victimless crimes so I would never arrest people, but I would be rocking out all over town with my gun and badge drawn.
But generally, I think there has to be something wrong with you if youwant to be a cop, and that is doubly so if you want to be the only woman working with 500 meatheads.
Yeah. I think that the only reasons to be a cop are:
1. You are particularly idealistic and have a genuine desire to serve and protect.
2. You want a job that will let you be a dick to people and abuse your authority.
or
3. You want a stable career, but don't have a college education. If this was me though, I'd just go big and join the military.
MMA_scientist
07-17-2012, 02:41 PM
Also, at one point I was going to be in the FBI. I passed their tests, but probably would have failed the psych profile (I have actually been denied a job because of those stupid personality tests before). But I changed my mind and became the drain on society that you have all come to know and love.
MMA_scientist
07-17-2012, 02:44 PM
Yeah. I think that the only reasons to be a cop are:
1. You are particularly idealistic and have a genuine desire to serve and protect.
2. You want a job that will let you be a dick to people and abuse your authority.
or
3. You want a stable career, but don't have a college education. If this was me though, I'd just go big and join the military.
Well, for me, when I briefly considered it, it was because I thought it would be more fun and would sound cooler (FBI motherfucker freeze) to people. Then I spent a day with an actual special agent in the FBI and that was worse than being an accountant.
Then I spent a day with an actual special agent in the FBI and that was worse than being an accountant.
How so?
MMA_scientist
07-17-2012, 03:26 PM
How so?
The office was just real quiet, and he was in a cubicle, and he never left the office. FBI raids, apparently don't happen very often. I am sure there are other types of agents, this guy was a sex crime investigator, and as far as I could tell, all he did was paperwork.
edman5555
07-17-2012, 06:21 PM
Yeah that makes sense to me. I would think most of the research for any investigation would take place behind a desk. There is one other benefit to being a cop though. Pension + benefits. You can retire fairly early if you want to.
Mr. IWS
07-18-2012, 01:23 PM
http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhDZY5nKr7lRaLbGxz
The comments are great on this vid too.
MMA_scientist
07-18-2012, 01:37 PM
^^ that's hilarious. He just pops out of his chair and starts blasting.
poopoo333
07-18-2012, 02:36 PM
As for the cop talk: two of my powerlifting training partners are cops. One is 5'6 240 lbs, looks like a musclebear. One is a 6'2 330 lb guy that is the K9 guy. They are both cool as shit, and from the way they talk they are cool cops (don't give tickets for dumb shit, let people go for stuff, not even pulling someone over for expired tags..just telling them at a stop light, etc). It kind of puts a dent in all "meathead cops are dicks".
Also, I went to that gym last night. Last night was all BJJ. It was fun..I liked it and am going to go back. It was all no gi. We did a crazy warm up which was all conditioning (it might not be that crazy but it was tough), then we did guard passes, side mount stuff, side mount to mount to arm triangle stuff, and just rolled starting in certain positions. They seemed to be going over things they had trouble with at NAGA last weekend. Scientist...are rash guards worth it? I was wearing a gray t shirt and it was really uncomfortable after a bit, every bit of it was soaked in sweat..and I saw a lot of the others were wearing them both long sleeve and short sleeve.
MMA_scientist
07-18-2012, 02:52 PM
Also, I went to that gym last night. Last night was all BJJ. It was fun..I liked it and am going to go back. It was all no gi. We did a crazy warm up which was all conditioning (it might not be that crazy but it was tough), then we did guard passes, side mount stuff, side mount to mount to arm triangle stuff, and just rolled starting in certain positions. They seemed to be going over things they had trouble with at NAGA last weekend. Scientist...are rash guards worth it? I was wearing a gray t shirt and it was really uncomfortable after a bit, every bit of it was soaked in sweat..and I saw a lot of the others were wearing them both long sleeve and short sleeve.
Glad you liked it. Will be nice to have someone else on the board that trains. Rashies are worth it, but just get a cheap one, no need to get a grappling specific one at this point (you may want one later so you look cool at comps). My favorite cheap brand is Starter from wal mart, which I but like 5 at a time.
I have been doing a lot of no gi lately, re-discovering my passion for it (it was my first love, but I dumped it for the more dynamic gi game).
Anyone here ever play the game Snatcher on SegaCD?
poopoo333
07-19-2012, 07:57 PM
Glad you liked it. Will be nice to have someone else on the board that trains. Rashies are worth it, but just get a cheap one, no need to get a grappling specific one at this point (you may want one later so you look cool at comps). My favorite cheap brand is Starter from wal mart, which I but like 5 at a time.
I have been doing a lot of no gi lately, re-discovering my passion for it (it was my first love, but I dumped it for the more dynamic gi game).
Yeah, that's what everybody else was wearing..the starter brand. Short sleeve or long sleeve..does it matter? I am pretty sure I am going to start needing to bring a towel to dry off and an extra shirt to wear on the (kind of) long drive home. And yeah, I used to train in gi, so some of this was hard. I was drilling and grappling with a girl at first, and with her shaved sweaty legs......now I know what Joe Rogan means when he freaks out about how "MIKE, THEY ARE VERY SWEATY AND SLIPPERY. IT'S VERY INTERESTING TO SEE IF HE CAN GET THE SUBMISSION!!"
Random question:
Presuming everyone works equally as hard, what's more important, natural talent or expert training?
For instance, is there a trainer in the world who could make Leonard Garcia a significantly better fighter? Or if GSP trained exclusively at a 2nd rate gym, would he still be champ?
You get the idea. Discuss.
poopoo333
07-20-2012, 12:02 AM
I'm sure it goes hand in hand, but natural talent is probably a huge factor. It's kind of difficult for me to elaborate on though.
GSP did train at a 2nd rate gym when he became champ.
Leonard Garcia, no.
Natural talent by a lot, IMO. Granted, he still needs to be getting OK training, at least. 2nd rate, not 3rd or 4th.
poopoo333
07-20-2012, 12:14 AM
On this subject...how about physical features for something like wrestling/BJJ? I guess this is more for someone like scientist. I was wondering.. I have the shorter legs/arms..thicker back/shoulders etc etc you know the deal..but I am actually real flexible. I feel like I am never going to ever be a real good guard player..it seems like most of them are a little bit longer/thinner
I'm sure it goes hand in hand, but natural talent is probably a huge factor. It's kind of difficult for me to elaborate on though.
GSP did train at a 2nd rate gym when he became champ.
Leonard Garcia, no.
Natural talent by a lot, IMO. Granted, he still needs to be getting OK training, at least. 2nd rate, not 3rd or 4th.
Yeah, could be. We definitely have seen how fighters hit a ceiling, regardless of what kind of training they receive.
But we also see how much TUF guys progress after they get with a really high-quality camp.
On this subject...how about physical features for something like wrestling/BJJ? I guess this is more for someone like scientist. I was wondering.. I have the shorter legs/arms..thicker back/shoulders etc etc you know the deal..but I am actually real flexible. I feel like I am never going to ever be a real good guard player..it seems like most of them are a little bit longer/thinner
I really don't know, but I have to assume your strength will be such a big advantage that you'll be able to muscle almost everyone, especially once you've gotten some experience under your belt.
poopoo333
07-20-2012, 12:21 AM
Yeah, they progress well, but they usually have a ceiling as well I would think. I think a good example of a champ with outstanding athletic ability along with gradually increased technical skills is Ben Henderson. The thing is, I don't think he is really with that great of a camp as far as I know...I may be wrong on that though. I just know it's not a "name camp"
MMA_scientist
07-20-2012, 09:51 AM
Yeah, that's what everybody else was wearing..the starter brand. Short sleeve or long sleeve..does it matter? I am pretty sure I am going to start needing to bring a towel to dry off and an extra shirt to wear on the (kind of) long drive home. And yeah, I used to train in gi, so some of this was hard. I was drilling and grappling with a girl at first, and with her shaved sweaty legs......now I know what Joe Rogan means when he freaks out about how "MIKE, THEY ARE VERY SWEATY AND SLIPPERY. IT'S VERY INTERESTING TO SEE IF HE CAN GET THE SUBMISSION!!"
I wear long sleeves. Absorbs sweat, less chance of skin disease
MMA_scientist
07-20-2012, 09:57 AM
On this subject...how about physical features for something like wrestling/BJJ? I guess this is more for someone like scientist. I was wondering.. I have the shorter legs/arms..thicker back/shoulders etc etc you know the deal..but I am actually real flexible. I feel like I am never going to ever be a real good guard player..it seems like most of them are a little bit longer/thinner
Short linbs have advantages too. See marcelo garcia. Just play thegame you fell comfortable with. I have a good guard, but almost no subs beacuse my hip flexibility is not good. Butbi can sweep everyone. Your dtrength is going to be really hard to deal with, combined with short linbs, it is probably really hard to sub you with arm bars and key locks. You will eventually develop a game that fits your body... that is the beautybof grappling. One of the things i enjoy is the personal expression through my individual style, it is artistic expression.
MMA_scientist
07-20-2012, 10:00 AM
Random question:
Presuming everyone works equally as hard, what's more important, natural talent or expert training?
For instance, is there a trainer in the world who could make Leonard Garcia a significantly better fighter? Or if GSP trained exclusively at a 2nd rate gym, would he still be champ?
You get the idea. Discuss.
It is a sliding scale. The thing is training can be trained, genetics... not so much. If you can have only one- training is better. If you want to be a world champ- ability is better imo
Well let's add hard work into the equation.
Does natural ability usually trump hard work or is it putting in the hours that counts the most? If GSP got lazy and started doing only two week camps would it catch up with him?
Well let's add hard work into the equation.
Does natural ability usually trump hard work or is it putting in the hours that counts the most? If GSP got lazy and started doing only two week camps would it catch up with him?
Mike Tyson::handshake::
It is a sliding scale. The thing is training can be trained, genetics... not so much. If you can have only one- training is better. If you want to be a world champ- ability is better imo
This is pretty much what I was saying. A completely untrained super athlete is going to get smashed by any moderately trained fighter. But at what point of training is the discrepancy overcome?
We need svino to post a graph.
Svino
07-20-2012, 07:50 PM
Well, I don't know about a graph, but I pretty much agree with you guys. I think the curve would be U-shaped:
For low levels of training and competition, athleticism would matter more. But when comparing people with significant training, I think the quality of training would become more important. But at the highest levels of the sport, high athleticism is basically a requirement and may become more important again.
Fuck you. I want my parabola.
Care to elaborate?
Tyson had the most talent in the world but quit training hard and was KTFO by Buster Douglas
Okay, a follow up to my earlier question: How important is coaching between rounds? That is, how often does a coach's advice between rounds actually change the outcome of the fight?
Anyone here seen the movie The Way? Directed by Emilio Estevez?
It's good. It's on Netflix.
If anyone has Netflix and wants to see one of the best documentaries ever made, watch The Weather Underground.
poopoo333
07-23-2012, 08:28 AM
If anyone has Netflix and wants to see one of the best documentaries ever made, watch The Weather Underground.
If it sucks, I am telling Zak to ban you.
Watch it and let me know what you think.
http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k497/animalsbeingdicks/abd-266.gif
Mr. IWS
07-23-2012, 03:48 PM
These niggas are trippin in my office. Monitoring internet usage since Friday, and they are blocking all these sites. IWS4Life!
MMA_scientist
07-23-2012, 04:18 PM
These niggas are trippin in my office. Monitoring internet usage since Friday, and they are blocking all these sites. IWS4Life!
Time to use your phone to goof off instead.
Time to lose your mind and start breaking shit.
Goat man. . .
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/23/officials-work-to-identify-goat-man-seen-trailing-herd-in-utah-mountains/
PP, you watching the 1000th episode of Raw right now?
Brett Hart's looking fucking rough.
Svino
07-24-2012, 12:48 AM
Goat man. . .
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/23/officials-work-to-identify-goat-man-seen-trailing-herd-in-utah-mountains/
"Leave goat man alone!"
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090912034411/uncyclopedia/images/c/c3/Chris-crocker.jpg
Why the fuck does the Undertaker have a mohawk?
Something just went terribly wrong.
poopoo333
07-24-2012, 01:08 PM
^^didn't watch it. I was working..I tuned in just in time for the CM Punk/Cena match...really liked the ending. Great heel turn by Punk. I am going to download the whole episode and watch later tonight.
Hey Scientist, some lady just came into the "casino" and signed up, she is from Sheridan, Indiana? Do you know her? She is old.
MMA_scientist
07-24-2012, 01:16 PM
Hey Scientist, some lady just came into the "casino" and signed up, she is from Sheridan, Indiana? Do you know her? She is old.
Funny you ask that, I had an eskimo come in the office earlier and I was going to ask you if you knew him. But to answer your question, yeah, I know her.
Mr. IWS
07-24-2012, 02:06 PM
I caught the beginning of Raw last night. The DX thing was pretty cool, but those niggas look like shit now.
I thought Triple H, Michaels and X-Pac still looked good. Just a little older.
Mr. IWS
07-24-2012, 02:43 PM
Triple H looks ok. Michaels looks really old to me, and the hair extensions were obvious last night. Xpac looked like he had a beer belly to me.
Triple H looks ok. Michaels looks really old to me, and the hair extensions were obvious last night. Xpac looked like he had a beer belly to me.
One thing I know is that they all look fantastic compared to Scott Hall. That nigga has just straight fallen OFF!
Mr. IWS
07-24-2012, 03:29 PM
One thing I know is that they all look fantastic compared to Scott Hall. That nigga has just straight fallen OFF!
Your right about that. I cant belive that dude is still alive. Did you see that ESPN story about Him?
Mr. IWS
07-24-2012, 03:30 PM
BTW, that was the first time I saw Stephanie McMahon last night, in years. She looks pretty good now.
That Lesnar guy should give MMA a shot, it think he would be good at it.
I did. He is straight fucked up. I remember watching him way back in the day when he was Razor Ramon. Then I didn't follow wrestling at all for over a decade. So when I saw him I was like, Holy SHIT!!!!
poopoo333
07-24-2012, 06:21 PM
Guys, I am making Anderson Silva money. I am now the only employee besides the owner at the "casino". The other employees got fired for stealing. I am now making $10 an hour instead of $8 (this was supposed to happen in 6 months), and now I am working ~40 hours a week there and I also get lots of tips. I'm still working at the restaurant too 15-20 hours a week. So until school starts I am gonna be making like $700 a week, maybe more. This is way better than ~$150 a week.....sorry I am just excited about it. When school starts the hours are gonna have to go down so I won't be making as much..but oh well
poopoo333
07-24-2012, 06:24 PM
http://vaughany.mysbrforum.com/photos/l/9q7A4iy3.jpg
Njokuani's broken hand
WTF that is not a human appendage!
Guys, I am making Anderson Silva money. I am now the only employee besides the owner at the "casino". The other employees got fired for stealing. I am now making $10 an hour instead of $8 (this was supposed to happen in 6 months), and now I am working ~40 hours a week there and I also get lots of tips. I'm still working at the restaurant too 15-20 hours a week. So until school starts I am gonna be making like $700 a week, maybe more. This is way better than ~$150 a week.....sorry I am just excited about it. When school starts the hours are gonna have to go down so I won't be making as much..but oh well
Damn, big pimpin'!
Congrats. $700 a week is pretty nice.
Mr. IWS
07-25-2012, 08:36 AM
Guys, I am making Anderson Silva money. I am now the only employee besides the owner at the "casino". The other employees got fired for stealing. I am now making $10 an hour instead of $8 (this was supposed to happen in 6 months), and now I am working ~40 hours a week there and I also get lots of tips. I'm still working at the restaurant too 15-20 hours a week. So until school starts I am gonna be making like $700 a week, maybe more. This is way better than ~$150 a week.....sorry I am just excited about it. When school starts the hours are gonna have to go down so I won't be making as much..but oh well
Thats some good money right there. All under the table?
Mr. IWS
07-25-2012, 08:37 AM
http://vaughany.mysbrforum.com/photos/l/9q7A4iy3.jpg
Njokuani's broken hand
You shoulda had us try to guess what that was. Shit looked like a fuckin piece of wood to me.
poopoo333
07-25-2012, 10:32 AM
Thats some good money right there. All under the table?
Yeah. At the new place she told me it wasn't but last week I got paid in cash. I guess we'll see today if that happens again.
You shoulda had us try to guess what that was. Shit looked like a fuckin piece of wood to me.
Looks like someone finally caught the gingerbread man.
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t233/luke1899/bundy.jpg
.......................................
poopoo333
07-25-2012, 10:19 PM
Yeah. At the new place she told me it wasn't but last week I got paid in cash. I guess we'll see today if that happens again.
Got paid cash today, but now I am the only employee so she is putting me on the books. Now I have to pay taxes like a real citizen.
Mr. IWS
07-27-2012, 09:54 AM
Dam, Jens Pulver is really looking like shit these days.
http://i.imgur.com/bSZyv.jpg
Mr. IWS
07-27-2012, 03:40 PM
http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/internet-memes-sleepovers-are-okay.png
Mr. IWS
07-27-2012, 04:02 PM
I don't get it.
When I posted that, I had a feeling you wouldnt.
I can't believe this went wrong. . .
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-hides-cash-over-cash-gets-baked-accident-122700396.html
Anyone else watching the opening ceremonies right now?
Forever alone in my patriotism and celebration of global competition.
I watched part of it but it was corny as shit.
You thought so? I thought it was incredible. Extremely creative.
Well Paul McCartney just closed shit out. I thought the whole thing was fucking beautiful.
I love the Olympics. It's about competition . . . but if you can put all the politics aside, it's also about people all around the world coming together. That's awesome.
Mr. IWS
07-28-2012, 10:43 AM
Well Paul McCartney just closed shit out. I thought the whole thing was fucking beautiful.
I love the Olympics. It's about competition . . . but if you can put all the politics aside, it's also about people all around the world coming together. That's awesome.
One of my favorite events is the Olympics. I love that shit, especially the Summer games. My Wife feels the same. We have a lot of "You remember where we were when" type moments watching the games. I was actually unemployed 4 years ago during the games so one of the good things that came out of that was I pretty much watched most of the events.
inb4corney
2008 was actually the first year that I really paid attention to the Olympics since Barcelona. That's a huge gap, I know. I went a long time without giving a fuck. But I think 2008 was the first time the Olympics came on when I had my own apartment and could just sit down and watch the shit every night without distractions.
My favorite event has always been gymnastics. I love that shit. When I was a kid I was really interested in gymnastics and even taught myself how to do a back handspring in my living room while watching the '92 Games.
I'll pretty much watch anything, though. Cycling is on right now. I also like watching the marathon. I wish they would put taekwondo and judo on TV but they never do.
Interestingly, I heard that taekwondo might be discontinued after this year. Apparently the IOC hates TKD and considers it a sport of undesirables, or some such shit. A TKD guy intentionally kicked one of the refs in '08. That didn't go over well. But I have heard that Karate has been shortlisted for possible inclusion in 2020.
Svino
07-28-2012, 12:24 PM
Interestingly, I heard that taekwondo might be discontinued after this year. Apparently the IOC hates TKD and considers it a sport of undesirables, or some such shit. A TKD guy intentionally kicked one of the refs in '08. That didn't go over well. But I have heard that Karate has been shortlisted for possible inclusion in 2020.
I used to never watch anything in the Olympics because of the crappy way the networks cover it, but starting in 2008 you could just watch some events live and w/o excessive commentary over the internet. I mainly watched the judo and wrestling and fencing events. I remember when the Cuban TKD guy kicked the judge. I thought it was hilarious that he high-kicked him instead of punching him or something.
I used to never watch anything in the Olympics because of the crappy way the networks cover it, but starting in 2008 you could just watch some events live and w/o excessive commentary over the internet.
I actually tried to watch some of the shit on the Internet but to me it just wasn't the same. I like the commentary. I think the commentary and all the production elements give the events a sort of energy that just wasn't there when I watched the stuff on the NBC site.
Besides, that sounds like a strange reason to just disregard the whole thing. Wouldn't it be better to watch it some annoying commentary than just not watch it at all? The shit only comes around once every four years, after all.
I thought it was hilarious that he high-kicked him instead of punching him or something.
Taekwondo motherfucker!
Svino
07-28-2012, 12:43 PM
Besides, that sounds like a strange reason to just disregard the whole thing. Wouldn't it be better to watch it some annoying commentary than just not watch it at all? The shit only comes around once every four years, after all.
Well, it's not just the commentary. It's the fact that it's chopped up with ads, and usually not even live, and if there aren't good Americans in that sport you probably won't see it at all.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.