Tactical Bear
-
Content Count
4,213 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Tactical Bear
-
-
A man calls your wife a whore, a bitch, and then spits in her face. Your initial impulse is to... escort her from the premises?I want to hit people a lot. I just never do it. Apparently I have too much self control. Unless I am really drunk and with my best friend, then apparently I want to fight. Him, not randoms. I honestly, don't know why. -
I have not seen Drive. And thank you for verifying that Guapomole's reaction was odd. (For the record: I doubt Guapo actually feels that way. Seriously, based on what I know about Guap, I can't imagine a situation in which Guapo would not be skirting jail-time after his woman was spit on. Maybe, if there are kids and family and stuff... but in my situation? No way Guapo would have managed to turn the other cheek.)guapo's reaction is weird. I'm hoping you crushed his fucking face. have you seen drive yet? that. I would have done that. -
You would not have hit him?I would have drug her out of there. I would have wanted to hit him. -
Despite its silly nature, it's a shockingly great song. I'm at the Pizza Hut (What?)I'm at the Taco Bell (What?)I'm at the combination Pizza Hut and Taco BellI'm at the Pizza Hut (What?)I'm at the Taco Bell (Naw)I'm at the combination Pizza Hut and Taco BellWait... we're at the Pizza Hut (What?)We're at the Taco Bell (What?)We're at the combination Pizza Hut and Taco BellWe at the Pizza Hut (No...)We at the Pizza Hut (No...)We at the combination Pizza Hut and Taco BellIt's obviously a brilliant post-modern critique of consumerism. Or just an awesome song about Combination Pizza Hut and Taco Bell restaurants. (Hint: the latter)JeffStrat, have you been to the KenTacoHut in Overland Park? I lived, like, 5 minutes from this place. We went there every Friday for three years.That really speaks to me. -
So Kayla, the girl I've been with for ~10 months now, just had a good friend of hers die from a heroin OD. (Note: I am now Hardcore by Proxy.) She asked me to come to dinner with her and all her friends after the funeral yesterday, and, despite my best instincts, I agreed. I hate almost all of her friends. They're ****ing faggots. Since Kayla and her ex-boyfriend (heretofore: the Dude) broke up, he's been an ass. He's kept it together for a few weeks or months at a time, but then he'll just go off on her at a party and harass her in front of people or something, or send her a series of mean text messages at 3AM, or call her 20 times in a row at 4AM, or whatever. I told Kayla I wanted her to be friends with the Dude, and I was going to do my best to stay out of that part of her life. Hell, they had been together 5 years or something, so it only seemed natural. But every time I would find out the Dude lit her up in front of their mutual friends, I would get more and more and more and more and more angry, not just at the Dude, but at the friends. What the fuck is wrong with you people that you're letting this happen? Oh, I know: you're all god damned cowards. "I just don't want to get involved." Fuk u. Die. You can stay uninvolved when there are two legitimate sides, but when one party calls the other party a whore in front of 30 people (among other things) and kicks her out of the house (nevermind that she was invited), reducing her to tears, maybe it's time you intervene a little, huh?So I hate these people. She tried to keep most of this from me, but one night a few months ago, after the Dude stepped waaaaay over the line, she came back to my place in tears, and explained what happened. She had the good judgment to refuse to tell me where he was, so I threatened him via TracFone. I told him that if he pulled anything like that again, I would put him in the hospital. And he was at the dinner. After about an hour, he'd had a few drinks and he started running his mouth. We sat as far away from him as possible -- come on, somebody just died -- but he kept sliding our way. Kayla is a good girl. She knows why I was staying out of the whole Dude/Kayla stuff, and that it wasn't easy. She knew I had threatened him. She also knew that if the shoe were on the other foot, she would have lost her shit months ago. She was fine when I told her I was going to threaten to hospitalize him, and when I looked at her before the Dude engaged us, she just rolled her eyes and nodded.I don't remember exactly what Dude said, but I was deflecting as best I could. After a few minutes, it became very clear, noting his pinpoint pupils, he was more than just drunk. Really? Are you kidding me? Your friend just overdosed, and you're... really? But, sure, fine, you've had a rough few days. And then he called Kayla a bitch. So I reminded him of my previous threat, at which point he -- I swear to God -- spit at her. *****(momentary lapse of consciousness)*****(shrug) Well, what would you guys have done?
-
So I need to leave in about 20 minutes...am I to assume Guapo is in his lab, working hard on a recipe for me?What?
-
Have you ever been to a Kentacohut?Hm. I just saw a segment of No Reservations at a fried chicken joint in New Orleans. Maybe I should get KFC. I wish there was a real/local place I could go...although at the KFC/Taco Bell I could get a few tacos as well. Not having to cook would be nice. Although I plan on having a drink or two before dinner, and KFC/TB isn't optimal reheated.Decisions are hard. -
No it's totally me. I post on forums all over the internet, doing my best to construct two entire backgrounds that are as divergent and opposed as possible, but using the same handle. It takes a lot of work and there is no point.reddit's "Tactical Bear"I have decided that this is not the one we have. the punctuation is totally wrong, and he's kind of a jackass. -
I matter!PS: A friend of mine -- really more of a friend of my girlfriend's, but still an actual friend of mine -- overdosed tonight, and I had to leave the Tigers game. Please don't do heroin, people.As for sleeping pills, go with Simply Sleep. It's OTC sleeping meds without any accompanying unnecessary drugs. If you can't find it, look up the active ingredient and buy one of the generic options. -
-
Hits, Runs: Albert Pujols/John JayRun Differential, K's: Ian Kinsler/Colby LewisYou can look at my stupid picks all you want, homos. Differentiation!
-
Right, but if it wasn't a split-second decision, I could still justify it in a utilitarian sense without ever talking about intelligenceAgreed. Yeah, but only upon further review. The split second decision most likely doesn't include thoughts of the kid's family. Then again, it probably doesn't consider the relative intelligence issue either. -
A species' preference for itself above all others is not an entirely rational process, but that doesn't mean it's without merit or value.Also, I probably save the retarded kid because his death will likely cause more pain for for his family than the monkey's. And because I identify with him.Why do I have more inherant value than an ant? You can't say "intelligence" unless you're willing to say you'd save a monkey over a severely mentally handicapped human. But I'm willing to listen if you've got something beyond that. -
Did you know that the combined weight of all the ants in the world is greater than the combined weight of all humans in the world?
Ba dum ching!ewww, i dont know about this. i have a hard time understanding how you can view ants and humans on the same scale. -
God, Brv, I was telling myself to shut the fuck up.I'll take that as a compliment. -
Whenever I say brvhrt aloud it sounds like a frog saying "pervert."somehow, despite it all, and against all odds, brv, i've grown to respect your opinion on media. you deserve praise for recignizing ron swanson in his infancy. so here it is: praise be to brvhrt! -
I never talked about what happened with that? I would have sworn...How would I know that? -
It was a poor attempt to refute that claim, then.The point was to counter the claim made by many that atheist are smart.
Holy shit, who falls for that? Worst. Psychopath. Ever.This was more of a joke than a question because the question was invented by psychologist to determine if a person is a psychopath.The correct psychopath response is to kill his friend so there will be another funeral with similar people coming.
I'm pretty sure Vox is anti- a lot of things. From the little I've read -- and please keep in mind, I've read very little -- he's hostile towards science (or at least professional science), among other things. I rarely take part in these discussions, because both sides have developed, and use casually, language that is designed to be dismissive and inflammatory. Nobody, not Vox not Dawkins not Ben Stein not anyone in the public eye, does anything except preach to the listeners already on his side of the aisle. Everyone involved in the public debate is simply rallying his base. Some are worse than others, and I want to be perfectly clear that I am in no way excluding those on my side: atheists can be incredibly smug and self-congratulatory. I would love to talk about stuff like this without everyone attaching so much pride to the discussion. Everyone is so concerned with winning that actual discourse is rejected in favor of pithy insults and circle-jerking or auto-fellatio. There are so many situations where I see an argument presented and think to myself, "There is no way he honestly believes that. He's just trying to be clever!" Everyone is so terrified of giving up any ground at all -- of conceding even a single point or admitting, "Hmmm, I don't know" -- that we end up digging trenches and fighting a war of attrition. But that's true of everything. If you give an inch, there will always be someone there to take it and proclaim victory.But Science, though: Science is good.PS: The original point I made regarding the utilitarianism = psychopathy link posted by BG still stands. Wanna take a crack at it, BG?I wouldn't say anti-atheist.It is a response to the current atheist 'best selling' books, it was defensive, not offensive. -
You know I don't have a kid, right?Go back to his babymama and cry himself to sleep? -
I suppose my point is: "What is VoxDay trying to say?" The way he framed his point was disingenuous -- the "MENSA" and "GENIUS" bars were meant to make the difference between 103 (atheist) and 100 (average) look trifling. He was also offering evidence that atheists are smarter than theists, which just seems... I don't know, backwards? Silly? Perhaps the point was, "There is not a statistically significant difference between the IQs of Theists and Atheists." But I don't think so. I don't think you do either, BG. If that really was his point, why didn't he include the Theist IQ? Or some error bars? It was a clumsy attempt to reject a null hypothesis that reflected poorly on VoxDay.I'm really not sure if Atheists are smarter than Theists -- gun to my head, I'd say yes, but I can't prove that, and even if I could it wouldn't mean anything -- but that slide was both misleading AND backwards.So you are saying atheist are within the margin for error on most IQ test with average people? And that making up numbers and applying them arbitrarily is a valid method to make your point?I guess I can grant you this. I think you are going to end up arguing with VB though, but I am more open minded than most lefties... besides I rated high than mensa, which is why I believe in God.
I'm also curious (about whether I'm walking into a trap/joke, and also about relevance), but I'd ask around. I'd start on the periphery, asking the least grief-stricken about the woman, attempting to ascertain who she was, her relationship to my friend and his sister, and go from there. Funerals are grave affairs, but if I thought I met a woman who was perfect for me, the gravity of the situation wouldn't stop me in my tracks or anything. I'd do my best to not seem like a tail-chasing slut-hound, but I'd learn about her. If she seemed perfect for me, I'd pursue her. Who wouldn't?Curious...If you went to a funeral of your friend's sister and saw a woman that you think may be the perfect woman for you...but she left before you could meet her, what would you do?
I expected to see about what I saw, but seeing it has value. I never would have clicked it if I hadn't been in the religion forum in the first place. It would've been imprudent to discuss religion with BG without reading the anti-atheist powerpoint presentation in his signature...Haha. I kind of can't believe you bothered clicking on that link though. -
Also, I LOVE the powerpoint linked in BalloonGuy's signature, especially slide 14, which is an attempt to dispel the myth that:ATHEISTS ARE VERY INTELLIGENTAverage IQRetards: 70Average: 100Atheist: 103Mensa: 132Genius: 140The point is supposed to be something like "Atheists aren't, like, geniuses or anything, and therefore aren't even smart."But what those numbers really say is: "Atheists are 3% smarter than average." Let's add one more category, shall we?Non-Atheists: <100Average: 100Atheists: 103Now, a new conclusion: "non-Atheists are of below-average intelligence."Am I missing something here? Isn't that exactly the opposite of what BalloonGuy and VoxDay are trying to say?
-
From the same article, in the concluding paragraphSorry for piling on, but this story is also somewhat damaging for your guys side.I am anticipating great efforts to twist these results to make yourselves win this round also.Make sure you bring in Sam Harris, since his recent book about morality would place him firmly in this 'more likely to be a psychopath' camp.
All this study says is: "Based on the questions we asked in the experiment we designed, we are unable to tell if a respondent that chooses to push one man in front of a train is doing it because (a) he is trying to save 5 lives OR (b) he just really likes pushing people in front of trains." Seriously. Read the text of the article. You can see how easy it would for that to be true, right?Let's use as an example the passengers on board the 4th plane on 9/11. They fought back against the terrorists, and very likely attempted to kill them, knowing full well it would mean their own deaths. Maybe one of those guys just really likes fighting and killing. Or maybe one of them was excited about getting to the controls and crashing the plane into the ground. How can you distinguish between an act of genuine heroism and an act of wanton violence?The examples often used to illustrate optimal moral behavior -- the "kill one to save ten?" hypotheticals -- are, according to this study, flawed.While some might be tempted to conclude that these findings undermine utilitarianism as an ethical theory, Prof. Bartels explained that he and his co-author have a different interpretation: "Although the study does not resolve the ethical debate, it points to a flaw in the widely-adopted use of sacrificial dilemmas to identify optimal moral judgment. These methods fail to distinguish between people who endorse utilitarian moral choices because of underlying emotional deficits (like those captured by our measures of psychopathy and Machiavellianism) and those who endorse them out of genuine concern for the welfare of others." In short, if scientists' methods cannot identify a difference between the morality of a utilitarian philosopher who sacrifices her own interest for the sake of others, and a manipulative con artist who cares little about the feelings and welfare of anyone but himself, then perhaps better methods are needed. -
Agreed. My question is this, though:Why didn't Leyland or Girardi take a look at the weather report and say, "Hey, maybe I should start a reliever/long-reliever/#4 or #5 starter?" Can you imagine the competitive advantage the Tigers would have had if Leyland had run, say, Brad Penny out there? (<---- I can not believe I just wrote that. On the list of things I never thought I'd say, that is probably in the top 5) Or Phil Coke? Verlander could have either (a) pitched the 3rd-9th innings if the weather was clear or (b) pitched on Saturday. Either way, JV would have been able to start 2 games on normal rest. Instead, he's pitching Game 3, and that's about it. This arrangement screws the Tigers waaay more than the Yankees. The Tigers utilize significantly more platoons than the Yankees; they had a very right-handed lineup tonight against Sabathia. Nova is going tomorrow, and that's bad news for Raburn (100+ OPS platoon split for his career), Inge (~150 OPS platoon split), etc. Now Leyland has to leave them in against a righty (or burn a bench player), which could be very costly. Also, because tomorrow should be nicer, and we're resuming in the Yankees half of the 2nd, the Tigers basically punted 3 outs. Gross.Why oh why did they even start the Yankees/Tigers game? MLB seems to make some of the dumbest decisions possible when it comes to rain. Fucked up both Verlander and CC, which would have been the most exciting pitching match-up in the ALDS. Now who knows when they'll pitch. -
I was talking to you, regarding the ridiculous title of this thread, because that is very plainly not the conclusion made by the people who undertook this study. People with mild autism are more likely to be atheists than people without mild autism is so plainly not the same thing as People who are atheists have mild autism, which is what your thread title essentially says. I find it impossible to believe that you don't understand this discrepancy.Let's say that there are 100 people. 30 of them are wearing red pants, 70 of them are wearing blue pants.Some 20 of them are also wearing hats. Of those wearing hats, 8 are wearing red pants, and 12 are wearing blue pants.A guy goes around studying the people who wear hats. He says that the majority of people who wear hats have blue pants. And he's right. The percentages are:Probability of blue pants based on having a hat = 12/20 = 60%Probability of red pants based on having a hat = 8/20 = 40%However, another guys looks at the total population. He finds that people with red pants are MORE likely to be wearing a hat than a person with blue pants:Probability of hat based on red pants = 8/30 = ~27%Probability of hat based on blue pants = 12/70 = ~17%But BG suggested that ALL atheists are brain-damaged, based on the fact that some of them are. Your scenario is interesting when we think about how statistics are created, but neither of your guys are suggesting that ALL blue or red panted people wear hats, or that all hatted people wear blue pants, because that would be ludicrous. Perhaps you can explain further.
EDIT: Also something about Bayes Theorem!I find it impossible to believe that you don't understand this
Mlb Playoffs
in Sports- Baseball
Posted
Runs: CardinalsR/D: CardinalsHits: CardinalsSO: CardinalsEDIT: Differentiation!