What is your aim?

What is his aim?

“Take a baby born an African, as an African in the oven,” he said, using Malcolm X’s saying “just because a cat has kittens in the oven, that doesn’t make them biscuits” as a reference point for his riff.

“Take that baby him or her away from the African mother, away from the African community, away from the African experience … and put them Africans at the breasts of Yale, Harvard, University of Chicago, those trinity schools, UCLA or U.C. Berkley. Turn them into biscuits then they’ll get that alien DNA all up inside their brain and they will turn on their own people in defense of the ones who are keeping their own people under oppression.”

“There is white racist DNA running through the synapses of their under-brain tissue,” he continued.

“They will kill their own kind, defend the enemies of their kind or anyone who is perceived to be the enemy of the milky white way of life.”


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/08/reverend-wright-knocks-obama-in-sunday-sermon/#ixzz20B24g2be


This excerpt from a sermon by a man who self identifies as a Christian. This is not my mindset. Nor is this inspired by my God.
 
It's a Ketogenic diet and it basically forces your body to use your fat reserves as fuel instead of sugars and carbs.

If you eat less than 20g of carbs & sugars for 3 days or so, your body will start producing ketone bodies and will go into a state of ketosis. While in this stage it will use fat as its sole energy source.

The diet is supposed to be high in fat so that you stay full, but if you feel full just eat some bacon.. so hey.. it's pretty much the PERFECT diet. Eat bacon - lose weight. I ate way more protein and less fat than I was supposed to, and I lost a ton of weight anyway.. I even cheated every weekend and sometimes even more frequently than that...

A side benefit from cutting out carbs & sugars was me feeling more energetic every day. It made me feel great!

Watch out though.. You are really changing your diet & internal body chemistry a lot by doing this.. You're basically hacking your body ;) So.. it could affect you in other ways too, especially if your internal chemistry is not very adaptive to sudden change.

Cutting out processed foods is going to do your body a lot of good anyway, so if you're not ready for a drastic change like that, you could at least look into eating healthier ... more veggies, less processed foods, more bacon, etc.

Hmm, I might give this a whirl once I'm actually in control of the food I eat, i.e. when I ship off to uni. As of now, I'm at the mercy of what my mom stocks the pantry with in my house :lol:
 
When I tee off, I routinely slice my shots to the right. Consequently, my aim is generally to the left. I do have problems as I become better though as my straight shots, when they happen, end up going too far to the left.
 
I'm curious what are the aims of civ-gamers. Or do you have an aim? is it worthwhile to formulate one? what does the process entail? can you have multiple aims?
I try to minimize pollution in my Civ games. I hate wasting Settlers and Engineers' time cleaning up pollution when they could be doing something more productive.

3) Pay off my first student loan by the end of the summer. After that, only 10,000 left to go!
You have 10,001 student loans? What currency did your schools operate in - gold-pressed latinum? :crazyeye:

As a human I require verbal/text communication to not feel fully isolated. If you have any alternatives besides another human, please, do share.
Volunteer at a cat/dog shelter. You will have a great deal of verbal communication with non-humans, and will be giving something of yourself to little furry people who appreciate it.


My aim (as in short-term goal) is to survive the current heat-wave. I HATE SUMMER! :mad:
 
Either you get something emotional out of social activity which hence improves your health or whatever, or you don't.

That's a false dichotomy. Alternative explanations exist, such as a compulsion to communicate that creates no actual joy or sliding scale of communication whereby some level of communication is helpful but too much or too little is harmful.

But here is the thing: I don't think that reasoning actually breeds feeling. Rather, I think it is merely used to legitimize feelings. ...
To feel is not rational.

Exploration of feelings through discussion doesn't necessarily lead to legitimizing them. In contrast, it is perfectly possible that a examination of an emotional state can lead one to refute that state.

Simply because a state is not itself rational it does not mean that rational, logical examination of that state is invalid.
 
You have 10,001 student loans? What currency did your schools operate in - gold-pressed latinum? :crazyeye:

I borrowed about $16,000 to get my degree, in three different loans. The first one was at a higher interest rate, so I've been trying to finish that as quickly as possible. The other two (worth about 10,000) are government subsidized, so there isn't a large incentive to get them taken care of quickly.

My wife should finish her loan by the fall as well. She went to a *much* less expensive school, so she barely had to borrow anything.
 
My aim is to be happy. Nothing more or less :)
 
My aim (as in short-term goal) is to survive the current heat-wave. I HATE SUMMER! :mad:
And that's in Canada. Where I live, it's been in the 90s/100s F. What's the temperature up there?
 
And that's in Canada. Where I live, it's been in the 90s/100s F. What's the temperature up there?

80s-100s with high humidity. It's getting calmer now though.

Volunteer at a cat/dog shelter. You will have a great deal of verbal communication with non-humans, and will be giving something of yourself to little furry people who appreciate it.

Wait... cats and dogs can talk now? This is amazing! I must see this immediately.

*goes upstairs and tries talking to the little old chihuahua in the house*

Nope. They don't talk. How could you lie to me Valka? :(

:p
 
And that's in Canada. Where I live, it's been in the 90s/100s F. What's the temperature up there?
Same thing (or close enough as makes not a lot of difference, when you add in the effects of humidity). We're now getting the system Ontario had a few days ago. Yesterday was horrible. I don't own an AC or even a fan; not that it would have done much good in the afternoon anyway, considering we had rolling blackouts.

Wait... cats and dogs can talk now? This is amazing! I must see this immediately.

*goes upstairs and tries talking to the little old chihuahua in the house*

Nope. They don't talk. How could you lie to me Valka? :(

:p
They don't talk to you in English, silly human! You have to learn their languages - not only oral, but also body language. I'm sure the chihuahua said a lot to you, but probably gave up because you just didn't talk back.

That said, they do understand more human speech than we think they do. And cats have a much higher vocabulary than dogs (their own, not human words). Add that to the incredibly rich variety of body language, and you should get a lot of communicating done without having to talk to humans. :)
 
That's a false dichotomy. Alternative explanations exist, such as a compulsion to communicate that creates no actual joy
If it was only a compulsion with no emotional benefit (joy), than he doesn't actually need it. Which is fine if true (well no, but for the point we discuss here), but I don't buy that and hsi reference to his health strongly indicates otherwise.
or sliding scale of communication whereby some level of communication is helpful but too much or too little is harmful.
I see no relevance of this whatsoever :confused: Everything is a sliding scale. But we are talking about the existence of some kind of scale to begin with.
Exploration of feelings through discussion doesn't necessarily lead to legitimizing them. In contrast, it is perfectly possible that a examination of an emotional state can lead one to refute that state.
If I say legitimization, I of course include delegitimization.
Simply because a state is not itself rational it does not mean that rational, logical examination of that state is invalid.
If it is not ultimately based on irrationality - it is.
 
80s-100s with high humidity. It's getting calmer now though.
Same thing (or close enough as makes not a lot of difference, when you add in the effects of humidity). We're now getting the system Ontario had a few days ago. Yesterday was horrible. I don't own an AC or even a fan; not that it would have done much good in the afternoon anyway, considering we had rolling blackouts.
Ouch. My power was out for three days due to a storm, and it was misery. And that was with a generator to power our fans every few hours! (Not the AC, though, since it isn't strong enough.) You all have my sympathies. (Lot of good that does when you're getting baked.)

As for dogs and cats, if you want non-human companionship, I definitely recommend dogs. (Cats are good too, but dogs are a lot more 'responsive', for lack of a better word.)
 
If I say legitimization, I of course include delegitimization.

How silly of me. Of course I should have intuited that you meant exactly the opposite of what you said.
 
:lol:
Now wait a minute, if at all, I expected you to be not so silly as to not foresee that I include the exact opposite of what I said. :p But it seems you just think too dialectical (is this even the correct term, I just hope so :mischief:) to understand me here.
Think of it in terms of temperature. Temperature is the sliding scale you were referring to. Now a temperature can be hot or cold. However, we could also merely quantify temperature by being not very hot (=cold) and hot (hot). Likewise, if you had a sliding scale of legitimacy, the concept of illegitimacy is implicit. As that if you have two alternatives and one alternative is highly more legitimate than the other, you can just as well then call the other illegitimate. And I would think it to be clear that when it is true that we use rationality to merely legitimize feelings, we will do so with different success.
You get what I am saying? Illegitimate does not have to be understood as the opposite of legitimate, I would argue that this is merely a rhetorical thing to simplify language. Rather, illegitimacy I would say describes a low level of legitimacy.
 
Likewise, if you had a sliding scale of legitimacy, the concept of illegitimacy is implicit. As that if you have two alternatives and one alternative is highly more legitimate than the other, you can just as well then call the other illegitimate. ... Rather, illegitimacy I would say describes a low level of legitimacy.

Low levels of legitimacy don't necessarily mean high levels of illegitimacy. If you and I are in Manhattan and talking about were to go to dinner, one of us might recommend the Carnegie Deli and the other Nobu. Nobu, as an option, is illegitimate because we can't get reservations for a table there. However, if we're talking about the Deli or Nathan's in Coney Island then both are legitimate options because we can get tables at either place. The Deli is more legitimate because it means we don't need to head to Brooklyn, but the high legitimacy of going to the Deli doesn't invalidate the legitimacy of going to Nathan's or increase the illegitimacy of going to Nathan's; it simply means that the Deli is a more legitimate choice than Nathan's. Just because one option is too legit to quit it doesn't follow that the alternative is somehow illegitimate.

*Please note that going to a Nathan's in Manhattan is an expressly illegitimate idea because they only use natural casings at their Coney Island flagship.
 
You know, that might have been meant to be funny, but right now I just kinda wanna stab you in the temple with a barbecue fork. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom