thatsneakyguy

Transcript of Trump Jr.'s Russia meeting emails This looks like the incriminating part:

What do you think the answers are? How far have you gotten with these problems?

On one hand I get what you’re saying. Dating for you is like trying to swim while wearing a backpack full of rocks. And people giving you advice are like “that backpack isn’t THAT heavy. You just need to kick your legs more.” I imagine it would be very difficult for you to date and find a gf. I don’t think you just need a few pointers and tips and then everything will be rainbows and gumdrops. Physical appearance plays a part of dating; it’s not just emotional or logical. I think the disagreement is how significant physical appearance will affect dating. For you it seems your appearance is so repulsive that it overrides all aspects of dating. Maybe it does. But for others here, others who have dated, your character is the most important part of dating. Like your personality, sense of humor, how you treat people, your ethics, your self-esteem, etc. I don’t think there are “easy” answers. Maybe you will never have a gf. Maybe you will never have sex. Who knows. One thing I do know is you won’t be helping yourself if you shut yourself down, give up, and stop trying. You’ve been trying to say you are not normal, as if you deserve to be shunned from society like a modern day Quasimodo. Well the people here disagree, and think you are normal. You should keep that it mind. Take care man

It would be awesome if Aron Ra was the vice president. It would never happen though.

I dunno man I see a lot of inaccurate beliefs in this thread: I’m 25 and never had a gf, so my dating life is over. The gym is where you find people to date. I’m not attractive, so therefore I’m not a normal person. There are no girls that would date an unattractive person.

I like this trick by Dynamo: In a related note, I've met someone online who think magicians are real.

Sorry to hear about that man, that's rough. You have my sympathy.

This thread reminds me of this snl sketch: http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/sexual-harassment/2751966

Sorry if you feel attacked Mitsurugi. Honestly. I guess I disagree with some of your reasoning. I don’t think I misconstrued your logic at all. In the first example I simply replace the word Muslims with the word Christians, and replaced the number. I did notice you said “if”. You can see that I included “if” also. This was simply taking your logic and applying it to other groups. Well, there are Christian extremists, just not as many. Here is one defending slavery. I can’t find it now, but in a later video he said he would have no problem being a slave himself if his Christian slave master followed the commandments set forth in the bible. If your point is that Muslim extremists outnumber the Christian ones I completely agree. Vastly outnumber. But using your logic you could say: Keep in mind that also, there are an estimated 4 billion males in the world as of 2014. If even one percent of them are extremists, that would mean 40 million males are of subjective question. After all, male extremists outnumber the female ones, right? Just like Muslim extremists outnumber Christian ones? The point was the logic you were using didn’t make sense to me. If you have no problem with it OK. We agree to disagree, no problem. Sure, bombing can kill a lot of people. OK, let’s agree there are other ways to kill or stop people besides bombing. Ethically I see this as a conflict between people who want to be peaceful and people who don’t. Ultimately either the peaceful people get killed or the peaceful people become violent and kill the non-peaceful people. It’s a dilemma and an interesting discussion. Sorry, if it feels like an attack. What you wrote didn’t make sense to me. It seemed illogical. I thought I was giving my thoughts? That is why I mentioned ISIS recruits earlier. I think the environment/culture can be changed, needs to be changed, but it can't be done by bombing. But you didn’t offend me; no need for apologies. Honestly, if you feel attacked, sorry for that. I didn’t intend for you to feel bad. Take Care.

Sure but using that same logic you could also say: Keep in mind that also, there are an estimated 2.2 billion Christians in the world as of 2014. If even one percent of them are extremists, that would mean 22 million Christians are of subjective question. Keep in mind that also, there are an estimated 3.52 billion women in the world as of 2014. If even one percent of them are extremists, that would mean 352 million women are of subjective question. Keep in mind that also, there are an estimated 1 million people who listen to the Sam Harris podcast in the world as of 2014. If even one percent of them are extremists, that would mean 10,000 people who listen to the Sam Harris podcast are of subjective question. Seems kind of like a silly argument to me… Well you can’t really bomb an idea can you? You can only bomb the people with ideas. The bombing is to kill or stop them. Hopefully the bombing is done in defense when reasoning breaks down. Also I’m not really sure why you keep bringing up bombing when they are many different kinds of warfare. Hitler wasn’t killed by bombing AFAIK. Neither was OBL. Yes, I agree it is a problem and sad that it comes to it. Very bad and unnecessary. But ethically at some point you may have to be physically violent to defend yourself. Unfortunately it does come to that. It’s just that some people use violence to express their will instead of talking/reasoning. For a pacifist it is a very difficult problem to face.

First, very succinct description of WW2. Like swansont said, were the ideas “bombed” out of them, or were the Nazi Germans defeated in WW2 and taken out of power? Are there any Nazi Germans around today? Well not exactly unstoppable, right? But there are many ways to conduct war besides bombing isn't there? Would the US have become an independent nation without bombing the British? Oh wait… Unfortunately there are many extremists, terrorists, and criminals who cannot be reasoned with. ISIS seems to be one of these groups. At that point the only way to defend from such people is to physically stop them, either by killing them or imprisoning them. So that is how you have to deal with them. Ethically, if they are intent on killing others and cannot be reasoned with, then they have to be physically stopped. It would be better to create an environment where groups like these cannot be sustained; either they cannot get recruits or no government will allow their presence. Currently ISIS can readily get recruits to join with them. That is a bigger problem. Not sure what direction you are going with this…

They simply had a "No Swimming" sign. If you have a designated beach area with nice water most people would think it's OK to walk in that water, at least up to the knees. The toddler was reportedly in 1-foot deep water. My emphasis Source

Yeah, handing out guns to the people entering the club is a great idea. Don’t worry about mixing young people, guns, and alcohol. You can’t deny that the odds would be in favor of more “good” guys having guns than “bad” guys with guns. After all, the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, so arm the most people possible. Like if the nightclub gunman had been the only person killed after a 5-10 minute exchange of gunfire it still would have been a pretty fun night at that club. Just go ahead and have the short gun battle, then back to dancing. And that’s the kind of society I think we all want to live in: one where we live our everyday lives, travel, meet our friends, dance, and the occasional gun battle breaks out from time to time. #shootback

Yes, I knew that. Sorry, meant to add to my post.

Agree. Should have been "No Wading" signs, or "Alligators frequently sighted in water", or even some sort of fence.

Yes, if only there was armed security at that club who could have shot that gunman. ETA

Actually you said (emphasis mine): That is why the comments about "healthy" started; YOUR words. If you are going to say "I need to get him to eat something somewhat healthy", and then follow that with food that people consider unhealthy..., well ..... people will probably comment on that. (emphasis mine) Umm I think you are asking for advice. Maybe not advice on "healthy food". BUT you did use the words "healthy food". I think most people here have empathy. Whether or not you can detect it is another story. Actually several people offered advice, like putting a napkin in with the sandwich or toasting the bread slightly. ***** Look, I don't mean to sound cruel but I think this "argument" that has arisen is because English is not your native tongue. There are subtleties in the language that you are picking up as hostility. I am not upset with you, and I don't think any of the posters are upset with you. I think people have genuinely tried to offer you good advice. I can only imagine how difficult it must be trying to raise an autistic child. Take Care

I can't put myself in your shoes, but for myself - as a guy who is attracted to women - breast size isn't a deal breaker. Actually it's hard for me to imagine myself rejecting someone for that. As far as meeting people, online dating is one way to go. I have tried it myself and found several women which would have made excellent girlfriends.

Cool, your welcome! I think thick thorny bushes are a good idea. The kid probably would have yelled or cried as soon as he got over the fence. But the more I think about it, it seems to me that the kid kind of seem determined to cross the barrier. Considering how rare accidents happen at this particular enclosure I have to conclude the zoo has taken adequate steps to ensure safety. http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/29/us/cincinnati-zoo-gorilla-shot/ Any individual, determined enough, could breach the security features. But if this is indeed the first accident I think the safety measures are adequate. As I said before the zoo has to determine how close visitors can get to the animals while still being safe.

Plenty of science has been done before those two arrived on the scene and plenty will be done after they are gone. Do you seriously think science is in any way dependent or reliant or in need of those two? Why ask such a question? Also, you don't appear to read and comprehend what others post here. This is a good one for you to pay attention to:

There is already a thread on this: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95447-zoo-tragedy/ Anyway, this seems to be an accurate description: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/05/30/usda-review-gorillas-death-zoo-look-safety-exhibits/85165924/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin= ETA: Ninja'd by Phi for All

Zoos are designed so visitors can get as close as possible to the animals while still being safe. In this instance there was a deep moat between the visitors and the gorillas. The railing was so people would not fall in the moat. The gorilla jumped into the moat after the boy fell in. http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/05/30/usda-review-gorillas-death-zoo-look-safety-exhibits/85165924/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin= In this situation any adult certainly could get into that moat if they really tried. I think it's a tragic situation because the Gorilla did nothing wrong: it was in its habitat and investigated the boy falling in because they are curious animals. It did drag the boy around, but that's how they carry most things. The gorilla was not attacking the boy, it seemed curious about the boy IMO. ETA: I also think the zoo made the correct decision. It's unfortunate though.

Look at the Mars rover. What is it doing on Mars? What information is it gathering?

I thought figuring out where the quote started was part of the IQ test.