zapatos

It also cannot travel AT light speed. Which I think is what Silvestru was getting at.

Any chance we can get a citation? From what I can find it looks like many professional fighters feel that being angry puts them at risk of making mistakes, over committing, etc. Another reason to seek inner peace perhaps.

Yes, he should remain on topic like the past dozen or so posts were. Sometimes this place really makes me laugh.

Inner peace is beginning to sound to me like: Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Not exactly, but this does seem to be a component of it, albeit without the deity.

As it is a clearly stated goal of yours, I think it is safe to say that you are doing well at keeping inner peace at bay.

You say that as if it is a verifiable fact. I'm skeptical as it seems more a personal opinion that 'inner-peace is an absolute'. On the other hand if you can provide evidence to support your assertion I'd love to see it.

Understand what?

I tend to think of it as the ability to remain psychologically calm in the presence of stress. I also think it is not an 'all or nothing' thing, but a skill that you can have various levels of 'expertise' in.

"You hungry?" "In what sense? Do you mean starving? Ready for a snack?" "No, just thought it might be nice to eat something." "Are you talking about going out to dinner? Eating at home? Ordering a pizza?" "Can you just tell me if you'd be interested in eating something?" "Well there is a big difference between going out for a steak dinner and eating a bagel out of the freezer." "Okay, how about we go out for a burger?" "No thanks, I'm not hungry."

Let's just start with a general case. Is it hypocritical for a group of people to take a stand against one person guilty of sexual misconduct while remaining silent when it is someone else?

I thought it reminded you "of arguments I have had with Republicans who claim all of Hollywoodin liberal". No one here is doing either of those things. It might be an easier discussion if we just stick to what was actually said. If you are done attacking assertions that were never made, perhaps we can get back to MigL's point. It seems hypocritical for a group of people to take a stand against one person guilty of sexual misconduct while remaining silent when it is someone else. Do you disagree?

Can you explain please? Maybe we are talking about different things. MigL asked about people in Hollywood speaking out against Polanski. In what way did Ten Oz address that question? He listed people who were conservative but I saw no mention of people who criticized Polanski. It looked to me like Ten Oz shifted the question to a liberal/conservative issue rather than addressing MigL's hypocrisy/non-hypocrisy issue.

Admittedly swansont provided a list that met the conditions MigL asked for, but a list car mechanics in Hollywood who spoke out against Polanski would also have satisfied the conditions. I think the 'spirit' of MigL's query was clear from the beginning and acting like he is being illogical after being forced to clarify his point is a bit unfair. Scoring technical points in a debate is not the same as making a good argument.

What I can't get my head around is how some people on this thread can either completely ignore what is being said, or really believe they are addressing the comments given. If someone says "I'll fuck you if you give me a better job", then that is not sexual assault and not what anyone here is talking about. If a boss says "if you fuck me I'll give you a better job, and if you don't I'll ruin your career", then that is sexual assault and IS what we are talking about. I am at a complete loss how you and tar keep conflating the two. If you continue to do so you will be sure get neg reps, and it is not because it is a 'liberal' position that people not be coerced into sex. It is because it is a 'human' position. And if you'd care to define "actual" rape I'd love to hear it. I'm also interested in what it was like when you were 'shunned'. How did that present itself to you?

Bullshit

Oh my God! Do you have any idea at all what the topic of this thread is?!?! It's like talking to a pinball machine.

Maybe. That's a good point. But when we keep talking about sexual assault and battery, and he responds with things like "How does it make me part of the problem, to look at a picture of a woman in a bathing suit, that she put on, for me to see her in?", I find it difficult to accept that maybe he really doesn't think there is a difference.

Sorry, but I stand by my statement. Either he is trolling and not really a sexist who sees nothing wrong with that, or he really is an unapologetic sexist and thus someone I'd feel better staying away from.

I agree with iNow's last post; you are oblivious. And I believe it is done willfully for some reason. You looking at a picture of a woman in a bathing suit is not the problem, and you acting like that is what we are talking about is infuriating. I don't for a second believe you when you say you don't know what the "standard" is. That sounds more like Weinstein than anything else you've said. It seems to me you are either trolling, or you are the type of person I want to keep my family away from.

And by taking that attitude you are under no obligation to improve yourself, or to avoid making women uncomfortable in your presence.

Which makes you part of the problem. The rest of us know what is happening is wrong, and if nothing else, we are speaking out and letting others know it is not acceptable. Well that makes you Father of the Year. I have a suspicion why they don't come to you about harassment complaints... You sound like you are from the era when wives and daughters were essentially the property of men.

There is a big gap in your understanding of people who aren't you.

Alright, I wish to adjust the approach I'm taking in my argument with you. It seems I am doing the same thing that I just got done telling you to stop doing with me, which is reading too much into what you are saying instead of just taking your words at face value. Sorry. We don't actually seem to have much difference of opinion, more of a difference on which way we lean. You and I seem to differ a bit more in our opinions on this matter. I tend to think things should be allowed unless there is real evidence of a poor outcome. I suppose I lean libertarian. But of course if we didn't differ, we'd lose the fun of the debate. I find I'm often the reason for frustration. I tend to speak plainly. I generally don't mean to be abrasive, I just often forget to put the time into how my words will be interpreted. Especially when a debate speeds up. Thanks for the reminder.

Can you please tell me the mechanism that will not allow us to change if we are similar? You should look up the definition of straw manning. I asked you a question. I did not misrepresent anything you said, nor did I knock down that mythical misrepresentation. What I did was try to find where you draw the line on what is ethical and what is not, so that I could later pursue 'why' you draw the line where you do.

Doubt it. I guess we change with it, just like we do now. Yes, that's rather obvious. Yet people still buy designer clothes, mansions, and nose jobs. Should we stop that as well? I assume you feel the same way about surgery? If not, why not? Um, both.